# [OS X TeX] \includegraphics question

Peter Dyballa Peter_Dyballa at Web.DE
Thu Nov 29 08:02:09 EST 2007

Am 29.11.2007 um 12:27 schrieb brian:

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:37:35PM +0100, Peter Dyballa wrote:
>> No: you have only one log left, that from the last *tex run. And by
>> chance this shows it was produced by pdflatex.
>
> Actually, no...the log file is produced by pdfeTeX:
>
>     This is pdfeTeX, Version 3.141592-1.21a-2.2 (Web2C 7.5.4)
>     (format=latex 2005.9.2 9)  29 NOV 2007 06:18

Today probably no distribution uses a TeX format that is not based on
the extended eTeX base. When you read format=latex, than this only
reports the version of the LaTeX package that is included into the
LaTeX format, which is not necessary. You can use plain (e)TeX and
load the LaTeX package on the fly ... somehow.

The main distinction is that of (old) TeX and modern pdfTeX binaries.
While old TeX binaries can only produce DVI output and need some
additional converters to produce something useful, the modern pdfTeX
produces PDF directly. Both production lines have their limitations,
particularly in the field of graphics formats they are able to
handle. From theory TeX would be able to support every graphics
format because every graphics file included is included as kind of
external, a so-called special or \special. Then the converter from
DVI to printer, PostScript, PDF ... whatever needs to handle this
external stuff correctly.

PdfTeX itself has to handle all included graphics files. And it needs
to handle it in a way that the produced output file is a
specification conformant and valid PDF document. So only a few file
formats are allowed: PDF, PNG, JPEG. EPS or PS cannot be included
because they are somehow related to PDF, and particularly PS cannot
because it can use forbidden and excluded PostScript operators, which
means that METAPOST files need to converted to PDF, too. TIFF, GIF,
SVG would be fine. LaTeX picture mode, XY-pic, and tpic are allowed.

>
>> Pdf(la)TeX cannot handle EPS files, so pdf(la)TeX won't complain
>> about a missing EPS file. "Simple" latex cannot handle PDF files, so
>> it's likely that it complains about a missing EPS file. Please check
>> and make sure what you really did. It might be helpful for the
>> future.
>
> It looks like pdfTeX is the one doing the complaining:
>

*I* do remember you deleted websurvey_pg1.pdf ...

>
> So, EPS file missing: No go.  PDF file missing: No go.  Both present
> and accounted for: Let's rock.

Before you start to make such inadequate assumptions first try to
produce a more complete test case. That would include the use of file
name extensions. Would you like to proof that you're right and I am
wrong?

--
Mit friedvollen Grüßen

Pete

"America believes in education: the average professor earns more money
in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week." – Evan
Esar