Hi, Chris,

May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics image. As you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(

On 8/25/14 3:43 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

the PDF export created on my Mac works fine. Unfortunately, at her end, it needs to be a vector file, a PDF will not suffice.

The PDF should be vector. At least when I save as PDF it's vector ;)

Chris

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

Postscript might be a solution, but neither of us know enough about postscript to work with it.

On 8/25/14 4:09 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:

Postscript might be a solution? As far as I know that is a vector format? (I could be wrong, however)

-Another Chris

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003... mailto:snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

Hi, Chris,

May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have
will not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a
graphics image.  As you might snidely guess, is MS software.  :-(


On 8/25/14 3:43 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:

...

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Ken Springer<snowshed1@...3003...>  <mailto:snowshed1@...3003...>  wrote:

...

the PDF export created on my Mac works fine. Unfortunately, at her end,
it needs to be a vector file, a PDF will not suffice.

The PDF should be vector.  At least when I save as PDF it's vector ;)

Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net  <mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/

---

Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

Thanks for the explanation, Tav.

Ken

On 8/26/14 1:20 AM, Tavmjong Bah wrote:

On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:09 -0700, Chris Tooley wrote:

...

Postscript might be a solution? As far as I know that is a vector format? (I could be wrong, however)

PostScript and PDF are related vector file formats that allow bitmaps to be embedded, just like SVG (not surprising as Adobe, the creator of PostScript and PDF, was heavily involved with SVG before they bought Flash). PostScript is a full-fledged computer programming language. Adobe realized that few people actually used the programming part so they stripped that out (it required a large amount of resources to run), made some other modifications (i.e. per page compression) and released the result as PDF.

Inkscape can import and export both PostScript and PDF.

Tav

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

She is using Inkscape for Windows, without company permission. :-) And she does not have the authority to force any changes. They already told her to stop using a DTP program she likes in lieu of MS Publisher, but she got so frustrated with the extra work to get things done with MS Publisher, she went back to the program she was using before.

I don't know if anyone in her company has Adobe Illustrator, or it's successor if there is one.

Do you know of any program that would convert an SVG file to some other format?

Right now, the temp answer may be to save a PDF, but we're searching for something that will let other users have a vector file to work with.

On 8/25/14 4:13 PM, Martin Owens wrote:

On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

...

Hi, Chris,

May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics image. As you might snidely guess, is MS software. :-(

Please use inkscape for windows. There is no point trying to convert to wmf or other sub-standard vector format if the user is on windows. It's not like we're charging a lot of money for the windows version of inkscape ;-)

SVG files can also be opened by Adobe Illustrator and viewed using a web browser such as Firefox, Chrome and even IE 8+

Martin,

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

I don't know if her preferred DTP software will import SVG files. What we have to deal with is, MS Publisher 2010 must be able to utilize the finished file. There's no option there. People think MS stuff is the be all end all and simply won't consider anything else. :-(

So, instead of having a single vector file that can be easily scaled to any size, we may end up exporting a number of different sizes of jpgs for everyone else to use.

Ken

On 8/25/14 7:07 PM, Gary Hawkins wrote:

there a few svg to.... converters online, a search should turn up a few depending on what format you want to convert to.

I take it the DTP software cannot use svg as that IS vector.

Gaz

On 26 August 2014 00:55, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003... mailto:snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

She is using Inkscape for Windows, without company permission. 
:-)  And she does not have the authority to force any changes. 
They already told her to stop using a DTP program she likes in
lieu of MS Publisher, but she got so frustrated with the extra
work to get things done with MS Publisher, she went back to the
program she was using before.

I don't know if anyone in her company has Adobe Illustrator, or
it's successor if there is one.

Do you know of any program that would convert an SVG file to some
other format?

Right now, the temp answer may be to save a PDF, but we're
searching for something that will let other users have a vector
file to work with.



On 8/25/14 4:13 PM, Martin Owens wrote:

...

On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 15:57 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

...

Hi, Chris,

May or may not be vector, but the software the Windows users have will
not import the PDF file for use as if you were importing a graphics
image.  As you might snidely guess, is MS software.  :-(

Please use inkscape for windows. There is no point trying to convert to
wmf or other sub-standard vector format if the user is on windows. It's
not like we're charging a lot of money for the windows version of
inkscape ;-)

SVG files can also be opened by Adobe Illustrator and viewed using a web
browser such as Firefox, Chrome and even IE 8+

Martin,


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net  <mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ken Springer

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Slashdot TV.
Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
http://tv.slashdot.org/
_______________________________________________
Inkscape-user mailing list
Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/

---

Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

I talked my friend into going to a local Publisher course at the library. She'd been struggling with using Open Office to do her projects, and didn't want to change. After the class, she started saying she needed page layout software to do the work. I also took the course, my way of getting her to go, and found some of the same issues with Publisher 2007 that I found in Publisher XXXX that went with Office Professional 4.3, Windows for Workgroups days. I suspect MS just updates Publisher to work with the current operating systems and nothing else.

I tried an SVG and PDF on Zamzar, output was only bitmapped, html, and ebook variations. Not a single vector graphic format. Based on a couple of comments others have made in this thread, I suspect SVG has features in it's vector file format that no other vector format supports. Which eliminates any other vector format use for some things created in Inkscape.

As I mentioned in another post, changing the corporate mindset is not on her agenda. It probably doesn't help that it's an international corporation.

I've wanted to try Scribus, but have never had the time.

Ken

On 8/26/14 9:02 AM, Chris Mohler wrote:

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:51 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

I don't know if her preferred DTP software will import SVG files. What we have to deal with is, MS Publisher 2010 must be able to utilize the finished file. There's no option there.

Ah. Publisher. Lovely ;)

Whenever someone sends me a .PUB, I use Zamzar ( http://www.zamzar.com/ ) to convert it to something I can open. Perhaps you can try the other way around? I'd try feeding it SVG or PDF and asking for EPS, EMF, or WMF maybe. I'm not sure what Publisher wants for vector import - I haven't used it in ages, and don't plan to ;)

Convince corporate to use Scribus for DTP, and you're doing everyone a favor ;)

Chris

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

From what I've read in the past, my impression was that Scribus was not at that level. It's nice to know it is.

I've avoided mentioning the DTP program she's using so no one would get upset, but it's Serif's Page Plus X6, which is 2 versions old. I have no idea of the power of X8. When I used Atari computers, I used Calamus, which is still available, and the equal of Quark and InDesign.

Serif was getting rid of their copies of X6, only cost me $25, and a good way to get her to try page layout software. Now she's hooked! LOL

But we now have put Scribus on the list of something to try if/when her uses evolve to wanting to do more than X6 is capable of.

Ken

On 8/26/14 10:57 AM, Jon A. Cruz wrote:

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014, at 08:43 AM, Ken Springer wrote:

...

I've wanted to try Scribus, but have never had the time.

Just FYI that Scribus would be roughly equivalent to QuarkXPress or Adobe InDesign, perhaps leaning more strongly to Quark. Those are the more professional apps used by the printing industry (moreso than MS stuff).

Since Scribus is at that 'pro' level, it does take a bit more to learn. However it's generally considered worth the effort.

I've tried to get her to at least get permission to use what she prefers, but she won't go for it. But, maybe frustration will bring about a change, since she finally got tired of Publisher and, since she has admin privileges on her computer (laptop), she put her preferred software on anyway, and now Inkscape.

I had to work on her to get her to do her first project in Inkscape rather than a photo editing program, but now that she's found some of the special effects, she's off and running.

Ken

On 8/25/14 7:44 PM, Martin Owens wrote:

On Mon, 2014-08-25 at 17:55 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

...

She is using Inkscape for Windows, without company permission. :-) And she does not have the authority to force any changes. They already told her to stop using a DTP program she likes in lieu of MS Publisher, but she got so frustrated with the extra work to get things done with MS Publisher, she went back to the program she was using before.

I don't know if anyone in her company has Adobe Illustrator, or it's successor if there is one.

Sounds like the company is broken. File a requisition, protest or other form of officious paperwork requiring an audit of the workflow. If no one in a company pushes back against dumb, then the company blindly goes on mindlessly performing things in ways that are not in it's best interest.

IMO It's every employee's responsibility to flag silly corporate behavior when they see it. And I think this counts are super bad.

Good luck!

