Visual objects often contain several features. Previous studies showed that verbally labeling a visual feature boosts its retention in a continuous format in visual working memory. Yet, the fate of nonlabeled visual features remained unexplored. One hypothesis is that labeling induces tradeoffs in the allocation of working memory capacity across labeled and nonlabeled features. To test this, we asked participants to memorize multi-feature objects (varying in color, orientation, and spatial frequency), while labeling either its (a) color, (b) orientation, or (c) spatial frequency. To inhibit labeling, they repeated "bababa" aloud in a control condition. At the test, labeled and nonlabeled features were reproduced using a continuous scale. Across four experiments, labeling increased continuous memory for the labeled feature, even when labels were arbitrary. Labeling aftereffects on nonlabeled features were mixed: only sometimes guessing increased. These findings are inconsistent with the hypothesis that labeling induces a capacity-allocation tradeoff. Rather, costs to nonlabeled features accrued when the labeling task was attentionally demanding (e.g., using less familiar or arbitrary labels). We conclude that labeling activates conceptual knowledge, thereby protecting and boosting continuous memory of the labeled feature; yet the attentional demands imposed by labeling itself can lead to the forgetting of nonlabeled features. Public Significance StatementWe often verbally label the visual world around us. Previous studies showed that labeling a visual feature (e.g., color) promoted the immediate retention of fine-grained information about the labeled feature (i.e., its exact color hue). Visual objects are, however, usually composed of multiple features-for example, color, shape, orientation, size, etc.-and not all features may be labeled at once. The present study showed that labeling only one of the relevant features of an object always boosted immediate memory of the labeled feature, increasing how much fine-grained information was retained in mind, while sometimes also producing costs to the nonlabeled features. These costs were generated as an aftereffect of the demand for the labeling task: when labeling was hard, it consumed attentional resources that would be used to encode nonlabeled features.