Convert jpeg files to tiff files

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Grandpa Chuck, Sep 21, 2006.

  1. our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    computer at tiff files.
    Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff
    files or must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some
    similar program?
    --

    Grandpa Chuck
    -ô¿ô-
    ~
    Grandpa Chuck, Sep 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Grandpa Chuck

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:34:43 GMT, Grandpa Chuck
    <> wrote:

    >our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    >the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    >computer at tiff files.


    Does it say why?

    Likely, the reason is because JPG uses compression, and tiff uses
    lossless compression - making for a cleaner image.

    I think a better option would be if your camera can save images in
    TIFF or native format.
    Evan Platt, Sep 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Grandpa Chuck

    sittingduck Guest

    Grandpa Chuck wrote:

    > our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    > the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    > computer at tiff files.
    > Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff
    > files or must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some
    > similar program?


    If they are already jpegs there will be no benefit.
    sittingduck, Sep 21, 2006
    #3
  4. Grandpa Chuck

    Plato Guest

    Grandpa Chuck wrote:
    >
    > our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    > the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    > computer at tiff files.


    ..tiffs are often the result of how scanners save images. But, tiffs are
    large files and most often are best converted to .jpg prior to transfer
    or emailing. If you already have .jpgs then it would be silly to convert
    them to tiffs


    --
    http://www.bootdisk.com/
    Plato, Sep 21, 2006
    #4
  5. Grandpa Chuck

    richard Guest

    "Grandpa Chuck" <> wrote in message
    news:nPBQg.154892$FQ1.22826@attbi_s71...
    > our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    > the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the computer
    > at tiff files.
    > Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff files or
    > must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some similar
    > program?
    > --
    >
    > Grandpa Chuck
    > -ô¿ô-
    > ~


    Irfanview can do a batch conversion.
    You might want to consider using PNG. It has a much smaller footprint. As
    far as I can tell, no loss or very little.
    When a book recommends using a certain format, you can bet they're doing so
    purely to obtain money from the source for doing so.
    TIF has rarely been used. At least on a public format like the internet.
    richard, Sep 21, 2006
    #5
  6. Grandpa Chuck

    Mike Easter Guest

    Grandpa Chuck wrote:
    > our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    > the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    > computer at tiff files.


    jpg is a 'lossy' format. .tif is not.

    > Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff
    > files or must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some
    > similar program?


    IrfanView can do batch conversion and it is free and a very useful
    program for many purposes.

    http://www.irfanview.com/ ...one of the most popular viewers
    worldwide!


    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, Sep 21, 2006
    #6
  7. Evan Platt wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:34:43 GMT, Grandpa Chuck
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    >> the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    >> computer at tiff files.

    >
    > Does it say why?
    >
    > Likely, the reason is because JPG uses compression, and tiff uses
    > lossless compression - making for a cleaner image.
    >
    > I think a better option would be if your camera can save images in
    > TIFF or native format.


    The book says you can have more detail in TIFF.
    The camera does not give me a choice or I would have done that.


    --

    Grandpa Chuck
    -ô¿ô-
    ~
    Grandpa Chuck, Sep 21, 2006
    #7
  8. Grandpa Chuck

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 14:52:06 -0600, "richard" <> wrote:

    >Irfanview can do a batch conversion.
    >You might want to consider using PNG. It has a much smaller footprint. As
    >far as I can tell, no loss or very little.
    >When a book recommends using a certain format, you can bet they're doing so
    >purely to obtain money from the source for doing so.
    >TIF has rarely been used. At least on a public format like the internet.


    My god, please tell me you act like a retard on purpose?
    Evan Platt, Sep 21, 2006
    #8
  9. richard wrote:
    >
    > "Grandpa Chuck" <> wrote in message
    > news:nPBQg.154892$FQ1.22826@attbi_s71...
    >> our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    >> the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    >> computer at tiff files.
    >> Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff
    >> files or must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some
    >> similar program?
    >> --
    >>
    >> Grandpa Chuck
    >> -ô¿ô-
    >> ~

    >
    > Irfanview can do a batch conversion.
    > You might want to consider using PNG. It has a much smaller footprint.
    > As far as I can tell, no loss or very little.
    > When a book recommends using a certain format, you can bet they're doing
    > so purely to obtain money from the source for doing so.
    > TIF has rarely been used. At least on a public format like the internet.
    >


    The book is a National Geographic publication. I doubt very much if
    they are going to make any money from it.