Martin,

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

I was beginning to suspect the other vector formats do not support some of the features of SVG. I ran into similar issues 20 or so years ago with vector file formats.

The special effects did not work for her in her PDF file, but it did for me. I find out if that option is turned on in her Inkscape install.

It looks like Inkscape doesn't export/save jpg files. :-( Hope that's remedied in the next version. We've discovered that PNG is not always the best file format. What bothers me most about the format is the sheer size, since it's lossless, just like TIFF.

Ken

On 8/26/14 1:11 AM, Donn wrote:

On 26/08/2014 03:59, Ken Springer wrote:

...

but now that she's found some of the special effects, she's off and running.

This sounds like a problem.

Generally, the "special effects" (Filters menu) will not survive the journey *out* of SVG.

In the PDF export screen there's the option to turn the filters into bitmaps - that's the only way those effects make it through. (This can make the file rather large - depending on the size of your drawing and the number of parts that are effects.)

I think exporting a range of jpg files in various sizes will work best for you.

/d

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

Zamzar is a good site to try to remember, so no problem there.

Now that the special effects issue is rattling around in the head, memories kick in, and I can see the potential problems with any vector type drawing program.

Ken

On 8/26/14 10:27 AM, Chris Mohler wrote:

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

The special effects did not work for her in her PDF file, but it did for me. I find out if that option is turned on in her Inkscape install.

Special effects are almost always a problem, no matter what program you're using For example if I've added a drop shadow in Illustrator, I have to rasterize that before turning it in or there's a good chance the PDF will glitch when it's printed.

My bad on Zamzar - 99% of the time I'm just turning .PUB files info .PDF so I can open them. When I try to convert a .SVG, the only vector format available is PDF, which gets you right back to where you started from ;)

Chris

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

No problem on the export thingy, I'd looked for it some time back and couldn't find it. So I thought I just missed it.

The PDF issue is apparently resolved, my friend can't remember exactly what it was she was doing that caused problems. I chalk all of that up to the "learning curve".

We seem to have the issues either solved or workarounds figured out, and she's not as frustrated now. Her first project, very simple, turned out really nice, and now she's tweaking it. LOL

Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open source projects have some catching up to do. Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on Libre Office. I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source software that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work to do the additional converting.

My 2 pet peeves with Inkscape on this Mac are what I suspect is a normal Linux file explorer and open/save dialogs, and highlighted text is white letters on yellow background, almost impossible to see. Oh, and greyed out text is all but invisible.

Maybe there are settings for that, I haven't had time to look.

Ken

My 2 pet b On 8/26/14 10:29 AM, Donn Ingle wrote:

When I said export jpg, I meant export png and then convert those to jpg. Sorry, I'm used to the process and on Linux it's a simple convert command.

For PDF files that are missing the effects, look to the dialog that opens when you save to pdf format. There's a tick box there that tells it to make images (bitmaps) of everything with effects. If you have it off, they will be missing in the pdf. (With that option enabled, the PDF produced is not pure vector because of all the bitmaps mixed-in.)

All in all, Inkscape is not quite end-to-end and you'll need to supplement your process with other software and make some compromises.

Good luck. /d

On 26 August 2014 17:56, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

I was beginning to suspect the other vector formats do not support some of the features of SVG. I ran into similar issues 20 or so years ago with vector file formats.

The special effects did not work for her in her PDF file, but it did for me. I find out if that option is turned on in her Inkscape install.

It looks like Inkscape doesn't export/save jpg files. :-( Hope that's remedied in the next version. We've discovered that PNG is not always the best file format. What bothers me most about the format is the sheer size, since it's lossless, just like TIFF.

Ken

On 8/26/14 1:11 AM, Donn wrote:

...

On 26/08/2014 03:59, Ken Springer wrote:

...

but now that she's found some of the special effects, she's off and running.

This sounds like a problem.

Generally, the "special effects" (Filters menu) will not survive the journey *out* of SVG.

In the PDF export screen there's the option to turn the filters into bitmaps - that's the only way those effects make it through. (This can make the file rather large - depending on the size of your drawing and the number of parts that are effects.)

I think exporting a range of jpg files in various sizes will work best for you.

/d

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

On 8/26/14 12:58 PM, Martin Owens wrote:

Ken,

Inkscape isn't ever going to export to jpeg.

That is their choice.

But you know, that course just makes it harder for them to get many computer users to choose their product. If that's their choice, they also should not be surprised at it, nor complain privately about their program's acceptance in general.

On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 11:21 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

...

Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open source projects have some catching up to do.

No. No. No. Open Source doesn't "catch up" it simply is what users have invested it to be. It's not here to meet your expectations, it's hear to allow you to meet them for yourself. Open Source isn't freeware and it's not a charity. It's something much bigger and more important fundamentally to how software is constructed and why users should care about how it's made and be literally involved.

No matter who the user is, the user comes with expectations. The proportion of users who are capable of making changes to the software, in one way or another, are minimal in today's world.

How it's constructed and made isn't worth much if it doesn't do the job the user desires, and the user cannot contribute in whatever way. Even more so, it's depressing to try to participate in a project only to be told your concerns are not important enough to be considered.

...

Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on Libre Office.

Did you try getting involved to solve the issues? If Libre Office had a fundraiser, would you help?

I did. My only contribution could be reporting of bugs. I'm not a programmer, I'm a computer user, looking for software that does the job I need. Then when it doesn't, be told your issues are not important? Why would I donate to a fundraiser when I've been told the issue isn't important?

...

I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source software that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work to do the additional converting.

The unix model which most open source projects follow is "do one thing well" and not "do a million things sort of ok". this is the same sort of kind of model Apple follows. We're not going to convert raster images in inkscape because inkscape is a vector editor and not a raster converter tool. Using more than one tool isn't a burden on users, it's an opportunity.

But often having only 1 tool is a limitation. MS seems to follow the idea of doing a lot of things, but usually poorly. That's been their reputation for years. If Inkscape combined vector drawing with raster editing plus a bit of page layout/word processing capabilities, I'd agree they would likely be doing a million things sort of OK. Which it already does to a very limited extent. You have basic text capabilities, which includes kerning. That's a text function which MS Word and Publisher do not have.

You already convert to a raster image with the export of the PNG format. If you don't want to convert to raster images, take PNG export out.

But exporting in a bitmapped format has nothing to do with the tool, Inkscape. The tool is what lets you create the graphic. The filetype is just the end result, having nothing to do with the actual creation of the original graphic.

Mind you, I'm not saying Inkscape is a bad product. I'm saying the limitation of just the one raster format, one that is not that well known to many users, will limit its acceptance by others. Myself, I've not given up on it, but I'm sure the highlighting issue will eventually drive me away. My eyes are not what they used to be. :-(

On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:41 AM, Brynn <brynn@...3089...> wrote:

Is this something that's changed, over the years? Or was that just plain inaccurate info?

To put it simply, if it's not on the roadmap and if nobody specifically has it in their plans, I wouldn't expect it. I'm not aware of anyone working on implementing exporting to other raster formats at this time. Does that mean nobody will ever have that itch? No. But it's not really a high priority for the core team as things stand.

Cheers, Josh

To put it simply, if it's not on the roadmap and if nobody specifically has it in their plans, I wouldn't expect it. I'm not aware of anyone working on implementing exporting to other raster formats at this time. Does that mean nobody will ever have that itch? No. But it's not really a high priority for the core team as things stand.

But if someone else will implement exporting in different bittmap formats (it will be most probably only few lines of code, because all the low-level work is handled by the GTK library; the only difficulty would be to find the place where to put them), would it be accepted into the official version?

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 12:45 AM, A. da Mek wrote:

But if someone else will implement exporting in different bittmap formats (it will be most probably only few lines of code, because all the low-level work is handled by the GTK library; the only difficulty would be to find the place where to put them), would it be accepted into the official version?

Yes...

However it would probably be quite a bit more than just a few lines of code. To handle JPEG properly, significant interactive GUI work is also needed. A good reference would be to see how GIMP handles this.

http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-images-out.html#file-jpeg-load

Things get especially 'interesting' when you enable the "Show preview in image window" checkbox. The main GIMP window for the image suddenly becomes the live preview that allows the end user to get the correct settings figured out.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014, at 09:52 AM, A. da Mek wrote:

Dne 29.8.2014 v 8:21 Jon A. Cruz napsal(a):

...

