Images not showing up in PDF output

Images not showing up in PDF output

[Mark S.]

Hello,

I was able to export a subtree as PDF, but the images don't show up. The images do export in HTML, and I can see that there is LaTeX code for it. It looks like this:

  \includegraphics[width=10em]{./Periodicals.org_20140402_202538_4928DjL.png}

Are there settings or additional add-ons that I need to produce the images?

Thank you,
Mark

Using MikTeX 2.9 under Windows XP with Org-mode 7.5

Re: Images not showing up in PDF output

[Eric S Fraga]

On Saturday,  5 Apr 2014 at 05:59, Mark S. wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was able to export a subtree as PDF, but the images don't show
> up. The images do export in HTML, and I can see that there is LaTeX
> code for it. It looks like this:
>
>   \includegraphics[width=10em]{./Periodicals.org_20140402_202538_4928DjL.png}
>
> Are there settings or additional add-ons that I need to produce the images?
>
> Thank you,
> Mark
>
> Using MikTeX 2.9 under Windows XP with Org-mode 7.5

Nothing else should be needed, as far as I know (I don't use MS
Windows).  Have you tried miktex directly on the LaTeX file created by
org?

I would recommend, in any case, upgrading to a more recent version of
org.  version 7.5 is quite old.  The export engine was completely
rewritten for version 8 of org and is much more consistent and robust.

-- 
: Eric S Fraga (0xFFFCF67D), Emacs 24.4.50.2, Org release_8.2.5h-876-gf57b2d

Re: Images not showing up in PDF output

[Richard Lawrence]

Hi Mark,

> On Saturday,  5 Apr 2014 at 05:59, Mark S. wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I was able to export a subtree as PDF, but the images don't show
>> up. The images do export in HTML, and I can see that there is LaTeX
>> code for it. It looks like this:
>>
>>   \includegraphics[width=10em]{./Periodicals.org_20140402_202538_4928DjL.png}
>>
>> Are there settings or additional add-ons that I need to produce the images?

In addition to Eric's advice, I would recommend that you check that this
image is in the right directory, relative to where the .tex file lives,
and relative to where LaTeX is being run.  (Check the compile log to see
if there are errors about not finding the image, or try to compile the
exported .tex by hand, without the -interaction nonstopmode option which
I believe is Org's default.)

I have sometimes run into problems (mostly with BibTeX) when the
exported .tex file doesn't exist in the directory where
org-latex-pdf-process is run: even though the paths may look right in
the .tex file, if the other files used in the compilation (.aux, etc.)
don't end up in the right place, relative paths can break.
 
Best,
Richard


(If possible, please encrypt your reply to me using my PGP key:
Key ID: CF6FA646
Fingerprint: 9969 43E1 CF6F A646.
See http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~rwl/encryption.html for more information.)

[OT] Don't use BibTeX! (was: Images not showing up in PDF output)

[Marcin Borkowski]

Dnia 2014-04-05, o godz. 09:46:39
Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> napisał(a):

> I have sometimes run into problems (mostly with BibTeX) when the

Sorry for being off-topic, but I can't resist: *please* *don't* *use*
*BibTeX*.  On the scale of "tools that solve problems" vs. "tools that
create problems" (cf. http://xkcd.com/1343/ ;)), it is located on the
far right.  (For instance, to be able to customize its bibliography
style, you could (a) give up, (b) use some user-friendly (or not)
front-end, having less power than BibTeX itself (obviously!), or (c)
learn BibTeX's own, very peculiar, stack-based ad-hoc language grown to
describe bibliography styles.  Not good.  Also, if you're unlucky and
you write in some non-English language, well, you're unlucky with
BibTeX, especially if e.g. your name starts with a non-Latin letter.
Etc.)

Use biblatex instead.  It's more modern, it's being supported, it
knowns that there exist things like UTF-8 and non-English languages,
it supports more citation styles etc.

> Best,
> Richard

Best,

-- 
Marcin Borkowski
http://octd.wmi.amu.edu.pl/en/Marcin_Borkowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

Re: Images not showing up in PDF output

[Mark S.]

Thanks Richard and Eric!

After running it in MikTex by itself, and doing some look-ups, I found that I needed:

  1) To use unix style directories in the file paths
  2) To use #+LATEX_HEADER: \usepackage[multidot]{grffile} in order to accommodate the extra dot
      in the file name.

Thanks!
Mark

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 4/5/14, Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [O] Images not showing up in PDF output
 To: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org
 Cc: "Mark S." <throaway@yahoo.com>
 Date: Saturday, April 5, 2014, 9:46 AM
 
 Hi Mark,
 
 > On Saturday,  5 Apr 2014 at 05:59, Mark S. wrote:
 >> Hello,
 >>
 >> I was able to export a subtree as PDF, but the
 images don't show
 >> up. The images do export in HTML, and I can see
 that there is LaTeX
 >> code for it. It looks like this:
 >>
 >>   \includegraphics[width=10em]{./Periodicals.org_20140402_202538_4928DjL.png}
 >>
 >> Are there settings or additional add-ons that I
 need to produce the images?
 
