Hi there …I work at a small "intellectual capital" company where virtually all of our documents (our products!) depend on embedding eps "pictures" into Word and pdf'ing the result. While this process works great in Word 2003, it fails miserably in Word 2007 - the "mechanics" work fine and a pdf is produced, but the rendering of the eps images are terrible. I spent some effort looking into this issue trying to find a solution and came up with the following (thanks in part to this post) ... if anyone has any more details, corrections, or solutions feel free to post!It appears that, over the years, there have been three flavors of eps import filters for Word ... (for the curious the filter is found in Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Grphflt\EPSIMP32.FLT )The simplest (and oldest) filter basically embeds the eps code unmodified into the Word doc and will display a raster preview of the image if one is included in the eps file. if the file is printed on a postscript printer or to Acrobat, the eps code is passed through (so it produces perfect pdfs, and the screen image in Word looks as good as the preview image embedded in the eps file). if the file is printed to a generic printer, no image appears (so it doesn't work for joe user).The Word 2003-era filter pastes the eps code unmodified into the Word doc, then renders a (very poor) preview image (using an OEM'd eps converter). if a preview image is in the eps file it is ignored (which is bad). if the file is printed on a postscript printer or to Acrobat, the unmodified eps code is passed through (so it produces perfect pdfs, though the screen image in Word looks yucky). if the file is printed to a generic printer, the poorly rendered preview image is printed (so it works poorly but better than nothing for joe user - and probably gives joe user a bad impression of eps).In what might be an attempt to improve things for joe user, the Word 2007 filter immediately interprets the eps code (using a slightly updated eps converter from the same OEM) and pastes the resulting rendered image into Word. It NO LONGER embeds the unmodified eps code in the Word doc. While the rendered image looks better than filter #2, it still leaves A LOT to be desired - in my brief testing, colors are VERY wrong and curves become choppy. if the file is printed on a postscript printer or to Acrobat, the poorly rendered image is used since the original eps code is gone (unacceptable for my purposes). if the file is printed to a generic printer, the poorly rendered image is printed (so it works better than Word 2003 for joe user).So where does this leave anyone that wants to upgrade to Word 2007, use eps images, and make quality pdfs ??Filters #1 & #2 were interchangeable in Word 2003. The true eps experts like #1 the best, and it is by far the simplest technically (76k of code vs 400+k), so they merrily swapped and used it with Word 2003. (Very) unfortunately filters #1 and #2 do not work with Word 2007 - if they did the problem would be nicely solved.Find another graphics file format to work with? This is undesirable because the "beauty" of #1 & #2 above is the unmodified eps code gets fed to the pdf maker (which itself is native eps) - Word is just a transport (no "transcoding" loss in compression-speak). if there were an efficient way to convert eps to say wmf (microsoft's proprietary vector graphic format), and the images were able to survive two transcodes (from eps to wmf back to eps for pdf), it might be livable. But of course Adobe Illustrator cannot save as wmv (nor should it IMHO). Of note - there is another industry standard vector format - svg - which AI can save as but Word does not support. Stay in Word 2003 doc format while using Word 2007 (don't use docx). Doesn't work. My testing shows a Word 2003 doc file with embedded eps created in Word 2003 (and pdf's correctly in Word 2003) does not pdf correctly in Word 2007.Use a work-around. As suggested here, "Open the EPS in Illustrator. Select all, and Edit > Copy. In Word, Edit > Paste Special > Enhanced Metafile." This seems to work for small images such as logos, but not for larger graphical stuff (probably because of the internal transcoding to WMF).Stay with Word 2003. This appears to be the only workable option for now IF you want to use Word and render eps pictures in pdf's with acceptable quality.IMHO the best solution would be to have the very simple 76k filter #1 ported to Word 2007 (those who need the capability can swap the filter files) or (not as optimal but does not require swapping filter files) add the option in filter #3 to still embed the eps code. Microsoft is the right place to do it, or (politics aside), Adobe could and should do it (given some support from MSFT). I am surprised this issue has not caused more rumblings from users - perhaps it has, the symptoms are just worded differently. Or maybe everyone is just staying with Word 2003 (which is what I have done until now). The problem is most companies are being forced to upgrade now, so I think this will become a bigger issue for Adobe / Microsoft going forward.Thanks for listening. I look forward to your comments.Andy

Participant

Question

Inability to use eps graphics in Word 2007 and make a pdf

Forum|Forum|16 years ago
May 29, 2009
11 replies
52200 views

Hi there …

I work at a small "intellectual capital" company where virtually all of our documents (our products!) depend on embedding eps "pictures" into Word and pdf'ing the result. While this process works great in Word 2003, it fails miserably in Word 2007 - the "mechanics" work fine and a pdf is produced, but the rendering of the eps images are terrible. I spent some effort looking into this issue trying to find a solution and came up with the following (thanks in part to this post) ... if anyone has any more details, corrections, or solutions feel free to post!

