FM9: terrible image quality when saving a .fm page as .htm page...

Hello,
I have several framemaker pages I want to save as html pages.
The problem I have concerns the quality of images...
The images I import have a good quality but once I save the page as .htm, Framemaker automatically resizes it and duplicates the image under another name..
Framemaker may not be the best tool to produce html pages but I also need to produce a PDF version of these pages...:-/
I have tried to import .png files, .jpeg files but everytime the result is as bad as before in the .html version..
So far the only solution I have found is to use Dreamweaver to resize the images by hand but it may become a tedious work since I have a lot of images....
Do you have an idea how to obtain a good image quality result in .html?
Do you think I am not using the appropriate tool to do this?
Thank you very much in advance
Anna

Anna,
FM's html export is quite simplistic and lacks many controls.
If you need to get good html from FM, then consider using Omni Systems mif2go (see: http://www.omsys.com/dcl/mif2gopg.htm ). It can be set to use the original import files so no unintended conversions take place. Once you've configured the settings to your liking, it's a simple click and convert for production use. The evaluation version is fully functional and doesn't time out - it just does some random word shuffling so the output wouldn't be usable as a reliable reference.

Similar Messages

  • Terrible image quality when using Save for Web in Adobe Illustrator CS6

    When saving images of any format and of any ppi using "Save for Web", "round" corners become blurred and pixel , "acute" (vertical and horizontal) angles are clear and of good quality. Reinstalled system with the hope that the cure (Windows 7 64-bit) - has not helped. Up to this point, such a problem did not face, all was well. How can i deal with this?

    You are not really making sense.
    a) Viewing images at more than 100% in any viewer will introduce resampling from image to screen space. Different tools use different algorithms, but none of them will ever be perfectly "sharp". Again, simple mathematics.
    b) JPEG is a compressed format that will never produce "sharp" lines in areas that don't coincide with the underlying block compression. If you wanted that, you'd use PNG or other formats.
    So unless you can provide screenshots that illustrate your issue better at 100% zoom, I see nothing out of the ordinary here. Of course there could be all sorts of issues liek color space conversion or odd pixel sizes causing unfavorable distribution of compression blocks, but we realyl cannot judge any of that based on teh info you provided. Just saying that something doesn't look like you experct it to isn't really helping...
    Mylenium

  • Losing Image quality when saving to JPeg and posting on line! Please Help.

    Hi,
    I recently got  a new computer. I use CS3 to edit.  For some reason, whenever I resize the image, save it as a Jpeg and post it to the web, it loses image quality.  Severely.  I've never had this problem before....until this new computer.
    I usually resize the image to 800, then simply click on Save as Jpeg.   Once I resize, it looks fine CS3, but NOT online.
    Just  a picture of my kid. No critiques please! : )

    For blog software, you will have to look under Manage under your admin account. There's an option to define the maximum image size for previews (inline images) and medium image sizes. if they are set to samll, the software will resize them, yet the theme you use may scale them up again to full column width, so they look mooshy. Make sure the image size in the settings panel matches the images you upload. For Facebook it may be similar, but I won't rule out that eitehr of the two services frcibly will change your images to save bandwidth. This should be stated in their terms of use somewhere. If you're merely referring to color shifts, you may wish to check your default color settings and the Embed color profile and Preserve RGB options in the Save for web and Devices dialog.
    Mylenium

  • Adobe Premiere Elements 11 - HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?

    I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements 11, on a Windows 8 PC and when I "render" still pictures, some videos and simple effects -- they lose quality and get grainy --
    HOW DO I KEEP THE IMAGE QUALITY WHEN I RENDER?

    Molnar are you receiving that error during the download or install process?  Also which operating system are you using?

  • RAW Images Alter When Saved After Processing in CS5 Camera RAW?

