how do you o set resolution on Microsoft word & publisher etc.

You would be better of having them turn it in to a PDF file and then loading it in to Photoshop.

John

"Tom Landry" wrote in message

Does anyone know how to set resolution on Microsoft word & publisher etc. I
use a mac for publishing & people are always trying send me things in microsoft publisher & word. I ask them if they can turn it into a .jpg and they can but it is at a low resolution. I need it at 266 or 300 res.

Tom Landry wrote in
news:BE04AF9F.52F9%:

Does anyone know how to set resolution on Microsoft word & publisher etc.

You cannot.

As far as graphics go, both suck at anything beyond low-end office printing, and they aren’t very good at that.

I use a mac for publishing & people are always trying send me things in microsoft publisher & word. I ask them if they can turn it into a .jpg and they can but it is at a low resolution. I need it at 266 or 300 res.

Distill a pdf from it using press settings. DO NOT let them do it themselves, as Word users will inevitably mangle the graphics further.

IF (and that’s a BIG if) the Word/Publisher graphics were at least 300 ppi in the first place, you should get useable if unimpressive results rasterizing the PDF in Photoshop (Microsoft does a whole bunch of things to the graphics when they are placed in Word, none of them good. Unless you can get the originals, that’s as good as it gets.)

"Eric Gill" posted:
"…
As far as graphics go, both (microsoft publisher & word) suck at anything beyond low-end office
printing, and they aren’t very good at that.
…."
and
"…
(Microsoft does a whole bunch of things to
the graphics when they are placed in Word, none of them good. …."
and
"…
Unless you can get the originals, that’s as good as it gets.) …."

Correct on all counts. But PLEASE add Micro$tink Excel, PhotoEditor / PhotoDraw, and PowerFart to the list …

I have made it a practice to AVOID any and all Micro$cum Orifice products / programs … partly for that reason … and I am much happier for it.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Tom Landry wrote in
news:BE04AF9F.52F9%:

Does anyone know how to set resolution on Microsoft word & publisher etc.

You cannot.

As far as graphics go, both suck at anything beyond low-end office printing, and they aren’t very good at that.

I use a mac for publishing & people are always trying send me things in microsoft publisher & word. I ask them if they can turn it into a .jpg and they can but it is at a low resolution. I need it at 266 or 300 res.

Distill a pdf from it using press settings. DO NOT let them do it themselves, as Word users will inevitably mangle the graphics further.
IF (and that’s a BIG if) the Word/Publisher graphics were at least 300

ppi

in the first place, you should get useable if unimpressive results rasterizing the PDF in Photoshop (Microsoft does a whole bunch of things

to

the graphics when they are placed in Word, none of them good. Unless you can get the originals, that’s as good as it gets.)

You still use Outlook Express as your newsreader…

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

I’m tired of all this MS-bashing, even it many times happens for a reason.

Sami

RSD99 wrote:

"Eric Gill" posted:
"…
As far as graphics go, both (microsoft publisher & word) suck at anything beyond low-end office
printing, and they aren’t very good at that.
…"
and
"…
(Microsoft does a whole bunch of things to
the graphics when they are placed in Word, none of them good. …"
and
"…
Unless you can get the originals, that’s as good as it gets.) …"

Correct on all counts. But PLEASE add Micro$tink Excel, PhotoEditor / PhotoDraw, and PowerFart to the list …

I have made it a practice to AVOID any and all Micro$cum Orifice products / programs … partly for that reason … and I am much happier for it.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Tom Landry wrote in
news:BE04AF9F.52F9%:

Does anyone know how to set resolution on Microsoft word & publisher etc.

You cannot.

As far as graphics go, both suck at anything beyond low-end office printing, and they aren’t very good at that.

I use a mac for publishing & people are always trying send me things in microsoft publisher & word. I ask them if they can turn it into a .jpg and they can but it is at a low resolution. I need it at 266 or 300 res.

Distill a pdf from it using press settings. DO NOT let them do it themselves, as Word users will inevitably mangle the graphics further.
IF (and that’s a BIG if) the Word/Publisher graphics were at least 300

ppi

in the first place, you should get useable if unimpressive results rasterizing the PDF in Photoshop (Microsoft does a whole bunch of things

to

the graphics when they are placed in Word, none of them good. Unless you can get the originals, that’s as good as it gets.)

Sami wrote in
news::

You still use Outlook Express as your newsreader…

Which is a mistake I do not share, however – Outlook Express isn’t an Office product, as he specified.

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

I’m tired of all this MS-bashing, even it many times happens for a reason.

I’ll stop the moment M$ improves their products and therefore no longer deserves (very harsh) criticism..

IOW, that’s almost certainly not going to happen.

That was meant to be sarcastic, didn’t success it seems.

Nowdays it seems to became some kind of a common hobby to tell everyone how much Microsoft sucks, louder the better, it happens in every forum I read. That’s what I’m tired of.

My principle has been to choose right program for the task and Microsoft products aren’t usually those, especially in graphics/images/DTP.

Probably I was overreacting to RSD99’s post, but I think that critic, even the hard one, towards those programs (and advices to change for better) can and should be made with decent way. Every black and white opinion just wakes suspicions, at least in me.

Sami

Eric Gill wrote:

Sami wrote in
news::

You still use Outlook Express as your newsreader…

Which is a mistake I do not share, however – Outlook Express isn’t an Office product, as he specified.

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

I’m tired of all this MS-bashing, even it many times happens for a reason.

I’ll stop the moment M$ improves their products and therefore no longer deserves (very harsh) criticism..

IOW, that’s almost certainly not going to happen.

Sami wrote in news:41e106b3_2
@news.dnainternet.net:

Probably I was overreacting to RSD99’s post, but I think that critic, even the hard one, towards those programs (and advices to change for better) can and should be made with decent way. Every black and white opinion just wakes suspicions, at least in me.

A prepress or layout person who’s had to deal with M$ products with any regularity is probably going to be just as vocal a critic. I have’t tried every piece of software M$ makes, but of those I have, the graphics pieces are absolutely the worst – of both mainstream graphics stuff in general and M$ in particular.

For example, OE and IE both may be godawfully insecure, but at least they are fairly functional. One cannot say the same for Word and Publisher as far as the graphics themselves go; M$ seems determined to make getting good output and preserving quality as hard as possible.

I repeat: to a busy professional who swims in deadlines, it is quite rational to criticize M$’s offerings heavily. They utterly deserve it.

You seem to forget that

(1) This is a GRAPHICS forum, specifically a forum about the family of programs known as "Adobe PhotoShop" … and

(2) Micro$crew has virtually NO knowledge about how to design and develop any kind of graphics program(s) … and

(3) As "Eric Gill" has posted, the referenced Micro$cum programs "do a whole bunch of things to the graphics when they are placed in (Micro$urf Orifice Programs), none of them good …

and

(4) The only way that Micro$crew has been able to market **any** kind of graphics program, is to license it from a third party, OR purchase that "third party" that actually *does* know how to write a graphics program. This goes for **all** of the M$ graphics programs that I know about … including items such as M$ PhotoEditor, M$ Visio, M$ PowerFart, and etcetera.

(5) Micro$crew Wurd is particularly bad in this respect. If anyone should furnish a graphic … for any purpose … as an embedded graphic in a Wurd DOC file … that graphic should remain there as it’s final resting place.

"Eric Gill" is absolutely correct when he says

(A) As far as graphics go, both suck at anything beyond low-end office printing, and they aren’t very good at that.

and

(B) Have the client furnish a PDF prepared using the ‘PrePress’ settings …. Unless you can get the originals (graphics files), that’s as good as it gets.

If you feel otherwise, it just shows that you have NEVER tried to obtain professional quality output from graphics that have been mangled by a Micro$urf Orifice Program. [Incidentally … both "Eric Gill" and I *have* done professional quality output … although in my case NOT from any of the Micro$crew Orifice Programs.]

OH … and don’t even think about trying to get four-color (aka CMYK) output from *any* of the above referenced M$ programs. Pub$lasher makes a half-assed attempt at providing CMYK and spot color capability … but it usually causes more problems than it solves! [FWIW … in case you don’t know, the CMYK format is *necessary* if your graphics are going to be printed on one of those things called a "printing press."]

"Sami" wrote in message

You still use Outlook Express as your newsreader…

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

I’m tired of all this MS-bashing, even it many times happens for a

reason.

Sami

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:46:31 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Sami wrote in news:41e106b3_2
@news.dnainternet.net:

Probably I was overreacting to RSD99’s post, but I think that critic, even the hard one, towards those programs (and advices to change for better) can and should be made with decent way. Every black and white opinion just wakes suspicions, at least in me.

A prepress or layout person who’s had to deal with M$ products with any regularity is probably going to be just as vocal a critic. I have’t tried every piece of software M$ makes, but of those I have, the graphics pieces are absolutely the worst – of both mainstream graphics stuff in general and M$ in particular.

For example, OE and IE both may be godawfully insecure, but at least they are fairly functional. One cannot say the same for Word and Publisher as far as the graphics themselves go; M$ seems determined to make getting good output and preserving quality as hard as possible.

I repeat: to a busy professional who swims in deadlines, it is quite rational to criticize M$’s offerings heavily. They utterly deserve it.

It does depend on what you are suing the software for. Word is great for *text* documents – I wouldn’t use it in the same way as InDesign. Excel is easily the best spreadsheet software. I wouldn’t use that for images either. I think what Sami is saying is all about using the right tool for the job.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Wow! You seem to take this almost personally!!

Easy solution is not to accept wrong kind of documents from your clients. I wouldn’t use a hammer for screwdriving, i’d take a screwdriver.. Sorry to disappoint you, but I’ve done enough pre-press to understand it’s requirements.

Sami

RSD99 wrote:

You seem to forget that

(1) This is a GRAPHICS forum, specifically a forum about the family of programs known as "Adobe PhotoShop" … and

(2) Micro$crew has virtually NO knowledge about how to design and develop any kind of graphics program(s) … and

(3) As "Eric Gill" has posted, the referenced Micro$cum programs "do a whole bunch of things to the graphics when they are placed in (Micro$urf Orifice Programs), none of them good …

and

(4) The only way that Micro$crew has been able to market **any** kind of graphics program, is to license it from a third party, OR purchase that "third party" that actually *does* know how to write a graphics program. This goes for **all** of the M$ graphics programs that I know about … including items such as M$ PhotoEditor, M$ Visio, M$ PowerFart, and etcetera.

(5) Micro$crew Wurd is particularly bad in this respect. If anyone should furnish a graphic … for any purpose … as an embedded graphic in a Wurd DOC file … that graphic should remain there as it’s final resting place.
"Eric Gill" is absolutely correct when he says
(A) As far as graphics go, both suck at anything beyond low-end office printing, and they aren’t very good at that.

and

(B) Have the client furnish a PDF prepared using the ‘PrePress’ settings … Unless you can get the originals (graphics files), that’s as good as it gets.

If you feel otherwise, it just shows that you have NEVER tried to obtain professional quality output from graphics that have been mangled by a Micro$urf Orifice Program. [Incidentally … both "Eric Gill" and I *have* done professional quality output … although in my case NOT from any of the Micro$crew Orifice Programs.]

OH … and don’t even think about trying to get four-color (aka CMYK) output from *any* of the above referenced M$ programs. Pub$lasher makes a half-assed attempt at providing CMYK and spot color capability … but it usually causes more problems than it solves! [FWIW … in case you don’t know, the CMYK format is *necessary* if your graphics are going to be printed on one of those things called a "printing press."]

"Sami" wrote in message

You still use Outlook Express as your newsreader…

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106

I’m tired of all this MS-bashing, even it many times happens for a

reason.

Sami

for images either. I think what Sami is saying is all about using the right tool for the job.

Precisely.

Sami

Tom Landry wrote:

Does anyone know how to set resolution on Microsoft word & publisher

etc. I

use a mac for publishing & people are always trying send me things

in

microsoft publisher & word. I ask them if they can turn it into a

..jpg and

they can but it is at a low resolution. I need it at 266 or 300 res.

Since nobody answered your questioned and resorted the MS bashing that they claim they hate to do, I’ll answer it.

When you import a pic into Word, the full image is imported. Since you are able to change the physical size of the image, the DPI is set dynamically. IOW, Word tells the printer how large to print the image. So if it was 1000 pixels wide, and you resized it to 4 inches wide, it would print at 250 DPI.

Now, in versions of 2002 and higher (I believe that’s right), you can "recompress" the imagees in a document to save space. Right click on an image, click Format Picture, then click the "Compress" button. You can select "one picture" or all pics in the document, then select for "web" (96 dpi) or for Print (200 dpi). When you make these changes, they are permanent, and the picture is physically altered

If someone is making a Powerpoint presentation for on screen viewing, this is a great way to drastically reduce the size of the document.

On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 23:21:45 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:

OH … and don’t even think about trying to get four-color (aka CMYK) output from *any* of the above referenced M$ programs. Pub$lasher makes a half-assed attempt at providing CMYK and spot color capability … but it usually causes more problems than it solves! [FWIW … in case you don’t know, the CMYK format is *necessary* if your graphics are going to be printed on one of those things called a "printing press."]

