TSB
Artist => General Art Discussions => Topic started by: Dottonedan on November 23, 2021, 07:03:41 PM
-
I know a lot of you hav found your go to source for conversions. But there are artist out there taking advantage of people all the time. Some just don’t know what the printer/customer wants when they say “vector conversion”. Terms for such are used across the spectrum of art. But this one, THIS one takes a special kind of award.
A now (new customer) of ours, had been getting their tees done by another shop. She wanted to bring them to us...and I explained to her about the whole "art charge by the printer who is creating the designs for her, does not grant you ownership of the design” thing. Since he is trying to get us to re create her designs she paid art charges for to another shop.
So, she must not have really bought into that idea and was trying (on her own) to get the jpg 72 ppi art proof file) the last printer had sent her “vectorized”. So she send me an email to say that they have the vector art and wanted to confirm that this is what I need.
Left, is her jpg art proof snippet. Right is the new vector art file she found
She apparently sent it out to Fiver for someone to provide a vector file of this left image so she scan save the rebuilding fee from a real freelancer. She then said she paid $25.00 for the conversion. Nice. So now, I sent her to a freelancer for her to have it rebuilt “but slightly different” than what the other print shop had done for her. So that she isn’t really taking their art...and then later that shop come back to us with a sense and desist letter. I know, it’s just letters, but it’s done in such a unique manor that it’s really a unique design. But this goes to show, just what is out there getting passed off as a vector file conversion. And people pay for it.
-
I would demand a refund!
Ran through opensource Inkscape run showing Normal and Vector Node output displays.
I know it's not a redraw, but might be usable with some mods.
Those pics do not do the output justice. In Corel, it looks way more sharp and clearer than I can capture for display here. The enlarged one is more like what it looks like in Corel.
-
That’s a much better try. In some cases you could use that. IN this case, even the original jpg does not show how much really needed to be captured.
See that 3rd line. All of those thin lines all need to connect. The original art started from editable live vector type (varies font styles) and printed to film. This original jpg (proof) is a low Rez, so it blurs all of those thin lines.
It really can’t be just auto traced if they want to capture the small stuff like it should be. You jsut can’t do that from this poor quality jpg. It needs re type set.