    Hi,
    I am currently experiencing a problem in Photoshop CS5, where after processing a CR2 RAW image file in Camera RAW, whether I then decide to open the image straight into CS5, or save as a jpeg or tiff file, the image completely alters from what I was previously seeing in the Camera RAW window?
    The saved jpeg/tiff, or image now shown in CS5 is now very tinted, where objects that were perfectly white in the Camera RAW window are now a dirty yellow colour.
    I was just wondering if there was any advice any of you could give me as to what the problem might be?
    I have made sure that both CS5 and the Camera RAW window are both set to sRGB, but it has had no effect on the problem.
    Thank you in advance for any help
    Russ

    Color Management in Photoshop.
    Sent from phone.
    În data de 02.09.2012 23:08, "Tube Screamer" <[email protected]> a scris:
       Re: RAW Images Alter When Saved After Processing in CS5 Camera RAW? created by Tube
    Screamer <http://forums.adobe.com/people/Tube+Screamer> in *Adobe Camera
    Raw* - View the full discussion<http://forums.adobe.com/message/4667772#4667772

  • Invalid image error when saving to pdf

    I keep getting an invalid image error when saving a MS Publisher file as a pdf. Can anyone help with solving this issue?

    You need to provide system and version info and explain how you actualyl produce the PDF. Unless you use the Acrobat PDF printer, I don't see how Adobe software would be involved in any of this, as recent versions of MS Office products can save PDFs natively...
    Mylenium

  • Poor image quality when publishing to .mac

    This is very frustrating.
    I buy a high resolution, high quality, royalty-free image. I resize it and crop it in my image editing program and save it as a maximum size .jpg.
    I preview the image in Apple preview, and also drag the image into my web browser and it looks crisp and sharp.
    I put the image on my iWeb page and publish to .mac. I check my site and the image looks horrible! It looks as though it got compressed again on the lowest setting.
    Something very weird is happening to some people. I've read other discussion on this but they are all unresolved.
    I'm a graphic designer and I've used dreamweaver and published to other servers. I know about image quality and optimization. I'm doing the same steps and procedures I've always done to optimize images and I've never had this problem except when I publish to .mac.
    There is a very weird and serious issue going on and I hope someone can resolve this or has an answer.
    Why would an image look crisp and sharp when I view it in my image editing program or in Apple preview, but when publish to .mac it gets re-compressed?
    This may sound silly but do you think Apple is doing this randomly and automatically to users to save server space on .mac? Maybe they think people wont notice or care?
    I am very upset and frustrated and I can't think of any other reason why this is happening.
    Any advice is helpful. Thanks!

    James,
    Thank you very much for your help.
    Here is what I did. I used Apple grab and took a screen shot of my iWeb page where the low res graphic was in position.
    I used this as a "template" for cropping my original image in my image editing program to the exact size I needed.
    I cropped my original image to the size of my "grab" template, deleted the template layer and saved the sharp image as a maximum file size .jpg and placed it into my iWeb page, with "use original size". It fit perfectly in my layout and looked sharp and crisp.
    Now, I published my site and checked the image.
    You were correct! The image came out crisp and sharp, no more quality loss.
    To test your theory, I went back to iWeb and placed an iWeb mask around the same image and re-published it.
    Sure enough! The same image that was once sharp had terrible image loss.
    So I guess you're right, adding any effects to an image creates the image loss.
    Well, this is a terrible shame because I really like some of the border effects. For example, in a photo gallery, you can use an effect such as a slight page curl with drop shadow that appears only for the thumbnail image but the when you click on the image full size, there is no page curl, just the pure image.
    If I create this slight page curl effect and drop shadow in my image editing program, then both my thumbnail and full size image will have this effect.
    Not only that, but in order to get the thumbnail image to lay over my background color, I would have to re-create the page curl effect and place it on a border of the same background color as my page layout. When someone clicks on my thumbnail they will now get the full size image with the page curl effect and a slight border of the page color.
    Also creating this effect in my image editing program will make it more time consuming when I want to change layout styles, because when I create the page curl / drop shadow in my image editing program, I have to change the background color around each image to match the new background color I'm using for my page. Doing this for 20 images every time I want to change my design is allot of work.
    If this is what I have to do, then I have no choice. But at least I would like my thumbnail to have the effect but NOT my full size image.
    How do I do this so only my iWeb thumbnail image has this effect without iWeb forcing it to a PNG and loosing quality?
    Thanks I appreciate you help!