    --

    Grandpa Chuck
    -ô¿ô-
    ~
    Grandpa Chuck, Sep 21, 2006
    #9
  10. Grandpa Chuck

    why? Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:34:43 GMT, Grandpa Chuck wrote:

    >our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    >the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    >computer at tiff files.
    >Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff


    IrfanView will do it, but not a lot of point for you. JPEG is a lossy
    format using compression so some detail is already removed. You will get
    more pictures in the camers memory / card but of lower quality.

    >files or must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some
    >similar program?


    As Evan said.

    Me
    why?, Sep 21, 2006
    #10
  11. Grandpa Chuck

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:20:11 GMT, Grandpa Chuck
    <> wrote:

    >The book says you can have more detail in TIFF.
    >The camera does not give me a choice or I would have done that.


    Yes, that's true, however you can't have more detail by changing it
    from JPG to tiff. If the native format of your camera is jpg, you
    won't automatically get more detail.

    Think of it like putting a Ferrari hood ornament on a Honda Civic. The
    Honda won't then go 0-60 in 2 seconds. Yes, there is more detail in a
    TIFF, but only if the cameras native format is TIFF, or if the camera
    has a RAW / Native format.
    Evan Platt, Sep 21, 2006
    #11
  12. Grandpa Chuck

    Evan Platt Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:23:34 GMT, Grandpa Chuck
    <> wrote:

    >The book is a National Geographic publication. I doubt very much if
    >they are going to make any money from it.


    Please ignore Richard. He was dropped on his head while eating paint
    chips while riding the short bus.
    Evan Platt, Sep 21, 2006
    #12
  13. Grandpa Chuck

    sittingduck Guest

    Evan Platt wrote:

    > Yes, that's true, however you can't have more detail by changing it
    > from JPG to tiff. If the native format of your camera is jpg, you
    > won't automatically get more detail.
    >
    > Think of it like putting a Ferrari hood ornament on a Honda Civic. The
    > Honda won't then go 0-60 in 2 seconds. Yes, there is more detail in a
    > TIFF, but only if the cameras native format is TIFF, or if the camera
    > has a RAW / Native format.


    That's it... end of story.

    Unless the camera is a real cheapo, you should be able to get TIFF or similar
    format with the highest setting.
    sittingduck, Sep 22, 2006
    #13
  14. Grandpa Chuck

    philo Guest

    "Grandpa Chuck" <> wrote in message
    news:nPBQg.154892$FQ1.22826@attbi_s71...
    > our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    > the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    > computer at tiff files.
    > Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff
    > files or must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some
    > similar program?



    If you *edit* the file...then you should convert it to .tiff (or some other
    non-compressed format)

    However, if you do not plan to to any editing (such as cropping for example)
    you can leave them as a jpeg.

    You will not see any difference.
    philo, Sep 22, 2006
    #14
  15. Grandpa Chuck

    thanatoid Guest

    Grandpa Chuck <> wrote in
    news:nPBQg.154892$FQ1.22826@attbi_s71:

    > our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    > the book I have on digital photography says to save files
    > on the computer at tiff files.
    > Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images
    > to tiff files or must I do it one picture at a time using
    > Adobe Photo or some similar program?



    "philo" said:

    If you *edit* the file...then you should convert it to .tiff (or
    some other non-compressed format)

    However, if you do not plan to to any editing (such as cropping
    for example) you can leave them as a jpeg.

    You will not see any difference.

    thanatoid say:

    That is the most reasonable reply of the 11 so far (assuming
    calling someone a retard can be even considered a reply)

    1.
    Your book must be quite old, or oriented at Nat'l Geo.
    professionals who must prepare their work for the printers.
    TIFF is pretty much only used by people like that these days. It
    used to be very popular 15 years ago. No mo'.

