If you’re providing die lines to a customer (or another designer), please observe the following. The person receiving the file will definitely appreciate it.
Create your die line or art at 100% whenever possible. If it’s a vector file there’s really no reason NOT to (someone once used the phrase “vectors are free” when talking about the file space they take up). It’s not like the file will be enormous.
If, for some reason, you can’t create it at 100%, create it scaled down (for example, 25%, 50%).
ESPECIALLY if it’s scaled, make sure you indicate the scale either in the file itself, or the file name. Better yet, do it on both.
Sometimes, when I’m working on a design on screen, I get to a point where I find myself running in circles, with progress or a solution anywhere in sight. It’s only when I stop, grab a piece of paper and a pencil, that a solution might present itself. Now, it may not be the solution, but it gets things moving, and that’s a start.
When we find our lives spinning in circles, it might not be a bad idea to grab that paper and pencil and see what happens.
Wishing you all a very happy holiday season and an awesome 2020!
A you’re probably aware by now, I make my living as a packaging designer. As such, I’m constantly looking at stuff. Whether it’s the art and information on a cereal box, or how IKEA products are so efficiently packed in those otherwise plain brown cartons. It’s all part of what we, as consumers, experience when we seek out and buy this– stuff.
I’m also the primary food shopper in my family, so I’m in the supermarket on a regular basis. And, whenever I’m out and about shopping, I have a habit of looking at the product that’s on the shelves. I’m sure a lot of people do that– maybe not in as conscious a way as designers but they do it. And after a while, whether you’re aware or not, you start to see patterns. Color selections. packaging shapes, wording.
Next time you’re in the store, take a look at the soda aisle. What color is the house brand’s cola? What about their ginger ale? Now look at the name brands. What color are they? It sure isn’t a coincidence.
But I digress
Carbonated drinks aren’t what made me think of this. It was yogurt. Walk past the yogurt case in the store and– with a couple of exceptions (I’m looking at you, Activia)– they will most likely look like this:
In short, lots of white, with accents of the brand/line colors. Oh, and the hero shot of the fruit or flavor inside. Even the upscale/gourmet brands follow these conventions.
So, when I saw this last week, it made me stop.
Stop the presses– who is that?
This is a new offering from Yoplait. I think it’s called “YQ by Yoplait”, and a couple of things became evident:
It’s positioned as a more premium offering. Muted tones hint at more sophistication.They don’t feel the need to be bold and screamy with their colors.
I’m not their desired demographic. The colors and overall design have a more feminine feel. They’re clearly targeting women with this product, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they roll out tv ads reinforcing this.
This ain’t your everyday type of yogurt. A gray cup? Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any other yogurt brand that has executed in such a way.
We’re still talking about yogurt?
I didn’t pick up any (though I might this week, just out of curiosity, demographics be damned!), but at first glance, this type of category disruption was certainly effective, and it made me consciously think about why.
It got me to stop and look at the product. This is the first step and indicator of an effective pack design. Cutting through the noise (in this case, quite literally “white noise”) and getting the attention of the consumer.
It created curiosity in sampling the product. I may not buy one today. I may not buy one next month. But one of these days I just might go “hmmm”… and pick one or two up.
It got me talking about it. Do I even need to explain this one?
These are 3 things to always keep in mind when designing a new pack. We may not always be successful in achieving these (for a number of different reasons), but we certainly need to try.
Now, I have to start thinking about that grocery list…
It got me thinking… Let’s presume this program gets rolled out statewide. How long will it take until someone— marketers, maybe even the State of California– figures out a way to monetize this via advertising?
I’m not implying that it’s a bad thing one way or the other. But it is something to think about.
I was having a discussion a few weeks ago, and the subject of photography came up. The conversation was about image quality, and how sometimes photos on a smartphone can surpass those from a more professional setup.
Now, frankly, three are probably a myriad of reasons why that can happen.
Rather, what came up during the course of the conversation were my lighting preferences, especially where product photography is concerned. See, when shooting, I prefer to slightly under light objects (not too much, mind you). That way, I feel I have better control in my retouching when I bring the images into Photoshop. Now, I won’t fault anyone if they prefer to light objects more accurately. I’m just saying this is my preference.
And it got me to thinking of “why”. And this thinking led me to the subject of cooking (somehow all roads lead back to food in my world). In short, you can always under season a dish. You can add more salt or pepper until things are seasoned right. But once something gets too salty, it’s hard to “take it back”.
Same thing in photography. You can start with an underlit image and you can adjust it in Photoshop until you feel it’s right, but if you start with a shot that is overexposed or otherwise has too much light… Well, there’s not much you can do to remedy the situation at that point.
I’m not sure where I was going with this, but I guess that’s my advice. Be mindful when lighting, and find what works for you.