  • Poor image quality when scanning coins with officejet pro 8600 plus

    I recently upgraded my printer from an HP 2210 to and HP officejet pro 8600 plus. image quality on coin scans is terrible.
    I have tried scanning both with the HP software and with windows 7 fax and scan software
    I have saved images as BMP, JPG, PNG, and TIFF
    I have used resolutions from 300 dpi to 1200 DPI
    All give me similar unacceptable results.
    Images are better when scanned flat on the scanner than when in slabbed holders, and from this I am guessing that the plastic is somehow interfering wiht the scan. Either that, or there is a very shallow depth of field so that even moving the coin a few mm away from the glass moves it out of focus. But even a raw coin placed directly on the glass has significantly worse image quality than the old 2100. 
    The first image is  a coin scanned with the old 2100. The second has been scanned in a similar slab by the  8600

    Hi terry_renee,
    Welcome to the HP Forums! I am happy to help you with this scanning issue! I did a test with an HP Officejet 8600, at 1200 dpi, and no plastic covering. Just the quarter on the glass, and we cropped it to the quarter. This is the result.
    I have a few questions for you:
    What Operating System are you using for scanning? Windows or Mac? What version?
    What scanning software are you using?
    Are you scanning from the computer, or the printer's control panel? 
    Hope to hear back from you, and have a great day!
    RnRMusicMan
    I work on behalf of HP
    Please click “Accept as Solution ” if you feel my post solved your issue, it will help others find the solution.
    Click the “Kudos Thumbs Up" to say “Thanks” for helping!

  • Trouble with the image quality when viewing under 100%. First time posting on the forum.

    Hello everyone. I am sorry we have the get acquainted this way but I am having some issues and this is one of my last options of getting help.   Allow me to explain the problem.    When viewing a file under 100% zoom, everything looks jagged like the anti aliasing is missing.  Once I zoom in to 100%, everything looks the way it should. The saved file ( jpeg format for instance) is okay. I can zoom out and it still looks true to the image. The problem is related to photoshop. I installed my latest GPU drivers twice just to be sure and it was not from that.   This problem started last night and I don`t quite know how to solve it.  If I work on small resolution images, it isn`t such a bad problem because I will be working on 100% zoom, but I am working on high resolution images/ paintings. Somewhere around 8000x5000 pixels thus, working at 100% is not that doable. I attached an image that shows this issue. The one on the right is the zoomed out version and the one on the left is the zoomed in version.  Yes, the noise is affected by this, badly, but this started last night. up until then everything looked good even with noise or an out of this world sharpness. I can`t imagine what I could have done to trigger this.
       This being said, I am at the mercy of the more knowledgeable folks from around here. I do hope I posted this question in the right section. This is my first post here so sorry if I messed something up.   Looking forward to your replies.

    Here is a simplistic view that I feel may help you understand reality.
    The only time you're looking at your image pixels in Photoshop is when you're zoomed in to 100%,   There your look at the actual image pixels Photoshop has for your image at your displays resolution.
    At any other zoom level you are looking a scaled image that  has more or less pixels than your actual image these too are displayed at your display resolution.
    The scaling done by Photoshop is done for displaying your image is done for good performance not for the best image quality a quick interpolation.   Therefore at some zoom levels image quality looks poorer  than at other zoom levels.
    High resolution Display have now add a new wrinkle.   User interfaces were designed for displays  with resolutions around 100 PPI elements like text, icon, and other things like checkboxes, buttons etc. were created so there size would be useable are this more or less fixed 100 PPI resolution.   While Photoshop was designed to scale your images so you can work well on it is was not designed with a scalable UI.  Photoshop can not scale its user interface independently from its image display display window for you displays high resolution.  Photoshop's Image display area has the same resolution as the rest of Photoshop User Interface.  Just like there is only one resolution in all layers in a document. CC 2014 2xUI changes that.  PS UI is scaled to 1/2 resolution the image Area is at the displays actual resolution.
    Photoshop CC 2014 2x UI scales all of Photoshop User Interface including the image display to 200% which is 1/2 your display resolution effectively cutting you display pixel count to 1/4 its actual pixel count.   Your once again running on a low resolution display.     If your display has a native resolution  200 PPI you're running it at 100 ppi if your display has a 300 PPI resolution  you're running it at 150ppi.    Which defeats the reason of having high resolution.  Which is you would like to be able to edit your images at print resolution.  Adobe cc2x UI scales the UI but not the image window soa inage is 216ppi on the Surface Pro 3 the UI is large and dpoes not fit. screen
    To be able to edit your images at print resolution  you need a display the has a print resolution and you need and application the can scale its image display  and its UI independently.
    Current there is no OS interface for having multiple resolutions areas on  a display  and applications like Photoshop can not scale UI and Image independently.  OS and Photoshop can scale what is displayed.  Adobe Photoshop executable is coded in a way that it tell Microsoft Windows OS that it will handle display scaling so it can using your displays native resolution.  Currently Only  Photoshop CC 2014  Provides you with the option of running you display at half resolution.
    Windows can scale you display to many resolution and as several presets.  like 100%, 125%, 150% and like Adobe 200% half resolution.    You can make a Windows Registry and add an External Photoshop  Manifest file the tell's Microsoft Windows to handle display scaling.  I have a  Microsoft Surface Pro 3 m windows machine. Its LCD has a 216PPI resolution.  Windows 8.1 had 4 preset for scaling its LCD.
    Surface Pro 3 LCD Display 12"  IPS display 3:2 aspect ratio 9.984603532054124" Wide, 6.656402354702749" High 216.3330765278394  PPI
    Microsoft Preset Display scaling
    100% 2160x1440   216 PPI
    125% 1728x1152   173 PPI
    150% 1440x960    144 PPI SP3 Default setting
    200% 1080x720    108 PPI
    Most user these days has 1024x768 or better displays and Web pages are often authored for 800x600 pixels pages. So the give you a better handle on Resolution and scaling I have edit a 800x600 document with 25x25 px grid one my Surface pro 3
    using Windows 4  scaling presets and captured the 2160x1140 scaled screens  Only at the 100% preset does the image window have a 216ppi Also note  @ 2x UI Photoshop UI doe not fit on screen
    Adobe Photoshop  CC 2014 2xUI Scales the UI  to a display 1/2 resolution but does not scale the Image area  uses actual screen resolution. Photoshop  Help system info show the screen i 1/2 resilution 1080x720 but scalet the imase to the real resolution 2160x1440. however the image window is the 216ppi the ui 108ppi via scaling

