I read everywhere that .pdf is the way to go over .eps. However, when I use pdftex (or even latex) to compile documents with .pdf images, the images in the printed document are very low quality/blurry. Replacing these with .eps files resolves the issue when printed (though the documents appear perfect on screen in any case). This would seem to be why all journals only accept .eps images.

My question is, why do people champion the pdf over the eps in spite of the above? Alternately - how can I achieve perfect quality images, as I did with .eps files, using .pdf images (and pdflatex over latex compilation)?

  • Is the .pdf image already blurry? – user31729 May 12 '16 at 14:52
  • 4
    I don't think we can answer why 'people' champion pdf over eps when we don't know who 'people' are, or what their reasoning is. Ultimately, both pdf and eps are vector formats, so properly created files will not blur. However, both formats can contain bitmaps which will blur. What software are you using to create/convert your images? – Ian Thompson May 12 '16 at 15:28
  • The pdfs appear perfectly fine on screen. I used Mathematica to generate images and plots, and both TexShop and ShareLatex to compile. – zjw518 May 13 '16 at 3:05
  • When using EPS files with pdflatex they are converted to PDF anyway, as pdflatex cannot use EPS directly. I've never had problems with PDFs. – Torbjørn T. May 13 '16 at 12:09
  • I don't think TeX is at the root of this. If everything looks ok on screen then I think that either something is going wrong at the printing stage (try another printer and see if the problem persists) or the images are being rasterized by mathematica, and the effect of this only becomes apparent when the document is printed. – Ian Thompson May 13 '16 at 19:15

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.