Photoshop for Planners?

[Wannaplan?]

Does anyone have any references on how to use Photoshop in a professional planning setting? Most of the stuff I've learned has been on the job, and I do a decent job, yet some basic things, like efficiently making dotted lines, are still a mystery to me. I can do some common planning-related tasks, like transforming an aerial into a colorful street schematic, but dotted lines and other sophisticated tasks are, right now, too time consuming.

For instance, on the following image, I can easily make the colored polygons, but what if I want to make a dotted line go from the scanned photo to its representative block? I can't do it! Help!

If anyone has some Photoshopping web links, tips, or knows of a publication geared toward architects, designers, and planners, please share! Thank you!

 

[boiker]

i can help you.. but not yet

no photoshop at work.

i will respond to this at home... also, what version of photoshop are you using?

 

[Wannaplan?]

Awesome!

Boiker,

I'm using 6.0. Thanks, I'll look for your reply!

 

[Cardinal]

Photoshop for Planners - now that would be a course I would take. I have to admit that I generally do not use Photoshop for much more than photo manipulation. I will usually bring the image into a drawing program like CorelDraw or Adobe Illustrator, and do any line art in that program.

 

[jordanb]

Just so you all know, there's a free program called the Gimp that has most of the functionality of photoshop (and some stuff it dosen't have). You could probably save your agency a little bit of cash by using it instead.

The Gimp is now the preferred bitmap editor for Hollywood, I know, it was used for gollum and all that.

 

[Dan]

Photoshop is really a bitmap manipulation image; it isn't intended for making maps or complex diagrams. Like what Mr. Stumpf said, you're better off using a vector drawing program like Adobe Illustrator or Corel Draw.

 

[Wannaplan?]

I tried Illustrator on Friday and I was pleased with the results. But still, does anyone know of any links or publications for planners that give tips for Photoshop or Illustrator?

 

[green lizard]

planners that give tips for Photoshop or Illustrator?

Here is a tip... Use powerpoint. Use the Photoshop to
manipulate the photos, but put them together in Powerpoint.
Then you can draw all the dashed lines you want. And if
you spend a day or two fooling around with Powerpoint, you become a Powerpoint expert. (oh yeah, do a 'save as' on your
photoshop file and save it as a JEPG or something that will
import into Powerpoint.)

 

[Cardinal]

I may disagree with using Powerpoint. Relative to Illistrator or Corel, it gives you less ability to add features, fills, text, etc. If you have the better software, use it.

 

[Wannaplan?]

Yes, I agree with Michael. Those Adobe products are powerful. Plus, any Illustrator document that you can create can easily be made into a Reader PDF document that you can print off any time or forward to friends who can give input.

 

[green lizard]

Plus, any Illustrator document that you can create can easily be made into a Reader PDF document that you can print off any time or forward to friends who can give input.

Any document can be 'printed off' into a PDF file. I did not say
use powerpoint to do a lot, just to assemble your elements
together into different layouts for different uses.

For example, I touch up a photo for future appearance.
I create a map of the areas overlay district. I illistrate the setback
reqerment. I can bring these into Powerpoint and assemble
them into an informative group of slides. One shows the map and the improved pic as a 'pull-out'. One sldie shows the map
and red dots where the setbacks are violated along with the
setback illistration. And I can add all the titles and text to
these slides without affecting the original illistrations.

Just another approach...

 

[garethace]

I would like to see a section over at www.cgarchitect.com for planners actually. Because, the types of illustrations they have to do for various schemes and projects are very specific indeed.

An moderator or editor here at Cyburbia should actually get on to the Senior guy at cgarchitect and request a section for planners specifically. A section in Finish Work forums i think for posting graphics etc, to do with planning illustration and so on.

You can reach him here:

admin@cgarchitect.com

Of course, there is a photoshop forum at cgarchitect too, and the posters there are really very helpful indeed.

 

[Wannaplan?]

I just picked up a great book, "50 Fast Digital Photo Techniques," by Gregory Georges. Doesn't cover everything I'm interested in, but it has already added to my repetoire of Photoshopping skills. It has a CD-ROM and some great sample images, before and after. Also has a free Adobe imaging program, not Photoshop, and expires after 30 days. I love it! It's on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0764535781/002-4510321-1962408 and only costs $18.

 

[Wannaplan?]