 In addition to Eric's advice, I would recommend that you
 check that this
 image is in the right directory, relative to where the .tex
 file lives,
 and relative to where LaTeX is being run.  (Check the
 compile log to see
 if there are errors about not finding the image, or try to
 compile the
 exported .tex by hand, without the -interaction nonstopmode
 option which
 I believe is Org's default.)
 
 I have sometimes run into problems (mostly with BibTeX) when
 the
 exported .tex file doesn't exist in the directory where
 org-latex-pdf-process is run: even though the paths may look
 right in
 the .tex file, if the other files used in the compilation
 (.aux, etc.)
 don't end up in the right place, relative paths can break.
  
 Best,
 Richard
 
 
 (If possible, please encrypt your reply to me using my PGP
 key:
 Key ID: CF6FA646
 Fingerprint: 9969 43E1 CF6F A646.
 See http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~rwl/encryption.html for
 more information.)
 
 

Re: [OT] Don't use BibTeX!

[Richard Lawrence]

Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:

> Dnia 2014-04-05, o godz. 09:46:39
> Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> napisał(a):
>
>> I have sometimes run into problems (mostly with BibTeX) when the
>
> Sorry for being off-topic, but I can't resist: *please* *don't* *use*
> *BibTeX*.  On the scale of "tools that solve problems" vs. "tools that
> create problems" (cf. http://xkcd.com/1343/ ;)), it is located on the
> far right.

Now now, the first sentence on http://www.bibtex.org/Using/ says that to
use Bibtex, "Just create a plain text file and apply what has been
explained in section BibTeX File Format."!  It doesn't say anything
about how to use the manual. ;)

> (For instance, to be able to customize its bibliography style, you
> could (a) give up, (b) use some user-friendly (or not) front-end,
> having less power than BibTeX itself (obviously!), or (c) learn
> BibTeX's own, very peculiar, stack-based ad-hoc language grown to
> describe bibliography styles.  Not good.  Also, if you're unlucky and
> you write in some non-English language, well, you're unlucky with
> BibTeX, especially if e.g. your name starts with a non-Latin letter.
> Etc.)

I mostly use bibtex because that's what I learned, and none of these
issues apply to me at this (early) stage in my career.  I have no need
for customizing my bibliography style.  I suppose this will matter more
to me when I start sending things out for publication, but at this point
I'm still just trying to write the damn dissertation...

> Use biblatex instead.  It's more modern, it's being supported, it
> knowns that there exist things like UTF-8 and non-English languages,
> it supports more citation styles etc.

I have heard this, but haven't investigated biblatex because I haven't
yet really felt the need.

I keep my reading list and notes in Org, then export them to a .bib file
using org-bibtex.  Does biblatex support .bib files?  If not, what would
be required to support a biblatex-based workflow in Org?

Thanks for keeping me honest!

Best,
Richard

Re: [OT] Don't use BibTeX!

[Thomas S. Dye]

Hi Richard,

If you're just starting out, I encourage you to use biblatex.  It will
take a few minutes to make the switch and then you won't have to think
about it.  A biblatex site you find googling should tell you what you
need to know.

There are several differences, but a big one is that biblatex supports a
much more informative database and so can handle almost any
bibliographic situation.

For those of us with large legacy bibtex databases, the database
differences are a real issue, but for someone just getting started this
isn't such a consideration. 

Biblatex is the wave of the future in the LaTeX world.

hth,
Tom

Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> writes:

> Marcin Borkowski <mbork@wmi.amu.edu.pl> writes:
>
>> Dnia 2014-04-05, o godz. 09:46:39
>> Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> napisał(a):
>>
>>> I have sometimes run into problems (mostly with BibTeX) when the
>>
>> Sorry for being off-topic, but I can't resist: *please* *don't* *use*
>> *BibTeX*.  On the scale of "tools that solve problems" vs. "tools that
>> create problems" (cf. http://xkcd.com/1343/ ;)), it is located on the
>> far right.
>
> Now now, the first sentence on http://www.bibtex.org/Using/ says that to
> use Bibtex, "Just create a plain text file and apply what has been
> explained in section BibTeX File Format."!  It doesn't say anything
> about how to use the manual. ;)
>
>> (For instance, to be able to customize its bibliography style, you
>> could (a) give up, (b) use some user-friendly (or not) front-end,
>> having less power than BibTeX itself (obviously!), or (c) learn
>> BibTeX's own, very peculiar, stack-based ad-hoc language grown to
>> describe bibliography styles.  Not good.  Also, if you're unlucky and
>> you write in some non-English language, well, you're unlucky with
>> BibTeX, especially if e.g. your name starts with a non-Latin letter.
>> Etc.)
>
> I mostly use bibtex because that's what I learned, and none of these
> issues apply to me at this (early) stage in my career.  I have no need
> for customizing my bibliography style.  I suppose this will matter more
> to me when I start sending things out for publication, but at this point
> I'm still just trying to write the damn dissertation...
>
>> Use biblatex instead.  It's more modern, it's being supported, it
>> knowns that there exist things like UTF-8 and non-English languages,
>> it supports more citation styles etc.
>
> I have heard this, but haven't investigated biblatex because I haven't
> yet really felt the need.
>
> I keep my reading list and notes in Org, then export them to a .bib file
> using org-bibtex.  Does biblatex support .bib files?  If not, what would
> be required to support a biblatex-based workflow in Org?
>
> Thanks for keeping me honest!
>
> Best,
> Richard
>
>
>

