RE: Re: Advice on designing graphics and mis-information

These articles are from the print version -- everyone is entitled to
their own opinion. I stand by mine ------------ again ENOUGH SAID ON
THE SUBJECT ----------------

--- Paul Clark <pclark(at)gate.net> wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ms. Durham (my apologies on that Mr. Durham thing in
> my first response),
> 
> >Macworld and PCWorld have in-depth articles this
> month on this issue --
> >I suggest you read them. Bitmaps in and of their
> nature can be blurry
> >and can have ragges edges -- this is why vector
> graphics are preferred
> >and why there is a push to have a vector format for
> the web  that can
> >work, work well and be accepted.
> 
> I appreciate the information you provided on
> blurry-ness of the BMP format.
> I have yet to see the lack of quality you describe
> when printing client
> documents containing BMPs. I searched PCWorld.com
> and MacWorld.com looking
> for the articles you mentioned (I don't subscribe to
> those magazines) and
> could not find them online. Did you read them
> online, and if so, could you
> please provide a URL as I would be interested in
> reading them? Without
> reading the articles I cannot comment upon them with
> any accuracy but....
> were the blurry BMP files you mentioned 1-bit (2
> colors), 4-bit (16
> colors), 8-bit (256 colors) or 24-bit (16 million
> colors) and the blurry
> print was produced by what type of output device
> (InkJet, Laser, digital
> 4-color printer, lithograph)? Was the BMP produced
> with MSPaint or with
> Photoshop? Was it enlarged when printed? What
> resolution was the image and
> the output device? So many factors...
> 
> I would love to see a vector format for the web... I
> still wouldn't use it
> to display photo-realistic images however. What does
> vector images have to
> do with this bitmap image discussion? Did you want
> to argue about those as
> well? =)
> 
> Of course, when dealing with print, file format of
> choice for me is TIFF
> for bitmap images and EPS for vector artwork. GIF
> and JPG for the Web. As
> with everything else, choice of file format is based
> upon your application.
> I didn't bother mentioning how on video adapters
> that can't display more
> than 256 colors at a time, programs that read and
> display BMP files can
> program these RGB values into the adapters' color
> palettes for accurate
> color reproduction because I didn't believe it
> pertinent information. I
> also didn't mention the slow display rate of the BMP
> format which makes it
> a poor choice for animation because I felt it also
> wasn't applicable to
> Mrs. Geary's question. I did mention the RGB color
> limit which in and of
> itself should have precluded BMP images from being
> used in high-end print. 
> 
> I was not trying to give a Master's course in image
> file formats... just
> refute your statement that the BMP format is good
> only for PowerPoint or
> Word, Low-Res and "cheesy clip art." I just tend to
> be a bit long winded. I
> sometimes feel I should have been a teacher just so
> I would have a captive
> audience. 
> 
> Half of the problems people have with graphics are
> of their own making. I
> have seen TIFF, PCX, BMP, GIF, JPG, etc. images that
> look horrid but not
> because of their format. TIFF images are even more
> complex then BMP.
> Different TIFF readers following different versions
> of the TIFF standards
> or only supporting certain subsets of the standards.
> RLE and LZW
> compression. Multiple images in a single file each
> having it's own IDC and
> subset tags.
> 
> >Well Ive never seen anyone in a studio or service
> Bureau use bitmaps
> >(meaning files with a .bmp extension) for anything
> outside of low-end
> >projects. Most people discourage using that format
> for 
> >camera-ready art because of the reasons I detailed
> in earlier post
> 
> I have. I have seen clients by the score using
> everything from GIF to JPG
> to BMP in software from Word and WordPerfect through
> PowerPoint, Publisher,
> Illustrator and Multi-Ad Maker (!?). Printers are at
> the mercy of their
> clients software applications and lack of knowledge.
> Production people can
> scream and yell about quality and standardization
> but when sales hears
> "700,000 piece run so long as we accept their
> brochure in PowerPoint97
> format with embedded BMP files" production logic
> loses to the sounds of
> coins changing hands.
> 
> >If you want blurry graphics with ragged edges that
> dont always print
> >well -- enjoy.
> >But who am I -----------------
> 
> *sniffle* sure... just leave me with nasty graphics.
> 
> When working for others it doesn't matter what you
> want but what the client
> wants and is willing to pay for. As for who you are,
> if you really are
> interested in voicing your personal ontology feel
> free. I will always listen.
> 
> >Nuff said
> 
> I agree. I'll shut up now and give my fingers a
> rest. If you wish to
> continue this discussion/argument we can do so
> without cluttering up the list.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Clark
> pclark(at)gate.net
> 
> Art History / Graphic Design / HTML / JS / Perl / VB
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

_____________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free (at)yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA