Skip to content

Lance

My feedback

256 results found

  1. 36 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  2. 20 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Egor,

    We use a custom setting but I believe it's based on North American General Purpose 2
    I wondered if the difference between my results and yours were due to color management differences. Looks like I was correct.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Egor,

    I successfully ran through everything up until "...disable convert to sRGB..."

    that option is un-changeable for me; greyed out, but still checked. See screenshot.

    I can see a slight difference between images 1 and 2 from the first five steps but it's not as drastic as your uploaded jpgs. (mine uploaded)

  3. 2 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Egor,

    I'm not sure what you mean by 'bbox treats live shapes as shapes'. Perhaps my polygons aren't actually "live shapes"?

    in this screenshot, rotating with the bounding box does exactly the same thing as the rotate tool or the edit > transform > rotate dialog.

    *** edit *** nevermind, I am a dummy. I had the triangle polygone grouped with the 'dot'. Rotating only the polygon with the bounding box works as intended.

    Lance supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Jens,

    I get the same result both times, even using the rotate tool. I'd have to manually select the rotation point to on the circle's center in order to use the rotate tool as you depict.

    The rotate tool by default selects the center of the object's bounding box as the point around which to perform the rotation, as does the edit > transform > rotate function.

    I think this is working as intended.

    That being said, it could be argued that the intention for the rotate tool (and by extension, the transform dialog) when a 3-sided equilateral triangle polygon* is concerned should do some math to find the actual center point equidistant from all three vertices rather than just assuming the bounding box center.

    Screenshots attached.

    ** update **

    *any polygon with an odd number of sides exhibits the same behavior.

  4. 7 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  5. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    I can understand the desire for a simplified workflow. I self-implemented something for myself that is conceptually similar a few years ago, if not functionally the same, using PDF exports from Illustrator while retaining the illustrator format working files.

    I just had a set of actions set up on a F5-F9 keys to save out a PDF with a specific set of joboptions with a single keystroke. However they all save out to one location and then need to be manually filed/placed into whatever location our automation needs to look for them.

    This doesn't work all that well for you though, if you're editing files and saving them in the location where the workflows need to access them. It's ideal for our processes because it's critical we have some means of version tracking various art and production files.

    As far as this issue goes, it looks like I suspected. It's just how illustrator writes PDF data structures for objects. I'm not sure there's a workaround, Adobe devs would need to change how illustrator creates PDF data.

    Lance supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Sure I'll take a look.

    General question, since I've only heard of Esko software but never used it. Is there a reason why you don't just use PDF's rather than PDF-compatible illustrator files?

    Honestly I'm thinking your issue with it is mostly down to how illustrator creates PDF object structures and data. It's... not the best. In that light, I think the request is a very valid one.

    Around here, we use PDFtoolbox. I cannot count the number of times I've had a facepalm moment when analyzing illustrator's PDFs in PDFtoolbox. This is a good example of one; the PDF standard clearly has object/data structures for stroked text but Illustrator doesn't use them.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    *** update ***
    Kind of answered my own question, regarding how illustrator saves PDF's vs other applications.
    InDesign saves stroked text as a text object with a stroke, rather than illustrator's way of saving the text object separately from a stroked vector copy of the glyps. See screenshot 3.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Do you have a means of verifying or testing this? I can't think of a way to do so.

    Note that I am somewhat skeptical only because I know the PDF format itself retains live strokes(1,2) so I don't know why PDF compatibility wouldn't do the same.

    1. if they're applied to a vector object *and* center-aligned, not if they're aligned inside or outside of a vector object (which cannot be done on live text). Inside or outside aligned strokes are converted to compound shapes in the PDF.

    2. text objects remain live (not outlined) but the stroke is split off into separate vector objects of the glyphs which have a live stroke. The text itself is not stroked in a PDF. see screenshot.

    Also note in the 2nd screenshot that the text glyphs themselves do not have a stroke in the PDF. I'm not sure if this is just an illustrator thing, but PDF's saved from illustrator with live text having a stroke applied do not preflight as stroked text. It might just be how illustrator saves PDFs.

    I'm uncertain how this all relates to "PDF compatibility" though. I know that a PDF saved in illustrator while retaining illustrator editing capabilities has the illustrator file data embedded in the PDF as private data that is not readable by anything but illustrator.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    I'm not sure I understand this request. As far as I know, enabling PDF compatibility on an illustrator document when saving it doesn't outline text or strokes.

  6. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  7. 5 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  8. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Jean,

    The best I can suggest is wait and see if one of the Adobe admins sees this posting. You can also try the community forums for suggestions, I know they keep an eye on those as well.

    For what it's worth, I can successfully trace your latest sample gif, as long as it scaled up to ~2000mm or larger. Any smaller than that and it just produces a blank regardless of the settings I try.

    It also seems to be working again for your original sample gif, as long as I scale it up to ~2500mm or larger.
    The more I mess around with these gifs, the more I experience bugs. I seem to find that if it fails to trace, I have to scale up the image by another 1000mm to get it to trace again.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Jean,

    This image isn't working for me at all, even after re-starting illustrator. It still traces other images just fine.

    Opening your gifs in photoshop I find that the lines are only 1px wide. In the original sample they're 3px from line to line, but in the second sample you provided the lines are 1px apart.

    I wondered if perhaps that was too fine a pattern for the image trace to work with, so I re-sampled them to 300ppi and 600ppi in photoshop. I still don't get any results when tracing either one. Just a blank image.

    I can't even get a result after re-starting illustrator, with either of the provided samples or my re-sampled versions.

    There's definitely some sort of bug in the image trace code, it doesn't like these finely-spaced pixel art patterns at all.

