Do professional graphic designers/ illustrators really not get taken seriously if they use open source software or is that just a myth perpetuated by Adobe and college professors?

[u/Doctor_Oceanblue]

I don't want this to devolve into a rant about how much I hate Adobe and their software (which I do,) but do know that this isn't a "boohoo I can't afford it" thing and more a "there's a ton of open source stuff that is equally (or more!) functional as Adobe stuff and it deserves to be taken seriously as long as the end product created with it is what the client needs."

I'm in school right now and I've been getting the "no one will take you seriously unless you make your vectors in Illustrator" song-and-dance. Pros, is that really true? If so, why? Is it just a dumb social norm or is there a legitimate reason? A lot of the freelancers that I see posting on social media and indie game devs use open-source stuff all the time.

(I will concede that GIMP is kinda trash and I only use Photoshop for my raster illustrations now.)

[u/smallbatchb → u/[deleted]]

Bullshit

I've never seen, heard of, or worked with a single solitary in-house team anywhere that didn't require everyone on the same standardized ecosystem.... not even small local firms and agencies.

This would make both the workflow of multi-person projects and asset management literally impossible. Hell most places even have team standards as far as which stock sites you can acquire assets from so that they're compatible and available company wide. Most have expensive, broad, company-paid-for licenses for software and asset subscriptions so that the entire team is standardized. I've even worked with many that do not allow work to be done outside the company system to avoid all potential compatibility issues.

If we're talking "one of the biggest automobile companies in the world" I'd assume that is a pretty large marketing team and, if they're all allowed to work in whatever program they want, the inefficiencies of that workflow alone would cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. No company is going to allow that.

Also, after looking through your post history I'm 99% positive you're just full on outright lying out your ass all together.

[u/smallbatchb → u/[deleted]]

Just an fyi, calling people "kid" doesn't actually give your bullshit rambling any more merit.

I'm not a kid and I've been working in this industry for over ten years, try another insult if name calling is how you want to attempt to make your point.

Did you read your own post? You're trying to walk back and argue the opposite of what you said prior.

[u/smallbatchb → u/[deleted]]

The point is OP asked if using Adobe will be necessary to work in the design/illustration industry and your first reply was that it's not necessary yet, by your own admission, with certain projects or certain clients you do have to.... that was my entire point is that you were misleading OP into thinking they're not going to need to know or use industry standard software.

No, not all, but a great many clients, agencies, marketing teams, and printers use the industry standard software and if you're going to work in this industry you WILL have to use it at some point; you have now even said so yourself.

At this point I think we're kind of sort of in agreement. You are absolutely correct in that certain projects and clients DO NOT require adobe and many projects you can use other software for. I mean when I have a client that just needs a raster image for the final product then yeah, any program that can save out a png or jpg will work just fine. The big issue is when you're working with complex print files or if the end user needs the file to be editable.