PSD, TIFF et al

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Donald Gray, Jan 28, 2004.

  1. Donald Gray

    Donald Gray Guest

    Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,
    occaisionally TIFF. For the sake of consitancy, I am leaning towards
    PSD as my prefered format.

    I only save them as a JPG _IF_ and only if I want to put them on the
    web or email them, otherwise file size is generally not an issue.

    I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
    non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)


    --
    Donald Gray
    Putting ODCOMBE on the Global Village Map!
    www.odcombe.demon.co.uk
    You do not have to email me, but if you wish to...
    Please remove the SafetyPin from my email address first
    Thanks
    Donald Gray, Jan 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Donald Gray

    Jeremy Guest

    "Donald Gray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,
    > occaisionally TIFF. For the sake of consitancy, I am leaning towards
    > PSD as my prefered format.
    >
    > I only save them as a JPG _IF_ and only if I want to put them on the
    > web or email them, otherwise file size is generally not an issue.
    >
    > I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
    > non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)
    >


    If your time line is 5 years or under, than virtually any non-lossy format
    will suffice. The risk is that you may find it very difficult to decode
    proprietary formats in the future, especially if they fall out of use or are
    abandoned, like FlashPix was.

    Already there are reports of early compressed TIF files that do not open in
    all graphic software. PhotoShop or Paint Shop Pro formats are fine for
    now--but who knows if they'll even be around in 50 years?

    I've reviewed the digitization procedures of several major libraries, and
    the consensus seems to be to save in uncompressed TIF format for the long
    haul. I had previously been saving my files in FlashPix format (it was the
    closest thing to Kodak's PhotoCD format) but the consortium that created
    FlashPix fell apart a couple of years ago, and the format is dead. Try to
    get a FlashPix plug-in so you can view those images in your web browser . .
    ..

    Remember all the old word processor formats, like Word Perfect for DOS or
    Multi-Mate? How about the original Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, which was once THE
    spreadsheet program used by every business with a PC? Try to read those
    files now--even current Lotus 1-2-3 can't read the old DOS files!

    If long-term file readability is important to you, I'd suggest that you
    follow the crowd and stick with UNCOMPRESSED TIF. On the other hand, if you
    are looking at a short time horizon, there are a number of good formats that
    you can consider.

    This issue is far from resolved, and it is causing archivists all around the
    world to have many sleepless nights. But for right now, TIF seems the
    archival format of choice.
    Jeremy, Jan 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Donald Gray

    Donald Gray Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:53:46 GMT, "Jeremy" <>
    wrote:

    []
    >>
    >> I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
    >> non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)
    >>

    >
    >If your time line is 5 years or under, than virtually any non-lossy format
    >will suffice.

    []
    >If long-term file readability is important to you, I'd suggest that you
    >follow the crowd and stick with UNCOMPRESSED TIF.

    []
    >..... But for right now, TIF seems the
    >archival format of choice.
    >

    Thank you for a very informative & nicely thought out reply.

    Looks like I have some work to do converting... I was unaware of the
    issues of obsolescence of formats in imaging as long as staying with
    the major ones, but perhaps choosing proprietary ones is a risk in the
    long term.

    I do remember Multimate and Lotus 123 - even earlier Applewriter and
    Visicalc - those were the days when the operation language (Applesoft
    basic), the Programme AND the data & scratch pad, all had to reside in
    64 Kb. The youngsters just don't realise that they got it so good!

    Yeah - 1983 - emails at 300 baud (75baud fall back) - Yeah - those
    WERE the days...

    Thanks for the trip down memory lane Jeremy...

    Cheers


    --
    Donald Gray
    Putting ODCOMBE on the Global Village Map!
    www.odcombe.demon.co.uk
    You do not have to email me, but if you wish to...
    Please remove the SafetyPin from my email address first
    Thanks
    Donald Gray, Jan 28, 2004
    #3
  4. Donald Gray

    Jeremy Guest

    "Donald Gray" <> wrote in message
    >
    > Looks like I have some work to do converting... I was unaware of the
    > issues of obsolescence of formats in imaging as long as staying with
    > the major ones, but perhaps choosing proprietary ones is a risk in the
    > long term.
    >


    I first became aware of how fragile data was when I read an article in "The
    New Yorker" magazine a couple of years ago. Our federal government has lost
    tons of data due to proprietary formats and proprietary storage media--where
    the vendors have gone out of business, leaving users of their proprietary
    data hanging.

