I have noticed over the last few years (maybe I'm just slow) that a lot of printers require a vector file for screen printing. Now, knowing what I knkow about how a screen is burned, etc. My question is WHY! I really dosen't make logical sense to have to do such technical file for what amounts to a B&W transparency. The bigger question is what about a halftone? Vector as well? If so. you have to be kidding. Can someone enlighten me on why the insistance on Vector for a screen burn??????
Vector has nothing to do with color. If you accept raster images, next thing people will be sending you 200px x 200px images that they want covering the front of a shirt.
Assuming you understand the difference between vector and raster, scalability is the main issue.
When talking about halftones, it takes some work to get a raster image to a usable halftone for RIP output.
I am well versed in image manipulation, formats, etc. The question remains, why Vector and not PSD, PDF, or Vector "Image" (no Paths and Nodes). In reference to Halftones, taking into account that Vector, in the accepted definition, means vector path. I find it inconcievable to even atempt to do photo-realistic, full front portrait lets say, as a true Vector. The file size would be massive, and path count astronomical!!! Iam I not seeing something here?
I worked for a company that accepted raster files and sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. You get a lot of web graphics from people who don't believe your warnings that it will look like crap and don't accept or understand the explanations when they see the results. By eliminating raster graphics you generally bypass the office people who know nothing about printing and shouldn't be ordering it in the first place and you get to deal with the marketing and graphics people who think they know about printing but at least are easier to educate. Also, if you need to do separations, vectors are simpler.
I agress most people don't habla when you tell them something especially when they are an "Expert" and I use that term loosely. I still don't get the "need" for vector. Most color sep software I've seen is photoshop based anyway. I can get a great 2 up full half tone (one color) in a half hour. I don't think I would want to tackle that in AI, or Corel. Unless it is a Vector Image only without the path information then I can see it. Is that what is refered to?
I still don't get the "need" for vector. Most color sep software I've seen is photoshop based anyway.
There is no "need" for vectors.
Color is one of the primary issues with waster files. While it is possible to use spot colors in photoshop, most artists edit using RGB or CMYK. This causes the files to need to be printed in process color.
Personally i like raster files and process colors.
fred
__________________
A day late, a dollar short, so it goes.
The main reason for a preference toward vector vs raster is resolution! A vector file will have to have been made in Corel or ILL or similar, and it will be clean and sharp-being vector.
A designer should be able to send a RASTER file such as tiff or psd or even jpg with a large enough pixel count- resolution.
You can get high resolution files from photoshop-providing the file is image size @200 or 300dpi.
Most consumers and end user use MS Word or Publisher and cant see the file pixel by pixel at high magnification like in PS, so they dont know that the 72dpi image they see on their monitor WILL NOT print at high resolution or quality.
Can someone tell me why??? 