You’re missing the point – nobody with any experience would use any of the MS programs for graphics. SO you’re blowing off steam about something that doesn’t happen in the real world. OTOH, if I want to produce some text, then I’ll use Word. I write as well as do graphics and Word is great for that, it’s tracking/editing features are superb and the format acceptable to all the publishers I’ve come across. None of the open source solutions I’ve tried are even half as good. Excel, well, I wouldn’t use that for graphics either – it’s a spreadsheet and trying to use it for something that it’s not built for is just stupid and no open source software that I’ve tried even comes close for spreadsheet work. Oh, and Visio, which is an excellent piece of software btw, isn’t a graphics program.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

wrote in news:1105378919.515801.228710
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Tom Landry wrote:

Does anyone know how to set resolution on Microsoft word & publisher

etc. I

use a mac for publishing & people are always trying send me things

in

microsoft publisher & word. I ask them if they can turn it into a

.jpg and

they can but it is at a low resolution. I need it at 266 or 300 res.

Since nobody answered your questioned and resorted the MS bashing that they claim they hate to do, I’ll answer it.

Who is claiming that? I despise Microsoft, both business practices and software. The only product of theirs I can stand using is Windows itself – and a retarded baby monkey on crack could do better security.

When you import a pic into Word, the full image is imported.

And compressed. With JPEG. And you cannot control the degree of compression.

(And it’s quite high, apparently.)

Since you
are able to change the physical size of the image, the DPI is set dynamically. IOW, Word tells the printer how large to print the image. So if it was 1000 pixels wide, and you resized it to 4 inches wide, it would print at 250 DPI.

Now, in versions of 2002 and higher (I believe that’s right), you can "recompress" the imagees in a document to save space. Right click on an image, click Format Picture, then click the "Compress" button. You can select "one picture" or all pics in the document, then select for "web" (96 dpi) or for Print (200 dpi). When you make these changes, they are permanent, and the picture is physically altered

Yes, this is one of the "features" I was talking about. This sends your graphics on a one-way ticket to hell, as far as prepress is concerned.

If someone is making a Powerpoint presentation for on screen viewing, this is a great way to drastically reduce the size of the document.

That’s great as far as Powerpoint is concerned.

He needs *more*, not less pixels. Better yet, he needs real control over the images, and the user doesn’t need to be handed tools to screw their original images royally. It might be as simple as forcing users to save a copy of their document before vandalizing their pics, but M$ seems to be completely oblivious.

When you import a pic into Word, the full image is imported.

And compressed. With JPEG. And you cannot control the degree of compression.

(And it’s quite high, apparently.)

Word doesn’t change the compression level of the JPG. Look at the size of the word file. True, you can’t change the

can select "one picture" or all pics in the document, then select

for

"web" (96 dpi) or for Print (200 dpi). When you make these

changes,

they are permanent, and the picture is physically altered

Yes, this is one of the "features" I was talking about. This sends

your

graphics on a one-way ticket to hell, as far as prepress is

concerned.

I’m not advocating using Word to do layout. But if the people he’s working with insist on using it, I’m giving him some tips.

If someone is making a Powerpoint presentation for on screen

viewing,

this is a great way to drastically reduce the size of the document.

That’s great as far as Powerpoint is concerned.

He needs *more*, not less pixels.

Better yet, he needs real control over
the images, and the user doesn’t need to be handed tools to screw

their

original images royally. It might be as simple as forcing users to

save a

copy of their document before vandalizing their pics, but M$ seems to

be

completely oblivious.

Microsoft hasn’t claimed to be in the same league as a Page Maker or Quark. It’s not what Word is designed for. Get a clue.

"Hecate" posted:
"…
You’re missing the point – nobody with any experience would use any of the MS programs for graphics.
…."

Your statement is oh-so-true, as posted. However, it’s obvious to even the most casual observer that "Tom Landry" … the OP … **is** trying to use these M$ programs for graphics. Or … at least his client are. Therefore I feel that you are the one that is "missing the point."

It’s also obvious that his work-around is to "… ask them if they can turn it into a .jpg and they can but it is at a low resolution. I need it at 266 or 300 res. …"

That is a rather poor solution … at best. What he *should* be doing is

(1) Have his clients furnish a press-ready Adobe Acrobat PDF file … which he can turn into a functional EPS file for each page … if they can afford Acrobat, or

(2) If that is not possible, have his clients furnish a PostScript print file using the Acrobat Distiller printer description file (set to the above mentioned press-ready configuration) that he can distill or turn into an EPS file, or … as a last resort …

(3) Have his clients turn the "pages" into TIFF images (not JPEG … which can do some rather bad things to text) using a program (actually a printer driver) such as the one named TIFFWorks. This program *will* allow setting the output resolution … however the 266 dpi – 300 dpi that the OP has requested is not really high enough for clean rendering of text/typefaces (think more like 1200 dpi as a minimum).

http://www.informatik.com/tiffwork.html

The aforementioned TIFFWorks was once available in a (limited caability) shareware version, but I could not find it on their web site.

wrote in news:1105462990.759929.269440
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Microsoft hasn’t claimed to be in the same league as a Page Maker or Quark.

