undesirable picture changes

[cayce]

Is there a preferred or recommended file type to use in Word?

What is the preferred method for placing that picture: can you simply paste
from the clipboard, or is there an advantage to using insert> picture> from
file.

I would like to understand what Word does to an image that is just pasted
into it. Here's the scenario:

I had no original art file to draw from for a picture placed in a Word file.
So, I copied and pasted the picture from Word into the clipboard, then pasted
into Paint and Photoshop. The pasted image in both applications had strange
changes in coloration and became pixelated, making them unacceptable to use.
Does anyone know why?

 

[CyberTaz]

The only honest answer to all of your questions is a definite "it depends"

Keeping in mind that there are different image file types & that some are
better for raster graphics (photographic images) whereas some are better for
vector graphics (drawings), see the comments below:


On 10/30/07 2:06 PM, in article
(e-mail address removed), "cayce"

Is there a preferred or recommended file type to use in Word?

Word can effectively display & print most of the more common graphics file
formats - the question is whether the image has been saved in the
appropriate file type based on the nature of the image. Generally, JPEG,
TIFF & EPS are better for photos (the latter 2 for higher quality
output/commercial printing). GIF & PNG (as well as WMF & EMF, although I'm
not crazy about them) for vector graphics. Others (such as SGI, TGA) are for
more specialized types of graphics files.

What is the preferred method for placing that picture: can you simply paste
from the clipboard, or is there an advantage to using insert> picture> from
file.

The Insert command (IMHO) is generally the way to go - especially for
pictures. They are more complex than most drawings and pasting bypasses
Word's import filters. I prefer to avoid copy/paste for images unless print
quality is of absolutely *no* concern. When you copy you're typically
copying the content displayed on screen which is a low resolution
"thumbnail" of the actual image (but this varies depending on where you're
copying *from*).

I would like to understand what Word does to an image that is just pasted
into it. Here's the scenario:

I had no original art file to draw from for a picture placed in a Word file.
So, I copied and pasted the picture from Word into the clipboard, then
pasted
into Paint and Photoshop. The pasted image in both applications had strange
changes in coloration and became pixelated, making them unacceptable to use.
Does anyone know why?

This is the result of what I mentioned above. What you copied was the low
res displayed thumbnail so that's what got pasted. Word didn't really have
anything to do with it. The pasted version was lower res & fewer colors than
the original which is what caused it to print poorly - the printer can only
ink the paper based on the info it receives. You can use Photoshop to
enhance the image, Save As whatever file type is appropriate, then Insert
the new version into your doc.

I'm sure you'll get other opinions, so weigh them all

HTH |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[cayce]

Thanks Bob for giving me this update. First, my apologies on posting twice, I
had a computer glitch on my end at the time of the 1st post and thought it
went into la la land.

I have a couple follow up questions. You mentioned "The Insert command
(IMHO) is generally …." What does IMHO mean?

You also mentioned that pasting instead of inserting bypasses Word's import
filters. Can you please expand on these import filters, their purpose and
usefulness?

You also mentioned you often are getting a low-res screen image when
copying, but that it depends on where you are copying from. Can you elaborate
on the "depends on where you are copying from"?

I have gotten in the habit of inserting .png instead of .jpg for pictures.
Do you see any hazards in my approach? As I understand it, .png files do not
use the compression that can cause image quality loss the way .jpgs do.
Another question that comes to mind is whether the very act of working in a
Word file that has inserted .jpg pictures in any way causes any image quality
loss to those pictures when your edits are to text only.


I am producing customer facing documents and want to proceed with the most
prudent approach. Further, the engineering team I support look to me for
guidance on these types of documentation processes for their activities. I do
not want to steer them wrong.

Thanks for the mentoring.

 

[CyberTaz]

No problem on the double post - stuff happens It's just that many people
seem to suffer from Immediate Gratification Syndrome

Once again see the in line comments below:

On 10/31/07 10:10 AM, in article
(e-mail address removed), "cayce"

Thanks Bob for giving me this update. First, my apologies on posting twice, I
had a computer glitch on my end at the time of the 1st post and thought it
went into la la land.