    2.
    jpg is FINE. ANY image program (except MSPaint, of course) can
    open it and save it in a variety of quality (compression)
    levels. Unfortunately, EVERY PROGRAM uses different terminology
    to describe the same amount of compression. I.e., what one
    program calls level 2, is what another program calls level 8 (of
    10) or level 16 (of 20), and another 80%, and yet another 20%,
    and YET another "fairly low".

    Your camera may or may not save in raw or native format
    (probably BMP, which is lossless but huge-ass), or it saves at
    JPG, in several options of compression. PROBABLY called High,
    Medium, and Low.

    You HAVE to do some tests and decide what is best for you.

    3.
    Once saved as jpg, if you are not going to do any major editing
    (cropping does NOT count as major editing), it is POINTLESS to
    convert to another format. All you will get is a bigger file
    with exactly the same quality. (Forget about png who someone
    mentioned. Not that there's anything wrong with it.)

    If you want MAXIMUM quality and your camera does not save as BMP
    (or some other lossless format), use the highest quality
    jpg setting it has.

    You can resize and re-compress the image later in any program
    (except MSPaint) and get a much smaller file, if you want.

    Many modern cameras can give you an image 3x or 4x the size of
    your screen, up to 1600 by 1200 or larger. You will PROBABLY
    want to reduce them, UNLESS you have a very high quality color
    printer (inkjet OR laser) or if you are planning to make semi-
    professional prints at a Kinko's or Office Depot type of place
    ("service bureaus" do it too but charge more and are basically
    for professionals). If so, you should take the original and just
    explain what size etc. print you want.

    4.
    For ordinary use, resizing and re-compressing for smaller files
    can be done in any of thousands of image programs, Irfanview
    being one of the most common (and free) ones. But I am pretty
    sure you already have some program that can do it, one at a
    time.

    *Batch* conversion is a feature found in SOME programs,
    including special programs designed JUST to do batch conversion
    since many standard image programs do NOT provide that feature.
    I know of one called "batch image resizer". Another is "thumbs
    plus" (many VERY useful other features as well). Google.

    5. Experiment with jpg compression. You will be AMAZED at the
    level of compression you can apply without noticeable quality
    loss.

    But remember - whatever you start with CAN NOT be improved. IOW,
    anything REALLY important should be "photographed" at the
    highest level possible. And if you compress it to 1/8 file size,
    and delete the original, you can NEVER get the original quality
    back.
    thanatoid, Sep 22, 2006
    #15
  16. Grandpa Chuck

    GrandpaChuck Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 18:38:46 -0500, "philo" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Grandpa Chuck" <> wrote in message
    >news:nPBQg.154892$FQ1.22826@attbi_s71...
    >> our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    >> the book I have on digital photography says to save files on the
    >> computer at tiff files.
    >> Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff
    >> files or must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some
    >> similar program?

    >
    >
    >If you *edit* the file...then you should convert it to .tiff (or some other
    >non-compressed format)
    >
    >However, if you do not plan to to any editing (such as cropping for example)
    >you can leave them as a jpeg.
    >
    >You will not see any difference.
    >


    I do intend to edit almost every one of them.
    --

    Grandpa Chuck
    -ô¿ô-
    ~
    Americans killed in Iraq as of September 21, 2006 is 2,692. United Kingdom = 118 Other = 116.
    Over 100 Iraqi civilians are killed every day. Most by so-called insurgents.
    More than 19,910 Americans wounded.
    09/21/2006 it’s 1237 days since Bush declared, "Mission Accomplished in Iraq."
    GrandpaChuck, Sep 22, 2006
    #16
  17. Grandpa Chuck

    GrandpaChuck Guest

    Sorry for top-posting.

    The book is National Geographic Digital Photography Field Guide by Rob
    Sheppard. Copyright is 2003.

    I copied and printed all of your advise.
    Thank you.

    I missed some of the earlier replies because I had trouble subscribing
    with Agent and for some reason it stopped working in Thunderbird.

