Re: Distorted WMF Graphics in Indesign CS

[John_H_...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks for the quick post. The problem with changing formats is that the charts are linked up to a massive database and the output program was designed ages ago (so no one wants to change that).

Is there no option in terms of importing this filetype into IDCS? First to stop the font from being messed up and to the lines and fills from being reformatted.

BTW - I agree with your point about WMFs. I think they are fairly archaic and I want to suggest changing the output type. I just want to exhaust all the options for wmfs.

Thanks again,
John

[Steve_...@adobeforums.com]

I did some tests with WMF in different applications a few years ago. It's most horrid file format I can imagine. The same graphics appeared differently in every application claiming to support WMF!

[Bob_Levine]

Just for the record...are your problems on screen? In Print? Both?

Bob

[John_H_...@adobeforums.com]

Tell me about it. I can't even open them in photoshop(windows). And forget about illustrator it makes a complete mess out of it.

Any options? Although, I am fairly close to giving up. I'd rather concentrate more on genrating a different filetype.

Thanks,
John

[Olav_...@adobeforums.com]

Steve--

PICT (on the Mac OS) might actually be worse, but they're very similar.

John--

EPS is quite easy to write, and works well with InDesign--you might want to consider using that format. There's no need for a preview (InDesign can generate one), so it's just a text file.

Thanks,

Ole

[Dov Isaacs]

I am not advocating WMF or EMF for creating new content unless you need to place content in Microsoft Office documents. On the other hand, existing, properly made WMF or EMF files should place without a problem in InDesign.

To date, I have never had a problem placing any Microsoft clipart in WMF format into an InDesign document and producing press quality output. I have literally done this with hundreds of WMF and EMF files since 1999 when first testing InDesign. I likewise have had no problems with similar import operations into Adobe FrameMaker!

If you or any other user has an example of a problem placing such a file in InDesign and outputing it via PostScript or PDF, we would like to know about it with an actual copy of the problematic file(s), not just anecdotal evidence.

I will not disagree that WMF files were fairly problematic in PageMaker. PageMaker called the Windows PostScript driver to call GDI to interpret the WMF files, sometimes with mixed results at best. InDesign uses an Adobe filter to fully interpret files in the WMF and EMF format. If there is a bug in that filter or in an Adobe application generating WMF or EMF, we need to know about it and fix it.

- Dov

[Kenneth...@adobeforums.com]

> BTW - I agree with your point about WMFs. I think they are fairly archaic

It's not that the format is old...it didn't work 10 years ago either. Every
time I've gotten WMFs I've had to bring them into Illustrator, fix the font
problems, and save to EPS.

Ken Benson

[Bob_Levine]

I have nothing but past experience to go on. Back when I started in this
business, I found out the hard way what WMFs could do to a Pagemaker file.

If you say the problem shouldn't exist in ID, I'll certainly accept
that. Hopefully the OP will send you a file or two and you can get to
the bottom of it.

Bob

[Dov Isaacs]

That (the sending of samples) is exactly what I am hoping for. We can determine whether the file creator or InDesign's filter is problematic and go from there ...

- Dov

[John_H_...@adobeforums.com]

I am on Windows 2000. My companie uses charts generated as windows metafiles (wmf). They place quite easily in PageMaker but Indesign seems to be reading the fonts and the lines and altering them as the chart comes in. Needless to saty the charts are a mess. Is there any way to avoid this or at least to control how the wmf files are affected.

Thanks you
John, Montreal, QC

[Bob_Levine]

WMFs are really not a very good choice for graphics. Can the charts be
created in a more "professional" format. WMF are more for office level
apps than high end publishing apps.

Bob

[John_H_...@adobeforums.com]

Both. The ID files are generated into PDFs and sent clients via email (or downloaded form the web). But even with PageMaker we had issues with wmfs. The files look different in every format (ID,PDF and printed).

Thanks,
John

[Bob_Levine]

This time, Dov, I'm going to disagree with you. WMFs suck in a
postscript workflow, which is what the OP is trying to accomplish.

