The two graphics formats that run every visual workflow.

The core difference, in one paragraph

Raster images are made of pixels — small coloured squares laid out in a grid. The image ‘is’ the pixel data. Vector images are made of paths — mathematical descriptions of points, curves, and fills. The image is the recipe to draw it, not the drawing itself. That single difference cascades into every other property they have.

Side-by-side comparison

When raster is the right choice

• Photographs. Every photo is raster — pixels capturing what the camera sensor saw.
• Screenshots and screen captures.
• Painterly, textured, or impressionistic art where the goal is brush-stroke feel.
• Anything with photo-realistic gradients or millions of subtle tone variations.
• Quick web display where file size + load time outranks scalability.

When vector is the right choice

• Logos, wordmarks, icons, illustrations with flat colour areas.
• Anything heading to a vinyl plotter — closed cut paths required.
• Embroidery digitizing source — clean joins, no spurious nodes.
• Screen-print spot color separation work.
• CNC routing, laser cutting, plasma — closed-path DXF required.
• Engraving — single-stroke or outline-only paths.
• Channel letter / signage fabrication.
• Anything that needs to scale from business-card to billboard.

Why vector files are smaller (the math)

A 2000×2000 raster image stores 4 million pixels. Even at 8 bits per channel × 3 channels, that’s ~12 MB uncompressed. The same logo in vector might be 20–50 paths × a few control points each — a few KB total. Vector wins on size by 100×–1000× for logo-style art, every time.

Scaling behaviour — the most visible difference

If you take a 200×200 raster logo and blow it up to 2000×2000, the browser or print software has to invent ~99% of the pixels via interpolation. The result is pixelation, blocky edges, blurry curves. The same logo in vector renders 2000×2000 just as sharp as 200×200, because the math is recomputed at the output size.

This is why production buyers care so much about getting vector source. A vinyl plotter cutting a 4-foot decal can’t do anything useful with a 300×300 raster logo — the cut path has to be drawn at the actual output size, which means starting from vector geometry, not pixels.

Converting between raster and vector

Vector → raster is trivial: every browser, print software, and image editor can rasterise a vector at any chosen output size. Raster → vector is the hard direction.

• For single-color, high-contrast logos: Adobe Illustrator’s Image Trace or Inkscape’s Trace Bitmap — fast but needs cleanup.
• For photographic source or stylised illustration: AI tools like Vectorizer.AI, vector.ai, Adobe Firefly — better quality than path-finding tracers.
• For production output (vinyl, embroidery, screen, CNC): hand rebuild by a designer. Auto-trace cleanup eats the same hours and produces worse files.

Deciding for a real job

I’m posting on Instagram

Raster. PNG or JPG. Vector formats don’t even render on social platforms.

I’m printing a magazine ad

Vector for the logo and type. Raster for the photo. PDF/X-4 with the right ICC profile bundles both for the press.

I’m running a vinyl plotter

Vector. AI, EPS, SVG, or DXF — closed paths required.

I’m setting up an embroidery digitizer

Vector source, stitch-friendly geometry. Hand-rebuilt vector beats auto-traced for digitizing quality.

I’m laser-cutting acrylic

Vector — closed-path DXF in AutoCAD 2000 dialect.

I’m posting a wedding photo to a blog

Raster. Lossy compressed JPG at 1200–1800 pixels wide. Vector would be huge and slow.