The Gradient Stigma

Here's my brief personal take on gradients and why they've unjustly received such a bad break.

Ordinarily gradients were largely frowned upon by the professional community for technical reasons. They were either created in a raster based program like photoshop and then improperly refitted in print collateral, or suffered incompatibility (banding) issues with a printer or pre-press bureau's technology.

Solid color to color gradients were once often applied using a raster program like photoshop—a pretty effective medium if the design were intended to be used on the web, but not so for print. Take identity design as an example. There were plenty of creative denizens who were commissioned to somehow utilize gradient filled rastered logos with the expectation of resizing and outputting them as crisp and clean as if it were originally made in a vector program. Clients didn't understand that applying it cross platform this way was a recipe for bitmapped spew. Why would they, when they didn't even consider the stark differences between high print and low screen resolution, let alone raster pixel technology and vector's mathematical computations. For those who may want to expand your knowledge on these distinctions a bit more, try to google keywords along the lines of Raster vs. Vector for a start. As I say, the internet can be your friend.

Then there were those who did apply gradients using vector software. As I mentioned earlier, there were banding problems depending on the equipment printers used, plus somewhere along the line it sometimes had trouble translating a consistently smooth gradation in print because of the nature of the software itself. The latest technology in large part addressed these problems, but you can't guarantee that all printers are up to date because it is very expensive to upgrade. They will use what they have, for as long as they can remain a competitive force in the market.

Finally, gradients should be treated the same way as solid colors. They shouldn't be used to "carry" a design, yet more often than not that's what happens. That's why I'm a supporter of designing in black and white first when developing logos. Not only is it easier to pinpoint any design flaws, but without the added distraction of colors and gradients, a Creative can focus on the primary task at hand—developing a good strong mark.

I feel that all things considered gradients can most certainly be applied to compliment or accent a strong mark/design/what-have-you in proper context. That's why I'm not against using them. But the fact remains that there seems to be more instances where it's used to mask poor design instead.