The PM forum is littered with posts about the use of WMFs and having
them float around the printed or PDFed page.

They don't support bezier curves which means that curves can sometimes
have 100s of straight lines to make them up. Scale them up and they're
not much better than a low res raster image.

I'll stick with my advice...see if the graphics can be created in
another format or use PowerPoint for the project...They work great
there. <g>

Bob

[Dov Isaacs]

John,

I would be interested in a sample of a WMF file that is problematic for you under InDesign 3. Please e-mail it to me (click my name to access my Adobe e-mail address!).

InDesign has always provided reasonably good support for WMF (Windows MetaFile) and EMF (Enhanced MetaFile) graphics files. WMF and EMF support a mixture of vector graphics, raster graphics, and text in an untagged RGB colorspace (nominally sRGB). Adobe Illustrator does support opening and exporting content in both WMF and EMF format. I have successfully used both WMF and EMF format graphics (typically clipart such as that provided with Microsoft Office) in InDesign since InDesign 1.0 without any problems whatsoever, including output via high resolution color offset and digital printing! (For example, for the presentations that I make at various PDF, InDesign, and Worflow conferences, I use InDesign for production of those presentations. Much of the clipart that appears in those presentations is in WMF format -- haven't had a problem yet!)

Is either WMF or EMF my format of choice? No! But in most cases, if you have existing content in either WMF or EMF format, it makes no sense to "convert" it to some other format to fully and properly use it in InDesign or Illustrator. Note that of course, the quality of the WMF or EMF file depends on the authoring application and "the nut behind the wheel" so to speak. But that is true of any other graphic format as well!

Anyway, if you have a problematic WMF file, please send it my way so that we can ascertain what the problem is. Otherwise, consider WMF and EMF kosher for Pesach and year round usage! ;-)

- Dov

[John_H_...@adobeforums.com]

Thanks Dov and Rob.

I didn't realize I was opening a Pandora's Box here. Dov, I am trying to find a file to send you and will as soon as I can.

The WMFs we generate do work beautifulluy in Powerpoint. But I think I have to agree with Rob. What's the point of metafiles? Why not use more stable and print/web friendly file types. Anyway, I'm stuck with WMFs so I'll keep plugging away.

Again, thanks for all the feedback.

John

[Bob_Levine]

Well, you could open them in Illustrator and save as AI. Worth a try.

Bob

[Stu_...@adobeforums.com]

We routinely drag WMFs from a clipart package into Illustrator, save them as EPS, and place those in InDesign, with no problems.

[Dov Isaacs]

If they successfully open in Adobe Illustrator, they will successfully place in Adobe InDesign. They use the same filter!

- Dov

[Dov Isaacs]

If they successfully open in Adobe Illustrator, they will successfully place in Adobe InDesign. They use the same filter! Saving the WMF as EPS in Adobe Illustrator in no way improves or fixes the WMF contents.

- Dov

[Kenneth...@adobeforums.com]

> If they successfully open in Adobe Illustrator, they will successfully
place in Adobe InDesign. They use the same filter! Saving the WMF as EPS in
Adobe Illustrator in no way improves or fixes the WMF contents.

The difference between opening them in Illustrator and placing them in
Indesign is that Illustrator gives you a chance to change them.
Illustrator--all by itself--will not improve your WMFs, but you can use
Illustrator to improve or fix them.

Ken Benson

[John_H_...@adobeforums.com]

Plus the filter is what is distorting them. My company dmeands pretty high turnaraound on this stuff, so, I don't have to edit each metafile.

John

[Dov Isaacs]

John,

The reason for WMF and EMF files is that most Microsoft Windows applications cannot internalize EPS or PDF files for vector artwork. WMF and EMF are effectively Windows GDI in a file, you could say "encapsulated GDI" ...

- Dov

[Stu_...@adobeforums.com]

Saving the WMF as EPS in Adobe Illustrator in no way improves or fixes
the WMF contents.

That's good to know, and will save us some time. We developed that workflow in PageMaker days and never changed it when we moved to InDesign.