    On 22 Sep 2006 01:37:26 GMT, thanatoid <>
    wrote:

    >Grandpa Chuck <> wrote in
    >news:nPBQg.154892$FQ1.22826@attbi_s71:
    >
    >> our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files.
    >> the book I have on digital photography says to save files
    >> on the computer at tiff files.
    >> Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images
    >> to tiff files or must I do it one picture at a time using
    >> Adobe Photo or some similar program?

    >
    >
    >"philo" said:
    >
    >If you *edit* the file...then you should convert it to .tiff (or
    >some other non-compressed format)
    >
    >However, if you do not plan to to any editing (such as cropping
    >for example) you can leave them as a jpeg.
    >
    >You will not see any difference.
    >
    >thanatoid say:
    >
    >That is the most reasonable reply of the 11 so far (assuming
    >calling someone a retard can be even considered a reply)
    >
    >1.
    >Your book must be quite old, or oriented at Nat'l Geo.
    >professionals who must prepare their work for the printers.
    >TIFF is pretty much only used by people like that these days. It
    >used to be very popular 15 years ago. No mo'.
    >
    >2.
    >jpg is FINE. ANY image program (except MSPaint, of course) can
    >open it and save it in a variety of quality (compression)
    >levels. Unfortunately, EVERY PROGRAM uses different terminology
    >to describe the same amount of compression. I.e., what one
    >program calls level 2, is what another program calls level 8 (of
    >10) or level 16 (of 20), and another 80%, and yet another 20%,
    >and YET another "fairly low".


    The author said if you want to be able to print pictures in 8x10 or
    even 5x7 they should be saved as a larger file.

    >
    >Your camera may or may not save in raw or native format
    >(probably BMP, which is lossless but huge-ass), or it saves at
    >JPG, in several options of compression. PROBABLY called High,
    >Medium, and Low.


    That one I will have to check.
    I have an older Olympus that is a much better camera than this HP
    pocket camera. I imagine I can save originals in TIFF with that one.

    >
    >You HAVE to do some tests and decide what is best for you.
    >
    >3.
    >Once saved as jpg, if you are not going to do any major editing
    >(cropping does NOT count as major editing), it is POINTLESS to
    >convert to another format. All you will get is a bigger file
    >with exactly the same quality. (Forget about png who someone
    >mentioned. Not that there's anything wrong with it.)


    Some of my editing consists of changes in shading and contrast or even
    hue and saturation. I also like to play around with other options in
    Adobe PhotoDeluxe Home Edition.

    >
    >If you want MAXIMUM quality and your camera does not save as BMP
    >(or some other lossless format), use the highest quality
    >jpg setting it has.


    Will do. I like to take close-up pics of wild flowers, etc. I took
    some while in western Colorado three weeks ago and want to enlarge
    them and if I can maintain good quality print and frame them.

    >
    >You can resize and re-compress the image later in any program
    >(except MSPaint) and get a much smaller file, if you want.


    I have found through experience if I want to email a photo to convert
    it back to a jpg. Even after doing that it takes my daughter in
    Colorado a long time to download a pic since she is still using
    dial-up with a 56k modem.

    >
    >Many modern cameras can give you an image 3x or 4x the size of
    >your screen, up to 1600 by 1200 or larger. You will PROBABLY
    >want to reduce them, UNLESS you have a very high quality color
    >printer (inkjet OR laser) or if you are planning to make semi-
    >professional prints at a Kinko's or Office Depot type of place
    >("service bureaus" do it too but charge more and are basically
    >for professionals). If so, you should take the original and just
    >explain what size etc. print you want.


    I have a Cannon PIXMA iP6600D. So far I have been happy with pics I
    have printed with it.

