Editing text in a already saved jpg

Jul wrote:

Hi I am wondering how I go about editing text when I have already added text to a jpg and saved the jpg, once I open the jpg back again in adobe photoshop, how do I go about editing the previously saved text?

You can’t. The text is now pixels, because JPEg only supports that. The text layer is gone forever. The only thing you could try is to use OCR software to recreate the text.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Jul" wrote in message

Hi I am wondering how I go about editing text when I have already added text to a jpg and saved the jpg, once I open the jpg back again in adobe photoshop, how do I go about editing the previously saved text?

By now you have learned that you cannot. When you saved as JPEG you lost the vector graphics.

I must say that I am truly puzzled by this widespread acceptance that JPEG is somehow a graphic storage format. It is not. It’s a watered-down compromise that permits web browser viewing.

If by "graphics" you mean "vector graphics," you’re right. But it *is* an image graphics storage format, and a very good one in terms of the tradeoff between quality and compression.

But, of course, as you point out, you can’t modify the text once saved as JPEG, since the characters’ pixels have replaced the image’s pixels. The best one could do, if the original without the text isn’t still available, is to erase the existing text, perhaps with the clone stamp tool, and replace it.

Don

"jjs" wrote in message

"Jul" wrote in message

Hi I am wondering how I go about editing text when I have already added text to a jpg and saved the jpg, once I open the jpg back again in adobe photoshop, how do I go about editing the previously saved text?

By now you have learned that you cannot. When you saved as JPEG you lost

the

vector graphics.

I must say that I am truly puzzled by this widespread acceptance that JPEG is somehow a graphic storage format. It is not. It’s a watered-down compromise that permits web browser viewing.

jjs wrote:

"Jul" wrote in message

Hi I am wondering how I go about editing text when I have already added text to a jpg and saved the jpg, once I open the jpg back again in adobe photoshop, how do I go about editing the previously saved text?

By now you have learned that you cannot. When you saved as JPEG you lost the vector graphics.

I must say that I am truly puzzled by this widespread acceptance that JPEG is somehow a graphic storage format. It is not. It’s a watered-down compromise that permits web browser viewing.

People should get used to the idea that they need a master editable psd file as well as their final output file. That way they can go back and edit whatever they need to and replace their final files as needed for output. Storage is cheap these days.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

In article
wrote:

If by "graphics" you mean "vector graphics," you’re right. But it *is* an image graphics storage format, and a very good one in terms of the tradeoff between quality and compression.

No, I meant general graphics storage – JPEG just silly for _any_ graphic that has been edited unless the author has no further use of the image. Disc space is so cheap today I can’t rationalize storing edited images in a lossy format.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:26:34 GMT, edjh wrote:

People should get used to the idea that they need a master editable psd file as well as their final output file. That way they can go back and edit whatever they need to and replace their final files as needed for output. Storage is cheap these days.

Absolutely, except I use TIFF as PSD won’t work in every program.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

My camera takes JPGs (my choice) and I save almost every frame I shoot. Then I open the ones I like and immediately save them as PSD. If I am sending them to be published I make a Photoshop PDF (I email them in) and if I am uploading them I make a JPG for the photo print service as they require. The last two are sent and then deleted from my computer. I have no further use for them and wouldn’t want them to get mixed up with my keepers. It’s been awhile since I needed a TIFF. I am sure that the people at the magazine shop can use the PS-PDF because as often as not I am the one who brings in the email the next morning.

Any holes in this system? It’s good to see it though fresh eyes once in a while.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:26:34 GMT, edjh wrote:

People should get used to the idea that they need a master editable psd file as well as their final output file. That way they can go back and edit whatever they need to and replace their final files as needed for output. Storage is cheap these days.

Absolutely, except I use TIFF as PSD won’t work in every program.
—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:57:21 GMT, "Gene Palmiter" wrote:

My camera takes JPGs (my choice) and I save almost every frame I shoot. Then I open the ones I like and immediately save them as PSD. If I am sending them to be published I make a Photoshop PDF (I email them in) and if I am uploading them I make a JPG for the photo print service as they require. The last two are sent and then deleted from my computer. I have no further use for them and wouldn’t want them to get mixed up with my keepers. It’s been awhile since I needed a TIFF. I am sure that the people at the magazine shop can use the PS-PDF because as often as not I am the one who brings in the email the next morning.