I have a couple follow up questions. You mentioned "The Insert command
(IMHO) is generally Š." What does IMHO mean?

In My Humble Opinion - a self-effacing acronym often used to imply humility
or avoid sounding pompous

You also mentioned that pasting instead of inserting bypasses Word's import
filters. Can you please expand on these import filters, their purpose and
usefulness?

Without going into technical detail, Word includes import filters that
interpret foreign file content (graphics as well as others) & allow it to
store the data accurately within the doc. In the case of images Word only
displays the screen version but stores the graphic file data for printing.
Separate filters are also available for other formats. For more info see:

<http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HP051893461033.aspx?pid=CH0634440610
33> >

You also mentioned you often are getting a low-res screen image when
copying, but that it depends on where you are copying from. Can you elaborate
on the "depends on where you are copying from"?

Perhaps I should have written "what" rather than "where". If the image being
copied is a low res image in the first place it isn't so much of a problem.
However, the typical monitor displays only 96 ppi, so that's all the
clipboard "sees" 7 that's what you get - even if the underlying graphic file
is 300, 600, even1200 ppi or higher.

I have gotten in the habit of inserting .png instead of .jpg for pictures.
Do you see any hazards in my approach? As I understand it, .png files do not
use the compression that can cause image quality loss the way .jpgs do.
Another question that comes to mind is whether the very act of working in a
Word file that has inserted .jpg pictures in any way causes any image quality
loss to those pictures when your edits are to text only.

Lossiness of jpeg is most commonly a problem if the actual image file is
repeatedly edited & re-saved. The file loses data each time the save takes
place and eventually degrades to the point of being unusable. The more
common concern with jpegs is that they often include artifacts ("speckles")
that may be noticeable. PNGs can be a viable alternative, but they are
limited to 256 colors (PNG8), so they're best used in place of GIFs (such as
in logos). For full color photographs where detail requires millions of
colors jpeg will render a better locally printed result - provided the file
is properly prepared in a graphics app first.

I am producing customer facing documents and want to proceed with the most
prudent approach. Further, the engineering team I support look to me for
guidance on these types of documentation processes for their activities. I do
not want to steer them wrong.

There's tons of information out there if you Google for it & the MS site
provides some as well. I don't claim to be an authority - especially since
much of the data appears to be contradictory from one authoritative source
to another

Thanks for the mentoring.

Regards |:>)
Bob Jones
[MVP] Office:Mac

 

[cayce]

thanks for the additional education. This helps me understand what is
occurring.

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Hi Bob,

Ummm, FWIW, the information on PNG isn't quite complete

While .PNG does allow for 'pallette based' saves, which then can limit one to a GIF like 256 color mapped pallete, PNG also supports
truecolor, RGB images up to 48 bit so you can have the 'millions of colors' (or 16 bit greyscale) although JPEG (when used as the
final rather than as the inprocess editing format) often presents truecolor images better.

The flexibility in PNG is one of the design features for suitable use in both web and in image editing. The Office implementation
isn't limited to the png-8 pallette.

=========

[snip]<<<Lossiness of jpeg is most commonly a problem if the actual image file is
repeatedly edited & re-saved. The file loses data each time the save takes
place and eventually degrades to the point of being unusable. The more
common concern with jpegs is that they often include artifacts ("speckles")
that may be noticeable. PNGs can be a viable alternative, but they are
limited to 256 colors (PNG8), so they're best used in place of GIFs (such as
in logos). For full color photographs where detail requires millions of
colors jpeg will render a better locally printed result - provided the file
is properly prepared in a graphics app first. >>[snip]
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[CyberTaz]

Hi Bob -

Quite right - I should have been a bit more thorough about that I was a
bit leery as it depends to a certain extent on how the PNG was generated...
And (in my experience) I see PNGs most commonly created for web design.