There was a comment on a recent post (Working Methods) that I thought would be worth talking a bit about.
--- "Not sure I see any advantage to making this an illustrator file other than for scaleability or crisper edges. It is so close to the Photoshop file, I wondered why bother? I know there are times when you want a vector image, but I think I actually like the slightly more organic feel of the Photoshop file." ---
I definitely see what you're saying and it was one of the points I made in the demo. But, if I were working in vectors, I would see the Photoshop version as a nessacary preliminary step and a throwaway. I couldn't have made it look like I did in the final vector version if I didn't paint it first. Of course there would be other ways to get there, but this was much easier and, like you say, organic, which shows through in the final; a very good thing. Also, by painting it, I could choose my color pallet, so you think of it as a color study. Some of the students are still beginners at vectors and I encourage them to do all the hard work outside the computer, scan it, and convert it in Illustrator. I just painted it in Photoshop because Im a digital painter. I could have done it in gouache, but it would have been a longer prep time for me.
Probably a more important point is, the way this was done would be applied to the students individual styles. My personal thinking process was to close shapes with the intention of making paths. However, they could take a painting that was say, more impressionistic, and make paths on it. But that would seem to emphasize your original question. So I would urge them, in that case, to use the converted art as a jumping off point from which to add or change elements. If needed, the art could be made from several different studies.
In the end there is no real argument for working this way. Just like there is no argument any one technique or method. It just comes down to what a person likes.
Thanks Greg, for bringing this up.