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

-------------------------------------------------------------------
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------

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