Well, then why use hypertext at all?
You could just use pictures for everything then. But that's not what the whole idea of the world wide web is about. All the text you have inside that picture, for example, is _not_ seen by Google or any other search engine, so the relevance of that page in any search engine will be quite low. There's no words to find on that page, see?
I understand that you want those nice effects on the type, but it's just not a good idea to have this much text inside a picture. Also, you're wasting a lot of bandwidth there. 134 KB for that "text". If that text actually was text, you wouldn't use 137'216 bytes, you'd probably use 500 bytes or something. I know, I know: Bandwidth's not an issue, right? It is, it always is. Look at how "pedantic" people feel about their favourite browsers loading pages in 0.2 or 0.1 seconds. Well: 134 KB for a tiny bit of text is _far_ too much.
Safari (and some other browsers) can have shadow-effects (or lighting effects) on type like you're using with simple CSS. Using almost _no_ bandwidth doing it! The type stays selectable and machine-readable, too.
From a web-coder's point of view, putting text into an image is simply a bad habit.
