[OT] Purpose of pdf files?

[miskairal]

I hate pdf files. I find them difficult to view but that's just me. I am
finding more and more people sending me photos in a pdf file "to make
them smaller". I always thought that pdf files were used so that they
could be read on any computer. Are they meant to make a file or many
files smaller?

 

[Kalle Piirainen]

I hate pdf files. I find them difficult to view but that's just me. I am
finding more and more people sending me photos in a pdf file "to make
them smaller". I always thought that pdf files were used so that they
could be read on any computer. Are they meant to make a file or many
files smaller?

Maybe it would ease the pain, if you used some snappy little viewer like
Foxit Reader http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php ? I too find
the Acrobat/reader a little too hefty.

Portable Document Format (PDF) is intended to be a portable or platform
independent container for text and images. It is to my knowledge used
extensively in the printing industry, because it can store text, images
and meta data necessary for high quality print jobs.

In more common use PDF is good for read-only documents because the looks
or layout of a document doesn't change depending on the viewing
application, screen resolution or printer. I'm sure you're familiar with
problems exchanging document, say, between different Word versions, let
alone between applications.

For some more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format

I guess PDF also serves in spamming friends with pictures, as it has
multiple options for compressing images PDF isn't intended to make
images smaller as such, but with common PDF-creators it can be done very
easily. In creating the document user is usually presented with
compression options and you can, for example, crank up the
JPG-compression, which effectively results in smaller file size.

-K

 

[HVS]

On 24 Mar 2006, miskairal wrote

I hate pdf files. I find them difficult to view but that's just
me. I am finding more and more people sending me photos in a pdf
file "to make them smaller". I always thought that pdf files
were used so that they could be read on any computer. Are they
meant to make a file or many files smaller?

They're useful in business -- not just to protect the material from
copying, but also to send a consolidated document.

I write reports that often have, say, 10 pages of text with 15 pages
of maps and images. Creating that as a Word document with inserted
images is ridiculous, so I tend to send them as a .doc file with
individual .jpgs for the images. That means 16 printing operations,
though, and I'm quite certain that some of my clients would prefer a
consolidated document for one-stage printing. PDFs would suit that
purpose quite well.

 

[Roger Johansson]

Foxit Reader http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/rd_intro.php ?

A good and quick pdf reader, if you cannot avoid pdf files completely.

Portable Document Format (PDF) is intended to be a portable or platform
independent container for text and images.

No, it is a display format, intended to give the same visual image of
text and images, the same visual display, no matter what machine or
user preferences are available.

It is mainly used by control freaks who want to force you to read with
the font they prefer, the font size they prefer, the background color
they prefer, totally ignoring the different preferences of the end
user. They often also want to stop you from copying the information or
use it in any other way than looking at it.

If you want "a portable or platform independent container for text and
images" you should use HTML, not pdf.

In HTML you send the text and images in an open and available form and
you send a suggestions to how to display it, a HTML file.

In HTML the creator is not forcing the end user to view the information
in a certain way, he just tells you what importance different elements
should have in relation to the other elements.

The HTML file tells you what text is a title and what text is the main
text, and gives a default display suggestion, but the end user can use
his own settings to display the information in any way he wants or
needs.

 

[Jeff Needle]

I hate pdf files. I find them difficult to view but that's just me. I am
finding more and more people sending me photos in a pdf file "to make
them smaller". I always thought that pdf files were used so that they
could be read on any computer. Are they meant to make a file or many
files smaller?

My experience is that they're so much bigger. I also dislike PDF. I wish
it hadn't become such a standard.

 

[Michael Laplante]

No, it is a display format, intended to give the same visual image of
text and images, the same visual display, no matter what machine or
user preferences are available.

If you want "a portable or platform independent container for text and
images" you should use HTML, not pdf.

I agree with all your very good observations. However, as the next poster
points out HTML doesn't print very well. It's possible to embed tags that
will force page breaks at convenient points but the end result is still not
as good (i.e. predictable) as a PDF.

That said, HTML is my format of choice. However, to "bundle" text and photos
together so that they can be emailed as a package MHT or the FF equivalent
is a suggestion. They can always be un-archived at the end point.

M

 

[Kalle Piirainen]

Kalle Piirainen wrote:
No, it is a display format, intended to give the same visual image of
text and images, the same visual display, no matter what machine or
user preferences are available.
....

If you want "a portable or platform independent container for text and
images" you should use HTML, not pdf.

In HTML you send the text and images in an open and available form and
you send a suggestions to how to display it, a HTML file.

I agree up to a point. For web content markup language is of course far
more convenient, but what about documents that are intended to be
printed, i.e. application forms, reports and articles? I'd say there's a
place for both. What goes for control freaks, mostly I've seen
different kind of journal and magazine articles in PDF, one could
suppose they want to preserve the same page layout than the paper version.

And I very much do hate web content in PDF, but I also make
PDF-documents for printing reports that I've written etc. It's so nice
to export your paper in PDF and go anywhere to print it, without having
to adjust your marginals and so on. For some instances, it's not
acceptable to file papers with unstandard layout.

-K

 

[Eric]

I hate pdf files. I find them difficult to view but that's just me. I am
finding more and more people sending me photos in a pdf file "to make
them smaller". I always thought that pdf files were used so that they
could be read on any computer. Are they meant to make a file or many
files smaller?

For just pictures, it is a bit silly to send PDFs unless you have a
high megapixel camera and would be sending HUGE files. Some people
can't resize pictures and I hate having to deal with a 3MB file so I
can say "oh how nice" and delete it. But it is good for a page of
pictures since you can drop the DPI down and make a smaller file.

PDF really works best for sharing documents that don't need to be (or
should NOT be) editted. I use OpenOffice and the local Girl Scout
organization insists on sending Word document announcement and sign-up
flyers. The minor differences mean that I have to adjust lines and
graphic placement before printing.

PDF files are also good for archiving. I learned my lesson when I went
through HELL trying to get GEM Publisher running again so I could print
another copy of a friend's wedding announcement from 12 years ago.

 

[Roger Johansson]

PDF really works best for sharing documents that don't need to be (or
should NOT be) editted.

You mean ...for sharing of the arranged visual display of documents..

PDF files are also good for archiving.

If you are interested in achiving a certain visual display of a visual
arrangement of text and images for printing. If you want to archive the
actual content then pdf files are definitely not good, as you will have
big problems unpacking and accessing the content. PDF files are not
supposed to be unpacked. It is not a storage format, it is a visual
display format.

If you want to take your family with you to another place you should
use a car or an aeroplane and put the actual family members in that
transport container.
If you only take a photo of your family with you it might not be
possible to restore the actual people from the photo when you arrive at
the new place.

Yes, I know, taking a photo is very convenient, but it doesn't work for
storing or transporting the actual content. A photo is just a visual
display of the family.

PDF files are not good for archiving any kind of content, it is a way
to display a certain arrangement. Like if you take images and texts
and lay them out on a table in a certain arrangement and take a photo
of that arrangement, that photo can be printed out, or save to be
viewed again, but you cannot get the original images and text back from
a photo. Not without a lot of extra work and the help of special
software anyway. PDF files are like such photos of visually arranged
stuff.

I learned my lesson when I went
through HELL trying to get GEM Publisher running again so I could print
another copy of a friend's wedding announcement from 12 years ago.

So you have a habit of choosing the most unsuitable file formats for
storing information.

We will hear from you again. When you try to unpack the pdf files you
have created, so you can get back the original data. We will tell you
that it is maybe not even possible and ask you why you chose to save
the visual display of an arrangement of the data instead of storing the
data in some suitable file format for storing and transporting data,
like zip files, or mht files.

 

[lugnut]

A good and quick pdf reader, if you cannot avoid pdf files completely.


No, it is a display format, intended to give the same visual image of
text and images, the same visual display, no matter what machine or
user preferences are available.

It is mainly used by control freaks who want to force you to read with
the font they prefer, the font size they prefer, the background color
they prefer, totally ignoring the different preferences of the end
user. They often also want to stop you from copying the information or
use it in any other way than looking at it.

If you want "a portable or platform independent container for text and
images" you should use HTML, not pdf.

In HTML you send the text and images in an open and available form and
you send a suggestions to how to display it, a HTML file.

In HTML the creator is not forcing the end user to view the information
in a certain way, he just tells you what importance different elements
should have in relation to the other elements.

The HTML file tells you what text is a title and what text is the main
text, and gives a default display suggestion, but the end user can use
his own settings to display the information in any way he wants or
needs.

Sometimes control is exactly what is needed. IMHO, it is a
great format. I started using pdf to file my reports after
I caught a receipiant copying, pasteing and altering my
report into their report to be sent along to a third party
and claiming it's contents were theirs while being
detrimental to my well being. I have every intention of
making it as hard as possible for my reports to be changed
whether it is an expense report or test reports. It's best
security is that most of the people with whom I must
affiliate do not own a copy of a pdf editor because they are
too cheap and have no understanding of it. If I ever find
anything more secure than a passworded pdf, I'll use that
along with audit copies sent to an archivist. I never mind
being ripped or whatever for what I said. That gets me in
quite enough trouble, thank you.

Lugnut

 

[miskairal]

Thanks everyone for your comments and thanks Kalle for your explanation.
I do you use foxit and have others using it as well. I must admit that
it makes viewing a pdf much easier but I think my dislike has been
etched into my brain from acrobat days. Now I just have to teach others
how to resize their photos and I may never have to see a pdf file again.

I have a friend who does a newsletter once a month. I discovered she had
an illegal version of adobe's pdf making programme (she didn't realize
it was illegal either) and was trying to convince her to change to one
of the free ones I'd seen recommended here. She kept complaining that
they wouldn't compress the files small like adobe's did. That was
because I'd taught her how to resize the jpgs before they were inserted
into the pdf at about the same time.

I can see they have their uses, especially for filling out forms, but I
don't need them.

cheers
miskairal

 

[M.L.]

A good and quick pdf reader, if you cannot avoid pdf files completely.


No, it is a display format, intended to give the same visual image of
text and images, the same visual display, no matter what machine or
user preferences are available.

It is mainly used by control freaks who want to force you to read with
the font they prefer, the font size they prefer, the background color
they prefer, totally ignoring the different preferences of the end
user.

That is being far too harsh.

They often also want to stop you from copying the information or
use it in any other way than looking at it.

You make that sound like a bad thing. There are certainly legitimate
reasons why one would not want the reader to be able to modify a
document.

If you want "a portable or platform independent container for text and
images" you should use HTML, not pdf.

Not always.

In HTML you send the text and images in an open and available form and
you send a suggestions to how to display it, a HTML file.

But creating an HTML file is a big hassle compared to creating a PDF,
and requires technical expertise on a level not needed for PDF
creation. And in many cases the HTML file will need to be uploaded to
a server, which means that the user must invest time and money to
configure a web host account. In addition, unless one uses the MSIE
mht format, HTML documents require the text and images to be
separated, whereas PDF creation does not. There's a definite advantage
to having a document in one piece.

In HTML the creator is not forcing the end user to view the information
in a certain way, he just tells you what importance different elements
should have in relation to the other elements.

Sometimes it's important for a document be rendered consistently.

The HTML file tells you what text is a title and what text is the main
text, and gives a default display suggestion, but the end user can use
his own settings to display the information in any way he wants or
needs.

PDF doesn't require one to care about the mechanics behind the
document.

 

[M.L.]

I write reports that often have, say, 10 pages of text with 15 pages
of maps and images. Creating that as a Word document with inserted
images is ridiculous, so I tend to send them as a .doc file with
individual .jpgs for the images.

What's so ridiculous about inserting images into a word document? It's
done all the time.

That means 16 printing operations,
though, and I'm quite certain that some of my clients would prefer a
consolidated document for one-stage printing. PDFs would suit that
purpose quite well.

While I think PDFs are better suited for distributing the final
document, I see no reason why such a document couldn't be created in
word before converting it to a PDF.

 

[HVS]

On 24 Mar 2006, M.L. wrote

What's so ridiculous about inserting images into a word
document? It's done all the time.

When I've tried it -- putting in, say, a dozen images (A4-size .jpg
files of grayscale maps), totalling 4 or 5 MB -- the resulting Word
file has been in the order of 20-25 MB.

I was probably doing something wrong, but no matter what I tried,
importing images to create a text+images .doc file landed me with a
20+ MB file -- so I abandoned that route.

While I think PDFs are better suited for distributing the final
document, I see no reason why such a document couldn't be
created in word before converting it to a PDF.

