I didn't think I was exactly attacking you: I think I agreed with what you
said and was defending why I had recommended a different solution. Different
users require different solutions.
I don't believe that Word is the best tool for professional page layout work
either. Word seems to be trying to become a do-it-all application and that
is making it more and more complex for many users to master. Someone needs
to sit down and define what processes belong to a Word Processor and what
belong elsewhere.
Terry
: Exactly! My point is not what MY purposes are, but to give a simple
: workaround to your users who are experiencing image problems with Word. I
was
: responding to just such a user.
:
: The point is not whether one uses TIFF or JPEG. It is rather that Word
bogs
: if you have lots of images. It does. The technique above solves THAT
problem.
: So support me, don't attack me. I'm helping people to love Word like I do.
: Just don't go where it is not designed to do well.
:
: If you are having size and speed problems with Word because of images, use
: embedded images. Simple.
:
: That being said, I do NOT support the idea of urging people to use lower
: quality images as a solution. Come on Microsoft. Support quality! [I'm an
ex
: employee.] Besides a lot of low quality images will bog Word too.
:
: "TF" wrote:
:
: > The differences are that you are using compatible TIFF files and you are
: > linking not embedding. If you are sending to a commercial print shop,
then
: > they have printers that are capable of using high quality definition and
: > supplying the full unadulterated TIFF is unquestionably correct.
: >
: > However, most users are not sending out to a commercial print shop, so
TIFF
: > originals are unnecessary. Using ordinary business colour Laser printers
or
: > Business Inkjets will barely discern the difference between 150dpi and
: > 300dpi. So a quality jpeg is a satisfactory solution for most business
: > needs.
: >
: > The reason why most users will embed the graphics rather than link is
purely
: > an organisational reason. Embedding the graphic ensures that it doesn't
get
: > separated from the original document over a period of time. However,
: > embedding TIFFs is not recommended and if TIFFs are needed, then linking
is
: > the answer.
: >
: > Terry
: >
: >
: > : > :I was surprised by this thread because I edit giant files in Word
(600-800
: > : pages is typical) all day every day with dozens and dozens of
: > high-resolution
: > : (300 ppi) TIFF image in the documents. I never have sluggishness or
: > : out-of-memory problems due to images. The trick is simple: Never
include a
: > : graphic in the document file. Always insert a pointer to it instead. I
: > keep a
: > : subdirectory called "images" in the directory holding my document. I
put
: > all
: > : images in it. I use only TIFF files because I am going to high-quality
: > print
: > : and I want the truth, and the printer [person] expects it. He also
expects
: > : the image files to be separate anyway. The files print just fine with
all
: > : images showing. All images show in the document while I am editing.
PDFs
: > : generate just fine with all images showing. There is no way to tell
the
: > : images are not in the document file. Here's how to do it: When you
Insert
: > : Picture, use the downarrow at the side of the Insert Button and select
the
: > : option Link to File. Be sure you are using images in your "images"
: > : subdirectory only. Now your only care is to always move the images
: > directory
: > : when you move the document file. I've been using this technique for
years.
: > It
: > : works fine. I have produced one award-winning full color book using it
: > : already. I also make sure the images are exactly the size I want them
to
: > : appear, so that no app is doing image resize operations. They never do
a
: > good
: > : job enough job anyway.Be sure to backup your images subdirectory too.
It's
: > : part of your "file". It goes without saying probably, but this kind of
: > : activity consumes lots of RAM, lots of disk, and lots of speedy
cycles.
: > :
: > : "GBeck" wrote:
: > :
: > : > Thank you Terry and Suzanne for your helpful information. I guess I
: > have
: > : > been pretty lucky to get a file size this big so far to save.
Thanks
: > again
: > : > for the helpful information and for replying.
: > : >
: > : > "TF" wrote:
: > : >
: > : > > I was referring to both!