I would like to see a section over at www.cgarchitect.com for planners actually...

Great site! The discussion forum is awesome and everyone posts images and receives feedback. What an excellent community! I'm going to have to spend more time there. Thank you for the link!

 

[garethace]

No trouble at all, and thankyou for the great discussion here at cyburbia - being an architect myself i have to deal with many, many different planning proposals in different offices i have worked in.

I enjoy the more detailed aspects of architectural design - like the visualisation stuff as seen at cg architect, but i realise the need for a wider scope, or overview to the process of designing too.

Particularly in the early stages of my desk, and on-site site analysis for a design problem.

 

[chasqui]

Photoshop not the answer to all imaging

I have to agree with the post that recommended Corel. The strong-suit of photoshop is raster images - ie pictures. Corel handles the vector stuff with ease. Corel is great once you have cropped and cleaned up your images in photoshop. I use photoshop a lot as a planner, but I do not recommend it for laying out a page or creating documents. I highly recommend it for creating small images, cleaning up photos, etc - but for design work, take your cleaned images into another program. You have a lot of page layout and design control with a program such as Corel.

 

[H]

Re: Photoshop not the answer to all imaging

I have to agree with the post that recommended Corel.

I am without a doubt on the Corel team! But I still use photoshop for scanning.

 

[Cardinal]

Interesting Corel/Adobe debate. I started out with Corel, so have continued to use it. Last year, though, I purchased Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat and InDesign. I have switched over to Photoshop for most ohotgraphic work and use InDesign or Acrobat for documents. Most of my vector work I still do in Corel Draw. This is in part because many of the base images (maps, logos, etc.) that I already have are made with Corel, but I still do find it easier to use than Illustrator. Familiarity counts for a lot when you are pressed for time.

 

[DecaturHawk]

Great thread. Does anybody use PaintShop Pro instead of Photoshop or Corel? PaintShop lets you manipulate both raster and vector objects on the same image, a' la Corel, but is hundreds of dollars cheaper.

 

[giff57]

I use Paint Shop Pro...

 

[Dan]

Just so you all know, there's a free program called the Gimp that has most of the functionality of photoshop (and some stuff it dosen't have).

I've played around with the Gimp on Windows and Linux (gawd, don't you love how Linux programs have names that are totally unrelated to their function), and it seems to have a steep learning curve. Really, no steeper than Photoshop, but the interface takes a bit of getting used to. The Gimp might be a good option for a graphics program for those who don't haver the bucks for a licensed copy of Photoshop.

I assume that there are GPLed and open source filters available for The Gimp?


BTW, do a google search for "photoshop tutorials", and you'll find quite a few decent guides for evertything from simple Web graphics to advanced techniques.

Photoshop for Planners (tm), OTOH ... really, it involves knowing how to manipulate layers, skewing pasted elements, the eraser and paint tools, the magic lasso and selection wand tools, color manipulation, and gaussian blurs. Master those, and you've got about 80% of what a planner would use in Photoshop.

 

[Wannaplan?]

Has anyone ever created a land use map exclusively in Photoshop, resulting in a JPEG image that can essentially be moved around from one computer application to another, like for instance, from Adobe Illustrator to Word to PowerPoint? Is a JPEG file the best format for this kind of portability?

 

[Cardinal]

I didn't use Photoshop, but instead Corel Draw to make this map:

http://www.cityofwhitewater.com/contentDocuments/WhitewaterCityMap2004.pdf

In addition to the original Corel format, I can export the map as a PDF file or any of a number of image formats including JPG or TIFF. If I had not done the original map several years ago, I would probably now have chosen to draw it with Illustrator. You will get a much better product with a vector drawing program as opposed to something like Photoshop.

 

[Wannaplan?]

I didn't use Photoshop, but instead Corel Draw to make this map

That is a beautiful map! Well done! I like it!

 

[Doitnow]

Pardon me for asking! because I am not good in any of these-Photoshop, Corel Draw and Illustrator.
Reading the posts in this thread has made me realise that so much can be done with them.
So reactions are welcome.

I had always felt that for accurate scaled maps you need to use the real vector drawing softwares like Autocad and all.

The biggest problem of presenting AutoCad drawings is that while converting them into interchange format for use into Photoshop, Corel Draw or even Illustrator some of the data may be lost.
I do all my map work in AutoCad or sometimes further into ArcView.
Only for making logos and converting small sized and not so complicated maps I use coverted information and improve them using Photoshop, Corel Draw, Illustrator.