[Dov Isaacs]

Again, if you have actual files that can demonstrate distortion of a WMF file, please send them to me so that we can analyze them and provide a fix if at all possible.

At this point, Adobe is not aware of any bugs associated with opening (in Illustrator) or placing (in InDesign) kosher WMF or EMF files.

- Dov

[Scott_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

>I strongly disagree with allowing low end users as testers.

I don't know about that, Bob. It's kind of like auto manufacturers testing their products in Thompson, Manitoba in the middle of winter <http://www.sptimes.com/2004/02/16/news_pf/Floridian/Cold_cash.shtml>. Unless they see how things function in unexpected situations, they're not really providing the best possible product.

Anyone interested in gaining a further perspective on this issue should also read this thread <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?14@@.3bb86481/0> from a couple of months ago. There are actually quite a few of us who deal regularly with "real world" customers, and who can bear witness to the ongoing problem of the same mistakes being made over, and over, and over, ad infinitum. We've learned that users often use the software in ways the development team never envisioned. When you see the same mistakes repeated by many users over time, it becomes clear that there's a disconnect between the developers' expectations of what users will do and those users' actual experiences. In the short term, it's easy just to blame the users. In the long term, however, you have to wonder why so many users keep making those same mistakes.

[Scott_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

> On the other hand, we all can try to educate each other on problems
we encounter and methods of achieving reliable workflows and hopefully
encourage newcomers to learn.

Dov:

I think that's the best strategy for all parties. Again, I certainly agree that the expert-user features are essential, and should be the major thrust of your development efforts. As an expert user, I value those features, and use them daily. The point I hope to convey is that the number of expert users in the real world is proportionately small. It would seem otherwise based on present company. Most of the people here in the U2U realm are experts. I'd say nearly all of us are easily capable of creating "perfect" files. But things go downhill quickly once you look outside this rarified environment. For every professional, experienced designer who understands how ink goes on paper, there are many secretaries and administrative assistants who have been crowned "office DTP person." I urge you to include those non-expert users in your product testing to see what mistakes they commonly make, and to add gentle nudges to help them avoid making the most common mistakes. Accomodating those users will help them produce more robust files, which will allow them to produce better documents in a shorter time and with lower preflight costs. That has to be a core component of the effort to strengthen InDesign's market position against low-end programs like Publisher.

Respectfully--

Scott

[Bob_Levine]

While agree with most your post, Scott, I strongly disagree with
allowing low end users as testers. For starters, the whole idea of beta
testing products is find problems and make sure features work as intended.

The type of person you're thinking of including wouldn't have a clue how
to go about troubleshooting problems or even reporting them accurately.

Take a look around here at some of the posts. People screaming "BUG!"
everytime something doesn't work just like Quark or Pagemaker...or even
worse, Publisher or Word.

I don't think any professional tool should be dumbed down for the sake
of people unqualified to use them.

Bob

[Bob_Levine]

Good points as usual, Scott.

But...You can take a driver's license away from someone unqualified to
drive. Testing cars under severe conditions is not the same as allowing
uneducated users to use software. One would assume that the testing of
cars is being done by people who know how to drive.

And yes, it's quite easy to blame the user. The same way I blame the
driver for smashing into a tree on a lovely spring day because he/she
was busy on a cell phone and checking out their hair in the mirror.

Bob

[pjre...@adobeforums.com]

I just took another look at this and noticed that the separations preview in Acrobat 7 shows the WMF equations as printing with all 4 colors of process ink (they should be black only). I don't suppose there's any way to fix that?

Thanks again,
Phil Redman

[John Mensinger]

That's where one of the problems with WMF can pop up. I believe you're seeing the result of an RGB "black." Does Preflight flag any RGB graphics? If not it may have undergone an uncontrolled conversion.

Though not on its face, this seems to go against:

Saving the WMF as EPS in Adobe Illustrator in no way improves or fixes
the WMF contents.

True a simple Save As or Export to EPS makes no improvement, but beforehand you can take measures to control such things as color specs and space, line weights, text/outlines, etc.