    Parts of the 1970 census are unreadable, because the vendor that provided
    the data tapes and recording/playback equipment is gone, and no one can
    provide the Government with the appropriate playback equipment.

    A ton of the last mission to Mars has been lost, because of equipment
    incompatibility problems.

    When Clinton and Gore were about to leave office, the National Archives
    started a project to preserve their emails. There were millions of them,
    and the Government PRINTED THEM OUT onto paper, then microfilmed the paper!
    Microfilm has a useful life of over 500 years under proper storage
    conditions, and all one needs to read the film is a light and a magnifier.

    The Kodak PCD format (Photo CD) is now only 10 years old, and virtually no
    one is making Photo CDs anymore (I'm referring to the Kodak product--people
    are now scanning and saving their own images, at a much cheaper price than
    Kodak charges). That format will be completely dead in another 10 years,
    and it is only a matter of time before no software will be able to read
    those files. So much for archiving photos using a proprietary format (You
    cannot buy software that saves files in PCD format--only software that can
    read it.). And this is a product that Kodak has invested millions of
    dollars to promote! Right now, there is serious doubt on Wall Street that
    Kodak itself will survive! There is talk of selling it off, piece by piece.
    So much for thinking that Kodak will always be there to support PhotoCD!

    There is already a new term, "Digital Archaeology," to describe the process
    of reading and decoding obsolete file formats! That may work for
    Universities and Museums, but what is the chance that any of our descendents
    will bother to take our image files to a University to see what is on the
    media, 50 years from now? More likely that someone will look at that big
    box filled with those old things called CDs and just chuck them into the
    trash one day! And with it will go tons of irreplaceable memories!

    The lowly negative may, uncer certain circumstances, outlive the image file!
    We just don't know how this is all going to work itself out, because for the
    first time in human history, we are putting our history into a format that
    we know will become obsolete, and which will require future generations to
    care for it--by migrating the files to new formats as they come into use,
    and also by storing those files on whatever storage media is then being used
    (CDs won't be manufactured forever--just like the 78 RPM record is no longer
    made). And that migration process will have to be repeated at least once
    per generation, or the material will eventually fall into oblivion!

    I have read one expert that suggested that our generation, with all of its
    sophisticated storage technology, may end being the worst-documented
    generation in history, because all of our information may be lost to
    posterity.

    We won't really know how accurate his prediction is for another half century
    or so.
    Jeremy, Jan 28, 2004
    #4
  5. Donald Gray

    AArDvarK Guest

    I agree with .TIF as the final format. But as far as
    ..FPX ... Irfanview opens it, and makes thumbnails
    from them as well. I have many centerfold scans
    in fpx, works great. Just also download the plugin
    package (...I think).
    http://www.irfanview.com/
    --
    Sincerely,
    Alex
    ------------------------------
    e-mail address not given,
    reply here.
    ------------------------------

    "Jeremy"
    > If your time line is 5 years or under, than virtually any non-lossy format
    > will suffice. The risk is that you may find it very difficult to decode
    > proprietary formats in the future, especially if they fall out of use or are
    > abandoned, like FlashPix was.
    >
    > Already there are reports of early compressed TIF files that do not open in
    > all graphic software. PhotoShop or Paint Shop Pro formats are fine for
    > now--but who knows if they'll even be around in 50 years?
    >
    > I've reviewed the digitization procedures of several major libraries, and
    > the consensus seems to be to save in uncompressed TIF format for the long
    > haul. I had previously been saving my files in FlashPix format (it was the
    > closest thing to Kodak's PhotoCD format) but the consortium that created
    > FlashPix fell apart a couple of years ago, and the format is dead. Try to
    > get a FlashPix plug-in so you can view those images in your web browser . .
    > .
    >
    > Remember all the old word processor formats, like Word Perfect for DOS or
    > Multi-Mate? How about the original Lotus 1-2-3 for DOS, which was once THE
    > spreadsheet program used by every business with a PC? Try to read those
    > files now--even current Lotus 1-2-3 can't read the old DOS files!
    >
    > If long-term file readability is important to you, I'd suggest that you
    > follow the crowd and stick with UNCOMPRESSED TIF. On the other hand, if you
    > are looking at a short time horizon, there are a number of good formats that
    > you can consider.
    >
    > This issue is far from resolved, and it is causing archivists all around the
    > world to have many sleepless nights. But for right now, TIF seems the
    > archival format of choice.
    >
    >
    AArDvarK, Jan 28, 2004
    #5
  6. Donald Gray