Primarily I use:
Photoshop: for improving Image Quality, Resizing images, conerting them into various formats.
CorelDraw and Illustrator to to improve AutoCad made drawings and making them publishing friendly, or for for making images which can be used in powerpoint for presentations.

The maps, drawings made in Photoshop, Corel Draw, Illustrator may be very good looking and easy to print, publish and I like the map Cardinal made but:
1. How Accurate is that. I am talking about the polygons and the areas/regions?
2. What about the scale? (I saw the linear scale at the bottom). Is this an indicative map and a different map is prepared for implementation of the plan?

I wish I could make such beautiful maps( compliment to Cardinal) but can't as I am really not too good with any of Photoshop, Corel Draw or Illustrator. I always have to get it done through some other professional.

 

[Michele Zone]

I think the short answer is that you lack training in cartography.

Not all GIS programs also teach cartography. Mine did teach cartography -- and ALL of my graphics work is dramatically better since then.

 

[Doitnow]

Well that's right I didn't get any formal training in cartography.
But tell me, does Cartography training include making maps in Corel Draw and illustrator.

Can one make implementable maps in these softwares? :-0

I always considered them Arts and Graphics Softwares which designers used and a planner would use them only to enhance presentation for viewing or publishing.

Please do correct me if I am seeing things wrongly.

 

[Michele Zone]

Can one make implementable maps in these softwares? :-0

I am not qualified to answer the question since I have never worked in a job where I had to make an 'implementable map'.

My cartography class did not include training in Corel Draw or Illustrator. It included information on how many colors the human eye and brain can practicably differentiate, scale, cultural sensitivity to color meanings, balance, and a bunch of other basics of map making and graphic design. It was taught by someone who impressed me with how well thought-out and targetted his exercises were. I was being trained on ArcView software. However, I have successfully used the principles I learned in designing brochures, logos, websites, pamphlets, and more. I have used these principles manipulating images in Paint and in a couple of different photo manipulation programs, in writing html code, using PowerPoint, and more.

To some extent, graphic design principles translate across various programs and media and to different applications. A cartography class trains you to present visually dense, graphic information in a highly legible form. This may not meet your needs when you are doing things to spec for engineering purposes, where you may need something more akin to the technical detail of blueprints. It is aimed primarily at the kind of presentation and publishing purposes you allude to -- which seems to me to be a big part of the work of most planners, who have to deal with the public, deal with public officials, etc. (EDIT: we also covered issues like having different degrees of detail show on a computer screen in a GIS program. I am obviously givng a very brief overview.)

As a bit of a tangent, many GIS departments become somewhat cut off from the actual use of the GIS and become glorified "map shops". The longer they serve that role, the more emphasis they place on making "pretty" maps. This is an erroneous use of GIS and cartography. The purpose of a map is to communicate information effectively. A well-designed map will have a certain elegance to it will probably be called "beautiful". But beauty is NOT the purpose of a map and if the function of communicating data is subsumed to the desire to make something beautiful, you now have 'art', not 'cartography'.

 

[Cardinal]

Accuracy is not the strong point of an illustration software like Corel Draw or Adobe Illustrator. At the level of a block, I can make a fairly accurate map. For a city, though, it is simply too difficult. The question comes down to the intended use. In the case of the map I linked, this is used as a general city map. If somebody asks for a map of the city so they can find their way around, this is what they get. I will also use it in presentations to highlight an area, and I modify it further to illustrate general planning concepts.

I don't always see value in including a lot of property information (such as you might get by using a plat map as a base) on all plan maps. Where such information is not needed, I would readily use a map like this one, or another technique I favor is to mark up an aerial photo. This can be done very effectively using transparent fills.

The original map was made to print to 24" by 36". Since I intended to make it available over the web, I knew that most people would print it on an 8.5" by 11" paper. That is why I used the linear scale instead of a notation such as "1 inch = 800' "

 

[Doitnow]

Accuracy is not the strong point of an illustration software like Corel Draw or Adobe Illustrator. At the level of a block, I can make a fairly accurate map. For a city, though, it is simply too difficult. The question comes down to the intended use. In the case of the map I linked, this is used as a general city map. If somebody asks for a map of the city so they can find their way around, this is what they get. I will also use it in presentations to highlight an area, and I modify it further to illustrate general planning concepts.