It appears that, over the years, there have been three flavors of eps import filters for Word ... (for the curious the filter is found in Program Files\Common Files\Microsoft Shared\Grphflt\EPSIMP32.FLT )

The simplest (and oldest) filter basically embeds the eps code unmodified into the Word doc and will display a raster preview of the image if one is included in the eps file. if the file is printed on a postscript printer or to Acrobat, the eps code is passed through (so it produces perfect pdfs, and the screen image in Word looks as good as the preview image embedded in the eps file). if the file is printed to a generic printer, no image appears (so it doesn't work for joe user).
The Word 2003-era filter pastes the eps code unmodified into the Word doc, then renders a (very poor) preview image (using an OEM'd eps converter). if a preview image is in the eps file it is ignored (which is bad). if the file is printed on a postscript printer or to Acrobat, the unmodified eps code is passed through (so it produces perfect pdfs, though the screen image in Word looks yucky). if the file is printed to a generic printer, the poorly rendered preview image is printed (so it works poorly but better than nothing for joe user - and probably gives joe user a bad impression of eps).
In what might be an attempt to improve things for joe user, the Word 2007 filter immediately interprets the eps code (using a slightly updated eps converter from the same OEM) and pastes the resulting rendered image into Word. It NO LONGER embeds the unmodified eps code in the Word doc. While the rendered image looks better than filter #2, it still leaves A LOT to be desired - in my brief testing, colors are VERY wrong and curves become choppy. if the file is printed on a postscript printer or to Acrobat, the poorly rendered image is used since the original eps code is gone (unacceptable for my purposes). if the file is printed to a generic printer, the poorly rendered image is printed (so it works better than Word 2003 for joe user).

So where does this leave anyone that wants to upgrade to Word 2007, use eps images, and make quality pdfs ??

Filters #1 & #2 were interchangeable in Word 2003. The true eps experts like #1 the best, and it is by far the simplest technically (76k of code vs 400+k), so they merrily swapped and used it with Word 2003. (Very) unfortunately filters #1 and #2 do not work with Word 2007 - if they did the problem would be nicely solved.
Find another graphics file format to work with? This is undesirable because the "beauty" of #1 & #2 above is the unmodified eps code gets fed to the pdf maker (which itself is native eps) - Word is just a transport (no "transcoding" loss in compression-speak). if there were an efficient way to convert eps to say wmf (microsoft's proprietary vector graphic format), and the images were able to survive two transcodes (from eps to wmf back to eps for pdf), it might be livable. But of course Adobe Illustrator cannot save as wmv (nor should it IMHO). Of note - there is another industry standard vector format - svg - which AI can save as but Word does not support.
Stay in Word 2003 doc format while using Word 2007 (don't use docx). Doesn't work. My testing shows a Word 2003 doc file with embedded eps created in Word 2003 (and pdf's correctly in Word 2003) does not pdf correctly in Word 2007.
Use a work-around. As suggested here, "Open the EPS in Illustrator. Select all, and Edit > Copy. In Word, Edit > Paste Special > Enhanced Metafile." This seems to work for small images such as logos, but not for larger graphical stuff (probably because of the internal transcoding to WMF).
Stay with Word 2003. This appears to be the only workable option for now IF you want to use Word and render eps pictures in pdf's with acceptable quality.

IMHO the best solution would be to have the very simple 76k filter #1 ported to Word 2007 (those who need the capability can swap the filter files) or (not as optimal but does not require swapping filter files) add the option in filter #3 to still embed the eps code. Microsoft is the right place to do it, or (politics aside), Adobe could and should do it (given some support from MSFT).

I am surprised this issue has not caused more rumblings from users - perhaps it has, the symptoms are just worded differently. Or maybe everyone is just staying with Word 2003 (which is what I have done until now). The problem is most companies are being forced to upgrade now, so I think this will become a bigger issue for Adobe / Microsoft going forward.

Thanks for listening. I look forward to your comments.

Andy

This topic has been closed for replies.

