Plotting: Which software do you find best to produce beautiful plots?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the effectiveness of various mathematical and scientific software for producing aesthetically pleasing plots. Users mention tools such as Mathematica, Matlab, Python (Matplotlib), and Gnuplot, but express skepticism regarding their ability to create truly beautiful graphics without significant effort. The consensus suggests that while these tools can generate plots, achieving a high level of aesthetic quality often requires additional desktop publishing software and manual adjustments. Notably, Mathematica has been referenced for its use in textbook publishing, yet examples of its output matching the standards of AMS papers are scarce.

PREREQUISITES
  • Familiarity with Mathematica and its plotting capabilities
  • Understanding of Matlab and its graphical functions
  • Knowledge of Python and the Matplotlib library
  • Basic concepts of desktop publishing for enhancing plot aesthetics
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore advanced features of Mathematica for creating publishable graphics
  • Learn about Matlab's graphical customization options
  • Investigate Python's Matplotlib for aesthetic plot enhancements
  • Research desktop publishing tools that can complement scientific software outputs
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for data scientists, researchers, and educators who are looking to produce high-quality visual representations of data using mathematical and scientific software.

TrustInsight
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Which mainstream mathematical/scientific software do you think produces the best plots/graphs (aesthetically)?
A few choices are: Mathematica, Matlab, Python (Matplotlib), Gnuplot etc. etc.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As gently and politely as I can put this, I don't think "beautiful" and "aesthetically" are going to have a large, possibly only an empty, intersection with "mainstream" and "mathematical/scientific software."

If you really need beautiful and aesthetic then I suspect your best approach will be to pound out a result in any of the math/scientific software tools, stare at that for a while, hit the delete key and create from scratch what you want to see using the best tools that Adobe will sell you.

I do realize the software vendors in the last 20 years have convinced everyone that they cannot scribble on a Post-It(r) without needing desktop publishing and reverse italic super and subscripts in the font of their choice.

Again and again in this forum and elsewhere people post "Why isn't double and a half sub and italic superscripts working?" or "Why can't I make this plot look look the way I see in a textbook?"

I tend to think you will find that for some things that you can accomplish this formatting with only 2-10 times the effort it took to calculate the un-formatted answer. For other things it will be an exponential multiple or even there does not appear to be any upper bound on how much energy and stomach acid you can expend trying to force the desktop published result to be in the form that you desire using mainstream math software.

Mathematica has been used, I suspect in conjunction with a number of other tools hidden in the background, to write textbooks. With a little background you can recognize those on sight. But I don't believe you can find an example where that has produced an AMS paper with a graph that looks like any "standard" AMS paper.

There was one thin book, perhaps in the late '90s, that tried to describe how to use Mathematica for publishing. I had a copy in my hands for a few minutes once, but I've forgotten the title. And as far as I am aware that is the only published attempt at trying to explain how to produce publishable quality material using Mathematica.

Toby Segaran and Jeff Hammerbacher's "Beautiful Data" has some information on tools to produce quality presentations.
 
Hi Bill,

Thanks for your nice reply. I had not thought like that. Your opinion makes sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K