Re: [somewhat-OT] tweaking Lilypond PS/PDF output in (e.g.) Illustrator

[Trevor Bača]

On 8/30/06, fiëé visuëlle <address@hidden> wrote:
> Am 2006-08-30 um 01:57 schrieb Trevor Bača:
>
> > Also, did you ever go the EPS route when you were importing to
> > Illustrator, or do you always import PDF? (Because it seems like
> > forcibly embedding in an EPS might be a more reliable way of
> > proceding, so I was curious if there's a reason to go the PDF route
> > instead.)
>
> If a program supports PDF sufficiently, then it's the better way!
> (PDF contains more useful information than EPS.)
> I wouldn't trust Quark's PDF import, but had nearly never problems
> with InDesign. (I do such for a living...)
>
> There should be no reason to use any EPS with InDesign! (Even
> complicated Photoshop pictures with paths, duplex etc. work better as
> PSD than as EPS!)

OK, that's really good to know. I don't do much with page layout
programs -- I like to keep everything in lily up to the absolute last
moment and only then go to InDesign or Illustrator or whatever for
title text and the like -- so I had been sitting around wondering
whether to cause lily to output PDFs or EPSes. And it sounds very
clearly like you're saying that PDFs are the better way to go. That's
easier since lily likes to make PDFs by default anyway.

Question: do you have all the lily fonts installed under OS X (which I
seem to remember is the os you're using, right?) such that you have an
"Emmentaler" and "Feta" menu under Type > Fonts in InDesign and
Illustrator?



--
Trevor Bača
address@hidden