  • Keep quality when saving pdf

    I am using Photoshop CS6: I also tried this on CS5 going through the same process as below with a little bit higher quality but not the original quality.
    I open a PDF, Pops up "Import PDF" I hit ok. I edit the PDF by using the marquee tool to select an area in the PDF that I want to delete. I delete it once the area is selected. Then I save the PDF using "save as...". Set the format to PDF, then hit "save". Pops up "Save Adobe PDF" hit "Save PDF".
    When I print off the original version of the PDF compared to the edited one the quality is a bit off. It fills up more space on the paper also. The first one is darker and overall crisper. Is there something I missed when saving the PDF to keep the same quality as it was before I edited it?
    I'm thinking I may be able to change quality in the pop messages I got but I don't want to mess anything else up.

    You mentioned: I open a PDF, Pops up "Import PDF" I hit ok . . .
    And when you were in the Import PDF dialog box what were the settings for Resolution, Color Mode. Bit Depth, Crop to?
    PDF is a container format that can have images that have different resolutions, color modes, live text, etc.
    When you Import a PDF that may have some of the above issues, Photoshop throws up a dialog box where you can change the settings because you are rasterizing the content. (if your PDF was saved from a bitmap/pixel editor you would likely NOT see the Import PDF dialog)
    The Import PDF dialog is there to warn you that you need to tell Photoshop HOW to process the PDF when opening.
    If you just hit OK, you are at the mercy of whatever settings were in the dialog box.
    To make this even more important, you need to realize that the settings are simply whatever was used for the previous conversion.
    So if your previous conversion was set at a low resolution like 72 ppi, then Photoshop will use this setting even if your PDF has a high resolution image of 300 ppi or more. Opening a 300 ppi image at only 72 ppi will make it low resolution and will look like crap.
    Also, this automatically raterizing the live text which would have printed sharp because it WAS vectors. but are NOW pixels at whatever resolution you used. Rasterized text at even at a high resolution will never look as good as the original live text.
    What was the original application that created the PDF?
    It is always best to go back to the original file in the original application and make changes there and produce a new PDF.
    What were you doing to the PDF in Photoshop, deleting some text, cropping the image, etc?
    If you had Acrobat Pro you would be able to make some changes without damaging the PDF.
    Rasterizing a PDF in Photoshop is never a good idea.

  • Why photoshop Lose a LOT of quality when saving in PNG ?