    >
    >4.
    >For ordinary use, resizing and re-compressing for smaller files
    >can be done in any of thousands of image programs, Irfanview
    >being one of the most common (and free) ones. But I am pretty
    >sure you already have some program that can do it, one at a
    >time.
    >
    >*Batch* conversion is a feature found in SOME programs,
    >including special programs designed JUST to do batch conversion
    >since many standard image programs do NOT provide that feature.
    >I know of one called "batch image resizer". Another is "thumbs
    >plus" (many VERY useful other features as well). Google.
    >
    >5. Experiment with jpg compression. You will be AMAZED at the
    >level of compression you can apply without noticeable quality
    >loss.
    >
    >But remember - whatever you start with CAN NOT be improved. IOW,
    >anything REALLY important should be "photographed" at the
    >highest level possible. And if you compress it to 1/8 file size,
    >and delete the original, you can NEVER get the original quality
    >back.


    I will certainly remember that.

    Thank you very much.

    --

    Grandpa Chuck
    -ô¿ô-
    ~
    Americans killed in Iraq as of September 21, 2006 is 2,692. United Kingdom = 118 Other = 116.
    Over 100 Iraqi civilians are killed every day. Most by so-called insurgents.
    More than 19,910 Americans wounded.
    09/21/2006 it’s 1237 days since Bush declared, "Mission Accomplished in Iraq."
    GrandpaChuck, Sep 22, 2006
    #17
  18. Grandpa Chuck

    richard Guest

    "Evan Platt" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:23:34 GMT, Grandpa Chuck
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>The book is a National Geographic publication. I doubt very much if
    >>they are going to make any money from it.

    >
    > Please ignore Richard. He was dropped on his head while eating paint
    > chips while riding the short bus.


    Please ignore Evan. He came from a pig slop pile.
    richard, Sep 22, 2006
    #18
  19. Grandpa Chuck

    thanatoid Guest

    GrandpaChuck <> wrote in
    news::

    > Sorry for top-posting.


    No problem. I don't know why some people make such a big deal
    about it. All email is "top-posted", isn't it, and no one has
    died from using email YET, right?

    > I copied and printed all of your advise.
    > Thank you.


    You are very welcome.

    >>jpg is FINE. ANY image program (except MSPaint, of course)
    >>can open it and save it in a variety of quality
    >>(compression) levels. Unfortunately, EVERY PROGRAM uses
    >>different terminology to describe the same amount of
    >>compression. I.e., what one program calls level 2, is what
    >>another program calls level 8 (of 10) or level 16 (of 20),
    >>and another 80%, and yet another 20%, and YET another
    >>"fairly low".

    >
    > The author said if you want to be able to print pictures in
    > 8x10 or even 5x7 they should be saved as a larger file.


    Correct. You can look up the intricacies of dpi amount (dots per
    inch, or pixels per inch) in "original image" vs. "printed
    image" by googling. It's quite a complicated subject which a
    VERY clever person can explain easily in 3 minutes, and another
    will spend 3 years working with and never "quite" get.

    Basically, the dpi of your digital photograph has little to do
    with the "claimed" dpi of whatever printer you use, and every
    printer is different. Professional printers are capable of 2450
    dpi resolution, so your digi camera image would come out about
    an inch by half an inch, or something. I might be wrong. It's
    been a while.

    But the bottom line is, the higher the resolution of your image,
    the better the print will be, whatever you use. If you want a
    really good print, use the highest quality your camera is
    capable of and use that same file to print. You can adjust the
    print size on the page in "print preview", but the quality will
    be much highest possible.

    >>Your camera may or may not save in raw or native format
    >>(probably BMP, which is lossless but huge-ass), or it saves
    >>at JPG, in several options of compression. PROBABLY called
    >>High, Medium, and Low.

    >
    > That one I will have to check.
    > I have an older Olympus that is a much better camera than
    > this HP pocket camera. I imagine I can save originals in
    > TIFF with that one.


    I REALLY don't think TIFF is avail. on any digi cameras except
    maybe a few which cost several thousand dollars, and even then I
    doubt it. TIFF is not REALLY a STRICTLY lossless format, plus
    there are about 20 variations of it, and different compression
    methods that can be used. My guess would be BMP.

    > Some of my editing consists of changes in shading and
    > contrast or even hue and saturation. I also like to play
    > around with other options in Adobe PhotoDeluxe Home
    > Edition.


