Why Photoshop & not Illustrator?

[akaddk]

Whilst browsing the site I've noticed a pretty heavy leaning towards Photoshop as the map-maker of choice. Now, I'll point out here that my knowledge of either program is limited to an introductory short course... that I failed, so I'll probably need it explained with diagrams, pictures and a lollipop reward at the end, but to my understanding, Illustrator seems like the obvious choice for map-making ahead of Photoshop. I could see doing some fine-tuning with filters once a map is made, but the vector paradigm seems to lend itself naturally towards map-making whereas Photoshop seems more about making pictures prettier rather than making anything from scratch.

[Rythal]

In modern, professional cartography, yes, vector is the obvious and more precise way to go (see google maps). When it comes to fantasy cartography, however, the randomization, fractalness, and general ease of making fancy stuff makes raster (photoshop) type mediums much easier to work with.

[Midgardsormr]

Also, Photoshop has a much higher market penetration than Illustrator. It's far easier to find tutorials and resources for PS, which serves to further increase its influence over the market. In short, people use Photoshop (or the Gimp) because other people use Photoshop.

I certainly would like to see more Illustrator content show up here, and if I had the time & energy I might do something about that myself. Alas, I haven't had the leisure for mapping in quite some time, and I don't really see that changing for a while.

[Ascension]

If I could ever figure out Illustrator then I'd use it more. As it is, though, it's sort of like Algebra or Sanskrit to me because of the way my brain works. I just have no control over it and start making boxes all over the place and nothing seems to go into the boxes. So for stupid people like me, raster is easier to wrap my pea-brain around since I can just draw a line and it goes where I put it.

[Hai-Etlik]

There are a few of us who work almost entirely in vector graphics. Though I use Inkscape, QuantumGIS, and various bits of custom written software in Ruby and Java rather than Adobe Illustrator.

[tilt]

I agree with the above, photoshop has a bigger audience, its easier to just paint, than to use vectors for many and when it comes to fantasy maps, photoshop makes it easy to make parchment, aging, scratching and all over doing prettifying stuff to the map ... I tend to use photoshop myself as it was the program I learned first and is most comfortable using - however my ongoing city project "Breakwater" (see signature) I am making in Illustrator and then I'll finish it off in photoshop later on.
But use what makes you comfortable at first - then you can always expand with more programs later on

[Ramah]

If I could ever figure out Illustrator then I'd use it more. As it is, though, it's sort of like Algebra or Sanskrit to me because of the way my brain works. I just have no control over it and start making boxes all over the place and nothing seems to go into the boxes. So for stupid people like me, raster is easier to wrap my pea-brain around since I can just draw a line and it goes where I put it.

What he said.

[akaddk]

If I could ever figure out Illustrator then I'd use it more. As it is, though, it's sort of like Algebra or Sanskrit to me because of the way my brain works. I just have no control over it and start making boxes all over the place and nothing seems to go into the boxes. So for stupid people like me, raster is easier to wrap my pea-brain around since I can just draw a line and it goes where I put it.

I completely hear you on that. Although, I have the same with Photoshop. I find them both to be so incredibly non-intuitive that it frustrates the hell out of me. I'm a very (very) logical thinking person. One thing follows after another and there's a straight and very straightforward line between the two. And neither program works like that. They both have their own internal and totally alien sets of logic that defy any application of intuitive reasoning. It's gotten to the point where I don't believe you can learn either program without significant resources devoted towards doing so, ie. teachers, tutorials, etc. Trial and error get me nowhere.

[tilt]

The problem with both programs is that you have to know several things in order to really use the programs, so learning them is a bit like learning to jugle by throwing 8 balls in the air and having to catch all of them, if you miss some - you have a hard time getting the others.
Try reading adobe's own teaching book "Classroom in a Book", it takes the how-to step by step and don't skip steps either, its a very good beginners guide for Photoshop or go to youtube and look for photoshop tutorials for beginners

[Ascension]

I bought some books but they didn't do step by step back then, they skipped over things and got me lost. I followed along with every on-line tutorial that I ever found for about 2 to 3 weeks and I was up to speed with PS...this was back in 2001. At that point I was capable enough to start my own trials and errors and I haven't read another tut since (except the ones here at The Guild). I'm sure there is much more that it can do but most of those things I don't need. As to vector, there were not very many tuts back then, there are now but I don't really need vector for what I do. If I wanted to be a real pro's pro then I'd get into it or if I wanted a commercial art job at some big firm working for peanuts while the art director takes all of the credit.

The best advice I can give for learning raster is to just generate a clouds field or some random photo and run filters on it to see what they do. Then run filter combos and play with blend modes. Then learn masking and then get yourself a drawing tablet. If you're more architect than artist then vector is the way to go but I can't help ya there.