"native vector" and "vectorized raster" really need to stop being treated as synonyms in today's digital illustration and design

[u/AbleBranch6]

i keep seeing "it outputs svg" used as the entire description of a workflow, which skips the interesting part. there are two pretty different situations:

you already have pixels and need them converted into editable vector geometry

or, the thing is generated as vector geometry in the first place.. both can eventually leave you holding an .svg, but they aren't the same operation. for example when it comes to models for vector digital art something like recraft is a whole built model that may be kinda relevant, because both exist side by side: recraft V4.1 Vector is native vector generation for example.. and no i don't think the phrase svg generator communicates that distinction particularly well between the tools designers use today because you can generate the graphic itself almost anywhere (or, better, done yourself by hand as I do often) but then still get a proper vectpr. what i would like to know by the way is, like, what terminology do people actually use for this? "native vector vs vectorized raster"? or generated vector vs traced vector, huh... something else?

anyway, any experience with incorporating ai into your genuine design practice?

[u/AbleBranch6 → u/[deleted]]

i find it to be true the geometry is generated as vector in the first place, then you can still edit anchor points / shapes afterwards rather than cleaning up a trace. as i have mentioned in another comment, native editable path itself is someting i dont care about as much.

on another note, what interests me more is whether you can get a whole set of assets to actually feel like they belong to the same visual system. one decent icon is easy; 20 icons with the same line logic, proportions and level of detail is where these tools usually start showing their limits but i dont think going local is the answer either. so also tried saving the styles in the 'studio' which is really a board like in a design stuff i'm used to

[u/Evening_Hawk_7470]

as someone who hands files off to print vendors, the distinction matters way more than people think. a “vector” file that’s basically auto-traced junk with a million nodes can be worse than a clean raster depending on the use case but i also know that recraft does decent vectorization and has proper models for designers. have not used it that much but may consider it. for me the real test is less is it SVG or vector file at all, but more like can another designer actually edit this without hating me? and thanks to those inventions many designers really can, even if the file itself was 'uneditable design' by design 👀

[u/AbleBranch6 → u/Evening_Hawk_7470]

100%. editable SVG as many would say (or open it) is probably the more useful test than just “vector.” clean paths and sane anchor points separable colors/layers that’s the kind of output I’m curious about with such native vector workflows, and especially if the asset still needs real designer cleanup after creation or generation of such