[pjre...@adobeforums.com]

Dov,

On a related note--we've been using MathType in MS Word to create math equations and import them into InDesign as EPS. There is a function in MS Word for exporting the MathType equations as EPS. This was done because EPS is a more trusted format and InDesign seemed to be importing the MathType equations that are embedded in the MS Word file as low-res TIF images (not suitable for publishing).

It appears that the changes in the import filters for CS2 now handle these embedded equations differently and the MathType equations are coming in with the Word manuscript as nice-looking WMF files (although the Links palette still identifies them as TIF). I'm tempted to skip the whole EPS conversion process and just go with the WMFs that import with the Word manuscript. I've exported some test documents as PDFx1-a and everything looks okay. The MathType fonts are embedded and Acrobat preflight doesn't identify any problems. They print okay to desktop printers too.

My question is -- Am I courting disaster using WMF instead of EPS? Also, why does the Links palette identify these as TIF instead of WMF?

Thanks,
Phil Redman

[Scott_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

>printing with all 4 colors of process ink (they should be black only).

Welcome to the world of RGB black, brought to you by our friends at Microsoft! We deal with this sort of thing daily. It's a drag.

I think that's why you've seen so much protest over the use of WMF and PNG files, Dov. Theoretically, you're right--there's no reason they shouldn't work with InDesign. Those of us in the trenches, though, know that 99.9% of the "amateur" format files we receive don't work because they're just plain crappy files. Unfortunately, a whole generation of low-end users have learned to do things the good ol' Microsoft way (low-res, RGB, WMF, OLE, etc.). That's been a headache for service providers for years. Many of us were overjoyed that Adobe dropped OLE support when you developed InDesign. Giving users the capability to use WMF, PNG, and their ilk, however, ensures that the problems will persist indefinitely. Making it easy for inexperienced users to build crummy files is a self-perpetuating nightmare for the service providers who somehow have to make it all work on a budget and a deadline.

[Guy_S...@adobeforums.com]

> Otherwise, consider
> WMF and EMF kosher for Pesach and year round usage! ;-)

Dayenu!

[Guy_S...@adobeforums.com]

> Welcome to the world of RGB black, brought to you by our friends
> at Microsoft! We deal with this sort of thing daily. It's a drag.

It is a drag for you if you are a service provider with a CMYK
workflow. For those of us who use desktop publishing software to create
content for use on-screen, in slide presentations, and for printing to
RGB devices, working in RGB is a necessity.

I have heard that some service providers have moved to a "last minute"
CMYK workflow, where everything is done in RGB, and then converted to
CMYK only in the last stage of the process when printing (I think this
conversion is done in the RIP). For example, one of the scientific
journals I publish in requires that all figures prepared for journal
articles be submitted in RGB.

From my perspective, this kind of workflow is a good thing, because it
means that I just do all of my content creation in RGB, and never have
to worry about conversions. Only the printer needs to worry about
conversion to CMYK.

[pjre...@adobeforums.com]

If not it may have undergone an uncontrolled conversion.

I received no RGB warning in creating the PDFx-1a file so I suspect you're right.

Thanks for the input,
Phil Redman

[Scott_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

A big stumbling block is output paths other than straight CMYK, specifically spot color jobs. I could retire if I had a nickel for every job where the customer wanted RGB elements to divide into K+PMS, for example. I'd be even richer if I had a nickel for every muddy, low-res RGB scan that needed individual color correction in Photoshop. Unfortunately, there are vast legions of such users--probably ten for every "expert" user. We have an aggressive training program, but there's no way to stanch the flow of poorly prepared files so long as the software makes it easy to prepare jobs poorly. No PDF workflow functions will fix that. But making it less easy to do it in the page layout program can at least minimize the problem.

