TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
"Dave Neufeld" wrote
> Avoid converting your EPS files to a different format. Generally, converting
> EPS to WMF screws the WMF up because WMF has fewer features and is less
> accurate than PS. Converting a vector based graphic from EPS to TIFF or BMP
> loses all vector and font information. This may be fine if you are
> publishing to web graphics, but reduces the quality for print and PDF
> documents.
Ah - I guess I left out some details.
When I do graphics for docs, I always keep "raw" or "baseline" images in the
native format of the tool. I actually use an intermediate tool, Paint Shop Pro,
to organize the graphic for pasting into Word via the clipboard. Although you
can use other tools, as long as the file is exported to a true graphics format
and not a vector format.
Also as for the quality issue - that too is easily solved. If the pictures are
in a metafile and pasted in-line into Word, Word automatically aliases the
picture. The flip-side to this is to use images that are at least 125% bigger
than what you really want. Blowing up images never preferable to downsizing
them. Also - keep the images in at least 16K (thats 16384 colors for you math
geeks) colors. 256 color images downsample like crap because Word can't impose
transition colors into the downsample. (This is one of my fundamental gripes
with Frame. It can't downsample and create transitional colors. It does a
straight pixel resize which was a fantastic technology - in 1988! Word uses
bi-linear resampling which is a much better technique.)
Yes, I realize there is one extra step in this mix. But, by separating the
image from the original, you can fiddle with the original at will until you're
ready to slice off a version for the docs.
As for the linking vs embedding debate. I gave up on linking years ago because
it became so much easier to just have everything in one place. I also got real
sick and tired of chasing down broken links.
Word 2000/97 will compress images pasted as metafiles. I have 350+ page docs
with zillions of pictures that barely top 5MB. 5MB is nothing these days. Of
course I have a 100Mbps network and a PIII-800 with 256 MB. I suppose if you're
on a 486DX-66 over a 14.4 modem line - well I can see why linking would turn
you on.
Andrew Plato
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf! It's FREE. http://im.yahoo.com/