Any holes in this system? It’s good to see it though fresh eyes once in a while.

In my opinion yes there is a hole. You say that for images "to be published" you send PDF.

Speaking as a publisher I know that some people might actually be able to make a high quality PDF of their images, but many create crap because they don’t pay any attention to their compression settings. We never recommend anyone submit raster images in PDF format.

We try to get TIF, EPS, or PSD files whenever we can. We will accept jpg files, but the resolution of those needs to be top quality and we inspect every image to make sure we can get a decent, printable image from it.

On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:57:21 GMT, "Gene Palmiter" wrote:

My camera takes JPGs (my choice) and I save almost every frame I shoot. Then I open the ones I like and immediately save them as PSD. If I am sending them to be published I make a Photoshop PDF (I email them in) and if I am uploading them I make a JPG for the photo print service as they require. The last two are sent and then deleted from my computer. I have no further use for them and wouldn’t want them to get mixed up with my keepers. It’s been awhile since I needed a TIFF. I am sure that the people at the magazine shop can use the PS-PDF because as often as not I am the one who brings in the email the next morning.

Any holes in this system? It’s good to see it though fresh eyes once in a while.

For single images, PDF can be a problem if you don’t deal with the import properly. Whilst PSD is widely used, TIFF is much more of a universal format. Really, I’d only uses PDF if I was sending a document, not an image (whether the document has images or not. And I’d then use a design program like InDesign anyway. Personally, I don’t think PDF is sensible for image files unless you *really* know what you’re doing.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Ok…how to put this. I do know what I am doing. Of course…sometimes I know wrongly what I am doing! So, I ask questions to check myself…things change so rapidly.

I use the PS pdf for the compression. I send it from home where I do most of my work to the office where I still have some control over it. It’s not like I cast it to the wind. .PDF (or PDP) has it’s place. The main option is ZIP or JPG compression…Duh!? Take the zip….and as long as there is no type…what is the problem? How can people screw that up? It’s a lossless compression to facilitate emailing. What other system is there for a photographer to use? It comes into the office and they open it with PS and save as a PSD for layout or editing. Sorry…but I don’t see how I can screw that up. More importantly…how can it be screwed up…because if it can be…I am sure to run into it sooner or later.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:57:21 GMT, "Gene Palmiter" wrote:

My camera takes JPGs (my choice) and I save almost every frame I shoot.

Then

I open the ones I like and immediately save them as PSD. If I am sending them to be published I make a Photoshop PDF (I email them in) and if I am uploading them I make a JPG for the photo print service as they require.

The

last two are sent and then deleted from my computer. I have no further

use

for them and wouldn’t want them to get mixed up with my keepers. It’s

been

awhile since I needed a TIFF. I am sure that the people at the magazine

shop

can use the PS-PDF because as often as not I am the one who brings in the email the next morning.

Any holes in this system? It’s good to see it though fresh eyes once in a while.

For single images, PDF can be a problem if you don’t deal with the import properly. Whilst PSD is widely used, TIFF is much more of a universal format. Really, I’d only uses PDF if I was sending a document, not an image (whether the document has images or not. And I’d then use a design program like InDesign anyway. Personally, I don’t think PDF is sensible for image files unless you *really* know what you’re doing.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Wed, 19 May 2004 01:33:28 GMT, "Gene Palmiter" wrote:

More importantly…how can it be screwed up…because if it can be…I am sure to run into it sooner or later.

It can be screwed up like this: Suppose you have a Tif file at 300 dpi, and your PDF export settings convert the file and apply compression. You might understand the PDF export functions and create perfect files, but there are those other there that do not have a clue — thus the caution.

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:24:30 GMT, -xiray- wrote:

On Wed, 19 May 2004 01:33:28 GMT, "Gene Palmiter" wrote:

More importantly…how can it be screwed up…because if it can be…I am sure to run into it sooner or later.

It can be screwed up like this: Suppose you have a Tif file at 300 dpi, and your PDF export settings convert the file and apply compression. You might understand the PDF export functions and create perfect files, but there are those other there that do not have a clue — thus the caution.

<g> Uh-huh.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

I think I should forward this message to my co-worker. She has been getting ..pdfs from a fellow and they have been all messed up and we can’t figure out why. He makes up advert for us and just got a new Mac and new software…we have been guessing that he has his Acrobat set wrong, but we are not Mac people.