-- 
Thomas S. Dye
http://www.tsdye.com

Biblatex and Org [was: [OT] Don't use BibTeX!]

[Richard Lawrence]

Hi Thomas,

"Thomas S. Dye" <tsd@tsdye.com> writes:

> If you're just starting out, I encourage you to use biblatex.  It will
> take a few minutes to make the switch and then you won't have to think
> about it.  A biblatex site you find googling should tell you what you
> need to know.

Well, that's the trouble...although I'm still probably a couple of years
from wanting to publish anything, I'm not just starting out.  I use Org
to keep track of my readings and citation information, and then export
this data to .bib on the fly using functions from org-bibtex.  I have
quite a few readings recorded this way.  I described my setup a while
ago here:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.orgmode/78983/focus=79016

So I'm not really tied to BibTeX, but I *am* relying on org-bibtex.  I'm
certainly willing to switch to biblatex if that's going to save me a lot
of time or headache in the future.  What I need to know is what's
required to switch over the parts of my setup that originate in Org.  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like I can keep using this part of
my setup, because biblatex supports the .bib format:
#+BEGIN_QUOTE
biblatex can be used with or without BibTeX the program
since its default backend Biber uses fully supports the BibTeX file
format (bib) and users should be able to move to biblatex will little or
no changes to their BibTeX data files when using Biber as a backend.

(from section 2 of the biblatex manual at
http://mirror.hmc.edu/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/biblatex/doc/biblatex.pdf)
#+END_QUOTE

So it looks like switching to biblatex is just a matter of changing my
compilation process and the bibliography commands in my documents.  Does
that sound right?

Thanks for your advice!

Best,
Richard

Re: Biblatex and Org [was: [OT] Don't use BibTeX!]

[Thomas S. Dye]

Aloha Richard,

I think you'll be fine with org-bibtex and biblatex.

Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> writes:

> So it looks like switching to biblatex is just a matter of changing my
> compilation process and the bibliography commands in my documents.  Does
> that sound right?

Here is a description of using bibtex and biblatex with the old
exporter that should still be useful:

http://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org-latex-export.html#sec-17

It is easy to switch from one to the other.

We use the Chicago Manual of Style at work and the BibTeX chicago
style. We find that it approximates the Chicago Manual fairly well, but
not completely. A couple of years ago we contemplated moving to
biblatex, which has an extremely competent chicago style, but gave up on
the idea because it would have meant adding information to thousands of
entries in our BibTeX database.  It seemed like a lot of work to meet a
standard that most of our readers don't know or care about.

Where biblatex has helped me the most is writing for history
journals. Biblatex is much better at humanities styles than BibTeX,
which was designed with science publications fairly firmly in mind.
Also, because the biblatex styles are based on LaTeX, rather than
BibTeX's weird style language, it is in my experience relatively easy to
tweak a biblatex style to meet a journal's specification.

In the sciences you'll undoubtedly find journals that accept LaTeX
manuscripts and require that a BibTeX style be used, so I would
recommend against putting all your eggs in the biblatex basket.

All the best,
Tom

-- 
T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists
735 Bishop St, Suite 315, Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel: 808-529-0866, Fax: 808-529-0884
http://www.tsdye.com

Re: Biblatex and Org

[Richard Lawrence]

Hi Tom,

tsd@tsdye.com (Thomas S. Dye) writes:

> I think you'll be fine with org-bibtex and biblatex.
>
> Richard Lawrence <richard.lawrence@berkeley.edu> writes:
>
>> So it looks like switching to biblatex is just a matter of changing my
>> compilation process and the bibliography commands in my documents.  Does
>> that sound right?
>
> Here is a description of using bibtex and biblatex with the old
> exporter that should still be useful:
>
> http://orgmode.org/worg/org-tutorials/org-latex-export.html#sec-17
>
> It is easy to switch from one to the other.
> ...

This was very helpful.  Many thanks!

Best,
Richard