    Lance supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Jean,

    Playing around with this a little more and I find the same issue you have. Eventually it stops tracing at all and just shows me a blank space. I had to re-start illustrator to get it working again.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Jean,

    Certainly. Attached is a screenshot of the settings as I last used them. They're very similar to the defaults for either line art or technical drawings though. I think the only thing I changed was the stroke px size, from 10px to 4px.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Something is definitely not working exactly the same as it used to. See my screenshot.

    I took your original trace, and a copy of it w/ the strokes reduced to 0.75pt side by side
    I then traced your gif myself with your settings. I seem to get 1/2 the amount of stroked lines as in your original trace.

    I overlaid the original gif on both my trace and yours, to demonstrate that the 'new' trace seems to be a little more accurate, because even though it has fewer stroked lines, the amount of lines matches the gif itself.

  9. 39 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  10. 1 vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Ges,

    I thought this might be the "use preview bounds" option in preferences>general, but it didn't have any effect when I changed it.

    I am on Win10 and do not see the behavior you describe from your colleague. See screenshots.

    When I clip a mesh inside a circle, and select the clipped object with the selection tool the size and X/Y coords are reported as that of the clipping object (the circle in this case)

    When I select just the mesh with the direct selection tool, the size and X/Y coords change to those of the mesh object rather than the clipping object.

  11. 9 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Agree. Not sure why non-embedded images need an icon to signify their status as links, they're already listed in the links panel. The "embedded" icon was ideal for identifying images that are no longer links, but rather embedded in the document itself instead.

    Now we're looking for the items that *do not* have an icon to find the embedded images.

    At least at my workplace, the embedded images are more rare and thus easier to identify with an icon. Maybe it's different elsewhere?

  12. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Martin,

    I think your workflow, AI source file + PDF output file for RIP is correct. That's how we do it where I work.
    I have run two simple tests with a document that is 121in x 45in. The artwork is fairly simple. There are no high resolution images, just some solid fills and a gradient or two.

    When I split the document into 4 panels, my PDF saves in 5-8sec. I can see the progress bar telling me it's saving PDF 1 of 4, then 2 of 4, etc. The resulting document is a multi-page PDF; each "panel" is its own page. That's what I would expect to see.

    The art on a single artboard the same size as the art saves in about 2-3sec, just long enough to flash up a progress bar that disappears almost immediately.

    There does seem to be a longer delay in saving the multi-page document. I'll look for a more complex document to test on and update this reply with findings.

    --- update ---
    Using a somewhat larger document, 323in x 106in, with several vector objects, clipping masks, high resolution images and text, I have results:

    1-1.5min save-time for a full-artboard PDF.

    3.5-4min to save the same art on 4 panels/artboards using the same PDF options.

    These results are very close to your first example. I think you have a valid suggestion. I'm not sure what the developers can do to optimize but they may be able to do something. I'll vote for this one.

    I never noticed this personally because we do all of our paneling of large documents in the RIP via automated workflows on that side of things.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Saving a PDF: Are you saving with illustrator editing enabled? Much like saving an AI file with PDF compatibility, I find saving large/complex art as PDF w/ illustrator editing enabled adds extra time.

    This option is mostly useless, unless you really really need to re-open the PDF in illustrator for editing later, rather than saving a source AI file for editing later.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    Disregard the original comments below. I thought you were saving an illustrator file, not a PDF file.

    original reply below (saving illustrator file w/ PDF compatibility)
    ***
    Are you saving with PDF compatibility turned on in the save-as dialog? See screenshot.

    This option has always increased save-time for me, especially for large/complex documents heavy with raster effects or multiple large high resolution images.

    It's completely useless unless you're using the ai file in inDesign or photoshop as a placed image.

  13. 19 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  14. 820 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  15. 726 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    It is not as straightforward as it may sound :) We have been working to take advantage of threads and other hardware such as GPU/Video RAM in places where it can make a higher impact. We are prioritizing areas that are slow instead of making a generic change and destabilizing the product. Product stability is the top priority for us and we have been consistently trying to improve it. We want to move with caution and make changes without compromising on the quality. Hope this helps.

    Lance supported this idea  · 
  16. 115 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    The recently announced change pushed into Beta 28.6.578 refers to this similar request: http://illustrator.uservoice.com/forums/333657/suggestions/35253820

    The users can now use save custom presets within the Saved tab in the New Document dialog (modern one, not the legacy one). Please provide the dedicated feedback there.


    As for the ability to change the existing predefined sizes for each document profile (Print, Web, etc,), like A1, A5, etc, — this is not yet available. Stay tuned and sorry for the misfire.

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Lance commented  · 

    This is pretty easily do-able in the legacy new document dialog.

    Add documents to this folder to make them available in the drop-down list:
    C:\Users\YourUserName\AppData\Roaming\Adobe\Adobe Illustrator 26 Settings\en_US\x64\New Document Profiles

    If you want to make your own templates (*.ait files) and have them available via the "Templates...", save them here:
    C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Illustrator 2022\Cool Extras\en_US\Templates

    locations will be different on OSX, they may be in a hidden library folder somewhere. The directory structure should be very similar though.

    update:

    The new document profiles location on OSX *might* be here:

    Hard Drive\Users:[user name]\Library:Application Support\Adobe:Adobe Illustrator 26\[language]\New Document Profiles

    this is from a site posting instructions on how-to for CS5, with notes about updates for CC versions up to illustrator 2015 (version 20)

  17. 8 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  18. 3 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  19. 89 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 
  20. 4 votes

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Lance supported this idea  · 

Feedback and Knowledge Base