    AArDvarK Guest

    ..... oh and don't forget ... as "soon" as the Earth itself
    reaches the center of the galaxy, it will also be destroyed
    ... pertinent to that "black hole" thing ... nothing will
    even matter then ...
    --
    Sincerely,
    Alex
    ------------------------------
    e-mail address not given,
    reply here.
    ------------------------------

    "Jeremy"
    > I first became aware of how fragile data was when I read an article in "The
    > New Yorker" magazine a couple of years ago. Our federal government has lost
    > tons of data due to proprietary formats and proprietary storage media--where
    > the vendors have gone out of business, leaving users of their proprietary
    > data hanging.
    >
    > Parts of the 1970 census are unreadable, because the vendor that provided
    > the data tapes and recording/playback equipment is gone, and no one can
    > provide the Government with the appropriate playback equipment.
    >
    > A ton of the last mission to Mars has been lost, because of equipment
    > incompatibility problems.
    >
    > When Clinton and Gore were about to leave office, the National Archives
    > started a project to preserve their emails. There were millions of them,
    > and the Government PRINTED THEM OUT onto paper, then microfilmed the paper!
    > Microfilm has a useful life of over 500 years under proper storage
    > conditions, and all one needs to read the film is a light and a magnifier.
    >
    > The Kodak PCD format (Photo CD) is now only 10 years old, and virtually no
    > one is making Photo CDs anymore (I'm referring to the Kodak product--people
    > are now scanning and saving their own images, at a much cheaper price than
    > Kodak charges). That format will be completely dead in another 10 years,
    > and it is only a matter of time before no software will be able to read
    > those files. So much for archiving photos using a proprietary format (You
    > cannot buy software that saves files in PCD format--only software that can
    > read it.). And this is a product that Kodak has invested millions of
    > dollars to promote! Right now, there is serious doubt on Wall Street that
    > Kodak itself will survive! There is talk of selling it off, piece by piece.
    > So much for thinking that Kodak will always be there to support PhotoCD!
    >
    > There is already a new term, "Digital Archaeology," to describe the process
    > of reading and decoding obsolete file formats! That may work for
    > Universities and Museums, but what is the chance that any of our descendents
    > will bother to take our image files to a University to see what is on the
    > media, 50 years from now? More likely that someone will look at that big
    > box filled with those old things called CDs and just chuck them into the
    > trash one day! And with it will go tons of irreplaceable memories!
    >
    > The lowly negative may, uncer certain circumstances, outlive the image file!
    > We just don't know how this is all going to work itself out, because for the
    > first time in human history, we are putting our history into a format that
    > we know will become obsolete, and which will require future generations to
    > care for it--by migrating the files to new formats as they come into use,
    > and also by storing those files on whatever storage media is then being used
    > (CDs won't be manufactured forever--just like the 78 RPM record is no longer
    > made). And that migration process will have to be repeated at least once
    > per generation, or the material will eventually fall into oblivion!
    >
    > I have read one expert that suggested that our generation, with all of its
    > sophisticated storage technology, may end being the worst-documented
    > generation in history, because all of our information may be lost to
    > posterity.
    >
    > We won't really know how accurate his prediction is for another half century
    > or so.
    >
    >
    AArDvarK, Jan 28, 2004
    #6
  7. Donald Gray

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:48:33 +0000, in rec.photo.digital Donald Gray
    <> wrote:

    >Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,
    >occaisionally TIFF. For the sake of consitancy, I am leaning towards
    >PSD as my prefered format.