I don't always see value in including a lot of property information (such as you might get by using a plat map as a base) on all plan maps. Where such information is not needed, I would readily use a map like this one, or another technique I favor is to mark up an aerial photo. This can be done very effectively using transparent fills.

The original map was made to print to 24" by 36". Since I intended to make it available over the web, I knew that most people would print it on an 8.5" by 11" paper. That is why I used the linear scale instead of a notation such as "1 inch = 800' "

I quite agree with you here and Thanks for clarifying my doubts Cardinal.

That we need to prepare different size and scale maps using different techniques for diffrerent purposes, I have learn't by experience.

I think the map you made is pretty good and must be useful to people from various walks.

I myself put a linear scale on maps, always, as different people take different sized prints. And I noted the fact that you made the map for larger sized prints too.

Continuing on Michel's last post.
Only when I started using ESRI softwares did I realise the magnitude of using the appropriate colors in presenting maps and data/information on maps. I used to joke to friends that ESRI being a big and rich company, must have employed psychologists and color experts to work out the amazing range available in their softwares. I feel that these colors not only appeal to the eye but also work on the subconscious.

Learning the application of right colors/hues( generally the dominion of the graphics experts) could be a new specialisation of planners.

I know of some architecture firms which finish their design and presentation drawings and give the whole thing to a graphics team which totally transforms the work into amazingly attractive images.

Well I am learning to use colors now and also these useful softwares we are talking about

 

[Michele Zone]

Continuing on Michel's last post.
Only when I started using ESRI softwares did I realise the magnitude of using the appropriate colors in presenting maps and data/information on maps. I used to joke to friends that ESRI being a big and rich company, must have employed psychologists and color experts to work out the amazing range available in their softwares. I feel that these colors not only appeal to the eye but also work on the subconscious.

Learning the application of right colors/hues( generally the dominion of the graphics experts) could be a new specialisation of planners.

I know of some architecture firms which finish their design and presentation drawings and give the whole thing to a graphics team which totally transforms the work into amazingly attractive images.

Well I am learning to use colors now and also these useful softwares we are talking about

I have an advantage in the I wanted to be an Image Consultant when I was younger and I homeschool a child with visual challenges. I have a rich background that touches on research into color and also that deals with how different people percieve color (and more) differently.

I am collaborating with a friend, developing a "mini-website" for her as a spin-off of my homeschooling website. I recently ran some sample webpages past her and asked if she wanted anything changed. In essence, she told that my website design is unique -- not flashy nor boring -- and such beautiful works of art and so well-designed that she knows it is all designed to work together. Therefore, she isn't messing with it. She never attended college and is teaching calculus, Greek, Latin, Japanese and more to her Twice Exceptional son. I consider any such comment from her to be very high praise.

Er, I had a point. Now I am not sure what it was. It relates back to ESRI. I attended UC-Riverside's Extension program. They are located not far from ESRI and most of my professor's were either current or former employees of ESRI. My cartography professor was a current employee of ESRI. He taught courses for them and then came over to the college and taught Cartography. I chose the program at UC-R in part because it has the strongest reputation of any such program in the US. I have a very strong academic background and I design a custom curriculum every year for my sons, whom we homeschool. So I have a good idea of what a "good education" is.

My cartography professor (who has some unpronounceable and unspellable Egyptian name -- and went by a nickname because of it, :-D ) basically wrote his own textbook. Our main reference was a bound copy of all of his lecture notes. As a parent of gifted-learning disabled students who has to design custom approaches to educating my kids, I was quite impressed with the depth of thought behind what he chose to teach and how he chose to teach it. I teach kids that were unteachable in school. I know the importance and value of a well-designed educational approach. Not many teachers impress me. He did. I suspect that I have a better grounding in cartography and graphic design from that one class than most folks get from several.

So, in short, it would not surprise me to learn that ESRI had, in fact, done something like what you joke about. I had other professors that worked for ESRI who also impressed me. ESRI seems to set a very high standard for their work and their employees.

 

[DA Monkey]

Great thread

Its good to see recognition of a career that has been overtaken by technology in so many ways.

My original qualification is as a cartographer, I learned how to draw maps by hand, using techniques that have now ceased to exist.