However it would probably be quite a bit more than just a few lines of code. To handle JPEG properly, significant interactive GUI work is also needed. A good reference would be to see how GIMP handles this.

Of course the full implementation of all options and metadata would be complex, but what I was thinking about was simply to use the "gdk_pixbuf_save" function, which saves as "jpeg", "png", "ico" and "bmp", and more formats may be installed. It allows to set the "quality" parameter, but even with some fixed value (for example 85) it could be enough for what many users need. So no extra GUI would be added, only in the dialog "Select a filename for exporting", the combo "Save as type" would have more items.

Yes... but the problem is that in general this ends up with half a solution which for end users is often worse than no solution. Especially being a graphics program, our end users tend to have more than the minimal case expectations. At a minimum we need a preview to show what the different settings will do.

We've looked into this several times, and unfortunately raw gdk_pixbuf_save use by itself probably won't make many end users happy. One of the possible results is that people don't get the quality of JPEG that they need (too large filesize, too blocky, etc.) and tell people 'Inkscape sucks, don't use it'.

Yes it is bikeshedding.

Just a reminder, from previous comments about who should or shouldn't use free software, how open source works, to less than subtle political statements about the US, that stuff really isn't appropriate for this list. There are plenty of other discussion groups online to meet your needs if that's what you want to talk about.

We embrace the wide audience that Inkscape has found and encourage people to use it if it works for them. If it's found to be lacking in some way, the bug tracker is probably a better place to make requests or report issues.

Cheers, Josh

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Steve Litt <slitt@...2357...> wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 11:05:13 -0700 "Jon A. Cruz" <jon@...204...> wrote:

...

We've looked into this several times, and unfortunately raw gdk_pixbuf_save use by itself probably won't make many end users happy. One of the possible results is that people don't get the quality of JPEG that they need (too large filesize, too blocky, etc.) and tell people 'Inkscape sucks, don't use it'.

Which just goes to prove: No good deed goes unpunished!

LOL, this whole thing is kind of bikeshedding anyway. We're using more electronic ink discussing one arcane export, that can be easily handled with a known good converter, than discussing an entire, SVG compliant vector graphics program.

SteveT

Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

On 8/26/14 3:53 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

Not being "end-to-end" is an issue where it seems most open source projects have some catching up to do. Plus bugs, which is why I finally gave up on Libre Office. I think that's frustrating for many new uses of open source software that are used to more options instead of having to go to extra work to do the additional converting.

I find the opposite. I have InDesign 2014 and it's impossible for me to overstate how much I loathe booting into Win7 to use it. And from the days of Illustrator 6 and Photoshop 4 all the way through the current versions of the Adobe suite there have always been potential pitfalls when moving items from one program to another. In other words, I find it *easier* to move most things through formats in the open-source world. To be fair, some things are harder.

Agreed, there's always been the pitfalls, and always will be. Simply no way around it, as programmers make mistakes, specs for a particular file format often changes as time goes by, and new features will always come along.

These days, though, most people who use computers don't want to have to do things outside the program they are using. I'd wager most don't know how, and don't want to have to go through those extra steps. In fact, my friend is downright pi$$ed it doesn't export jpg, which arguably is probably the most common file format out there for graphics. And for her use, and my usual uses, jpg is the better choice.

Myself, I'll do it, but I don't like doing it anymore. I simply want to get the job done as fast as I can. By fast, that means eliminating any other needed steps of other software when I know some software will do it for me.

Is it Adobe, Win7, or both that you loathe?

I'm way happier with linux as my main OS and XP running in its little virtual "jail cell" for when I need the Adobe stuff. I have lots of little scripts and tweaks that really make my life a thousand times easier than when in I'm in Windows. I think my favorite is the 'chop' command. 'chop 2 4' means: take every PDF in the folder, remove all pages except 2 and 4. Really stupid, but beats having to fire up some GUI once a month to trim a set of files. I could go on, but I won't ;)

I really would like to try Linux. On the computer I built, I even left space on the boot drive to install Linux some day. But time is a factor, I have none. LOL So, those extra steps you don't mind doing keeps me just further away from the opportunity to try Linux.

The fact that you have those scripts and tweaks puts you in a class of user apart from the average user today. That's not a bad thing, but it's also something I lost interest in long, long ago. There are other things in my life I'd rather do. :-)

It also depends on the users needs. For me, I might have to do something like your chop command once in 4 months. That's not worth my time to even attempt a script, since I can do the same thing using Preview in OS X Mountain Lion. Not as quickly, but not really egregious either.

Anyway, wandering a bit more toward the topic - Scribus doesn't have all of the features of InDesign (nor will it, or should it). But it is a solid DTP program, and makes excellent PDFs. When I need to lay out a multi-page item, it's my first choice. Never had any trouble importing Inkscape drawings into Scribus either.

I can't imagine ever needing all the features of InDesign. Heck, I don't even know what they are. LOL Even worse, I can't imagine even wanting to pay for it. <G>

Being an open source program, I'm not surprised there's no problem importing Inkscape drawings. Just like you rarely have problems importing MS files into MS software. From the outside looking in, it seems there's a lot of cooperation in this area.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Jon A. Cruz <jon@...204...> wrote:

there are fun combinations of things that just would not work, all within MS products themselves.

+1 - and it's ever so lovely how Word silently substitutes fonts. Even in a MS office, I always open the doc in LibreOffice or OpenOffice to see what the font was supposed to be ;)

Chris

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

Is it Adobe, Win7, or both that you loathe?

It's a double-whammy. I log in, fire up some programs, head over to desktop #2 and... oh wait. No desktop #2. Grr. I *could* fire up an app that bolts on multiple desktops, but it's a little wonky. No right-click and open a terminal? Bummer. Hmm, my tablet isn't working - time for a little hide-and-seek in the Control Panel.

Then I fire up the behemoth that is InDesign, go make coffee, then come back and try and find the handful of functions I need that are expertly hidden all over the UI ;)

I really would like to try Linux. On the computer I built, I even left space on the boot drive to install Linux some day. But time is a factor, I have none. LOL So, those extra steps you don't mind doing keeps me just further away from the opportunity to try Linux.

Truly, in 2014 installing Linux Mint is a cake walk. No futzing around with drivers or codecs or anything - if anything it was *easier* than installing Win7 on this machine. Certainly, more of the hardware was working "out of the box" in linux than Win7. Tablet drivers, printer drivers - ugh, no fun.

The fact that you have those scripts and tweaks puts you in a class of user apart from the average user today. That's not a bad thing, but it's also something I lost interest in long, long ago. There are other things in my life I'd rather do. :-)

And that's why I have the script ;) See here: http://xkcd.com/1205/

I can't stand boring, repetitive tasks. I had to overlay some text and graphics on 30 or 40 photos the other day, so I figured out a one-liner to do it. I probably could have done them by hand almost as quickly, or maybe even faster - but the next batch is going to take all of 30 seconds. I try and give best possible value to my clients, so making my operations as efficient as possible directly benefits them, and keeps me valuable to them - a win-win.

I can't imagine ever needing all the features of InDesign. Heck, I don't even know what they are. LOL Even worse, I can't imagine even wanting to pay for it. <G>

I only truly need it b/c there's absolutely nothing else that can open and operate on a recent INDD file. But the licensing is almost reasonable these days. I have the single app for $30 per month, if memory serves.

Chris

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:47 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

Being adverse to any kind of coding these days, if I had to do what it sounds like you're doing I'd probably use a macro recorder.

Bah :) That isn't coding - just BASH golf: run [command]. Did it work? No. Run [command --with-other-options]. Did it work? No, but it's closer to the hole. Putt until the ball goes in the hole, copy it down for next time ;) I think a GUI for that would just piss me off.

As far as your comments on linux: I'm not sure how well Mint would do on elderly hardware. If you have a beefy graphics card, give it a whirl (at least the live CD, bearing in mind there's going to be some lag while it's reading off the disc) . Most Mac hardware is loaded for bear when it comes to the GPU, though - so you might be OK. There are other distros that focus on being lightweight, and - and this is the great thing about open OSes - you could always install something like Mint, but then change the WM to something really spartan like fluxbox. But of course that's the fiddling you don't want to do ;)

And not to rant/rave about open source, but you may not know that the only reason OS X exists at all is that Apple forked one of the BSDs (openBSD or netBSD - I don't remember).

