# help - Word 2010 image resolutions



## Word_user (Mar 8, 2012)

Hi all

I'm trying to get Word 2010 to output my high resolution images at their original resolutions. I have an image that is 400dpi - I insert it into Word (not copy & paste) at 100% and select the Compress Pictures button (Picture Tools > Format > Adjust) and untick "Automatically perform basic compression on save". Target output is set to 220dpi (the highest available). Also, in Word Options > Advanced > Image Size and Quality I have ticked the "Do not compress images in file" box. In the PDF the image is 220dpi. No matter what settings I choose I can never get the image to output at 400dpi. If I drop the image into Word XP and output the PDF using the same settings I get a 400dpi image.

I have seen lots of discussion about this online and I've tried everything I've found but without success. In the Advanced options I have also tried changing the default target output to "Document resolution" but that has not help. It must be possible surely?!

thanks

PS To make the PDF I am using CutePDF Writer which doesn't lower the resolution of the images (there are no such options - it just prints a PDF of your document as is). I've been using it successfully for years.


----------



## macropod (Apr 11, 2008)

I'm curious as to how you've established the resolution of the image in the PDF and that, at whatever scaling it is in Word, it's actually 400ppi (or 220ppi) before saving/printing to PDF. Furthermore, since you're using Word 2010, why aren't you simply using Save As to save the file as a PDF?


----------



## Word_user (Mar 8, 2012)

Thanks for your reply Paul.

I work at a printers and we have special software which means we can tell the resolution of images in PDFs. We know the original image is 400dpi by examining it in Adobe Photoshop, we can check it's % in Word and then check it's resolution in the PDF using Adobe Acrobat. A 400dpi image which is in Word at 100% should be 400dpi in the PDF. For this particular job the images being 400dpi (or at least higher than 220dpi) is important.

We don't use Word for typesetting ourselves but some of our customers do so we try to help them get the best result possible. We recommend users not to use Word's PDFing feature as the resulting PDFs are not great _for our purposes_ (I realise they are fine for most purposes).

Any thoughts on my resolution problem?


----------



## macropod (Apr 11, 2008)

Hi Word user,

A 400dpi image scaled to 100% in Word will not necessarily have a 400dpi resolution. The only way of ensuring that is to make sure the physical dimensions of the inserted image correspond to 400dpi. Thus, if it was 600 pixels wide in the graphics app, it should be exactly 1.5in wide in Word to maintain the 400dpi resolution. Because many graphics apps insert an implied resolution of 72dpi into the image metadata, letting Word scale it to 100% could result in the same image being 8.33in wide in Word with a resolution as low as 72dpi.

If your users use Word's Save As option for generating the PDF, the tools that become available include 'compress pictures', one option of which is to output images at the document's resolution.


----------



## Word_user (Mar 8, 2012)

Hhhm - an image that is, say, 5cm wide and 400dpi in Photoshop _should_ end up as 400dpi in the PDF, providing the image is at 100%/5cm wide in Word. If not then we really have problems.

All my experience with Word up to the point when Word 2007 was released leads me to believe this was true. As I said, when I drop the same image into Word XP it is output as expected. I _think_ my problem here is one of PDF output, not Word's interpretation of the resolution, but I may of course be proved wrong. :wink:

Are you saying that only when Word's own PDFing is used that the options for "Do not compress images in file" and the default target output to "Document resolution" comes into play?


----------



## macropod (Apr 11, 2008)

Hi Word user,

AFAIK, Word's 220dpi (or less) output applies to what it sends to a printer - and that would probably include any PDF 'printer driver'. IMHO image compression is nasty for other reasons, quite unrelated to dpi/ppi, all having to do with the same kind of degradation JPG images suffer from when edited/recompressed. When saving to PDF, you have the option of letting Word do the same kind of image re-sampling it does for printing, or none at all - which is what you really seem to want.


----------



## Word_user (Mar 8, 2012)

I tried just "saving" as PDF and I get the same result. In the 'save as' dialogue box I went to Tools and choose to output at the document resolution.

Trouble is - I _have_ seen images over 220dpi in Word PDFs, but I just can't work out why it works for some images and not others. And not at all in this example.


----------



## macropod (Apr 11, 2008)

Attached are three PDFs of the same image produced from the same Word doc (also attached). The original image is 3508 pixels wide. The image is scaled to 6.30in, which equates to 557dpi. Compression in Word is off. Although the image now reports scaling as 100%, it reported only 9% when inserted.

Banksia1, 'printed' to PDF using Adobe Acrobat Pro at its standard quality settings, Word with a nominal 220dpi print output.
Banksia2, saved as PDF at 'Document resolution'
Banksia3, 'printed' to PDF using Adobe Acrobat Pro at its maximum quality settings, Word with a nominal 220dpi print output.

As you'll see, the standard Acrobat 'print' settings produced quite a low-res output. The quality at the maximum settings slightly better than the 'Save As' result - which was far ahead of the standard Acrobat 'print' settings .


----------



## Word_user (Mar 8, 2012)

Thanks for taking the time to do this. The Banksia2 & Banksia3 both have the image at 220dpi, Banksia 1 is 150dpi. Interestingly (and I found this doing my own tests) if I open your docx in my Word XP and make a PDF it still comes out at 220dpi. If I were to have your original image and drop it into Word XP and make a PDF it would be 220dpi+.

Which confirms that it is not the PDFing it is what Word 2010 (and 2007) does to the document. I've followed dozens of links over the last few days about getting a full resolution PDF but none with any success!


----------



## macropod (Apr 11, 2008)

I went back and examined the contents of the docx file, which you can do by changing the extension to .zip. Even though I had Word configured to not compress pictures, the image file was only 368Kb compared to the original's 6.28Mb. Clearly, Word is compressing when it shouldn't be. Even so, when I replaced the image in the zip file with the 6.28Mb version, changed the extension back to docx and re-opened the file in Word, it didn't seem to make any difference to the Save As quality. So it seems that, if you want anything better than 220dpi, you'll need to use something other than Word.


----------



## macropod (Apr 11, 2008)

Cross-posted at: help - Word 2010 image resolutions - Microsoft Answers
For cross-posting etiquette, please read: Excelguru Help Site - A message to forum cross posters


----------



## Word_user (Mar 8, 2012)

Or use Word 2003 or earlier. Thanks Paul - that confirmed my suspicions. Not a step forward from MS!


----------



## macropod (Apr 11, 2008)

As indicated in the other thread, vector images and EPS graphics seem unaffected (as is raw postscript in a PRINT field - if you're game).


----------



## Word_user (Mar 8, 2012)

Yes, if we ever have to do any "typesetting" in Word we always link to images as EPS files, just to stop Word messing about with the images. But this is for a client who has already dropped many many images (jpgs and tifs) into Word. I think they are going to redo the files in Word 2003. Rather them than me...


----------

