Thanks for the replies.  Will check out some of the converters in the links -
following that first one
( seemed
only to show Linux solutions, but I haven\'t checked it that carefully.

My real problem here is the way the proprietary piece of software handles the
drawings.  I am evaluating several software packages, and, while this one
seems best for my task needs, it is the worst in terms of handling drawings,
and I have made my feelings known to the vendor.  Other offerings in this area
can \"import\" these large tiffs a hundred at a time without blinking an eye
on my dual-core machine, and both I and the vendor know that this is a
weakness in what would otherwise be the ultimate package for what I do in my

I need to run this application on more than one machine in our office, and,
while adding memory may be an option on my machine, it is not an option on all
of the ones that need to use the application.

Gimp may not be the best tool for the job, but, I\'m thinking that, if I can
accomplish the conversion without pain in PS7, then, Gimp 2.6 is probably also
up to the task - I must be doing something wrong.  I don\'t have Scribus on my
office machine (it\'s running XP), but I have InDesign and, as mentioned,

I already have solutions that work - just wondered if I could accomplish the
same using Gimp.

Since I\'m working in scale, it is important for me to keep the original
resolution.  When I convert these tiffs using PS7, the resultant pdf requires
significantly less drive space, and its scale (measured via the application)
seems to have remain unchanged.

Without the conversion, five or six images will slow the application to the
point that it is not useable.  With the conversion, it will run fine with 20
or so drawings (still not acceptable, but better).

Gimp was successful in making the conversion, but the pdf was too fuzzy to be
read on the screen.


>It is my understanding that the Adobe-recommended workflow for creating
>PDFs is/was to \"print\" (not really, but using a print driver that
>\"prints\" to a file instead of a printer) whatever you wanted (document,
>image, etc.) to a postscript file.  That postscript file is then
>\"distilled\" using Adobe Distiller to create the PDF.
>My knowledge of the currently recommended workflow may be long outdated.
>However, some applications that \"saved\" or \"exported\" to PDF created
>inadequate PDF files -- at least back in the day.
>In any case, in the distillation process, the user sets compression from
>\"none\" (thus maintaining your resolution) to specific dpi.  The
>compression can be different for b/w line art vs color, etc.
>I suggest finding and testing applications that directly convert TIFFs
>to PDFs.
>But, I do wonder if PDFs are really going to do you any good.  The way I
>see it, the size reduction you get may have more to do with the PDFs
>using LOSSY compression -- if you use compression other than \"none\" thus
>lowering your effective resolution.  Also, it seems to me, for a true
>quality image, getting it into a PDF is really _adding_ a layer of
>complication and size.
>Maybe instead of worrying about PDFs, you might consider increasing the
>memory of the computers being used and/or allowing the software to
>access a larger chunk of the memory that is available.  We are in the
>process of specifying a small server for a small office (that does some
>complex stuff) -- we are deciding whether we want to _start_ with 8 or
>16 GB of RAM.  This is in a fairly inexpensive machine.

Carusoswi (via
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to