>>1852914Except it does because you can't infinitely scale them. When you create a fill in a raster based program, the effects are set at that resolution. If you have simple base colors with no gradients, then it doesn't matter, but raster effects on gradients will degrade once expanded, "This means you may have a vector square and its edges will remain sharp and crisp, however if that square has a gradient fill. That gradient fill is raster entirely and it will suffer upon some scaling". So it doesn't matter with simple coloring, but if you try anything complex, then you will suffer loss in quality if its expanded from its initial resolution. This is why if you plan to do it in Photoshop, you have to work at a very high resolution before you start, "For production purposes, this difference may be largely unimportant if you are already working at a high ppi in Photoshop".
Again, there is no reason to have to deal with these issues if you can just do it in a program that creates no problems at all, especially if the tools are the same. There is no inherent benefit to using Photoshop as a vectoring program. It will only create headaches the more you try to work with it.