With the introduction of GIS, many traditional cartographers simply retired or changed jobs, often citing difficulties in understanding computors and digital technology as the reason. We lost many talented people and the GIS industry suffered for the lack.

Consequentially the GIS profession is inhabited by many who never understood the basic principles of cartography believing a map is a simple output devise representing spatially arranged data.

I moved into the planning profession (where I could still draw my maps by hand) and discovered a very limited understanding of the benefits of both GIS and well made maps.

Many of the issues you raise such as scale, presentation, information communication etc remain hot topics today amongst GIS professionals and cartographers. The arguments also include accuracy - many traditional cartographers verified their maps before publication and recorded source information in extensive detail. Sadly GIS is only just catching up to that requirement.

I was taught, and always believed the purpose of cartography is more than communicating information. It is an art form, and at its highest expression involves all the skills of an artist. One of the most basic misunderstandings associated with mapping is what actually constitutes a map. The role of maps in religious expression is a great example - what was their purpose?

As to software, well I wont buy into that argument. I have used most software associated with mapping technologies and all of them have good and bad points.

However, it is good to hear that cartography is still a useful skill. Bye the way Cardinal, I think your map looks great, nice piece of work.

 

[Wannaplan?]

Great conversation!

I am wondering though, how appropriate is the discussion about map accuracy, CAD, and GIS for this thread about Photoshop? When I created this thread, I guess I sort of assumed that accuracy was already thrown out the window - because we're talking about pixels and planning. We're not exactly site designers or engineers. For planners, we usually don't need map accuracy to do our work successfully. To engage the public, yes, we do need maps that are accurate, but how often is the majority of our work about conveying concepts and big ideas? We don't need accuracy for that, do we? We need something that keeps the public interested, to fancy their imaginations. Photoshop can do that for us, right? Scan something in, delete a few things with the eraser tool, plop in a few color polygons here and there, and we're good to go. Yes, it's not that simple, but if you are not trained in ArcView or CAD, an application like Photoshop or Paint, when accompanied by a scanner, can be the easiest way to generate graphics and maps on the fly.

Photoshop, with a little help with Illustrator, saved me about a month ago. I had to make a future land use map in a hurry for a night meeting. All I had was an existing land use map hard copy. It was done in CAD. Our designer was on vacation. I decided to scan that map and modify it in Photoshop. I didn't have the time to show our proposed future land uses. Instead, I highlighted about eight areas of concern or transition. It turned out beautifully. The meeting went well. The Photoshopped map served its purpose - we had a conversation about the issues in the community. It was a productive and effective evening.

 

[Michele Zone]

Wanigas,
It depends in part on how bad the inaccuracy is. Probably most of the time, it is not a big deal for the purposes you are talking about. But there are times when the accuracy is so bad that it is a real problem, even for the big picture stuff.

There are two different legal definitions of the measurement known as a "foot". I can't remember their different names. They are different by something in the thousandths range. But map coordinate systems often use very large numbers in feet in order to place a city or county in the upper-right-hand (positive, positive) position of a Cartesian coordinate system. The less commonly known definition for "feet" is, by law, what gets used in legal documents in Calfornia (if I recall right). One city was using the wrong "foot" and showing its buildings out in the middle of the street and couldn't figure out why.

And I have heard other stories. About 60% of the cost of a GIS is in the data -- and with good reason.

In short, think of Cardinal's "Where do we live?" map for cyburbanites. Would you want to go to a public meeting armed with a map that distorted? (As an aside, Cardinal's map and its skewed size, which makes America loom larger than all other places, is typical for old maps. It is a fascinating psychological glimpse into the "mind's eye", so to speak.)

Okay, "ramble OFF".

 

[Wannaplan?]

But there are times when the accuracy is so bad that it is a real problem, even for the big picture stuff.

If it's related to Photoshop or other pixel-based applications, can you cite some specific examples?

 

[SW MI Planner]

It depends in part on how bad the inaccuracy is. Probably most of the time, it is not a big deal for the purposes you are talking about. But there are times when the accuracy is so bad that it is a real problem, even for the big picture stuff.

Its going to depend on what you will be presenting, and who your target audience is. I don't think accuracy is all that important when dealing with the big picture conceptual items. The majority of the public would rather see the 'pretty picture'.

For smaller scale things that I might be using (utilities, zoning, row's, etc) I would want to see accuracy, but not necessarily a pretty picture.

