Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Tiff graphics in Word 2003 vs 2010

    I have a LOT of experience inserting graphics (in various file formats) into Word 2003. Many of them are tiff files. In my experience the resulting quality is VERY good providing that the pictures are scaled to their original native size or some integral multiple based on assumed printing at 300 dpi; i.e. if the picture is 600 pixels wide it should be sized in Word to 2 inches wide. And so on.

    I am now converting to Word 2010. I am dissapointed to see that the quality has apparently degraded. The picutures just don't look good any more, pixels and fine detail are lost, text is pixelated, etc. I hope I am doing something wrong!

    I have attached three files to demonstrate this problem: a tiff file, a .doc file containing it, and a .docx file containing it. The tiff picture is a graph with a lot of fine hairlines in it. Observe that the doc file (made with Word 2003) looks almost exactly like the tiff file, but the docx file does not--the hairlines are missing, among other things.

    Has anyone else experienced this, or possibly have an explanation?

    This problem (if it is real) is so significant that it will severely impact my willingness to convert to 2010.

    (OK I'm clearly not in control of the attachment process. I have now managed to attach the .doc and .docx files. The system apparently doesn't allow uploading attached tiff files. But I think you can understand my problem without that...)

    Daryl
    Attached Files Attached Files
    Last edited by DarylB; 2011-06-03 at 18:25. Reason: Added attachments

  2. #2
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    2,970
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 29 Times in 27 Posts
    No files attached - please re-try.

    Gary

  3. #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    3,853
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 259 Times in 239 Posts
    In my experience there is nothing inherently wrong with the graphic formats in Word 2010 - in fact, I think the handling has improved. However there are settings that you need to check since Word has options that downsample images if requested. Have a look at the Word Options > Advanced > Image Size and Quality. These settings can discard editing (cropped) data and compress images. Note that the settings can be applied to all documents or just the current doc.

    That said, I haven't specifically tested graphic quality in documents up-revved from Word 2003 so potentially, if your options are not set correctly, you might lose picture quality in a conversion. I haven't had problems though.

    FWIW: I have largely stopped using tiff images in favour of pngs which give me better file sizes (and flexible colour depths) for bitmaps like the image you posted. I might also consider emf or wmf vector graphics to maximise image quality at all sizes if I had the original graph.
    Andrew Lockton, Chrysalis Design, Melbourne Australia

  4. #4
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Thanks Andrew!
    I had no idea this setting was there, and the default seems to be checked (allowing Word to compress and lose quality). This is a lifesaver for me!

    I also appreciate your comments on file formats. I tend to use tif's because (1) the vast majority of my files (the bitmapped ones anyway) are b/w, with no colordepth requirements; (2) although the native file size is larger than gif or png as you point out, the CAN be compressed much more resulting in a smaller size; (3) the header info contains size (resolution?) info that Word seems to be able to read and process, such that Word can indicate a meaningful picture size when you insert it (e.g., when you insert a 1200x900 picture Word will identify the size as 4 in. x 3 in. and call this 100%; with a gif file Word would call it 12x9 inches and shrink it to fit the margins if needed, and if assigned the "proper" size 4x3 inches Word would label that 33 percent); this feature is very useful to me; (4) most of the people I work with are just more comfortable with tiff.

    I have not checked out png to such an extent, but I will.

    For vector-based graphics I agree with you, and I use emf a lot, in fact whenever I can. But sometimes it is just not possible depending on the picture source (e.g. scanned, and certain old and proprietary software we use).

    Thanks again!

  5. #5
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    122
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    DarylB: Consider linking to your image files instead of embedding them. With linked files, you can change the image (as long as the file name stays the same) so you can more easily manage changes. For example, if a manual included a screen shot of an "open file" dialog box, and the version changed, you could just replace the old one with a new screen capture. No need to alter the document.

    If I am preparing a document for both print and web, I save all of my master hi-res images in a subfolder (called "ResHi") and use a photo program to down sample them to a "ResLo" subfolder in a resolution more suitable for web. Both folders contain the same images with identical names but just different resolutions and file sizes. Within the Word document, all links are to files saved in a 3rd subfolder ("Images"): I just can copy either the hi-res or lo-res versions of the images into it depending on what output I need.

    One big advantage of using links is that the file size is dramatically smaller. Needless to say, it is a very good idea to have a robust naming convention if you use this approach.

  6. #6
    Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    61
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Eric,

    I really appreciate your comments. Your method of managing hires and lowres pictures is admirable.

    Unfortunately, this can only work for me in Word 2010 if I am the only user, and if I don't move the files around on my computer: if I relocate them or send the files to another user, even if I send the document folder AND the subfolders, he will almost certainly have a different parent folder setup on his computer. In earlier versions of Word this was no problem, since only the relative folder address was used. But in 2010 the folder address is absolute, so the linking process that I so carefully set up will not work when sharing with associates/clients.

    If you know a way around this in Word 2010--short of VBA code (but that's another story)--I would love to hear it. In the meantime, I am forced to give up linking graphics.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    3,853
    Thanks
    4
    Thanked 259 Times in 239 Posts
    DarylB

    If you have linked the graphics using the IncludePicture field then you can reveal the field codes and use search and replace to change the folder path.
    Andrew Lockton, Chrysalis Design, Melbourne Australia

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •