Logo considerations

[Frank Heckenbach]

MJ Ray wrote:

> "Georg C. F. Greve" <greve at gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > Postscript is good for using it later. But it is not the best format
> > to have it or create it in - the xcf files for GIMP are just fine
> > especially since they contain more information than the postscript
> > files. Stuff can always be converted into postscript, the other way
> > round is more difficult. 
> 
> While PostScript might not always be the easiest format to create it
> in (although Sketch is quite usable now), it's definitely the format
> to have it in.  XCF files for GIMP are just bitmaps, so it's more
> accurate to say that they contain different information rather than
> more.  I'd prefer PostScript so that we can make everything from
> *huge* banners down to tiny logos and have them all really crisp.
> 
> PostScript describes the shapes rather than just some dots and while
> you can put a list of dots into PostScript, it's not the same as
> having the shapes.  Stuff can always be converted into bitmaps, but
> the other way round is more difficult.

I agree that having the source of the logo in bitmapped form does
not seem a good idea, for reasons of scalability as mentioned and
also modifiability (in case there will be a need later for similar
logos for suborganisations, specific projects, etc.).

So even though the GIMP probably has superior editing facilities,
the fact that it stores and produces only bitmapped files (AFAIK)
doesn't make it a good choice for such drawings IMHO.

I'm a programmer, not an artist, but what I use for my occasional
drawings is xfig and it does the job for me. It uses a vectorish
internal format and produces several output formats, including
(preferred) EPS. Don't know Sketch, however, so I can't compare
them.

Frank

-- 
Frank Heckenbach, frank at g-n-u.de
http://fjf.gnu.de/
PGP and GPG keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan