printing problems with corel art in ms pub 2003

[Al]

I had been generating a small publication using MS Pub
2000 and it included some line art pasted in from Corel.
(MS Pub identifies Corel 8). After I migrated to Pub 2003,
this graphic prints very differently (before the lines
were thick, now they are very thin almost invisible). I
have tried saving in different formats but the image
quality is poor (vector to bitmap?). I have also
experimented with all the Format object settings but no
luck although there may be some combo I did not try
(printed a lot of paper) since it looks fine on the screen.

Any clues on why the difference or other options to get
the lines to be bolder? I am using the latest printer
driver.

Al

 

[Mary Sauer]

Have you tried saving the image in .wmf? I have Corel, some created images will have
thin lines, especially when copied and pasted. Actually Publisher 2003 does a far
superior job pasting Corel images than any Publisher version.

 

[Al]

I could scan an existing printed copy and then use thato.
I did try wmf but the image was jagged. It seems to lose
something in the copy/paste action. The image convert
function does not provide any options.

Al

 

[Mary Sauer]

Scanning creates bitmaps. If you have a vector based image in Corel, it can be
converted to a .wmf. The only other way would be to open the Corel trace and try
creating a vector that way. Due to the many nodes tracing creates, it will not be
very satisfactory, however line art works reasonably well.

I am not understanding your problem. Can you not give the lines in Corel a different
weight? If they are too thin, changing the weight should solve the problem. If the
image is a true vector you can ungroup it in Publisher and change the line weight
within the program.

 

[Mary Sauer]

Another suggestion:
If your image looks good on the screen, use Corel capture and paste it in Publisher.

 

[Ed Bennett]

A small child turns to Ed, and exclaims: "Look! Look! A post from Mary

The only other way would be to open
the Corel trace and try creating a vector that way.

Or trace it manually. Or hire someone else to trace it manually
I can do a better job than CorelTrace on most images (provided the original
is of a satisfactory resolution)

 

[Mac Townsend]

copy and paste between different applications does tend to wonk the image;
under Windows, eventually they land (as I understand it) as a flavor of WMF
but the conversion isn't always pretty.

If you have a postscript printer, export as eps. if not, try both emf and
wmf (emf should work better)..

 

[Mac Townsend]

forgot to add..

export as eps from Draw, BUT in the export dilogs you can tell it to use a
WMF header instead of tiff.

then if you don't have a Postscript pritner, the wmf header will be sent to
the prijter and it *might* be better looking than what you now get. (or
might not!).

 

[Al]

I do not have Corel so I cannot modify the image natively.
The graphic was in wordperfect file I was given when I
took over making the newsletter. I copy from the file
(opened in Lotus WordPro since Word would declare the file
corrupt) and then pasted in MS Pub 2000. It printed fine.
When I migrated to MS PUB 2003, the image lines are very
faint. I did convert from original file to several file
types but the quality is poor.

Al

 

[Al]

How do I do that in MS Pub? I can save the image as
several filetypes (eps is not one of them). None of the
saves yielded good results. There is a convert option but
that only shows one option -- Corel -- so nothing happens.

Al