Error message: "Dreamweaver can't open .jpg files"

[g money 72]

I'm using DW 8, and I have installed the 8.0.2 update. I'm having trouble
inserting certain JPG images into a site. I get an error message pop-up that
states "Dreamweaver can't open .jpg files". It will allow me to insert some
jpg files, but not all of them. I've tried drag & drop and going through the
Insert menu. The files are not large at all. Doesn't appear to be any problem
with png's or gif's. It's incredibly frustrating. Anyone have any
suggestions? TIA.

[Gary White]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 17:02:00 +0000 (UTC), "g money 72"

Post by g money 72
I'm using DW 8, and I have installed the 8.0.2 update. I'm having trouble
inserting certain JPG images into a site. I get an error message pop-up that
states "Dreamweaver can't open .jpg files". It will allow me to insert some
jpg files, but not all of them. I've tried drag & drop and going through the
Insert menu. The files are not large at all. Doesn't appear to be any problem
with png's or gif's. It's incredibly frustrating. Anyone have any
suggestions? TIA.

Are they RGB or CYMK color space? They need to be RGB.

Gary

[g money 72]

Thanks for the reply. I'm afraid I don't know how to tell whether the pic's
are RGB vs. CYMY. I'm familiar with the concept, but just don't know how to
tell the difference. I've searced through the properties of each pic, but
can't find anything. Can you give me a little more information, and is it
possible to convert one to the other. Thanks again.

[Alec Fehl]

If you have Photoshop, open the JPG and choose Image>Mode to see what
color space it is and convert between color spaces. I'm sure free
graphic apps like IrfanView will do it too - but I'm a Photoshop guy.

What graphics application(s) do you have? Photoshop? Fireworks? Other?

[motionman95]

Try going to Edit>Preferences>File Types and Editors and mess around. Check your settings and see what they are and if anything in there is messing you up.

[g money 72]

Gary - you're post answered the question. I asked a colleague who has photoshop to reformat the images in RGB. That worked. Thanks to all for the replies.

[Gary White]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 01:51:03 +0000 (UTC), "g money 72"

Post by g money 72
Gary - you're post answered the question. I asked a colleague who has
photoshop to reformat the images in RGB. That worked. Thanks to all
for the replies.

You're welcome. Glad it was something simple.

Gary

[Deaf Web Designer]

G,

For your future reference, RGB is ideally designed for Internet use. In that
case, you need to make sure that all web images are properly set up in right
resolution as in 72 DPI.

As for CYMK, it is specifically designed for high-quality printing. Therefore,
it is not ideally use for Internet medium.

Finally, glad to know that your associate had Photoshop to assign right color
profile in these image files for you.

[Gary White]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 03:54:43 +0000 (UTC), "Deaf Web Designer"

Post by Deaf Web Designer
For your future reference, RGB is ideally designed for Internet use. In that
case, you need to make sure that all web images are properly set up in right
resolution as in 72 DPI.

It makes no difference whether it's 72 dpi or 7200 dpi. DPI is strictly
a print concept and has no bearing on how the image will display on the
screen, nor on the file size of the image.

Post by Deaf Web Designer
As for CYMK, it is specifically designed for high-quality printing. Therefore,
it is not ideally use for Internet medium.

CYMK is not ideally suited for use in web pages because most browsers
won't display them.

Gary

[r4v3n1]

Just wanted to pop in and say, thanks a million, I googled this error and got the answer I needed...RGB! Doh!

[Gary White]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 16:26:09 +0000 (UTC), "r4v3n1"

Post by r4v3n1
Just wanted to pop in and say, thanks a million, I googled this error
and got the answer I needed...RGB! Doh!

You're welcome.

