Using the right tool for the right job

As much as many of us would hate to admit (at least during adolescence), our parents are pretty darn smart. Often, it isn't until many years later that the lessons our parents taught us suddenly make a lot of sense. One of the many lessons my dad passed on to me was “always use the right tool for the right job” even if it seems like it's more convenient to use something else at the time. For instance, I once tried using a hand-file to pry two things apart simply because the hand-file was within reach. Predictably, the brittle hand-file snapped in two when I applied a bit of force. Had I done the appropriate thing, which would have been to take the time to get a crow bar, I would not have broken the hand-file, and the job would have been completed faster.

So what does this have to do with software in landscape architecture? As it turns out, a lot. When faced with a particular task, we often revert back to our comfort zone and do that which is familiar to us. And what is the comfort zone of software among landscape architects? AutoCAD and Photoshop. Although this is human nature, it doesn't necessarily serve our best interest. Instead of taking the time to use the appropriate software (get a crow bar) we use software with which we are comfortable (reach for the hand-file) because it is within our comfort zone. But eventually, we break the hand-file. Sure, we all know the pressures of meeting a deadline. At a time like that, it's easy to revert to familiar, old habits. But by taking a little extra time and using the appropriate software for the job, in the long run you'll save time and your work-flow will be improved.

AutoCAD: What it is. (And isn't)

The preceding points bring to mind a few questions. Namely: “What should each software platform be used for?” And “How is it misused?” Let's begin with the most common software used in landscape architecture: AutoCAD. AutoCAD is a drafting program. Its strength is in precise, vector based drafting. This most often manifests itself in landscape architecture in the creation of construction drawings such as layout and grading plans as well as construction details. The level of precision available makes quantifying, labeling, and measuring very simple and accurate. We are all familiar with the work flow involved with preparing a set of construction documents, and AutoCAD is well suited for this purpose.

How is it often misused? AutoCAD is very often used as a graphics program, which it is not. AutoCAD has a number of settings and options available that can allow the user to create different types of graphics. Line types, colors, and weights are all variables that can be changed. Hatches, gradients and solid colors can be used. Often, raster graphics such as a rendered site plan are referenced in AutoCAD, then lines superimposed over it. While it is technically possible to perform such an action, AutoCAD is not built to optimally handle raster type graphics. Sure, it's possible to get decent looking graphics out of AutoCAD. But that's not what the tool was built for. As a result, efforts are tedious, laborious, and the end result is often less than overwhelming. In the end, if the appropriate software platform is used, a higher quality of graphic will be produced in a much more efficient way.

Photoshop: Raster vs. Vector

The other most popular piece of software in landscape architecture is Photoshop. Whenever graphics are required, Photoshop is often invoked. However, Photoshop is a raster program built for image creation and manipulation. It is not an all encompassing graphics program that is suited for every graphics problem. If you are looking to touch up a photo, create an elaborate rendering, or do a photomontage, Photoshop is for you. (Check here and here for a good explanation of the differences between raster and vector respectively)

Take a classic example of creating a plan rendering for a meeting. While Photoshop is the ideal piece of software for creating the rendering itself, creating elements such as the tittle block and legend are not particularly suited to this platform. Any line work (vector based) or text created for a graphic should be created in a vector based program, like InDesign, Illustrator, Inkscape, or Scribus. Why is this important? Because raster based programs simply cannot output the same graphic quality when dealing with vector based graphics. They become blurry when printed, and the problem is exacerbated when any changes (such as size or scale) are concerned. A more appropriate approach would be to use a desktop publishing program like InDesign or Scribus to create a layout for the rendering. Speaking of desktop publishing...

Desktop Publishing and why you should care about it

Let's go back to the example of a plan rendering. A common work-flow would be to start with the AutoCAD line-work, create a PDF, import it into Photoshop and start rendering away. A logical enough start, but how do you create the title block? One of the more common ways I've seen it done is to simply create the title block in an AutoCAD Layout, then create a PDF and import it into Photoshop. While the AutoCAD to Photoshop is a fine work-flow to start the base line work, it is terribly inefficient for a tittle block. What happens when you need to go to another meeting and have to change the date? Or you caught a typo and need to remake the tittle block? Under this scenario, you would need to open AutoCAD, make the change, export the file to a PDF, import the file to Photoshop, make sure it's properly aligned, flatten the image, then send it off to the printer. That's a very long and inefficient process. If instead the you used a desktop publishing program, you would simply open the file, make the appropriate changes, and send the file to print. Much faster, more efficient and you would end up with a better image because it was created using a vector based program. Now imagine yourself facing another big deadline. Would you rather take the time to go through scenario 1 (using AutoCAD) or scenario 2 (using the desktop publishing)?

In addition to being vector based and outputting higher quality graphics than Photoshop can, desktop publishing programs can allow you to do things such as reference a raster image into the layout. This is similar to xreffng in AutoCAD and can simplify work-flow as well as allow multiple users to work on the same project at the same time. (though different files of course) Desktop publishing programs also have the advantage of allowing you to set up templates that can easily be copied for multiple pages within a document or for multiple files, as well as making resizing, rescaling, and changing the layout much simpler.

Making It All Work

That sounds like a lot of software to buy. But if you are budget conscious (and these days, who isn't?) you might want to check out this article about Open Source Software (OSS), as well as this wiki entry with a list of OSS that is valuable to landscape architects.

That also sounds like a lot of software to learn. But the fact of the matter is, it doesn't take very long to learn software at all, if you put in a little effort. In general, software makers make the interface as intuitive as possible. Remember, they want as many people as possible to use their product, so they are going to make it as easy as possible to use. Additionally, if you are using a suite of software like the Adobe Creative Suite, the interface is unified, so one program is very similar to another making switching between the programs very easy. You'd be surprised how quickly a working level knowledge of a program can be achieved. One doesn't need to become an expert in a software platform or become a professional graphics designer to take advantage of the software outlined here. If you put a little time in to learn the software early, you will be thankful when those deadlines approach, and you have the appropriate skills to use the appropriate tools.

Please login if you wish to post a comment.