[Tex/LaTex] Convert tikz to \includegraphics

tikz-pgf

I have a paper that I wrote with a lot of figures generated with tikz, but I've been asked to supply a version that doesn't use any "nonstandard tricks", i.e. with the images included with \includegraphics instead.

Of course I can go through and generate a separate pdf of each tikz image, then include them in my LaTeX document and fiddle around getting the layout the same – but I was wondering if there is a way to automate some or all of this process.

So is there an existing way to automatically go through every tikz picture in a LaTeX document and create a pdf image, with the appropriate dimensions so that it will be the same size when inserted with \includegraphics?

Best Answer

You can use the externalization library. I added an automatic regeneration feature which fits better for me than the one which is implemented in the pgf-package.

in your header:

\usepackage{filemod}             % needed for tikz externalization automation
\usepackage{pgf}
\usepackage{pgfplots}
\pgfplotsset{compat=1.11}
\usetikzlibrary{external}
\tikzexternalize
\tikzset{external/figure list=true}
\tikzset{external/up to date check=simple} % manual up to date check with filemod
%%% tikz include command
\newcommand{\tikzcustomremake}[2]{%
  \tikzset{external/remake next}%
  \message{figure #2 was automatically rebuilt}%
}
\newcommand{\includetikz}[2]{%
  \tikzsetnextfilename{#1tikz_external/#2}%
  \filemodCmp{#1#2.tikz}{#1tikz_external/#2.pdf}%
    {\tikzcustomremake{#1}{#2}}% tikz is newer => remake
    {}%
  \input{#1#2.tikz}%
}

in your document:

%\tikzset{external/export=false}
\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \small\includetikz{fig/matlab/}{plot5}
  \caption{title}
  \label{fig:tikz5}
\end{figure}

Related Solutions

[Tex/LaTex] PS-or-PDF to tikz converter

You can try eps2pgf, it seems to be written for exactly this purpose. I have never tried it, so I am not sure how well it works.

Another option could be using pstoedit to convert your postscript to an editable format like gnuplot, xfig or svg, and convert that to tikz using an appropriate tool.

Number of tools that generate pgf/tikz code are described here.

[Tex/LaTex] Is it possible to use spot colors in TikZ graphics

(I'm guessing a lot here.) I think that it is down to the way in which PGF inserts colours in to the output file. To see this, it's worth reviewing the levels in the TikZ/PGF system.

At the top, we have TikZ. This is the frontendlayer and defines the syntax that the user (usually) uses. It's job is to translate user-friendly stuff into a simpler state ready for further processing.
In the middle, we have PGF. This is the basiclayer. This is where all the detail takes place. Here, things are done in a machine/program-friendly way. The full power of TeX is used to do some heavy machinery. All the path decorations and similar are done here. The goal of this layer is to translate what the user wants in to basic path entities.
At the bottom, we have the drivers. These form the systemlayer. Here is where the PGF code is interpreted in to specific instructions. These have to be specific to the planned output type.

So the thing to remember in this is that when you say \fill[color=RedSpot] then that is a TikZ command to set the colour to RedSpot which then gets further interpreted by PGF and then the driver. Chasing definitions through, we find that color=RedSpot calls \pgfsetcolor which calls \pgf@setcolor which calls \pgfsys@color@<model>. This is now a driver level command. Its definition, say for CMYK, is

\def\pgfsys@color@cmyk@stroke#1#2#3#4{\pgfsysprotocol@literal{#1 #2 #3 #4 K}}

from which we can see (and tracing back through the definitions, this gets clearer) that even if we've defined a colour name, it is the CMYK values that get put in the file.

The point is that PGF cannot know that it is possible in PDF to alias colours, because it doesn't know that the final output will be PDF. So it translates the colours to their raw values. And 0 1 1 0 setcmykcolor isn't the spot colour.

A lot of the above is speculation, I'll admit. Here's my evidence for this being the case. If you compile the PSTricks file above and look at the PS, you'll find that the drawing code is:

  tx@Dict begin STP newpath /ArrowA { moveto } def /ArrowB { } def
 0.8 SLW TeXDict begin XC@black end   142.26378 142.26378 113.81102
.5 CLW mul sub 0 360 arc closepath  gsave TeXDict begin XC@RedSpot
end  1. .setopacityalpha  fill  grestore end

But if you compile the TikZ version and look at the PS, you'll find:

 0 1 1 0 setcmykcolor

 141.73404 141.73404 moveto

 255.12128 141.73404 moveto

 255.12128 204.35689 204.35689 255.12128 141.73404 255.12128 curveto

 79.11119 255.12128 28.3468 204.35689 28.3468 141.73404 curveto

 28.3468 79.11119 79.11119 28.3468 141.73404 28.3468 curveto

 204.35689 28.3468 255.12128 79.11119 255.12128 141.73404 curveto

 closepath

So the RedSpot gets put literally in to the PS from PSTricks but is translated back to 0 1 1 0 internally by PGF first.

The clincher is to do the following. Edit the PS file and replace the 0 1 1 0 setcmykcolor by XC@RedSpot. Then do the gs and montage stuff, and you get:

spot colours from TikZ

which is what you wanted.

However, editing the postscript isn't a great way to do this! Here's what I think you'd have to do to use spot colours in TikZ. I think you'd have to define a new colour model, say spot. You'd then tell PGF that the spot colour model is to be treated specially in that the name of the colour is to be used (or at least XC@<name>). To define a spot colour, you could (I think) use xcolor to define it using one model and then convert it to another. That would ensure that the definition got in to the PS file (which it does already). I don't know how to do all those steps, because it relies on knowing how xcolor works and I don't know much about that. But that's what I would do.