Chris

PS - at least two members of my local LUG are in California, and that's got to be at least a thousand miles away. Still a good group ;)

PPS - I'm not usually this active on this list; but your comments on workflow/toolchain compelled me to respond. I use both open-source and proprietary programs every day, and format-shifting is second nature by now, but it's always sticky!

On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:02:54 -0600 Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

On 8/26/14 3:53 PM, Chris Mohler wrote:

[clip]

...

I find the opposite. I have InDesign 2014 and it's impossible for me to overstate how much I loathe booting into Win7 to use it.

[clip]

These days, though, most people who use computers don't want to have to do things outside the program they are using. I'd wager most don't know how, and don't want to have to go through those extra steps. In fact, my friend is downright pi$$ed it doesn't export jpg, which arguably is probably the most common file format out there for graphics. And for her use, and my usual uses, jpg is the better choice.

Myself, I'll do it, but I don't like doing it anymore. I simply want to get the job done as fast as I can. By fast, that means eliminating any other needed steps of other software when I know some software will do it for me.

I think I've come late to the party, but why would one want to export to jpg? Is she going to touch it up with Gimp to make it less vectorish? Is she putting it into some kind of document that can use .jpg but not .svg or .png? (who does that anymore?)

It's gotten to the point where all my diagrams are .svg now. It's smaller, it scales better, and every browser made in the past 5 years can handle it. The .svg format is the preferred ePub image format. About the only thing I can think of that can't handle .svg is TeX and friends.

[clip]

I really would like to try Linux. On the computer I built, I even left space on the boot drive to install Linux some day. But time is a factor, I have none. LOL So, those extra steps you don't mind doing keeps me just further away from the opportunity to try Linux.

Ahhhh, nowwww I understand the context of what you were saying about having one program do it and not having to use multiple programs. Before I used Linux, I felt the exact same way.

You should try Linux. It changed my whole perspective about computing. Maybe it will do the same for you. You might develop a love for Inkscape's --export-plain-svg and --export-pdf and the like. I'd suggest you join a Linux User Group. If you don't know of one you can start with mine, GoLUG.org. You don't need to live in Central Florida.

Anyway, I've found the combination of Inkscape and Linux to be powerful indeed.

SteveT

Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance

On Tue, 2014-08-26 at 17:02 -0600, Ken Springer wrote:

jpg is the better choice.

No.

http://www.rastertovector.com/r2v-articles/why-jpeg-files-are-bad-for-raster...

Martin,

A lossless file format is virtually of no use for us. Transparency, maybe. In that case, if a PNG didn't exist, it's easily created with conversion routines.

No, it isn't easy to create a transparent PNG from a JPEG. Due to anti-aliasing you can't just remove the white background from an image without (usually) leaving intermediate pixels at the edges of your objects, producing a white outline if you place the transparent image on a non-white background. The only way to reliably get a transparent image is to export it as such from the original source application directly to a format that supports alpha transparency - which pretty much means PNG these days.

It's trivial to flatten a transparent PNG to produce a JPEG or other format using another application, if necessary. As such I see no particular reason why Inkscape needs a JPEG export option. These days if an application that is supposed to handle raster images can't load a PNG directly I would consider it to be broken. That goes doubly for a DTP program - what happens when you want a vector logo, exported as a bitmap, to be placed over another image? Good luck sorting that one out with a format that doesn't support transparency.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but I didn't want you left with the impression that it's easy to convert a JPEG to a transparent PNG, only to discover it's not once it's too late to do anything about it.

Mark

It's trivial to flatten a transparent PNG to produce a JPEG or other format using another application, if necessary. As such I see no particular reason why Inkscape needs a JPEG export option. These days if an application that is supposed to handle raster images can't load a PNG directly I would consider it to be broken. That goes doubly for a DTP program - what happens when you want a vector logo, exported as a bitmap, to be placed over another image? Good luck sorting that one out with a format that doesn't support transparency.

No, Inkscape doesn't have to. But, if the user is like me, and wants to maximize their time to be efficient, a program that does the same thing (vector drawing) but does export JPG, that program saves me time. That time savings seems to be something that is eluding some people.

You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to whatever they want?

But don't forget to consider, the users at the other end may be using older

systems and older software. Not everyone can afford, or sees any need, to have the latest and greatest of everything. When talking about any computer related topic, you should always consider the possibility someone in the group simply may not have the newer versions of X. And you have to work to that level.

Where do you draw the line, though? How old should we cater for. What if someone's still using software that pre-dates JPEG? Hmmm... perhaps Inkscape should just export in one or two open formats that can easily be converted to others - even pre-JPEG ones - using other software.

But, if the program isn't supposed to support PNG, the program isn't broken, it simply doesn't have the feature you want. Just like I want Inkscape to export to JPG. That doesn't make Inkscape broken, it just doesn't do what I want/look for. Like a car that only has AM radio, but you want FM also.

If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap format with alpha channels then I *do* consider it broken as it prevents you from doing a lot of basic things, like putting a logo over an image. It doesn't have to be PNG, but in practice that's pretty much the only widespread open format that does the job.

Inkscape not exporting JPEG doesn't prevent you doing anything, it just adds an extra external step if you absolutely must have a JPEG.

Therefore I consider one case to be broken, and the other not. One stops you performing the basic tasks the program is there for, the other doesn't. Inkscape exports in the only widely used open raster format that supports alpha transparency and saves losslessly; from that high-fidelity original it's down to the user to accept the trade-offs of converting to something else, and to pick their preferred tool for doing so.

Mark

On 8/28/14 9:44 AM, Mark Crutch wrote:

...

It's trivial to flatten a transparent PNG to produce a JPEG or
other format using another application, if necessary. As such I
see no particular reason why Inkscape needs a JPEG export option.
These days if an application that is supposed to handle raster
images can't load a PNG directly I would consider it to be
broken. That goes doubly for a DTP program - what happens when
you want a vector logo, exported as a bitmap, to be placed over
another image? Good luck sorting that one out with a format that
doesn't support transparency.

No, Inkscape doesn't have to.  But, if the user is like me, and
wants to maximize their time to be efficient, a program that does
the same thing (vector drawing) but does export JPG, that program
saves me time.  That time savings seems to be something that is
eluding some people.

You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to whatever they want?

You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend the extra time.

But don't forget to consider, the users at the other end may be
using older systems and older software.  Not everyone can afford,
or sees any need, to have the latest and greatest of everything. 
When talking about any computer related topic, you should always
consider the possibility someone in the group simply may not have
the newer versions of X.  And you have to work to that level.

Where do you draw the line, though? How old should we cater for. What if someone's still using software that pre-dates JPEG? Hmmm... perhaps Inkscape should just export in one or two open formats that can easily be converted to others - even pre-JPEG ones - using other software.

Drawing the line is always a tough question? If it were my call, I'd look at what's being used in the way of hardware/operating systems. With the plethora of XP users that are still out there, and seemingly in no hurry to upgrade, if the file format was available when XP came out, that's where I'd draw the line. Nothing directly supported for older systems.

But now you risk pi$$ing off your users who have an unknown number of files they've created, may want to use again, but can't? I think a classy organization would provide a separate program to convert the older files to a newer file so the user still has access to his/her older files. This may be easier for word processors than graphics software.

But, if the program isn't supposed to support PNG, the program
isn't broken, it simply doesn't have the feature you want.  Just
like I want Inkscape to export to JPG.  That doesn't make Inkscape
broken, it just doesn't do what I want/look for.  Like a car that
only has AM radio, but you want FM also.

If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap format with alpha channels then I *do* consider it broken as it prevents you from doing a lot of basic things, like putting a logo over an image. It doesn't have to be PNG, but in practice that's pretty much the only widespread open format that does the job.

We sure define the word "broken" differently. <G>

Bedda define the "basics" then. Because, before there was transparency, "basics" wouldn't include that ability.

Inkscape not exporting JPEG doesn't prevent you doing anything, it just adds an extra external step if you absolutely must have a JPEG.

Therefore I consider one case to be broken, and the other not. One stops you performing the basic tasks the program is there for, the other doesn't. Inkscape exports in the only widely used open raster format that supports alpha transparency and saves losslessly; from that high-fidelity original it's down to the user to accept the trade-offs of converting to something else, and to pick their preferred tool for doing so.

