Re: st: RE: Graph format for publication with Springer

[Robert Picard <picard@netbox.com>]

While it is true that Encapsulated postscript can be rendered at any
resolution, they may also be quite large and slow to render if the
original graph contains a large number of objects (e.g. 100K points).
The 1200 dpi TIFF should provide plenty of resolution for publication.
The downside of TIFFs is that they are quite large (and uncompressed).
A 1200dpi file (7200x5236) graph is 150MB. If you have one hundred for
a book, the proofs would be 15GB if produced at full resolution.

Springer just produced a reduced sized PDF for the proofs (low
resolution, probably 72dpi, and compressed for bitmapped graphics) to
reduce the file size. The EPSs will look better in the PDF proofs but
it is not likely to make a difference once printed because the
typesetters will use full-resolution TIFFs.

Robert

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:10 AM,  <k.gemenis@utwente.nl> wrote:
> Jacob,
>
> Vector formats such as .eps (or .pdf) should be preferred over raster images such as .tiff or .jpg. Vector images do not pixelate when they are enlarged as raster images do. Just send your .eps graphs to Springer and you will notice the difference. The reason why .tiff images look better in word is because word cannot handle (the otherwise preferable) vector images.
>
> Best,
> Kostas
> ________________________________________
> From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] on behalf of Jacob McDermott [jpmcd87@gmail.com]
> Sent: 24 September 2013 15:58
> To: statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu
> Subject: st: Graph format for publication with Springer
>
> Hello,
>
> The professor I work for has a book to be published with Springer. We
> recently received the proofs from Springer as a .pdf, and I notice that
> all of the graphs look fuzzy and compressed.
>
> I sent them 1200 dps .tif files to use, but I also have the graphs saved
> as .wmf, .eps, .gph. Springer indicates on their website that they
> accept either .eps or 1200 dps .tifs -- The only reason we went with
> .tifs is that they appeared much clearer in word. Although I understand
> that .eps image pasted in word are just compressed "previews" and that
> the actual printed copy is higher quality, we opted for .tifs as we were
> doing most of our work electronically, and it was much easier to view
> the .tif graphs than the .eps.
>
> The graphs are a mixture of bar graphs, scatter plots, and line plots --
> If I insert graphs using each format into word and save as a .pdf, I
> notice that the text on .eps, and .wmf looks very clear, but the lines
> on line graphs reproduce strangely
> -- i.e. for line graphs, any horizontal line segment has a larger width
> than any other part of the line, sharp changes in slope lead to
> disconnected lines, etc.
>
> On the other hand, the .tifs look good and are much clearer in the
> version I created vs the version sent to us by Springer.
>
> Have any of you had experience with Springer, or have any general tips
> as to how we can get graphs that appear more clearly? Is it just a
> matter of sending them the graphs as .eps? Is there additional
> information you need to answer my question?
>
> Below is a link the Springer's comments on figures and illustrations:
> http://www.springer.com/authors/book+authors?SGWID=0-154102-12-970210-0
>
> Thanks for the help,
> Jacob
>
>
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
>
> *
> *   For searches and help try:
> *   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
> *   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
> *   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

*
*   For searches and help try:
*   http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
*   http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/resources/statalist-faq/
*   http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/