P

pgrahamiv

Participant

After much testing, I have found one way for Microsoft Office 2007 applications to handle EPS files reliably, and it is so easy I can't believe I didn't think of this sooner. Microsoft Office 2007 apps can convert EPS graphics accurately to PDF files. If you're a frequent user of Word, Excel, Access or PowerPoint 2007 like me, and you need to to create PDF files vector-based content from Microsoft Office 2007 on a regular basis, you'll appreciate this easy work-around for working with EPS files in MS Office 2007.

Unlike Microsoft Office 2003, the traditional methods of handling EPS files in MS Office 2007 apps using the "Insert" or "Paste Special" commands to handle EPS files in Word 2007 can cause EPS filesl to discard vector, font and/or color data. PDF files generated with EPS files using these insertion methods will result in poorly redefined and truncated EPS content that differs vastly from the original vector file.

Here is the 2-step work around I discovered after hours of methodical, albeit failed, work-around testing:

1) Browse for your EPS file in your file directory and copy it to the clipboard. Do not copy it from within your vector art application.

2) In Word 2007, set your cursor to the desired insertion point and paste the EPS file into the Word document.

Using this method, I was able to resize and crop EPS files right in the MS Office 2007 applications, including Word 2007. My PDF files generated from Word 2007 are perfect. I tried both transparent and opaque EPS files and they both performed equally well.

S

Sono Birba

Participating Frequently

Hi,

Thanks, but it didn't work for me. My gradients still break apart and are "pinstriped" and my curves are not smooth.

B

basares

Participant

I found the Adobe PDF printer produced the pdf with the .eps files included, but after closing and reopening the document neither the convert to pdf or the pdf printer worked.

B

basares

Participant

My bad. Aparantly saved to a different file than the one I was checking for changes. Word trouble late at night is not easy to deal with, I go into hate mode easily and don't know what I'm doing....

But anyways. The Pdf printer seem to produce nice looking vector figures, but the "convert to pdf" on the acrobat ribbon or the "word-save as" don't.

U

urinal-fS6nU9

Participant

Thanks to the original poster for getting this discussion started and for the helpful details.

I have found that Word 2010 actually returns to the behavior of passing-through the raw .eps when printing, which is the Word 2003 behavior described by AndyNils. So the displayed images look poor but the printed PDFs look great. So I guess this is the best "workaround". Hooray!

However, when I have .png in Word 2010 and print them to Acrobat 9 or Acrobat 6 (tried them both), the images get cut up into smaller images and inserted in the PDF. This results in huge files (a 400kb .png causes the PDF to grow by 7mb). More importantly, the text flow is destroyed and everything is columned (and so some text looks broken too). Has anyone seen this problem before?

Here is an example http://www.filefront.com/16951807/example.zip I hope that someone can try it and tell me if this happens to them as well.

(sorry for hi-jacking this thread)

S

SimonATS

Community Manager

Urinal,

I'm guessing the png has some sort of transparency in it. This is how it converts to pdf, not much you can do about that during conversion.

However if you have acrobat Pro, go to advanced>pdfoptimizer

Select the 'Discard Objects' option and make sure there's a tick for 'Detect and merge image fragments'

Set any other options as you require and save the optimized pdf.

U

urinal-fS6nU9

Participant

Hi SimonATS, thanks for the reply. This isn't a transparency problem because I've used non-transparent png, jpeg (which doesn't support transparency), and even bmp. You can see in my example files that the image is not a transparent png. Also, the image fragmentation would not explain the text fragmentation that's occurring.

P

pkhoan

Participant

Try it

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/972568

S

Sono Birba

Participating Frequently

It didn't work for me. I could only find a way to link by "insert object". I get a black box on the screen. And it's not the correct dimension.

G

grtoro

Participant

For some reason, the import eps feature stopped working

for me in Word 2003 a few months ago. Has anyone experienced this problem? Any suggestions?

I am having to convert the eps files to png using ghostscript, but this is a hassle in terms of file size, etc.

BTW, thanks to earlier contributors to this thread. It is very informative. I have been struggling with Word and eps for years. Things were working decently for me with Word 2003, until something changed.

S

Sono Birba

Participating Frequently

Try saving your eps files as version 8 illustrator. I found I had a lot of luck that way in Office 2003.

gprobst

Participating Frequently

I ran into this problem after "upgrading" to Word 2007. It's utterly ridiculous. If the "EPS is outdated" attitude is the excuse for it, then MS needs to allow PDFs to be inserted to Word docs.