And if the option to export to JPG or other format were in Inkscape, it's still the user's option to accept something less.

On 8/28/14 1:52 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:

...

You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD
files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric
formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be better
to export one or two formats and allow the user to use another
application to convert to whatever they want?

You missed my point, Mark.  Moving to another application to do
the conversion takes time.  I want to minimize the time I spend,
not spend the extra time.

Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?

It's not a question of which one is superior. That will get you into an endless argument. LOL

It's a question of which format, of any kind, best suits the needs of the project. Nothing more, nothing less. For the project at hand, we don't need transparency, and we don't need a file as large as PNG files can be. Plus, others involved in the company, may or may not be able to handle the resulting image if it's a PNG. Not to mention others may never have heard of PNG. :-)

My friend's supervisor does everything in MS Publisher. Get the picture? LOL

On 8/28/14 6:22 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:

Hi! I don't want this to seem combative - I'm genuinely curious and mean all this in the most friendly of ways possible :)

I'm not taking it in that way at all! LOL And I'm sitting here shaking my head and saying to myself "What is it about these guys/gals that don't understand that time and hard drive space is important to some people?" LMAO

Besides, with luck, conversations like these actually can turn into learning experiences, where we discover new perspectives, information, etc. And I like them, to be honest. :-)

...

...

    You want JPEG export. I know others that would like
    Photoshop PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or
    other esoteric formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or
    would it be better to export one or two formats and allow
    the user to use another application to convert to whatever
    they want?

    You missed my point, Mark.  Moving to another application to
    do the conversion takes time.  I want to minimize the time I
    spend, not spend the extra time.


Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?

It's not a question of which one is superior.  That will get you
into an endless argument.   LOL

... heheh

It's a question of which format, of any kind, best suits the needs
of the project.  Nothing more, nothing less.  For the project at
hand, we don't need transparency, and we don't need a file as
large as PNG files can be.

Wait, "as large as PNG"? How large is the file you are exporting? I've had banner sized images (about 4m) and it ended up only being ~10MB with PNG..? (Granted it was kind of simple but still)

Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend that's doing all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-) Note I said as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this all came about because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she was doing something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her.

I honestly don't know the file size difference at the moment. It is a banner type graphic, but used for various purposes, possibly banners and window displays. But, she used some special effect/filter to some letters which has to increase the size of the resulting file when rasterized. I can't remember which one, but it's so cool. She works for a gold mine (for real!) and she made the letters in the company logo look somewhat 3D in gold. There's a fade type effect from white to the gold look in the fill of the letters. And now she's experimenting with applying the same effect to other letters, so the resulting file will be even larger.

At least since OS X 10.5 Leopard the default screenshot format has been PNG. Now... If all I do with screenshots is stick them in emails, maybe a document, or send to someone via Skype, why in H*** do I want to waste time and bandwidth sending something with extra features not needed? And what about people with slow internet connections? Do you really think they appreciate sitting on their thumbs waiting for the web page to load PNGs when it would render in their browser as JPGs much faster? And if the viewer wants to download the picture, link it to the PNG file.

H***, one of my neighbors just upgraded from dial up a few months ago.

So I went online and found out how to change the default screenshot file from PNG to JPG. Now my screenshots will be half to 2/3 rds the size of the PNG equivalent.

Plus, others involved in the company, may or may not be able to
handle the resulting image if it's a PNG.  Not to mention others
may never have heard of PNG.   :-)

Windows has been able to view PNG images since XP...?

I honestly don't know, but it's not so much the OS as the software the user is using you should consider.

My friend's supervisor does everything in MS Publisher.  Get the
picture?   LOL

What version of publisher is it? Publisher >= version 2000 can import PNG graphics: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/198264 (Publisher 2000 was released in 1999)

It's 2010, I think I mentioned that in another message. As I said, the problem is apparently OE... Operator Error. My Publisher comment was snide, I know there's one bug in the 2007 version that's in the version produced for Windows for Workgroups. when MS sold it as a standalone program. Plus, according to my friend, it's a POS for ease of use compared to Serif's PagePlus X6. FYI, current version is X8.

Actually, what software are you using to import the image? I am very surprised that JPG is the only format it can import.

In the end, we'll have no idea what software will be used by others in her company to view the finished items. And the logo will likely end up on the company servers for anyone to use. I wouldn't be surprised if it was used, with permission, by people outside the company. Ya gotta plan for the lowest common denominator if you don't want to pi$$ people off. <G>

In any case, I think it comes down to this: Inkscape exports to PNG because something like 98% of all graphics software since 2000 can use PNG and import/export to PNG easily. Secondly, I think implementing JPG export is unnecessary because it adds complexity to the export functionality of Inkscape - there are other tools out there that can already do a fantastic job of compressing JPG images - why does Inkscape need to duplicate functionality? :)

I'd be willing to bet you and most reading this thread have hefty systems when it comes to power, and fast internet connections. So size of the file and time to upload/download probably doesn't affect you that much. But being a user who does not have those things, it is important to me. Both the size of the file, and the time involved in all the steps.

If it's size that matters - then JPG compression has a lot of parameters you can tweak to get a better compression ratio - I would rather do that in GIMP or some other software that has proven it can do it very well than do it in Inkscape.

Lots of options for JPG. And the article my friend found said that with the right source material, a JPG could produce a superior product to PNG. Now, that doesn't make sense to me, it was just stated in the article.

:)

On a side note, it looks like EPS has been supported by publisher since Publisher version 1: (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/76385) unfortunately that link says nothing of PNG :(

EPS has been around for a long time. Even some software on my 16/32 bit Atari computers would support EPS. I think I even have a CD of EPS clipart around here someplace.

Been Skyping with my friend, the effect she used on the letters was glowing metal.

You're welcome.

On 8/28/14 7:48 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:

Fair enough :) Thanks for answering my questions!

On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003... mailto:snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

On 8/28/14 6:22 PM, Chris Tooley wrote:

...

Hi! I don't want this to seem combative - I'm genuinely curious
and mean all this in the most friendly of ways possible :)

I'm not taking it in that way at all!   LOL   And I'm sitting here
shaking my head and saying to myself "What is it about these
guys/gals that don't understand that time and hard drive space is
important to some people?"   LMAO

Besides, with luck, conversations like these actually can turn
into learning experiences, where we discover new perspectives,
information, etc.  And I like them, to be honest.  :-)

...

...

...

        You want JPEG export. I know others that would like
        Photoshop PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP
        or other esoteric formats. Should Inkscape support them
        all, or would it be better to export one or two formats
        and allow the user to use another application to
        convert to whatever they want?

        You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application
        to do the conversion takes time.  I want to minimize the
        time I spend, not spend the extra time.


    Why do you think JPG is superior to PNG for export?

    It's not a question of which one is superior.  That will get
    you into an endless argument.   LOL


... heheh

    It's a question of which format, of any kind, best suits the
    needs of the project.  Nothing more, nothing less.  For the
    project at hand, we don't need transparency, and we don't
    need a file as large as PNG files can be.


Wait, "as large as PNG"? How large is the file you are exporting?
 I've had banner sized images (about 4m) and it ended up only
being ~10MB with PNG..? (Granted it was kind of simple but still)

Back up a bit, it's not my file!    LOL   It's my friend that's
doing all this.  She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. 
:-)  Note I said as "large as PNG files can be".  Initially this
all came about because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears
she was doing something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her.

I honestly don't know the file size difference at the moment.  It
is a banner type graphic, but used for various purposes, possibly
banners and window displays.  But, she used some special
effect/filter to some letters which has to increase the size of
the resulting file when rasterized.  I can't remember which one,
but it's so cool.  She works for a gold mine (for real!) and she
made the letters in the company logo look somewhat 3D in gold.
There's a fade type effect from white to the gold look in the fill
of the letters.  And now she's experimenting with applying the
same effect to other letters, so the resulting file will be even
larger.

At least since OS X 10.5 Leopard the default screenshot format has
been PNG.   Now...  If all I do with screenshots is stick them in
emails, maybe a document, or send to someone via Skype, why in
H*** do I want to waste time and bandwidth sending something with
extra features not needed?  And what about people with slow
internet connections?  Do you really think they appreciate sitting
on their thumbs waiting for the web page to load PNGs when it
would render in their browser as JPGs much faster?  And if the
viewer wants to download the picture, link it to the PNG file.

