TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Glossy marketing material has a specific audience, usually a high-res offset
press printing process. High resolution images, embedded fonts, and the like
are usually needed and result in large files. For-the-web needs none of that
stuff . . ..
So, if you are making PDFs just for John Q. Customer to view at 96dpi in a
browser, consider dumbing down the resolution of the PDF to 300 (doubling
resolution generally quadruples file size of images), turn off any kind of
font embedding, turn on graphics and text compression, and then see what you
have. Of course, you could not send that result to the aforementioned offset
press, their pre-press department would cough up a lung, and possibly a
sean -at- quodata -dot- com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damien Braniff [SMTP:dbraniff -at- iss-dsp -dot- com]
> I've used PDFs quite a bit but until recently it's been standard docs,
> now we have some glossy marketing material (done externally) and, as
> they're for downloading from the web, they're huge. Typically +2MB for
> 12-16 pages.
> They're full colour with:
> 6-10 graphics in each
> Tables - coloured background, body and headings
> Colour header - graphic, logo and company name.
> Now the first we had done wasn't optimised for PDF when we got it and I
> tweaked it and ended up with a file of 350k which was fine.
> We're now using a different company to produce the datasheets and the
> size has ballooned (these are optimised) and I can see no obvious
> difference re content (no. of graphics etc). What I've suggested is
> that they:
> link graphics instead of imbedding (haven't got the source yet so
> I'm not sure how they've been done)
> try a different graphics format (originals in Illustrator)
> but no luck so far. Any suggestions as to why they might be so big or
> is that about right and I was just lucky first time round?
Your web site localized into 32 languages? Maybe not now, but sooner than
you think. Download ForeignExchange's FREE paper, "3 steps to successful
translation management" at http://www.fxtrans.com/3steps.html?tw.
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.