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

[Joerg Luedicke <joerg.luedicke@gmail.com>]

I would discuss such issues directly with the responsible typesetter.

Joerg

On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:08 AM, Jacob McDermott <jpmcd87@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for the response.
>
> This book is to be published as both a physical book and an ebook. Are you
> saying that the ebook version will likely have higher resolution graphs than
> this proof?
>
> Jacob
>
>
> On 9/24/2013 9:49 AM, Robert Picard wrote:
>>
>> 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/
>
>
> *
> *   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/