    Hello
    Why does photoshop lose a lot of quality when you save something in Png ? ( web intended ).. Even if i go through the "save for the web " or not, the result is always sloppy...
    I save Png-24, with transparency and interlaced. like always.
    Sometime it does a good job.. some time it is just sloppy.. Is there anyway to fix that ?..
    Here is the image as it should be ( minus the 3 guide i forgot to remove ).. this is a screenshoot from Photoshop.
    And here is the result.
    Any idea why ?... and what is even more confusing is that when you hit "preview" in the "save for the web" tool you get the perfect picture... but once saved it will be scrap.
    Both the Logo and the Menu button are blurred... ( this is not an effect of zoom here.)
    Any clue ?
    Thanks

    the_wine_snob wrote:
    For Web use, why are you Saving with Interlacing? That is for Video, with Projects like DVD-Video.
    Not quite... Interlacing is used for web images as well... particularly where bandwidth is an issue.
    Chorale0001 wrote: What is even more weird is when i use the blurred png file and insert it in my website, in IE the image stay blurred.. but on Firefox and chrome it is perfect.. and if you just do a "preview" of the picture itself using your window explorer, it is blurred.
    That is a typical symptom of an image scaled via HTML/CSS.
    The images look identical here when I view them in Photoshop. Scaling in the HTML seems to be the problem.

  • How to prevent degradation of image quality when pasting for collage?

    I am trying to do a collage (of family heirloom old pharmacy jars and bottles) from – eventually – about a dozen separate images in Photoshop CS6.  (A variety of sizes, resolutions, qualities and file types will go into the collage, but I wish to retain the image quality of each component at its original level or very close to the original level, even those in some cases the original quality is marginal.)
    I have set up in Photoshop a “background document” at 300 dpi of the right dimensions to paste into my InDesign document (5.1 X 3.6 cm)
    I have tried >six approaches, all of which have resulted in a degradation of the subsequently pasted-in image (not just slight, but very obvious).
    Clearly I’m missing something fundamental about image quality and handling images so that degradation is minimised or eliminated.
    (1) (1)   Using an internet video as a guide – using Mini Bridge to open all the images in PS6 as tabs along the top of the workpage.  Then dragging the first one into the base document.  It comes across huge – ie I only see a small fraction of the image.  Any attempt to Edit/Transform/Scale (to 14% of the pasted image, which in this case is a jpg of 3170 x 1541 at 1789 dpi, 4.5 x 2.2 cm) results in an image that looks horribly degraded compared with what I pasted (open in another window).
    (2)   (2) Same thing happens if I have each image as a new layer on top of the base document.
    (3)  (3)  I tried changing the image that I had put into Layer 2 into a Smart Object and then resized it.  No further ahead – it still looks horrible.
    (4) using a different image [an 800 dpi JPG 3580 x 1715  Pixels, print size (from dpi) 11.4 x 5.4 cm which despite those parameters is of barely acceptable quality] I have tried (a) changing the resolution to 300 dpi, (b) keeping the number of pixels the same (which results in a dpi of over 3000 but doesn't fix the problem; (c) changing the dimensions to a length of 3 cm [about right for the collage] .... but no matter what I do, by the time the image is positioned correctly on the layer, the image quality has gone from barely acceptable to absolutely horrible. That usually happens during the final resizing (whether by numbers or shift-dragging the corners of the image).
    Grateful for any step-by-step strategy as to how best to accomplish the end – by whatever means.  (Or even in a different program!).  Basically, even though I've used images for many years in many contexts, I have never fundamentally understood image size or resolution to avoid getting into such messes.  Also, I'm on a very steep learning curve with Photoshop, InDesign and Illustrator all at the same time - these all seem to handle images differently, which doesn't help.  [Not to mention MS Publisher, which I'm locked into for certain other things...]