Something this basic isn’t in the same league as RageMaker or Quirk, either. No one asked for color profiling, custom halftone control, hexachrome support, native transluency or clipping path control. We simply asked that the graphics not be re-compressed and/or downsampled.

It’s not what Word is designed for.

No kidding.

Get a clue.

I do. I work in the real world, where people mangle graphics by placing them in Word and Powerpoint, and then are thoroughly unpleasant and uncooperative when you break the bad news to them.

And your deadlines don’t care.

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 20:37:50 GMT, "RSD99"
wrote:

"Hecate" posted:
"…
You’re missing the point – nobody with any experience would use any of the MS programs for graphics.
…"

Your statement is oh-so-true, as posted. However, it’s obvious to even the most casual observer that "Tom Landry" … the OP … **is** trying to use these M$ programs for graphics. Or … at least his client are. Therefore I feel that you are the one that is "missing the point."

Fair enough <g> But it didn’t require the diatribe 😉

Bad hair day? 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

It would be nice to know how to up the res on a pub file when converting it to a jpg. They don’t seem to have an option to set res/dpi on a document or anything! I have this customer that creates a calendar on it that I use for a web site.
What a crappy program!

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

wrote in news:1105378919.515801.228710
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Tom Landry wrote:

Does anyone know how to set resolution on Microsoft word & publisher

etc. I

use a mac for publishing & people are always trying send me things

in

microsoft publisher & word. I ask them if they can turn it into a

.jpg and

they can but it is at a low resolution. I need it at 266 or 300 res.

Since nobody answered your questioned and resorted the MS bashing that they claim they hate to do, I’ll answer it.

Who is claiming that? I despise Microsoft, both business practices and software. The only product of theirs I can stand using is Windows itself – and a retarded baby monkey on crack could do better security.

When you import a pic into Word, the full image is imported.

And compressed. With JPEG. And you cannot control the degree of compression.

(And it’s quite high, apparently.)

Since you
are able to change the physical size of the image, the DPI is set dynamically. IOW, Word tells the printer how large to print the image. So if it was 1000 pixels wide, and you resized it to 4 inches wide, it would print at 250 DPI.

Now, in versions of 2002 and higher (I believe that’s right), you can "recompress" the imagees in a document to save space. Right click on an image, click Format Picture, then click the "Compress" button. You can select "one picture" or all pics in the document, then select for "web" (96 dpi) or for Print (200 dpi). When you make these changes, they are permanent, and the picture is physically altered

Yes, this is one of the "features" I was talking about. This sends your graphics on a one-way ticket to hell, as far as prepress is concerned.

If someone is making a Powerpoint presentation for on screen viewing, this is a great way to drastically reduce the size of the document.

That’s great as far as Powerpoint is concerned.

He needs *more*, not less pixels. Better yet, he needs real control over the images, and the user doesn’t need to be handed tools to screw their original images royally. It might be as simple as forcing users to save a copy of their document before vandalizing their pics, but M$ seems to be completely oblivious.

"Scruff" wrote in news::

It would be nice to know how to up the res on a pub file when converting it to a jpg.

Wouldn’t it?

They don’t seem to have an option to set
res/dpi on a document or anything! I have this customer that creates a calendar on it that I use for a web site.
What a crappy program!

Best I can tell you is find some way for him to make a good Acrobat file. That probably involves him printing to disk with a good postscript driver, then using the print presets in Distiller.

This of course assumes he will buy Distiller and learn the procedure. Or you can do it for him somehow. <sigh> Good luck.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Scruff" wrote in news::

It would be nice to know how to up the res on a pub file when converting it to a jpg.

Wouldn’t it?

They don’t seem to have an option to set
res/dpi on a document or anything! I have this customer that creates a calendar on it that I use for a web site.
What a crappy program!

Best I can tell you is find some way for him to make a good Acrobat file. That probably involves him printing to disk with a good postscript driver, then using the print presets in Distiller.

This of course assumes he will buy Distiller and learn the procedure. Or you can do it for him somehow. <sigh> Good luck.

LMAO! I wish!! Unfortunately, it’s a little retail store that does all of their flyers and stuff on MSP. A perfect program for them, when printing for their own use. But good for little else, imhp.