S

Sono Birba

Participating Frequently

I agree that EPS will be around for a long time. Being able to import vector based artwork is essential. Vector art is a good way to keep file sizes smaller, and quality at it's best—provided it works. The problem with WMF and EMF files is that they have never been able to handle curves well. WMF files generally make curves by using a lot of tiny segmented lines. If you download any of Microsoft's vector based clipart you can see the evidence of this everywhere. Bring one of those images into Corel Draw or Illustrator to modify it and you won't find a curve. Gradient colour is also converted, I believe, by stacking thin lines. In Word 2007, when I have produced EPS files that had gradient colour, they often displayed with "white pin-stripes" because some of the lines would disappear.

I get terrible results in Word, PowerPoint and Excel. However, I don't have any issues with Visio. I'm not sure why.

Why would Microsoft take a superior file format and make it reproduce in a substandard format?

B

Bill12

Inspiring

Since this problem keeps coming up, I decided to test it with WORD 2007, VISIO 2007, and AA8 on VISTA. I created a vector file in VISIO and printed to the Adobe PDF printer (with print-to-file selected) to get a junk.eps file. I then imported the file into WORD 2007 (it actually displayed -- I am not sure that the print added a display graphic to the EPS file), and printed to the Adobe PDF printer. Everything went fine. (I may have actually used PDF Maker, but it worked fine in any case.)

A

Anonymous

Microsoft has released a hot fix that supposedly addresses this issue, it is at

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/977468

I downloaded the fix and tried it; it actually made the problem worse! Apparently they

are trying to fix their filter rather than bypassing it. What I am doing is

1. Making maps in AutoCaD Map and printing (plotting in autocad) them to a pdf file

2. Opening the pdf file in Acrobat and resaving it as eps

3. Importing the eps file into a Word 2007 document

4. Use Acrobat to convert the Word document to pdf

Before the hot fix when I did the process the resolution of the map in the final

pdf file was not as good as in the original made from AutoCad. Also the colors were

not correct. After installing the hotfix there are still these same problems but also now

any non horizontal text is not displaying correctly.

Be careful about trying this hotfix.

As others have noted, back in Word 2003 the above steps 1 - 4 worked very well and resulted

in a high quality pdf file with the map as good as in the original pdf.

W

Wa-Haa

Participant

I faced this EPS import problem in Word 2007 last week. Sometime ago I had a problem with the import filter (EPSIMP32.FLT) in Word 2000 because the installation of Microsoft Visio replaced the original version with a "broken" one, so the first thing I tried was replacing the filter. It didn't work, so I searched for any clues on the internet and find none on this specific issue, but found that I should have not only replaced the file, but also updated the registry with the version of old EPSIMP32.FLT (mine is 98.5.14.0 from Office 2000)

Everything works now, right? Wrong! When using docx, the stupid thing just ignores the filter and converts itself the EPS into some trash! To be able to use the filter, you must save the file in compatibily mode (save as "Word 97-2003 Document") and then insert the EPS. If you save it again in docx, the EPS will be lost.

Summarizing:

Replace the EPS import filter (EPSIMP32.FLT).
Update the registry (right now I don't have the key, so just search for EPSIMP32.FLT and update the version).
Test it:
- create a new Word document,
- save it as "Word 97-2003 Document",
- insert an EPS,
- print to PDF (the internal converter does not work).

If someone needs more information (such as the specific registry key), I can provide later.

I am surprised this issue has not caused more rumblings from users - perhaps it has, the symptoms are just worded differently. Or maybe everyone is just staying with Word 2003 (which is what I have done until now). The problem is most companies are being forced to upgrade now, so I think this will become a bigger issue for Adobe / Microsoft going forward.

So am I! EMF just sucks and the EPS filter in Word 2007 is a bad joke. PNG is not a great option, since it's a bitmap and resolution specific. If Word supported PDF, that would be perfect, as EPS files are easily converted into PDFs.

B

Bill12

Inspiring

Interesting. The OFFICE 2007 equation editor does not work in doc mode, only docx. Maybe a similar fix for the compatibility mode by bringing the equation editor from OFFICE 2003. Might try it. I am awful tempted to remove OFFICE 2007 and install OFFICE 2003 from my other machine.

S_D_A_

Inspiring

Not that many people use .eps anymore (old format). For use in the Office Suite try to use PNGs. They seem to be supported much better than eps ever has been in Office products.

A

AndyNilsAuthor

Participant

S.D.A.: I don't think so ... eps is a vector format and will be around as long as postscript is around as eps provides a" wrapper." for postscript (as does pdf, but the wrapper is different). PNG is a bit-map format that was designed to replace GIF - both have their place, but are used for different things.

Andy