H***, one of my neighbors just upgraded from dial up a few months ago.

So I went online and found out how to change the default
screenshot file from PNG to JPG.  Now my screenshots will be half
to 2/3 rds the size of the PNG equivalent.

...

    Plus, others involved in the company, may or may not be able
    to handle the resulting image if it's a PNG.  Not to mention
    others may never have heard of PNG.   :-)


Windows has been able to view PNG images since XP...?

I honestly don't know, but it's not so much the OS as the software
the user is using you should consider.

...

    My friend's supervisor does everything in MS Publisher.  Get
    the picture?   LOL


What version of publisher is it? Publisher >= version 2000 can
import PNG graphics: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/198264
 (Publisher 2000 was released in 1999)

It's 2010, I think I mentioned that in another message. As I said,
the problem is apparently OE... Operator Error.  My Publisher
comment was snide, I know there's one bug in the 2007 version
that's in the version produced for Windows for Workgroups. when MS
sold it as a standalone program.  Plus, according to my friend,
it's a POS for ease of use compared to Serif's PagePlus X6.  FYI,
current version is X8.

...

Actually, what software are you using to import the image? I am
very surprised that JPG is the only format it can import.

In the end, we'll have no idea what software will be used by
others in her company to view the finished items.  And the logo
will likely end up on the company servers for anyone to use.  I
wouldn't be surprised if it was used, with permission, by people
outside the company.  Ya gotta plan for the lowest common
denominator if you don't want to pi$$ people off.   <G>

...

In any case, I think it comes down to this: Inkscape exports to
PNG because something like 98% of all graphics software since
2000 can use PNG and import/export to PNG easily.
Secondly, I think implementing JPG export is unnecessary because
it adds complexity to the export functionality of Inkscape -
there are other tools out there that can already do a fantastic
job of compressing JPG images - why does Inkscape need to
duplicate functionality? :)

I'd be willing to bet you and most reading this thread have hefty
systems when it comes to power, and fast internet connections.  So
size of the file and time to upload/download probably doesn't
affect you that much. But being a user who does not have those
things, it is important to me.  Both the size of the file, and the
time involved in all the steps.

...

If it's size that matters - then JPG compression has a lot of
parameters you can tweak to get a better compression ratio - I
would rather do that in GIMP or some other software that has
proven it can do it very well than do it in Inkscape.

Lots of options for JPG.  And the article my friend found said
that with the right source material, a JPG could produce a
superior product to PNG.  Now, that doesn't make sense to me, it
was just stated in the article.

...

:)

On a side note, it looks like EPS has been supported by publisher
since Publisher version 1:
(http://support.microsoft.com/kb/76385) unfortunately that link
says nothing of PNG :(

EPS has been around for a long time.  Even some software on my
16/32 bit Atari computers would support EPS.  I think I even have
a CD of EPS clipart around here someplace.

Been Skyping with my friend, the effect she used on the letters
was glowing metal.

Not at all, Martin. :-)

A tad disappointed, maybe, but I've enjoyed the discussion, as I mentioned to Chris Tooley. But a lot of things with computers disappoint me, which is why I often keep looking for something that doesn't. :-)

Ken

On 8/28/14 11:42 PM, Martin Owens wrote:

...

Ya gotta plan for the lowest common denominator if you don't want to pi$$ people off.

Do you feel pissed off Ken?

Martin,

On 8/29/14 8:39 AM, Steve Litt wrote:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:31:27 -0600 Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend that's doing all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-) Note I said as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this all came about because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she was doing something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her. From my perspective, your friend's not a candidate for Inkscape, or any

free software: Especially any Linux/BSD/POSIX software. From what I've heard in the thread, she believes her software should give her exactly what she wants, without her having to adapt to it. For a million different reasons, that's not how free software works: It's kinda sorta how commercial software works, or is supposed to work, but it's not how free software works. Trying to evangelize Inkscape or free software in general to a person with her belief system will be frustrating as hell, unless her belief system changes.

But, she's more broke than I am! LOL

But to be fair, the dialog in Inkscape leads you to believe formats other than PNG should be available. Someone even mentioned changing the dialog's text, which is probably the best idea if nothing but PNG is ever going to be offered. Even I expected Inkscape to do something other than PNG based on the export process.

Not that she won't adapt, but the export dialog is misleading.

She's always fighting with Open Office too, more because things don't work. With the new projects in her job, she found out that MS Word export in OO isn't all that good. I've tried a couple free office suites touting Word compatibility and... none were reliable.

On 8/29/14 10:23 AM, Steve Litt wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 09:44:05 -0600 Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

On 8/29/14 8:39 AM, Steve Litt wrote:

...

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:31:27 -0600 Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

Back up a bit, it's not my file! LOL It's my friend that's doing all this. She's not into newsgroups and mailing lists. :-) Note I said as "large as PNG files can be". Initially this all came about because she couldn't make PNG work, but it appears she was doing something wrong somewhere, and PNG will work for her. From my perspective, your friend's not a candidate for Inkscape, or any

free software: Especially any Linux/BSD/POSIX software. From what I've heard in the thread, she believes her software should give her exactly what she wants, without her having to adapt to it. For a million different reasons, that's not how free software works: It's kinda sorta how commercial software works, or is supposed to work, but it's not how free software works. Trying to evangelize Inkscape or free software in general to a person with her belief system will be frustrating as hell, unless her belief system changes.

But, she's more broke than I am! LOL

Sounds to me like she'd better either get a better job, or change her belief system. It sounds like, with her financial situation and her belief system, she's in for a world of hurt.

It's not that she isn't looking. :-( Too few full time jobs in the US. Despite what the federal government says with all their stats of job creation and such, when you go look for a decent paying job, they just aren't there. :-( Most of those newly created jobs are paying far less than the jobs that were lost.

The job she has now is a decent paying job. But, like many employers, it's just part time, and they make sure she works less than 30 hrs. a week so they don't have to pay healthcare and other bennies. But by law she has to pay for healthcare. Double whammy for huge numbers of citizens. Crappy jobs and you have to pay for health care, where costs continue to rise despite the promise of the President.

SteveT

Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

On 8/28/14 8:24 PM, Steve Litt wrote:

Hi, Steve,

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:13:02 -0600 Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend the extra time.

Hi Ken,

It's about 15 seconds:

convert myfile.png myfile.jpg; rm myfile.png

I think there's an ImageMagic toolset, which includes convert, for Windows too. It's 15 seconds.

All command line driven, right? That's if I follow the web page correctly. Interesting that there's an iOS package. Just pure curiosity, I wonder if anyone is doing an Android package. Hmmmmm, that reminds me, I still have to figure out how to root my Nexus 7. I tried to stumble my way through it a few months ago, but had to get other things finished and never got back to it.

It looks like the Mac version is only for Mavericks, which I'm not planning on updating to.

But, as I've said, command line stuff just isn't my thing, anymore. :-)

The nice thing about computers is everyone has the chance to find what fits them, although it does seem Apple and MS seems to limit that with each new OS release.

Let's say the Inkscape programmers added a conversion to jpg. That's one more lump of code that could have bugs or security violations. The more complex and entangled a program gets, the more bug-prone it becomes.

Since this is open-source, can't you just use code that's already written and bug free? Obviously, the UI part would have to be written for Inkscape.

I use claws-mail (for now), but because it uses so many libraries and does so many things for so many people, it has a bug that, after I access my inbox, the mouse disappears everytime a popup happens, *on any application*. I'm thinking of switching to the ultra-simplicity of mutt so this stuff doesn't happen.

I thought claws-mail had a Mac version, but I guess not.

How many times a day do you need to export to .png? Multiply that by 15 seconds. Now ask yourself if that time is worth having a featureful yet stable program.

It's the other way around. :-) Convert to JPG. For me, when I do conversions, it's usually a folder full of files, and when I did do them, I'd probably have to look the code up all over again! LOL So for me, it's simpler to use a GUI program to do it.

On 8/29/14 8:30 AM, Steve Litt wrote:

On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 04:40:34 -0600 Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

...

On 8/28/14 8:24 PM, Steve Litt wrote:

...

Let's say the Inkscape programmers added a conversion to jpg. That's one more lump of code that could have bugs or security violations. The more complex and entangled a program gets, the more bug-prone it becomes.