 

[GeogPlanner]

I think the short answer is that you lack training in cartography.

Not all GIS programs also teach cartography. Mine did teach cartography -- and ALL of my graphics work is dramatically better since then.

I agree. A cartography background is important. Mine was all digital, but learned a lot about layouts and such. I was the Photoshopper for my last firm. Did all of the Illustrator and Photoshop work that didn't require an architect.

 

[Doitnow]

Sorry Guys!
If the posts are veering off the original topic then I have a role to play. And I am sure that the moderators are watching( and I know that they are pretty good at their job ;-) )

But I feel that these threads are also about creating awareness and at times one thread may give birth to a sub topic or spin off a totally unrelated topic.

In this I asked Cardinal some questions to actually see the reaction to the issue( wasn't experimenting but am learning ).

I agree totally with Wanigas that Photoshop and other graphics software is an excellent tool for planners and equally important as GIS is. It's my tilt towards vector based drawing/mapping/GIS softwares and my preoccupation with them and my lack of operating ease in the graphic softwares made me ask those questions. and DA Monkey has summarised the basic issues very well.
(My lack of expertise in such software is amply reflected in my recent post in CArdinal's never ending where are we from thread :-D)
All I wanted to know is that whether the planners have to make all kinds of maps for all kinds of people or not and I think Cardinal answered that.

It's just that when Michele mentioned about cartography that I tried to remember why I was never taught graphics within teh informal cartography I learnt.

For smaller scale things that I might be using (utilities, zoning, row's, etc) I would want to see accuracy, but not necessarily a pretty picture.

Any planner would want to make accurate maps and also want to make good looking and easy to read maps. Both are equally important. I myself made an important master plan- land use map some time back for a very important and large project with exaggerated road widths to highlight the circulation pattern and convinced the bearucrats( spellcheck here) and the local politicians :-\

In an earlier research study about GIS based emergency response, I myself had commented publicly(here) that accuracy is not required for some aspects in planning as well as typical ER situations like large fires and explosions where all one needs toknow is the location of the emergency within a fifty or hundred yards. For lot level information system accuracy is not required.

Yes, it's not that simple, but if you are not trained in ArcView or CAD, an application like Photoshop or Paint, when accompanied by a scanner, can be the easiest way to generate graphics and maps on the fly.

And yes!, Concept Plans and Structure plans can be presented very well using graphics software and animated Powerpoint slides.

OT:
BTW, I finally bought a scanner yesterday after dumping my old scanner almost a year ago.Now I need to work out how to post images on cyburbia.And it time to get those photoshop lessons. ;-)

 

[Michele Zone]

If it's related to Photoshop or other pixel-based applications, can you cite some specific examples?

No I can't cite any specific examples for a Pixel-based format. But my experience with manipulating images in that format indicates that your biggest issues would involve blowing up images to a degree that makes the image too grainy. That tends to distort it and make edges ragged instead of straight, for example.

Again: I think it depends. All maps are inaccurate pieces of fiction anyway (because planet earth is 3d and irregular and maps are 2d :-D ). If you want, I can share a piece I wrote in a homeschooling forum that ended up entitled something like "Georgia is an Imaginary Place".

 

[Cardinal]

My original qualification is as a cartographer, I learned how to draw maps by hand, using techniques that have now ceased to exist.

With the introduction of GIS, many traditional cartographers simply retired or changed jobs, often citing difficulties in understanding computors and digital technology as the reason. We lost many talented people and the GIS industry suffered for the lack.

Consequentially the GIS profession is inhabited by many who never understood the basic principles of cartography believing a map is a simple output devise representing spatially arranged data....

...I was taught, and always believed the purpose of cartography is more than communicating information. It is an art form, and at its highest expression involves all the skills of an artist.

Like you, I learned my skills first as a cartographer, then adopted GIS and digital methods at a later time. I credit a now-retired professor who was fanatical about color choice, line width, and related issues with instilling in me the artist's approach to mapping - which is probably why I prefer graphic software over GIS. It is a question of communication versus analysis. I more often use maps to communicate than I use spatial data for analysis.

[ot]There is a book I love called "How to Lie with Maps." It should be in every planner's library.[/ot]

To get back to Wanigas' comments, I think what you describe is a very good approach. I often will use Photoshop to doctor up a scanned image or aerial photo before further modifying it in Corel Draw or Illustrator.