When I tried that, though, the (say) 25MB Word file reduced to
about half -- 12-ish MB. (Which -- unlike the original total of 4
or 5 MB of image files -- was still unshiftable for me by e-mail.)

 

[John Hood]

On 24 Mar 2006, M.L. wrote




When I've tried it -- putting in, say, a dozen images (A4-size .jpg
files of grayscale maps), totalling 4 or 5 MB -- the resulting Word
file has been in the order of 20-25 MB.

I was probably doing something wrong, but no matter what I tried,
importing images to create a text+images .doc file landed me with a
20+ MB file -- so I abandoned that route.




When I tried that, though, the (say) 25MB Word file reduced to
about half -- 12-ish MB. (Which -- unlike the original total of 4
or 5 MB of image files -- was still unshiftable for me by e-mail.)

A suggestion from a Helpdesk guy, which you can take or leave, but...

Put the images into a PowerPoint presentation. When you got them all
lined up how you want them. Right click one of the images, go to Format
Picture. Under the Picture tab is a button marked "Compress".

You can compress "All Pictures in Document" to "Screen = 96 dpi" at one
shot. You can refer to the PowerPoint in the Doc, or include the doc
pages in the PowerPoint.

Failing that, you might want to try seeing what saving the report -
with images - is like as an RTF formatted document.

I tested once, and typed a page of Notepad txt and saved it. It was 5
KB. Copied and pasted into Word, it became 24.5 KB.

John Hood
Web Site www.jhoodsoft.org
"The best home and business free software, no ads, no time limits, no
fluff."
"No kidding."

 

[Al Klein]

I agree up to a point. For web content markup language is of course far
more convenient, but what about documents that are intended to be
printed, i.e. application forms, reports and articles?

Ever send a native Crystal report to a web page? That alone justifies
the .pdf format.

Now as to pretty web pages redone as .pdfs ...

There's a best tool for every job - some people think that, since they
just discovered how to swing a hammer, a hammer is the best tool for
every job. (Case in point - I'm currently being forced to write html
files in VB.)

 

[Michael Laplante]

On 24 Mar 2006, M.L. wrote

When I've tried it -- putting in, say, a dozen images (A4-size .jpg
files of grayscale maps), totalling 4 or 5 MB -- the resulting Word
file has been in the order of 20-25 MB.

I was probably doing something wrong, but no matter what I tried,
importing images to create a text+images .doc file landed me with a
20+ MB file -- so I abandoned that route.

Were you doing cut and paste or via the 'Insert' menu? If you do it via the
cut and paste method, Word converts it to a bitmap -- biggest file size. If
you do it via the 'Insert' menu, it will import the image in its native
format. Therefore, a jpg would be smaller.

HTH

M

 

[thunder7]

Your not lone in disliking PDF's.
We should start our own Group "We who Hate PDF's" How ever it is as 'Al
Klein' Ever send a native Crystal report to a web page? That alone
justifies the .pdf format.

My girlfriend for example is a PC Tech she uses PDF in her job to send
what services where rendered and the cost. PDF allows the clients to
read what was done and not be able to change anything on the pdf.

Which I can see many uses there.
I still do not care for PDF's.
And yes Foxit is by far the best it is small and very fast.
My best friend CoMa of Coma Freeware list highly recomends it. To me so
I highly recomend it too you as well.

 

[Allan Mikkelsen]

My experience is that they're so much bigger. I also dislike PDF. I wish
it hadn't become such a standard.

Bigger than what?

And if not PDF, what format do you suggest that can be read on almost any
computer and look the same on almost any computer?

Cheers, Allan

 

[Roger Johansson]

And if not PDF, what format do you suggest that can be read on almost any
computer and look the same on almost any computer?

Html, mht, zip, doc, gif, jpg, flash, rtf, and, of course, text files,
which should be used for all text when there is no need for images and
formatting.

If you want to present the material in a certain arrangement you should
still attach the original files, the .txt, .jpg, .mp3, files to the
layout you want the viewer to see.

A pdf file zipped into an archive together with the text files, image
files, music files, etc that are used in the pdf file.

That is also the correct way to package information in science and
technology, by the way.

Rtf files are very crossplatform and are small and clean as text files,
but allow a lot of formatting. Rtf files are halfway between simple
text files and the MS Word format, basic formatting but no scripts, no
possibilities of macro virus.