I can’t be more specific as she has been dealing with it. I am not sure where the problem lies with your scenario. I do my graphics in PS at 300 ppi and bring them into InDesign to add the type. Then I make the PDF at 300 ppi (1200 for line art…my co-worker likes 200 and 800 but that isn’t the way I was taught and though we print on newsprint I also send work to houses that print on glossy so I keep my settings on the higher numbers). I compress with ZIP and we have no problems (I wouldn’t even consider JPG). We have no problem with my work which is then imported into Quark for layout. She just got the new Quark so the PDFs can be imported…before she changed them into EPS first.

So, where might our outside guy be messing up? The resampling or the JPG? I don’t know what software he uses…Quark I think, and he makes his PDFs directly from that.

Sometimes I get lazy and don’t convert my photos from RGB and let InDesign handle that…but we haven’t seen a problem with that…yet.

Any Guesses? …and thanks for the help.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:24:30 GMT, -xiray- wrote:

On Wed, 19 May 2004 01:33:28 GMT, "Gene Palmiter" wrote:

More importantly…how can it be screwed up…because if it can be…I am sure to run into it sooner or later.

It can be screwed up like this: Suppose you have a Tif file at 300 dpi, and your PDF export settings convert the file and apply compression. You might understand the PDF export functions and create perfect files, but there are those other there that do not have a clue — thus the caution.

<g> Uh-huh.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

(jjs) wrote in message news:…

In article
wrote:

If by "graphics" you mean "vector graphics," you’re right. But it *is* an image graphics storage format, and a very good one in terms of the tradeoff between quality and compression.

No, I meant general graphics storage – JPEG just silly for _any_ graphic that has been edited unless the author has no further use of the image. Disc space is so cheap today I can’t rationalize storing edited images in a lossy format.

For the record, each of my photo restorations takes up about 1 Gigabyte between the hi-res TIFF scan of the original, the final PSD file and the 300dpi Mac TIFF that the photolab requires. Several of these a week means I back up to CD fairly often. Yes, it’s cheap, and it works out well for me. But I don’t pretend that everyone else should follow my example, because everyone has a different use for Photoshop and their images.

While I know that there are users in this group that are working on even bigger projects than me, I’m pretty sure there are quite a few here who are working on non-commercial graphics that aren’t nearly as demanding of quality as you are. If JPG were so "silly," it wouldn’t be such a popular format. With it’s adjustable level of loss it’s good enough for a lot of digital artists, and it’s certainly not just for web pages.

Dennis

If JPG were so "silly," it wouldn’t
be such a popular format.

Yeah, and if McDonald’s food were bad, it wouldn’t be popular either.

JPEG is popular because many people know nothing about graphics format and have no idea that JPEG degrades image quality. There is absolutely no reason to save intermediate working images in JPEG format–and plenty of reason not to. Only a fool or a novice who knows no better saves working files in JPEG format.

There’s plenty of reason to save copies of final images in JPEG format–the Web and email, to name just two–but that’s a different matter altogether. Failing to save final files in a native format leads to the poblemthe original poster has–"I saved a JPEG and now I can’t edit my text!"

—
Biohazard? Radiation hazard? SO last-century.
Nanohazard T-shirts now available! http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

"Dennis Kuhn" wrote in message

(jjs) wrote in message

news:…

In article , "Don"

wrote:

If by "graphics" you mean "vector graphics," you’re right. But it

*is* an

image graphics storage format, and a very good one in terms of the

tradeoff

between quality and compression.

No, I meant general graphics storage – JPEG just silly for _any_ graphic that has been edited unless the author has no further use of the image. Disc space is so cheap today I can’t rationalize storing edited images

in

a lossy format.

[…] If JPG were so "silly," it wouldn’t be such a popular format.

Stop, yer cracking me up.

YOu need some kind of "Segmentation". If the text has uniform color, you can do a "select mask".

Tony G. Smith
Vizros – Realistic 3D page curl plug-ins and more
Demo at http://www.vizros.com/gallery.html

(Jul) wrote in message news:…

Hi I am wondering how I go about editing text when I have already added text to a jpg and saved the jpg, once I open the jpg back again in adobe photoshop, how do I go about editing the previously saved text?

I am using Photoshop 7

thanks