This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > May 2004 > Editing text in a already saved jpg
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Editing text in a already saved jpg
|
|
|
| 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
| |
| Johan W. Elzenga 2004-05-18, 7:28 pm |
| Jul <mmjulian@my-deja.com> 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" <mmjulian@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8efdb721.0405170318.5c4f57f4@posting.google.com...
> 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" <nospam@please.xxx> wrote in message
news:10ahlr8mcjlok43@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Jul" <mmjulian@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8efdb721.0405170318.5c4f57f4@posting.google.com...
>
> 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" <mmjulian@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8efdb721.0405170318.5c4f57f4@posting.google.com...
>
>
>
> 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 <10ai5ho8iko65dd@corp.supernews.com>, "Don" <nospam@please.gov>
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.
| |
| Hecate 2004-05-18, 7:28 pm |
| On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:26:34 GMT, edjh <edjhann@hotmail.com> 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
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
| |
| Gene Palmiter 2004-05-18, 7:28 pm |
| 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" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:q2pia097v7ibgmrj2rpqpup0dkcn1r9a77@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:26:34 GMT, edjh <edjhann@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Absolutely, except I use TIFF as PSD won't work in every program.
>
> --
>
> Hecate
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui
| |
| -xiray- 2004-05-18, 7:28 pm |
| On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:57:21 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> 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.
| |
| Hecate 2004-05-18, 11:28 pm |
| On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:57:21 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> 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
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
| |
| Gene Palmiter 2004-05-18, 11:28 pm |
| 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" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:b8bla0htk94fv6k20pmqqhvch4mql9t8e0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 03:57:21 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
> <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>
Then[color=darkred]
The[color=darkred]
use[color=darkred]
been[color=darkred]
shop[color=darkred]
> 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
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui
| |
| -xiray- 2004-05-20, 9:28 am |
| On Wed, 19 May 2004 01:33:28 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> 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.
| |
| Hecate 2004-05-20, 9:28 am |
| On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:24:30 GMT, -xiray- <do_not@e-mail.me> wrote:
>On Wed, 19 May 2004 01:33:28 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
><palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>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
Hecate@newsguy.com
veni, vidi, reliqui
| |
| Gene Palmiter 2004-05-20, 9:28 am |
| 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" <hecate@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:ko4oa09jdmlrl1l8as1pmtkoh2btp1vke6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 May 2004 20:24:30 GMT, -xiray- <do_not@e-mail.me> wrote:
>
> <g> Uh-huh.
>
> --
>
> Hecate
> Hecate@newsguy.com
> veni, vidi, reliqui
| |
| Dennis Kuhn 2004-05-20, 7:28 pm |
| john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message news:<john-1705041809570001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>...
> In article <10ai5ho8iko65dd@corp.supernews.com>, "Don" <nospam@please.gov>
> wrote:
>
>
> 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" <doctor9@fflax.com> wrote in message
news:ee7b8830.0405201047.43ee0382@posting.google.com...
> john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs) wrote in message
news:<john-1705041809570001@m-0-135.docsis.hbci.com>...
<nospam@please.gov>[color=darkred]
*is* an[color=darkred]
tradeoff[color=darkred]
in[color=darkred]
>
> [...] If JPG were so "silly," it wouldn't be such a popular format.
Stop, yer cracking me up.
| |
| Vizros Plug-ins 2004-05-31, 7:14 pm |
| 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
mmjulian@my-deja.com (Jul) wrote in message news:<8efdb721.0405170318.5c4f57f4@posting.google.com>...
> 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
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|