    Then definitely use the original (at whatever "quality setting"
    you shot it. BUT FIRST CONVERT IT TO BMP. It will look exactly
    the same, but no matter what you do with it, you will not lose
    ANY quality, whereas with a jpg, every time you save it, it
    loses a little of the quality. Kind of like a xerox of a xerox
    of a xerox, ad infinitum.

    Once you're done making the pic exactly how you want it, THEN
    convert it to what you by then, hopefully, will have established
    as a satisfactory compression level of JPG for your use (by
    doing a bunch of tests). Of course, you can keep it in BMP, but
    it will be 5-20 times larger with no visible quality difference.
    Still, anything you THINK you may want to make a nice big print
    of, I would leave as BMP.
    You can always get another drive. They're getting ridiculously
    cheap.

    Although my advice is to save stuff to CDR or DVDR. Drives fail.
    Good quality discs, if handled and stored carefully, don't.
    Don't record at high speeds (anything in double digits for CD's,
    or more than 4x for DVD's). Let a DVD burn overnight and you
    will have a disc that will play in anything as opposed to one
    that MAY play in your machine but not in anything else.

    I burn CD's at 8x. Takes about 20 minutes. I'm in no hurry. I
    have seen CD's burned at 40x or 52x which either won't read AT
    ALL or may show you the directory after about 5 minutes of
    struggling, but you still can't get at anything on the disc.
    This obsession with speed is insane.

    If you want to email a pic to someone, you can just save it
    again at a higher compression level (i.e. smaller file), and
    don't forget to make it fit an 800x800 screen which is really
    all anybody needs with "emailed" pix. I HATE getting a 1650 x
    985 picture of somebody's face. A 400x300 would do JUST FINE.

    >>If you want MAXIMUM quality and your camera does not save
    >>as BMP (or some other lossless format), use the highest
    >>quality jpg setting it has.

    >
    > Will do. I like to take close-up pics of wild flowers, etc.
    > I took some while in western Colorado three weeks ago and
    > want to enlarge them and if I can maintain good quality
    > print and frame them.


    If you use the highest quality your camera is capable of and
    keep it in that format up to the print moment, you should get
    very good results. The new digital cameras are pretty amazing.
    To think 10 years 3 Megapixel was considered professional, and
    now anyone can get an 8 Megapixel camera for about 250 dollars.

    >>You can resize and re-compress the image later in any
    >>program (except MSPaint) and get a much smaller file, if
    >>you want.

    >
    > I have found through experience if I want to email a photo
    > to convert it back to a jpg. Even after doing that it takes
    > my daughter in Colorado a long time to download a pic since
    > she is still using dial-up with a 56k modem.


    See above about resizing for emailing. I use a 33.6 modem so I
    CERTAINLY understand.

    Have fun.
    thanatoid, Sep 22, 2006
    #19
  20. Grandpa Chuck

    Meat Plow Guest

    On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:34:43 +0000, Grandpa Chuck Has Frothed:

    > our digital camera saves all still pictures at jpeg files. the book I have
    > on digital photography says to save files on the computer at tiff files.
    > Is there a way to convert an entire folder full of images to tiff files or
    > must I do it one picture at a time using Adobe Photo or some similar
    > program?


    What book are you reading and how old is it? Most all cameras except some
    of the more pricey ones only save in jpg.

    --
    Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2004

    COOSN-266-06-25794
    Meat Plow, Sep 22, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bob C.
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    355
    Bob C.
    Nov 11, 2003
  2. ARosenblat

    jpeg to tiff and back to tiff

    ARosenblat, Dec 25, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    764
    Fuzzy Logic
    Jan 9, 2004
  3. Peter Frank
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,037
    Chris Cox
    Dec 13, 2004
  4. Jenna Topping

    BMP to TIFF or TIFF to BMP- any loss?

    Jenna Topping, Jan 21, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    677
    None40
    Jan 23, 2005
  5. Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley

    Convert TIFF-YC to TIFF-RGB

    Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley, Jun 26, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,326
    David J Taylor
    Jun 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page