Re: LaTeX export: images subplots

[John Hendy <jw.hendy@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Martin Leduc <mart_00@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>    this solution using tables was indeed inspired from your post, I am so
> sorry, I should have refered to it...
>

Ha! No problem at all -- small mailing list world :)

> I suppose that the feature has not been implemented yet. I am now thinking
> of generating a panel with imagemagick before including it in the org
> buffer, for example with
>
> #+begin_src sh
> convert +append image1.png image2.png panel.png
> #+end_src
>
> and hence
>
> #+CAPTION:
> [[panel.png]]

What in the wide world of sports!? That's amazing and I can't believe
I've never run into that. Sooo flipping handy. I've been looking for
an easy way to do this with dissimilar ggplot2 plots where facetting
is hard or doesn't make sense as well:
- Like this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18046051/setting-individual-axis-limits-with-facet-wrap-and-scales-free-in-ggplot2

That's pretty awesome and I just tried it; works beautifully.

Then again, I think handling images in Org tables would be just
fantastic. Not need for an external program or the compile time.
Perhaps a bit tricky as one would have to infer from some #+attr_latex
property that one wanted to apply some size parameter to every
[option] box of the converted \includegraphics line...

In any case, thanks for this and I'll keep that in mind. Hopefully
others chime in.


John

>
> to have the two images side by side both in the buffer (with C-cxv) and the
> latex pdf (within a figure environment).
>
> Is there a cleaner org solution that I would have missed ?
> Thanks again,
> Martin
>
>> Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:47:08 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [O] LaTeX export: images subplots
>> From: jw.hendy@gmail.com
>> To: mart_00@hotmail.com
>> CC: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 8:56 PM, Martin Leduc <mart_00@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi all,
>> > I am using org-mode to write a report with several figures. I would like
>> > to group some images into a same figure, let say a 2x2 panel. I know
>> > that I
>> > can directly embed latex code in my org file, for example by using the
>> > subfloats (from the latex subfig package).
>> >
>> > However, I would prefer to use an org-based solution of inserting the
>> > image
>> > links in order to keep the convenient way of previewing images right
>> > into
>> > the buffer with C-c C-x C-v.
>> >
>> > The only solution I found is by using tables such as:
>> >
>> > #+CAPTION: Insert caption here.
>> > #+ATTR_LATEX: :align p{0.5\textwidth}p{0.5\textwidth}
>> > | [[pathtoimage]] | [[pathtoimage]] |
>> > | [[pathtoimage]] | [[pathtoimage]] |
>> >
>> > where the size of the images is controled by p{} and C-cxv is working.
>> > However, in the exported TeX file, it is a table, not a figure. Is there
>> > a
>> > cleaner way to make image panels that would preserve the figure
>> > environment
>> > in the exported TeX file ?
>>
>> Just wanted to cite my similar (same?) question from a bit back:
>> - http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-orgmode/2013-03/msg01800.html
>>
>> The only suggest I got was to use the subfig package, which may
>> actually be something like what you're looking for.
>>
>> I guess p{width} /could/ work for what I was going for, but I will
>> often stagger images and my own "captions" via the org table:
>>
>> #+ATTR_LATEX: :align p{0.5\textwidth}p{0.5\textwidth}
>> | [[pathtoimage]] | [[pathtoimage]] |
>> | /blah blah/ | /blah blah/ |
>> | | |
>> | [[pathtoimage]] | [[pathtoimage]] |
>> | /blah blah/ | /blah blah/ |
>> | | |
>>
>> I don't like using p{} because everything is left aligned and I like
>> to center the images and the "caption" text below each one.
>> Unfortunately, there's no centered equivalent to p{}. Thus, I end up
>> using \includegraphics[widt]{} manually.
>>
>> Anyway, sorry if that's off-topic. Just wanted to voice that I have a
>> use for this general sort of thing as well. Heck, I think even
>> applying the beamer columns principle to LaTeX article classes would
>> work and be quite neat.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> John
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot,
>> > Martin
>> >
>> >