We all have our favorite tools. But is one inherently better over the other?
Specialist– or Jack-of-all-Trades?
This has been a source of debate within the design community that has gone on for a long time now, and it’s likely to continue. Be a screwdriver or a multi-tool. Specialize or generalize. At its core is the difference between depth and breadth. Peanut butter or chocolate. Pepsi or Coke. “Less filling” or “tastes great”.
(For those not familiar, that last one was a nod to a Miller Lite campaign that was big in the 70s and 80s– here’s a sample of one of the ads)
But I realize it’s both. Especially in today’s marketplace, where global competition is so fierce. Sure, it’s important that we become focused in some area. That we have depth of knowledge in something. It helps establish us as thought leaders, experts in our field. It helps to set us apart from other professionals.
At the same time it’s important that we’re at least familiar with a lot of things outside our area of focus. If we’re a print designer, then knowing at least the basics of things like web design or packaging. Or even cooking. If our focus is on web and mobile design, maybe things like motion, or video, even music– may be a good thing. It’s this breadth of knowledge that helps balance out, and complements, that expertise. And, it also helps to give further depth, since things learned in other disciplines can be brought in and re-interpreted through that design lens. Or whatever your area of focus may be.
Is one better than the other?
So, the debate may continue. People will continue to argue for each side. And, each one has its merits, sure. But discussions on whether you should be a specialist, or jack-of-all-trades, will go on. Whether it’s better to be a hammer or a Swiss Army knife. Whether one is better than the other.
I say be both. You’ll likely be the better professional– even the better person– for it.
Funny story. Well, maybe. I was brushing my teeth yesterday morning, thinking about the whole Sony/“The Interview” kerfuffle. Now, I have my thoughts about that, and I may share them separately at some point. But as I was brushing my teeth, I remembered another useful improvement the folks at Adobe have made to Illustrator.
Often when working with Illustrator, you may find that you’re not only creating art within the program, but you’re also placing in external elements– like images. These can be placed either as links, or embedded directly into the file. On one hand, a linked file allows for a leaner Illustrator file. The linked image can be edited externally (think, for example, of color-correcting a photo or putting a clipping path on the image), and the changes would be reflected back in Illustrator once saved. However, send that file out without also sending the linked image, and you’ll run into trouble.
An embedded image eliminates the risk of missing links, by sheer virtue of it being part of the Illustrator file. The downside of this is you Illustrator file will likely balloon in size (depending on the size of the link, and if you work with high resolution images, you can bet it will). You will also no longer be able to edit the embedded file.
Enter packaged files
Packaged files (also sometime called collected files) solve the issue of potentially missed links without unnecessarily increasing file sizes. If you’ve ever used Adobe’s InDesign or QuarkXpress (the “Coke and Pepsi” of page layout programs– so to speak), you’ve likely packaged or collected files.
Essentially, a packaged file (I’m going to stick with that term, since this is what Adobe uses) is a separate folder that’s created that includes the original file, and can include all links and fonts. It’s a real convenient way to send files to third parties or printers so that they have everything that they would need to open the file with (in theory) no errors or discrepancies.
When sending files for others to modify and work off of, I think packaged files are great. When sending out to printers… That’s a different story (personally, I prefer sending press-ready PDFs whenever possible, but that’s a discussion for another day).
In programs like InDesign or Quark, this feature has been built in to the software for a long time. Illustrator users were not so lucky, and were left to rely on outside help. In this case, plug-in software. When I first started working on packaging production art (back in 2005), this was the way things were done. I believe the software was called Art Bin. This piece of software collected Illustrator files in a manner similar to Quark or InDesign.
There had to be a better way
Unfortunately, a native feature wasn’t available in Illustrator at the time (I believe it was v.9), and users were left with these third-party solutions. The alternative to packaging files being embedding photography/links and outlining type. This at least ensured all image elements are included and there are no font-related issues.
And so it was until not too long ago. I’ve been working primarily on packaging since then (both freelance and in-house). My software of choice is Illustrator, and a lot of times I use photos or other outside images. Up until recently, if I wanted to send files to a printer, I resorted to the embedded file and outlined type method of file output, more out of necessity than choice. Nowadays, it’s 100% a matter of choice and minimizing the impact a printing bureau may have on the content of the art supplied.
Here we are
With the latest version of Illustrator (as of the end of 2014 we’re at CC, their new subscription-based model), Adobe’s bridged the gap between software apps and users now have the ability of packaging the art like they would in InDesign. Let’s look at how it works.
For this tutorial (I guess that’s the best description), I created a file and named it GEERD.ai (GEERD™, for those unfamiliar, is something I’ve come to call myself. It’s a combination of “geek” and “nerd”.). I placed a picture of myself, a circle with beveled edges and some type.