Since this is open-source, can't you just use code that's already written and bug free? Obviously, the UI part would have to be written for Inkscape.

No. Here's why:

Bugs increase as a result of complexity. Even if there's not one single bug in any of the pieces, interactions between the pieces, if put together with "fat interfaces" including GUI, can cause bugs. Plus, the difficulty of debugging goes up geometically with the complexity of the program.

One relatively painless way to accomplish what you're talking about would be for Inkscape to add an export menu that's nothing but space for user-defined (perhaps with Inkscape default) conversion commands. So if you chose jpg on the menu, Inkscape might run the convert executable. This is very modular, and has little likelihood of introducing bugs. But throwing source code from the convert executable into Inkscape would be the kiss of death.

This might be the best solution, overall, if anyone involved with the program was interested in doing it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_programming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encapsulation_%28object-oriented_programming%29

Take it from a guy who wrote code professionally for 14 years: if you don't write code modularly, with very thin interfaces between modules, you'll shed lots of tears. I found that out the hard way, early.

By far the thinnest interface is that of one executable program using the output of another. Each program returns all its RAM. What program A gives program B is clearly defined, and can be tested. Debugging can be cleanly isolated to a specific executable, and if that executable is small, it will be a quick fix indeed.

I'm familiar with the idea of modules. There's a high end DTP program that dates back to the early Atari computer days that uses the concept in both programming and marketing. Don't want the vector drawing module? Don't buy it. I still have the latest Atari version of the software on my Hades 060 Atari clone.

As I understand it, the program is at the Quark Express/Adobe InDesign level.

The user needn't be responsible for stringing together the executables: The original programmer can provide a "shellscript" to do that. The following program, which can be run from a menu or whatever, does just that:

=================================================== #!/bin/bash svgname=$1 jpgname=`echo $svgname | sed -e "s/.svg$/.jpg/"` convert $svgname $jpgname ===================================================

If the preceding script were called svg2jpg.bat, you could convert any SVG by right clicking on it in a file browser, choosing "open with", and choose svg2jpg.sh.

The preceding could be used for any .svg file, not just one in Inkscape.

What would control the resulting size of the raster graphic? That's one feature of the export routine in Inkscape I like.

In summary, the Inkscape developers could either add and debug hundreds of lines of code to include jpg export, or write the previously mentioned four line shellscript.

You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to whatever they want?

You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend the extra time.

No, I got your point. A few extra seconds and another application to convert is too much, so you want JPEG export built in.

*My* point was: if we accept that a few extra seconds and another application is too much for you, we also have to accept that it's too much for the people that want PSD, TIFF or BMP export built in (and I've known people to want all of these, for one reason or another).

I'm not against JPEG export from Inkscape if someone wants to contribute the code, but I think you're making it out to be a bigger deal than it really is. Converting doesn't have to mean loading a full-on editing application like Photoshop or The GIMP - there are lightweight applications that require little more than right clicking on the file and selecting "Convert to JPEG". Is that really so hard?

Drawing the line is always a tough question? If it were my call, I'd look at what's being used in the way of hardware/operating systems. With the plethora of XP users that are still out there, and seemingly in no hurry to upgrade, if the file format was available when XP came out, that's where I'd draw the line. Nothing directly supported for older systems.

When XP came out, eh? That's 2001. The PNG format has been around since 1996, so that already meets your requirements. Better be careful with JPEG though, there are parts of the spec that have only been finalised since then ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Photographic_Experts_Group#Published_Stan...). Yes, I'm being a little facetious, but it's worth clarifying that "JPEG" isn't a single spec that was set in stone many years ago - it's a series of formats that's been refined and extended over the years. The same for PNG and many other formats. So if Inkscape gets JPEG export, is it allowed to use any of the more recent extensions to the standard? Or would you prefer it to stick to just pre-2001 features, just to be on the safe side?

But now you risk pi$$ing off your users who have an unknown number of files they've created, may want to use again, but can't? I think a classy organization would provide a separate program to convert the older files to a newer file so the user still has access to his/her older files. This may be easier for word processors than graphics software.

You seem to have jumped tracks to the supported formats for *import*. I'm not really sure what that paragraph has to do with the rest of the conversation, but suffice to say that it's a damned good argument for using open file formats (such as PNG, SVG and ODF... and yes, JPEG - although there have been patent concerns around it over the years).

I would actually argue that it's (usually) easier to convert old graphics to new formats than to do the same for word processor documents. Older bitmap formats are pretty straightforward and easy to convert. Older vector formats are less so, as they can be rather complex, but they're still not as bad as the "binary memory dump" that is the .DOC format. It's simply that there's been more work put into converting .DOC than (for example) .CDR files.

If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap format with alpha channels then I *do* consider it broken as it prevents you from doing a lot of basic things, like putting a logo over an image. It doesn't have to be PNG, but in practice that's pretty much the only widespread open format that does the job.

We sure define the word "broken" differently. <G>

Bedda define the "basics" then. Because, before there was transparency, "basics" wouldn't include that ability.

There's been transparency of one sort or another for a mighty long time. Before PNG, and before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck, if you want to go back far enough we were engraving images into plates of metal, coating them in ink, and pressing them onto the page. And you know what... they included transparency! Any part where the ink didn't appear was implicitly transparent.

I guess I'm just accepting that it's 2014 and there are plenty of free (and Free) applications (and commercial ones) that support things like transparency, and will run even on an old Windows XP box. Given that, there's no particularly good reason why we should continue to pretend we're in the year 1985 (or even 2001) and we can't have transparency or any of the other nice goodies that have come along in the intervening years.

If just about all of your competitors - even the free ones - support a feature, then I would definitely consider your software to be "broken" if you don't support it.

Anyway, this part of the discussion is relatively pointless, because it's already been shown that the software in question *does* support PNG and *does* support transparency.

So we're back to two real points to your argument:

1) PNG files can be big 2) Converting takes time

(1) is a valid argument for wanting JPEGs, provided you're happy to have a lossy format with no transparency support. I have no issue with that. (2) does take time, but it can be kept down just a couple of mouse clicks and a few seconds per image. Not significantly longer than Inkscape would take doing the same thing. So where's the sense in the Inkscape developers spending time implementing JPEG support rather than working on the core code instead?

Mark

Exactly. Which is one route to product improvement, if you want to improve it. I think the "UNIX" philosophy will prevent any software created to become a leader and success. Providing things users want, whether developers want it or not, is what it takes to be successful. Otherwise, it's just a hobby. The philosophy may be the biggest impediment to being seriously considered by the majority of computer users, and why the software created under the philosophy will never seriously put a dent in commercial software.

The Unix philosophy is for each application to do one thing, but do it well. It's the "do it well" part that's important. Yes, Inkscape could support JPEG or a myriad other formats. But each format has options, settings, metadata and more. I'd rather have one conversion application that handles all the options on all the formats well, rather than have every application on my system reimplementing the code time and time again, each with a slightly different UI and list of supported features.

You would prefer the latter, it seems. That's fine, you're welcome to use monolithic software that works in that way. If you want Inkscape to work like that, you're also welcome to contribute code to make it do so. The devs don't have to accept it, but then you're also welcome to fork the code and create your own monolithic application. Or pay someone else to do it, if you're not a developer.

No, I don't really expect you to do any of that, but you could in principle. You can do it because Inkscape is Free Software, and as such it's developed by a group of people who *have* contributed code, time, or money to make it do what they want. For many of them it *is* "just a hobby", and that's not a bad thing.

I do find it interesting that you spend half your time worrying about people with old computers that don't have much disk space, memory or processing power, and the other half wanting monolithic applications that duplicate each others' functionality.

Standards will always be a moving target. There's no way around that. But from what I see, JPG is currently the most popular bitmapped format. Not PNG. Granted, PNG has some advantages, but are the advantages needed by most users? I'd bet not. Just like a Kenworth has advantages over a Ford F-150, not everyone needs a Kenworth. <G>

Perhaps you should check out the Inkscape forum and see how often people complain that their images are being exported with a white background (because they've used "Save As Cairo PNG" rather than "Export Bitmap"). No, not everyone needs transparency, but I think it's a more popular request than you might realise. Transparency is often needed in DTP applications, but even more so for web pages, icons in applications, sprites in games and so on - all of which are frequently created using Inkscape.