    For the individual images, don't worry about the ppi or as you call it dpi (ppi is the correct term BTW) only worry about the pixel dimensions. If the pixel dimensions gets too low, it will look horrible as there is not enough data to work with.
    Therefore the final document that will house all the other images must be large enough in pixel dimensions to handle the smaller images at a high enough dimension that they will look good.
    That being said, if you can load your images in as smart objects as any scaling that takes place samples the original sized document. Making it possible to scale it down to a size that is barely visible and then reset the size back to where it was and have no loss of data.
    Where the ppi will come into play is when you are ready to print the final document, that is when the ppi will tell the printer at what size to print the document on the page.
    If your collage will span more than one page, you may want to do this in InDesign. All images are linked to their respective container (similar process as smart object in theory) Though I beleive smart objects are embedded which is debatable.
    In both InDesign and Illustrator, scaling the image in the document affects the ppi of the image, scaling down would increase the ppi whereas scaling upward would decrease the ppi as the number of pixels (the pixel dimension) has not changed.
    With photoshop, you have a choice, when scaling the entire document, you have the option to resample the image, doing so affects the pixel dimension and in that instance would degrade the image when scaling downward and bluring the image when scaling up. As photoshop is removing pixels when scaling down and guessing the neighbor pixels should be when scaling upward.
    But, when resampling is off, the pixel dimensions do not change and therefore there is no degration or bluring.
    Why this happens has to do with simple math.
    inches x ppi = pixels
    Knowing any two of the above forumula will give you the third.
    When resampling is enabled, the pixels can change and when it is disabled, it is fixed so only the other two values can change.

  • How to see all image types when saving an image without selecting "all files"every time

    <blockquote>Locking duplicate thread.<br>
    Please continue here: [[/questions/951766]]</blockquote>
    Hallo, and thank you for reading this.
    I am a person who saves a lot of images online and renames them in different folders in different names like B - 34 or G - 56. I have been working with firefox 10 for quite some time and it had a pretty handy bug (I guess) where I could save an image and firefox would just save the image in it's original type (JPEG,PNG etc) while "save as type" was empty.
    It also always has shown all the image types in the folder where I save the images (except for GIF) and that helpes me quite a lot by saving me the trouble of selecting "all files" every time I save or going to the folder to rename every image.
    Now this seems to be lacking in the newest firefox versions and my question is if I can set firefox to always show me all the image file types when saving an image, instead of only showing JPEG's when I try to save a JPEG.
    Thank you for your time.

    I suspect this is a Windows problem. I am surmising the FilePicker uses the Operating System or Desktop facilities. Does Windows 7 offer any other file categories like ''images'' ?
    I do not normally use Windows 7, but may the option depend upon the directory being an indexed one, I ask after finding this thread ''Bring File types tab back'' [http://www.windows7taskforce.com/view/819]
    This question is a duplicate of [/questions/951764]
    Normally I would lock the duplicate question, but in this instance I will leave it open as it is unanswered and someone may give a better reply.

  • Poor Image Quality when Printing PDF from Office 07 using Acrobat 9 Pro Ext

    Hi there,
    Hoping to figure out why my images (jpegs, gifs, pngs, etc) seem to print in very poor quality when printing from Powerpoint and Word 2007?
    When I actually print out the pdf onto paper, the images seem fine. The image quality is also good in Word and Excel
    I did not have this problem using Office 2003 products.
    Is this a common problem? I realize that the problem maybe Office related but any help or information appreciated.
    Thanks

    If the images' file format is PNG or TIFF you could play with the compression settings available in Acrobat's Preferences.
    Edit > Preferences > select the Category "Convert to PDF".
    In the"Converting To PDF" pane, select PNG or TIFF.
    Then, click on the Edit Settings" button.
    For either image format you could try one of the Lossless compression routines.
    Be well...

  • Poor Image Quality when printing in Pages

    I created small (150 x 100 pixel at 72 dpi) images for printing on a one-page flyer in Pages. I dragged and dropped them into place, and things look great on the monitor. But when I print (using a Canon MX310) all-in-one, the images look bad - they are not looking crisp and sharp like they should. I have done everything on my printer settings I can - setting it to FINE quality, photo paper, etc. but they still look bad. Any ideas? I had tried this same thing in InDesign but there I got definitely jagged images on output. The images are TIFFs. I tried a different Canon ip3500 desktop printer, but to no avail.

    You need +at least+ 200dpi.
    300dpi is recommended to get fine detail.
    The size of the image has nothing to do with it, it is how many pixels you have per inch on the page.
    Obviously 72dpi has chunky pixels that you can see with your naked eye.
    The other thing is where did you get the images from? If they came from the Web then they are probably highly compressed and have compression artifacts which are painfully obvious when printing.
    Just changing formats is not going to do anything. What's that they say about a sow's ear…?
    Peter

Maybe you are looking for