You have the basic elements of a file that would make sense could be packaged out. In order to package the file, Illustrator has provided a menu item. It’s located under “File/Package…”
So, if I wanted to package my file, this is the menu option I would select. From here on out, it’s a pretty straightforward process. After selecting “package”, you’re prompted to select where your files will be saved. You can leave the default location (which should place it in the same folder as the original piece of art), or a different place altogether. It will also give you the option to (re-)name the folder, if you so desire. All this is up to you, the user, to decide.
After selecting your package folder’s location, Illustrator then moves on to package out your file into its own folder. When it’s done you’ll get this:
You can view the packaged folder to make sure everything’s copacetic by hitting “ok”…
… and then opening the folder itself.
After that, the folder can be burned on a disk, put on a flash drive, or zipped and either emailed (size permitting) or sent via any number of cloud-based file sharing services (like Dropbox, Google Drive, Copy, Microsoft’s OneDrive, just to name a few).
So there it is. A quick, easy way to take files and all their ancillary elements and put them in one folder for ease of transport or distribution. I hope you’ve enjoyed this, and I’l see you here next time.
OK, so maybe I won’t really see you. At least not physically. But your comments or input would be greatly appreciated.
As someone who currently works mostly in packaging, the bulk of my time is spent elbow-deep in Illustrator. Because of this, I’m always on the lookout for ways to make my life and workflow easier– from so-called “life hacks”, different uses for existing tools and apps, to brand new ways of doing things. I’m sure I’m not the only one out there.
A reoccurring issue is scaling of type and making copy edits. Sometimes this involves adding copy to the existing blocks of text.
That’s where things get interesting. and the issue I’m looking at only affects type in Illustrator (I tried to replicate these same issues in both Photoshop and InDesign, and was not able to do so, so I’m going to presume it’s a situation unique to Illustrator. Don’t go sending hate mail if I’m wrong.).
A Brief Explanation
There are two types of type in Illustrator– point type and area (also called “paragraph”) type (an explanation of the two can be found here). If you just click on the type tool, place the cursor somewhere and start typing– you’d be laying down point type. On the other hand, if you take the type tool, make a text box, and then add type inside the box. That’s paragraph type. We’re going to be looking at the two, how scaling affects them, and how one can be turned into the other.
We’ll start with point type.
Let’s Dive In, Shall We?
For the sake of this demonstration, I typed the above example in Illustrator. It could really be a piece of copy of any length. The important thing to notice is that, even though it looks like a text box, there’s an open circle on the little handle on the right side. Remember that.
Here’s the thing. Let’s say I typed this in and decided I needed to make the type bigger for some reason (maybe, for the sake of argument, we’re making it into a headline). I would need to make the text box bigger in order to accommodate the larger point size. To do this, I would grab one of the corners and extend the box as needed.
Not exactly what we wanted, was it?
The problem with point type is that it treats the contents almost as if it were a graphic. So whichever way you scale the box, the type will move along with it– except it won’t do it proportionally. Enter paragraph type.
Going with the Flow– with Paragraph Type
At first glance, it looks pretty much like the point type, doesn’t it? But there’s one slight difference. Notice how the circle is now filled in? Let’s say I also want to change the size of the type. I grab one of the corners and open up the box. This is what happens.
This time, the type stayed the same, and only the container box was affected. Now we can change point size, font– whatever, without having to worry about our type getting all distorted.
Change is Good
In previous versions of Illustrator, before you could make a conversion, you’d have to find a script online that would convert point type to paragraph type– a relatively easy search, frankly. You’d have to install it, select the type, then run the script. Not altogether complicated. Just tedious.
In the latest version of Illustrator (CC– or v.18, for those that would rather keep track that way), Adobe has finally simplified the process, and they’ve done it without the need for third-party scripts. Remember the little open circle at the end of the point type text box? Click on it. It will fill in, indicating that the text box is now paragraph type.
Like I said. Easy.
From time to time you will probably find yourself working with legacy files (files created with previous versions of a particular piece of software). If you do, you might find that what you thought was a bunch of paragraphs is, in fact, now a series of lines and separate blocks of words. I wish I could say you could select multiple lines of point type and turn them into a nice paragraph. But I can’t.
Maybe in the next version of Illustrator.
Although I prefer it, paragraph type isn’t inherently better than point type. I suppose if you have small amounts of copy– like in a logo, for example, using point type would be perfectly fine. However, if you’re dealing with multiple lines of copy, or you need to work with blocks of type like you would in a layout program (such as InDesign or QuarkXpress), then setting your copy as paragraph type would definitely be the way to go.
I hope this tutorial helped you, and I would love to hear your comments or questions. Drop me a line in the comments and let me know what you think.