Here's an example I think everyone can relate to: Why is it so easy to apply the color "Registration" to elements? Looking at it from an "expert user" perspective, I could easily say: No one would ever do that. Looking at it from the perspective of a service provider, I'm more inclined to say: If it looks like black, I guarantee that someone is going to apply it accidentally. The simple solution would be to require a modifier key before "Registration" could be applied to anything. But without the awareness that thousands of users make that mistake daily, it would never occur to me to add such a modifier.

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. If the capability to do something incorrectly exists within a piece of software, non-expert users will surely find a way to use that capability.

Please understand--I'm not trying to be combative. What I am trying to do is make clear that all the gee-whiz functions work only as well as the least knowledgable user. Making it very slightly less easy to do something the wrong way ultimately leads to happier customers, happier service providers, and a boost to Adobe's reputation.

[Dov Isaacs]

In fact, support for RGB in the creative workflow, especially for digital photographic images but also from “enterprise content,” all the way to the RIP is the direction that Adobe and ALL of its OEM RIP partners are headed.

In fact, virtually all modern-day PDF workflow and RIP systems from companies such as Agfa, Creo, and Heidelburg already support this. Ironically, many of the print service providers using these systems are either unaware of or untrained in this aspect of their use.

- Dov

[Guy_S...@adobeforums.com]

> What I am trying to do is make clear that all the gee-wiz

> functions work only as well as the least knowledgable user. Making
> it very slightly less easy to do something the wrong way
> ultimately leads to happier customers, happier service providers,
> and a boost to Adobe's reputation.

For the expert customers that know what they are doing, these sorts of
impediments are a pain in the ass. It is like those dialog boxes: "Are
you sure you want to...?"

Maybe content creation programs could operate in two modes: one for
beginners (in which things like registration are not even available)
and one for experts?

[Scott_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

Good idea, Guy. I think that would be an excellent solution. Have the software operate in novice-proof mode by default, but allow expert users to turn off that protection.

[Dov Isaacs]

Scott,

Your comments on this thread are very well taken.

The problem comes down to having a product, such as InDesign, that is fairly affordable and widely available, even to amateurs, but that has features, controls, dials, nobs, and do-dads desired by the most finicky professionals. Too many new, amateur users just don't feel compelled to learn how to properly use their new tools! And they are the most likely to immediately and certainly prematurely turn off any “novice mode.”

Use of InDesign by “amateurs” is not unlike the problem of use of high-end SLR cameras by photography wannabees who would be much better served by a point-and-shoot camera. (If you follow any of the digital photography on-line forums, it is amazing how many persons “upgrading” from a digital point-and-shoot camera to a high-end, expensive digital SLR subsequently complain about how the SLR gave such inferior results -- not as sharp, not as intense color -- compared to their old point-and-shoot model!) Even though even the highest-end digital SLRs have pre-programmed novice modes, you still need to learn quite a bit more to use those cameras to their best advantage and those modes are typically ignored by the novice!

A “newbie” interface to / novice mode for InDesign is an interesting possibility, but surprisingly enough, most of those who should use such an interface would probably prematurely think of themselves as experts and disable the newbie mode. “C'est la vie” as they say. We certainly will consider what could be done, though!

With regards to OLE, there are a good number of users who do give us flak over the fact that it is AWOL for users migrating from PageMaker or FrameMaker. To be fair, OLE, when it worked or works, provided a very convenient means by which content in other programs could be included in another program. The problems in actually implementing OLE were that (1) many programs that allegedly supported OLE as a client (including some from Microsoft such as Visio) had very unreliable and/or unstable support and (2) in order to support OLE, you need to directly support Microsoft's imaging model -- the OLE client “takes over” the portion of the screen in which the OLE content displays and interface to printing when such content prints. Adobe applications such as InDesign have their own internal imaging model that is fairly incompatible with such incestuous display and print relationships and as such, OLE was not implemented. But we do keep on hearing really vociferous complaints about that!

In terms of support for WMF, PNG, and the like, the real issue was whether Adobe should have made it very painful for enterprise content generators to place content into InDesign. Since there was nothing inherently defective about WMF, PNG, etc., the decision was made to support those formats. Like any file format, it can be terribly abused. I certainly would not recommend them for creation of new graphical content from high-end illustration or image edit software unless I was simply making a copy of artwork for direct placement into Microsoft Office applications, using a saved copy in PDF, let's say, for placement into InDesign.

