# Solved: Image rendering frustration in Word 2010



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

All right, I'm hoping someone will swoop in to keep me from punching through my monitor, here. I've known about this for a long time but have finally gotten to the point where I'm tired of it and want to know how to stop it.

Whenever I insert an image into Word (inline by default), its resolution is perfect at 96 dpi. However, when I then float that image--say, to top and bottom wrapping--the resolution shifts somehow and the image is blurry.

I hate it to pieces. What can I do?

chris.


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

[bump]

Beh. I made my own workaround, but I'd still like to know what the cause is.

Workaround:

Insert the image
Float it and position it however; just get it where and how you want it
Right-click the picture and select *Change Picture...* from the context menu
Using the Common Dialog Box, select the exact same file you inserted initially
*grumble grumble stupid...*


----------



## krs1716 (Feb 10, 2012)

Does the picture print blurry?


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

Huh. As it turns out, the picture prints blurry no matter how sharp it looks onscreen.

That is awesome.

chris.


----------



## krs1716 (Feb 10, 2012)

Try minimizing the picture to see if it clears up.


----------



## WendyM (Jun 28, 2003)

Does it print blurry even before you float it? Or does it print ok if you insert it and leave it inline?


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

Yeah, maybe it's just blurry no matter what.

That's stupid.

chris.


----------



## WendyM (Jun 28, 2003)

I think there's something causing it to be blurry, rather than just a natural state of blurriness, particularly if it looks fine on screen but not when you print.

As a first test, you could send it to me and I can print it and tell you what happens, but here are some other things:


Is it set to use printer metrics to lay out document? If you go into Options and then Advanced and then scroll all the way down to Layout Options and expand, there's a checkbox for that. It should be unchecked.
How are you inserting the picture? Are you sure it's being embedded rather than linking to the file? 
Does it happen in all documents and with all pictures? If you insert the picture into an old document as a test, same problem?
I know you've probably checked the last two already, but the first one is a little unexpected. Or at least it was to me.


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

Wait, when did you become a trusted advisor? I mean, you should be, but when was this? And why do I not know about it?

[two minutes and one phone call later...]

I'm an idiot, and you totally told me about that. A note to husbands: don't be an idiot.

Anyway. Everything under *Layout Options* is unchecked. The graphics are definitely embedded not linked (*Insert > Picture*), and even so I edit them at 96 dpi to match the Microsoft default. And I've always noticed this. It just got to a point the other day when I was too fed up to let it slide.

I would almost attribute it to printer quality issues except that digital printing has the same effect. I suppose instead of using 96 dpi I could use 300, but it's pretty hard to get a decent (cropped) screenshot to 300 dpi unless you have a *giant* monitor. I mean, some of the stuff I need to capture isn't even 100 pixels across. I need it to be bigger than a third of an inch.

But for giggles I'll use the Windows magnifier and see if I get the same issue with an artificially enlarged (e.g. 3x magnification) image at a higher resolution.

Thanks for letting me know about those layout options. Who knew?

chris.


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

you know, sometimes I _really_ wonder about you two.........



> A note to husbands: don't be an idiot.


May as well ask us to levitate..........


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

Egh, I know, but I do try. What can you do.

Magnification and increased resolution didn't do the trick. I suppose I could switch to InDesign for my own satisfaction, but a) nobody else around here even knows what that is let alone how to use it, so I'd be making things difficult for my coworkers, and b) we're distributing an editable version to local administrators so they can add their own flair; factor (a) by about a million there.

I think I give up. Word has always been uncharacteristic about graphics.

You know, hang on. Maybe it's the format.

Nope. PNG, BMP, JPEG, and TIF (all uncompressed where applicable) have the same problem. It's like Word touches it and redraws it just slightly off. I wonder if it's a matter of precision since Adobe products are an order of magnitude more precise than Word for sizing and positioning. Maybe if I set both to picas?


----------



## WendyM (Jun 28, 2003)

> you know, sometimes I really wonder about you two.........


So do we. 



> I suppose instead of using 96 dpi I could use 300, but it's pretty hard to get a decent (cropped) screenshot to 300 dpi unless you have a *giant* monitor.


Well, you have a GIANT monitor now, so .... 

Ok, so I looked into it some more and there are a couple of things potentially going on. One thing is that people did say that if you can set the image to 300 dpi in Photoshop, you're less likely to get this problem in Word. You've also tried printing to a different printer, right? And when you say the images were uncompressed, do you mean that you changed the option in Word to tell it not to compress pictures?

Sorry, I know you've given up, but it's still bugging me.


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

> ...do you mean that you changed the option in Word to tell it not to compress pictures?


Wait, what? That is a thing that exists?

I meant I saved the images using uncompressed file formats in Photoshop. Forsooth, pray tell about this Word decompression option. Is it like this?

chris.


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

[bump]

That appears to be something you can apply case-by-case rather than the default condition of inserted images. I really think there's no hope short of using another application. I'm convinced the issue is the difference in precision. I'm going to take the route of sizing and recutting some pictures to an exact inch-wise size. We'll see what that does.

chris.


----------



## WendyM (Jun 28, 2003)

Right, it's case by case, but it's unchecked by default. So the default nature is to compress the image. It's a huge pain to check that box every time, but if you don't it's going to compress every time. I bet if one looked hard enough, one might find a registry key for that.


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

> Right, it's case by case, but it's unchecked by default. So the default nature is to compress the image.


I don't follow...the checkbox to compress an image is unchecked by default, so the default nature should be _not_ to compress the image. Right?

So I've tried maybe a couple dozen different techniques: ClearType on, ClearType off, cropping to size, resizing in a graphics editor, different editors, different file formats, different printers. The one with the best result for hard print is to use a dpi factor of 96 (like 192) and magnify the source proportionately before taking the capture, e.g. setting Internet Explorer's magnification to 200%. Digital print loses fidelity on screen but then prints well.

All that is a ton of work. I think I should really give up on this; it's clearly not going to be a simple fix. I do--now--have a *giant* monitor. But this isn't a print shop, and I'm probably the only one really annoyed by the sub-par quality of these images.

I'm going to mark this solved. Solution: use a higher resolution than 96 pixels/inch.

Thanks all for your help!

chris.


----------



## WendyM (Jun 28, 2003)

Lol, you think you can make me stop talking by marking it solved? Surely you know better than that. 

Ok, I will stop talking. But I just have to clarify one point for potential future readers of this thread. 

The checkbox in Word says "Do not compress images in file." So unchecked = compress and checked = not compressed. 

I initially said you had to uncheck the box in my post above, but I've edited it to say checked, since that's how it works.


----------



## cristobal03 (Aug 5, 2005)

Oh, hey, I was looking at a different thing. That makes more sense.

I'm also clandestinely exploring the possibility of using vector instead of raster images. But I'll definitely check that box. Also, this is totally solved. For now.

chris.


----------