There's been transparency of one sort or another for a mighty long time.

...

Before PNG, and before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck, if you want to go back far enough we were engraving images into plates of metal, coating them in ink, and pressing them onto the page. And you know what... they included transparency! Any part where the ink didn't appear was implicitly transparent.

But, how much was transparency supported in computer software?

It's been well supported by professional DTP software for many, many years, if only in the form of applying clipping paths to images. Alpha channels are a more recent addition, but I imagine that professional DTP applications have been supporting them for at least 15 years, if not longer. I'm no software historian though, so I'm happy to be proved wrong on that front.

But does it really matter whether or not it was supported 20 years ago? Any DTP application worth mentioning that's been released in the past decade supports it, which is why I suggested that an application without it is "broken".

To me, broken is something that doesn't work, not something that's missing.

Tomayto, tomahto. As far as I'm concerned "missing" standard bits of functionality results in something that "doesn't work". Perhaps it's not "broken" by one particular dictionary definition, but it is in the colloquial sense that the term is used with respect to software. Feel free to mentally replace "broken" with "is missing some functionality that I consider to be vital" in all my emails though ;)

Mark

On Mon, 1 Sep 2014 10:25:20 +0100 Mark Crutch <markc@...2744...> wrote:

...

You want JPEG export. I know others that would like Photoshop PSD files. Yet others will want TIFF, or BMP or other esoteric formats. Should Inkscape support them all, or would it be better to export one or two formats and allow the user to use another application to convert to whatever they want?

You missed my point, Mark. Moving to another application to do the conversion takes time. I want to minimize the time I spend, not spend the extra time.

No, I got your point. A few extra seconds and another application to convert is too much, so you want JPEG export built in.

*My* point was: if we accept that a few extra seconds and another application is too much for you, we also have to accept that it's too much for the people that want PSD, TIFF or BMP export built in (and I've known people to want all of these, for one reason or another).

I'm not against JPEG export from Inkscape if someone wants to contribute the code, but I think you're making it out to be a bigger deal than it really is. Converting doesn't have to mean loading a full-on editing application like Photoshop or The GIMP - there are lightweight applications that require little more than right clicking on the file and selecting "Convert to JPEG". Is that really so hard?

...

Drawing the line is always a tough question? If it were my call, I'd look at what's being used in the way of hardware/operating systems. With the plethora of XP users that are still out there, and seemingly in no hurry to upgrade, if the file format was available when XP came out, that's where I'd draw the line. Nothing directly supported for older systems.

When XP came out, eh? That's 2001. The PNG format has been around since 1996, so that already meets your requirements. Better be careful with JPEG though, there are parts of the spec that have only been finalised since then ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Photographic_Experts_Group#Published_Stan...). Yes, I'm being a little facetious, but it's worth clarifying that "JPEG" isn't a single spec that was set in stone many years ago - it's a series of formats that's been refined and extended over the years. The same for PNG and many other formats. So if Inkscape gets JPEG export, is it allowed to use any of the more recent extensions to the standard? Or would you prefer it to stick to just pre-2001 features, just to be on the safe side?

...

But now you risk pi$$ing off your users who have an unknown number of files they've created, may want to use again, but can't? I think a classy organization would provide a separate program to convert the older files to a newer file so the user still has access to his/her older files. This may be easier for word processors than graphics software.

You seem to have jumped tracks to the supported formats for *import*. I'm not really sure what that paragraph has to do with the rest of the conversation, but suffice to say that it's a damned good argument for using open file formats (such as PNG, SVG and ODF... and yes, JPEG - although there have been patent concerns around it over the years).

I would actually argue that it's (usually) easier to convert old graphics to new formats than to do the same for word processor documents. Older bitmap formats are pretty straightforward and easy to convert. Older vector formats are less so, as they can be rather complex, but they're still not as bad as the "binary memory dump" that is the .DOC format. It's simply that there's been more work put into converting .DOC than (for example) .CDR files.

...

If a DTP program doesn't support a bitmap format with alpha channels then I *do* consider it broken as it prevents you from doing a lot of basic things, like putting a logo over an image. It doesn't have to be PNG, but in practice that's pretty much the only widespread open format that does the job.

We sure define the word "broken" differently. <G>

Bedda define the "basics" then. Because, before there was transparency, "basics" wouldn't include that ability.

There's been transparency of one sort or another for a mighty long time. Before PNG, and before GIF's one-bit transparency, even. Heck, if you want to go back far enough we were engraving images into plates of metal, coating them in ink, and pressing them onto the page. And you know what... they included transparency! Any part where the ink didn't appear was implicitly transparent.

I guess I'm just accepting that it's 2014 and there are plenty of free (and Free) applications (and commercial ones) that support things like transparency, and will run even on an old Windows XP box. Given that, there's no particularly good reason why we should continue to pretend we're in the year 1985 (or even 2001) and we can't have transparency or any of the other nice goodies that have come along in the intervening years.

If just about all of your competitors - even the free ones - support a feature, then I would definitely consider your software to be "broken" if you don't support it.

Anyway, this part of the discussion is relatively pointless, because it's already been shown that the software in question *does* support PNG and *does* support transparency.

So we're back to two real points to your argument:

1. PNG files can be big
2. Converting takes time

(1) is a valid argument for wanting JPEGs, provided you're happy to have a lossy format with no transparency support. I have no issue with that. (2) does take time, but it can be kept down just a couple of mouse clicks and a few seconds per image. Not significantly longer than Inkscape would take doing the same thing. So where's the sense in the Inkscape developers spending time implementing JPEG support rather than working on the core code instead?

Mark

Why does the OP prefer jpeg to png? Now what I would like is the facility to save pdf in PDF X/1-a:2001 format for printers. But I can do that conversion in Scribus as needed.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2014 09:37:28 -0600 Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

On 9/1/14 11:01 AM, john Culleton wrote:

<snip> > Why does the OP prefer jpeg to png? Now what I > would like is the facility to save pdf in PDF > X/1-a:2001 format for printers. But I can do > that conversion in Scribus as needed. LOL OT for a moment. Over the years, I've noticed things like this seem to get lost in a long thread. I've probably answered it twice, at least. <G> In the mood of good humor...

In some cases, the PNG is simply not necessary. And in the case of the original post, PNG is definitely not needed.

Believe it or not, not every one out there wants to waste storing unneeded data on their hard drive, in this case a lossless file format w/transparency when that information is simply not needed. When you have only X amount of free space, why store Y number of PNGs when may possibly save 3Y JPG files?

Kind of like having to store a 5 gallon container of paint when you only need 1 gallon.

Ken

Or having an 8x10 portrait on the wall when a wallet size would be cheaper and smaller. In any case conversion from png to jpg can be done in seconds with the "convert" function of Imagemagick. The exact command string is left as an exercise for the student. Gimp can also do it. And so on.

As we've been working on this, it's brought back memories of issues with other vector software that had "leading edge" features that the run of the mill software couldn't handle.

My favorite program in Windows for this is Irfanview, as it has other general manipulation abilities that you can do as a batch. Graphics Workshop is another.

Ken

On 8/26/14 10:31 AM, Chris Tooley wrote:

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:56 AM, Ken Springer <snowshed1@...3003... mailto:snowshed1@...3003...> wrote:

I was beginning to suspect the other vector formats do not support
some
of the features of SVG.  I ran into similar issues 20 or so years ago
with vector file formats.

Inkscape specifically has some special effects that are not part of the SVG spec. There are probably some things in SVG that are not recognized in other formats, but those are pretty minor unless you're doing really weird things.

It looks like Inkscape doesn't export/save jpg files.  :-(  Hope
that's
remedied in the next version.  We've discovered that PNG is not always
the best file format.  What bothers me most about the format is the
sheer size, since it's lossless, just like TIFF.

You can always use an image converter to convert it over to JPG - there are many tutorials online on how to do this :)

-another Chris

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/

---

Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user

We'll give it a try. Thanks, Alvin.

On 8/25/14 4:26 PM, alvinpenner wrote:

I would suggest saving as .emf instead of .wmf. .emf files should normally be readable by most Windows 'Office' programs, and the .emf output does not use Uniconvertor.

Alvin Penner

-- View this message in context: http://inkscape.13.x6.nabble.com/Inkscape-and-Uniconvertor-tp4971273p4971278... Sent from the Inkscape - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

---

Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user