As I indicated earlier in this thread, I have successfully used WMF and EMF placement of clipart into InDesign documents. If I had to “convert” every one of those files into EPS or PDF prior to such placement, I would have wasted many hours with no apparent improvement in content display or print. On the other hand, I do know what I am doing and avoid any WMF or EMF that would have brought in pseudo-black (R=G=B) text blocks (say that quickly several times in a row) that certainly could be fairly problematic for output (although there ways of getting around that as well!).

Unfortunately, Adobe cannot require a potential customer to exhibit competency in the graphic arts before licensing software. Nor can most printers pick and chose their customers based on competency (although there are some printers who do charge on the basis of quality / reliability of content provided to them -- pricing based on cost of corrections and/or preparation as well as raw printing costs). On the other hand, we all can try to educate each other on problems we encounter and methods of achieving reliable workflows and hopefully encourage newcomers to learn.

- Dov

[Stu_...@adobeforums.com]

Good idea, Bob. In fact, so good, I think Adobe should institute a performance test before anyone is allowed to purchase InDesign. Hey, they shouldn't stoop to take the filthy money from those non-professionals, right? Only people like you and me who were born knowing how to use high-end DTP tools should be allowed to use them.

[Scott_Mc...@adobeforums.com]

Settle down, boys.

My point is this: There will always be inexperienced, non-expert users. Period. Maybe you don't have any contact with them--if that's the case, great! And since you're reading this, you're almost certainly an expert user. Double great! The whole streamlined PDF workflow is designed especially for you. You get to reap the benefits it offers. Rejoice!

Outside of this expert cadre, however, are the "great unwashed masses." They don't know, or even really care, how ink goes on paper. They don't understand how transparency works, or PostScript, or imposition, or color models, or efficient workflows. They need to publish something--usually as a small portion of their job--so they'll use their limited skills and the tools at their disposal to do the best they can. Then they hand it off to an expert user to do all the behind the scenes magic. Voila! A few days later, we deliver a final product that looks great. That's the service we offer, and we do a really good job of it, too.

My point is that I don't want software developers to get so focused on meeting the needs of their expert user base that they are totally oblivious to the needs of that other user base, which is at least as large as the expert group. If Adobe doesn't look at those users, determine their needs, and find ways to address them, then they're not truly providing the best product for their total user base. That's not dumbing-down the software. Its simply acknowledging that there are essentially two separate user groups, each with its own unique needs in addition to the obvious overlap.

[Bob_Levine]

What exactly is your problem? All I said was that I don't want my
program dumbed down because there are people who can't use it. And I
don't want it tested by people who don't have a clue about the process
of producing documents. The results would be meaningless, IMO.

Would you allow taxi driver to test a 747? What would that tell you
about the plane?

I never said I was born with expertise. I spent years learning this
stuff and I'll be damned if I'm buying a product that's aimed at people
who haven't.

And perhaps you'd like to tell me who's to blame for poorly constructed
files? I don't see anyone blaming GM when some drunken fool drives into
brick wall. Or maybe all cars should be designed to go no more than 5
MPH to protect those fools.

Bob

[Bob_Levine]

I'm sure they're open to suggestions, Scott. But I still say education
is the way.

I understand you're stuck working with people who don't have a clue.
Have you considered half day seminars for your clients? Obviously you
can't cover everything but you could certainly hit on CMYK vs RGB, 72
dpi vs 300 dpi, WMF vs AI, and PSD vs GIF as well as proper PDF creation.

Bob

[Kenneth...@adobeforums.com]

> Have you considered half day seminars for your clients?

I think this would be no different than half-day seminars for authors who
provide files to us in Word. You could teach them all about styles and
referencing graphics...that is, if you could get them to go in the first
place. I can't even get my Wordperfect authors to stop using that *&^% WP
TypographicSymbols font.

Ken Benson