Uh, flashback to the early '90s? Maybe nobody has re-read the fine print for 10 years.

Bill I would do what you suggest. Turn your fonts to outlines. I'm suprised they even want an eps. Why not a high quality GIF or JPEG, just thinking out-load. Dan

The .eps format works well with QuarkXPress (and InDesign and PageMaker), which I expect they're using for production. GIFs and JPEGs do not provide the scaling flexibility that a vector format does. I would think a PDF file would be a smarter, and legal, workflow.

My point had more to do with a rather large organization asking designers to violate their type licenses, and most probably will without thinking about it. We do love to see our names in lights

But Bill why would you ask for final art before picking a winner. They just need to have a mention that if you win you must provide camera ready artwork. Sounds like a classic cart before the horse. Maybe the rules are really old and haven't been updated in a long time.

>> I'm suprised they even want an eps.
Why not a high quality GIF or JPEG, just thinking out loud. Dan

Huh?!! What?!!!

My guess is, that they do these award books on the cheap. It takes less time and effort to produce if all the entries come in with camera-ready artwork. That way, the only winners you need to contact are people who provided files that were not adequately pre-flighted.

>> I'm surprised they even want an eps.
Why not a high-quality GIF or JPEG?
Just thinking out loud. Dan

vector vs. raster...i won't even go there.

bj some logos are raster and some are vector does that explain it for you or do I have to draw a diagram

YES.

YES, as in that explains it for me.

now let me ask you a question.
In your opinion, what percentage of
corporate identity logos are created in raster, and what
percentage in vector?

Mr. Weaver. Please forgive me for my rudeness earlier today.
I don't wish to spar; it's not my idea of fun.

Life is short.

I'll leave this one alone.

apologies.

bj

>>Why not a high quality GIF or JPEG

OK, I don't want to spar either, and I agree that raster works better than vector in some cases, but I don't think there is such a thing as a high quality gif or jpeg.
(Well maybe that's an over-simplification, but you would need quite specific circumstances for either of these to provide as good quality as tif of png, and they could not provide better quality).
The problems are that gif is an 8 bit format which means that you can only have 256 colours in your image. That can be OK for some logos, but in general, the kind of logo that would be OK as a gif would be better as a vector.
The problem with jpgs is the compression thing - you have no control over the mess that the compression algorithm makes of your work.

Where quality is the criteria, use tifs, unless you need alpha channel transparency, when you should use pngs.

=====
I've just re-read all that, and it sounds dictatorial - that's not how it was intended. I'm not claiming to be the world's leading authority on this, just offering my opinion.

Bills, it seems they need to change their specs. Someone should send them the line, "change all of your type to outlines".