Scott Kostyshak wrote: > It actually amazes me how few people care about including bitmaps > graphics in their final meant-for-publication drafts. I wonder if I am > the only one that is annoyed when I am reading a PDF and see a bitmap > that should be a vector graphic.
My experience is that academic ppl who are not into typography or computer science do not distinguish between bitmap and vector format. So they might even see that the image in output pdf is somewhat blurry but the link between that and tiff format submitted is not there. It's just too technical and I do not blame them. Most commonly used format for vector graphic submission -- postscript -- simply doesn't work and the output looks different across systems. Even if you are skilled with all sorts of technical tools it's nightmare to produce anything fancy which looks identical once you send it to publishing folks using different vector toolchain. Even if you understand the difference some mainstream journals will actually urge you to do vector->bitmap conversion on your own although they will accept eps as well. If you are stubborn you can get it through and spend several weeks just to get through several iterations of "fullfilling requirements", some reasonable (fonts across platforms do not work) and some less. Now, the alternative is simple bitmap conversion, which sorts it all in a split of second... Pavel