: > : > >
: > : > > As Suzanne has stated, the max file size is 32MB for plain text:
it is
: > : > > difficult to be precise because much depends on the complexity of
the
: > : > > document: i.e. tables, cross references, ToC, indices, Footnotes,
: > Endnotes,
: > : > > section breaks, headers and footers, fields, numbering, lists and
a
: > host of
: > : > > formatting before graphics are counted.
: > : > >
: > : > > That said, Word doesn't seem to be too keen on tiff images either.
: > There
: > : > > seem to be several tiff standards around and I find it best to
avoid
: > them.
: > : > > In my experience, unless a document is going out for printing with
: > high
: > : > > quality equipment, then 150dpi is usually sufficient for printing
and
: > 96 or
: > : > > even 72 dpi for viewing on screen only. Jpegs with little or
minimal
: > : > > compression seem to work very well and maintain sufficient quality
for
: > : > > inserting into Word. (Note: always insert a picture or object
rather
: > than
: > : > > copy/paste whenever possible.)
: > : > >
: > : > > However, if the source being scanned is going to be archived
: > separately,
: > : > > then I will scan at the highest quality as you never know what
future
: > needs
: > : > > may be.
: > : > >
: > : > > Terry
: > : > >
: > : > > : > : > > : Terry, Thanks for responding. When you mean well over-sized,
are
: > you
: > : > > : referring to the document size or the photo? Is there a MB
limit
: > : > > generally
: > : > > : accepted that a Word document can be? As regards the photo, I
agree
: > it is
: > : > > : way oversized...you see I mistakingly scanned this full color
photo
: > at 600
: > : > > : dpi instead of the 300 dpi I usually do resulting in a large
..tiff.
: > I
: > : > > really
: > : > > : didn't care at the time since I had plenty of disk space. The
same
: > ..tiff
: > : > > : color photo at 300 dpi was reduced to 8.64MB and replacing it in
the
: > : > > document
: > : > > : still caused the Save to fail. Using Photoshop it was converted
to
: > ..jpg
: > : > > and
: > : > > : further reduced to 656K in which case replacement with this
small
: > file
: > : > > size
: > : > > : did allow the Save to work. It appears as though I am
approaching a
: > : > > : threshold of Word document size at which "Save" will work. So,
what
: > do
: > : > > you
: > : > > : think of this?
: > : > > :
: > : > > : "TF" wrote:
: > : > > :
: > : > > : > It is well over-size. A 34MB photo? What format is it in and
how
: > large
: > : > > it
: > : > > : > is. 34MB sounds like it should be about 100 square feet!
That's
: > : > > : > unbelievable. Even the highest quality 13MB digital cameras
don't
: > come
: > : > > : > anywhere near 32 MB.
: > : > > : > --
: > : > > : > Terry Farrell - Word MVP
: > : > > :
: > : > > : >
: > : > > : >
: > : > > : > : > : > > : > : Is there a limit to how large a Word 2003 document can save?
I
: > have
: > : > > 279
: > : > > : > : pages with many high resolution photos in this 652MB
document
: > : > > (reported
: > : > > : > 637MB
: > : > > : > : when rollover) that if I add a 34 MB photo to it, Word 2003
: > attempts
: > : > > to
: > : > > : > : save, but ends up dimming the toolbar except for the Save
: > button. I
: > : > > : > cannot
: > : > > : > : even delete the newly added photo. Hitting the save button
: > repeats
: > : > > the
: > : > > : > : process--closing out gives me the option of saving (which
: > repeats the
: > : > > : > process
: > : > > : > : again) or exiting which is the only way to start over.
(Prior
: > to
: > : > > this
: > : > > : > : scenerio, I had been giving warnings about insufficient
memory
: > when
: > : > > : > saving).
: > : > > : > : I have doubled the ram to 1GB, have plenty of hard disk
space
: > for the
: > : > > : > : document and the pagefile, and have set the page file to be
: > handled by
: > : > > : > : windows with the same result. Using Word2003 (11.6359.6360)
: > SP1.
: > : > > : >
: > : > > : >
: > : > > : >
: > : > >
: > : > >
: > : > >
: >
: >
: >