Gary

[n h c]

[q][i]Originally posted by: [b][b]Newsgroup User[/b][/b][/i]
On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 03:54:43 +0000 (UTC), "Deaf Web Designer"
<***@macromedia.com> wrote:

It makes no difference whether it's 72 dpi or 7200 dpi. DPI is strictly
a print concept and has no bearing on how the image will display on the
screen, nor on the file size of the image.
[/q]

i hate to correct you, Gary, but i think that maybe what you should be saying
is that there's a difference between DPI and pixels/inch. you're basically
telling these people that the resolution of an image has no effect on it's
display or file size, and that's just incorrect. an image with the standard web
resolution of 72 pixels/inch (as designated in Photoshop) will be quite a bit
smaller in both dimension and file size than one that's 300 pixels/inch. i even
tested it to make sure i was right before posting this--the same image with the
same settings at 72 pixels/inch is 41kb, and 305kb at 300 pixels/inch( the
standard print resolution).

deaf web designer may have incorrectly used the term DPI, but the concept he
put forth is correct.

[Alec Fehl]

Actually, NHC, you are not correct. Resolution has no effect on file
size. It's the image dimensions that matter. Look at a 600x600 72dpi
image and compare the file size to the same image at 600x600 300dpi.
They will be the same file size (but the print quality will differ).
Resolution does not affect file size. Image dimensions affect file size.

Nor does resolution dictate image dimension. When resampling an image in
Photoshop to a different resolution, you have the option to resize the
dimensions or not.

Resolution is independent of both image dimension and file size.

[n h c]

hmm...you appear to be right! but if that's the case, why don't we just put
everything in the same resolution? why was i taught that all my web images need
to be in 72dpi if it doesn't really matter?

i'm not arguing now, i just want to know!

[Gary White]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:39:35 +0000 (UTC), "n h c"

Post by n h c
hmm...you appear to be right! but if that's the case, why don't we just put
everything in the same resolution? why was i taught that all my web images need
to be in 72dpi if it doesn't really matter?

We've had this discussion many times here. The dpi setting is nothing
more than a number that appears in the image header. Perhaps you were
taught otherwise by a person whose background was in print work. :-)

Gary

[Alan]

Post by n h c
why was i taught that all my web images need
to be in 72dpi if it doesn't really matter?

most people suggest 72 because it was an old standard with the early
macintosh DTP programs. For web use it's easier to standardize on it because
when you make an image, you have to put ~some~ number in the resolution box
and it might as well be 72 as any other number. It simplifies moving image
files around in different applications if they are all the same resolution.

For display in a browser, these will all have the same file size and display
size in a web page:
600x600 pixels at 1dpi
600x600 pixels at 72dpi
600x600 pixels at 6000dpi

It's when they are used in other applications or when a direct url like
/photos/1.jpg is printed out that they may display in the resolution, not
the pixel dimension.

I came across a page once where the designer always saved his images with a
resolution of 6000 dpi or some other odd number because he thought that if
people dragged the image off the page to save it- most of them wouldn't be
able to resize it. or some other idiot reason maybe.

[Alan]

Post by Alan
For display in a browser, these will all have the same file size and display
600x600 pixels at 1dpi
600x600 pixels at 72dpi
600x600 pixels at 6000dpi

add: "if the height and width attributes of the IMG tag are not used to make
them a different display size"

[n h c]

interesting. i guess when you basically teach yourself (my first boss in this
field taught me the basics, including the 72 dpi thing), you're going to end up
with some misinformation. i suppose i'm doing pretty well, all things
considered!

thanks for info. i really do learn a lot here. even things i should already
know, apparently!

-courtney

[Richard Mason]

Post by n h c
interesting. i guess when you basically teach yourself (my first boss
in this field taught me the basics, including the 72 dpi thing), you're
going to end up with some misinformation. i suppose i'm doing pretty
well, all things considered!
thanks for info. i really do learn a lot here. even things i should
already know, apparently!

The 72dpi thing is just one example of common misinformation. I discuss
that and some others here.
http://www.emdpi.com

[Gary White]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:11:21 +0000 (UTC), "n h c"

Post by n h c
interesting. i guess when you basically teach yourself (my first boss in this
field taught me the basics, including the 72 dpi thing), you're going to end up
with some misinformation. i suppose i'm doing pretty well, all things
considered!

As long as that learned misinformation isn't carved in stone and you're
always willing to learn, you'll do well.

Gary

[n h c]

i will take a look at that! thank you very much!

[n h c]

i am always willing to learn! i think it's pretty important, especially in a field like this.