    >I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
    >non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)


    As others have suggested, TIFF might be the best long term archival storage
    format. Though I have my own thoughts on this also. However you
    specifically said, "Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP
    or PSD format." Given any inkling of later wanting to continue editing you
    should consider saving in the native format of your editor. This allows you
    to not only append editing steps , but will allow you to undo some/most of
    them assuming you make use of layers. Once you convert this to a flat file
    format such as TIFF that info is lost and you'll need to go back to the
    original image to regain that altered info. Whether you should consider
    this depends on the level of editing you are talking about and how you
    weigh the cost of additional storage space vs your time over your
    collection of images. Don't forget, what works for you now, may not be best
    choice a year from now as you habits change.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
    Ed Ruf, Jan 30, 2004
    #7
  8. Donald Gray

    Flycaster Guest

    "Ed Ruf" <EG*nospam*> wrote in message
    news:...

    > As others have suggested, TIFF might be the best long term archival

    storage
    > format. Though I have my own thoughts on this also. However you
    > specifically said, "Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP
    > or PSD format." Given any inkling of later wanting to continue editing you
    > should consider saving in the native format of your editor. This allows

    you
    > to not only append editing steps , but will allow you to undo some/most of
    > them assuming you make use of layers. Once you convert this to a flat file
    > format such as TIFF that info is lost and you'll need to go back to the
    > original image to regain that altered info. Whether you should consider
    > this depends on the level of editing you are talking about and how you
    > weigh the cost of additional storage space vs your time over your
    > collection of images. Don't forget, what works for you now, may not be

    best
    > choice a year from now as you habits change.


    Not that I disagree with any of this, but Photoshop has been able to save
    layered TIFF's since Ver.7.




    -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
    http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
    -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
    Flycaster, Jan 30, 2004
    #8
  9. Donald Gray

    Jeremy Guest

    "Flycaster" <> wrote in message
    news:4019b38e$...

    >>Given any inkling of later wanting to continue editing you
    > > should consider saving in the native format of your editor.


    When I recommended TIF as an archival format, I was primarily thinking of
    the original, unedited image, as it came out of the camera, before any type
    of editing was done to it. This unedited image was the equivalent of a
    "digital negative." That image should be stored in an archival format, and
    right now TIF seems to be the format of choice among Universities, Museums,
    Libraries and Archives.

    As far as the EDITED version(s), they can be stored in the editor's
    proprietary format, to allow for further editing, if desired. But those
    files are at risk of being obsoleted sooner than a TIF file will be. If you
    are going to do additional editing within a 5-year time frame, it's OK to
    use a proprietary format, but there can be no long-term guarantee that you
    will be able to edit those files, say, 20 years down the road.

    In addition, there will certainly be better editing software in the future,
    and you will want to re-edit the original file, not a file that you already
    edited. The original file has all the pixels that were originally there.

    For archival purposes, it is essential to save the original file, before any
    pixels were discarded. In the long run, this unedited file will be much
    more valuable than anything that is edited today, no matter how good a job
    was done on the editing. In the future, that original unedited file can be
    edited by anyone.
    Jeremy, Jan 30, 2004
    #9
  10. Donald Gray

    AArDvarK Guest

    Donald (and all) another good idea is to
    store your files on solid gold cd-r's that
    do not corrode over time like aluminum
    will ... Mitsui brand on this site, where
    they are the cheapest:
    http://www.inkjetart.com/ There are
    time limitations on standard discs.
    --
    Sincerely,
    Alex
    ------------------------------
    e-mail address not given,
    reply here.
    ------------------------------

    "Donald Gray" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,
    > occaisionally TIFF. For the sake of consitancy, I am leaning towards
    > PSD as my prefered format.
    >
    > I only save them as a JPG _IF_ and only if I want to put them on the
    > web or email them, otherwise file size is generally not an issue.
    >
    > I would be interested in reading other folks opinion and prefered
    > non-compressive file formats (excluding RAW)
    >
    >
    > --
    > Donald Gray
    > Putting ODCOMBE on the Global Village Map!
    > www.odcombe.demon.co.uk
    > You do not have to email me, but if you wish to...
    > Please remove the SafetyPin from my email address first
    > Thanks
    AArDvarK, Jan 30, 2004
    #10
  11. Donald Gray

    Donald Gray Guest

    On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 19:35:12 -0500, Ed Ruf <EG*nospam*>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:48:33 +0000, in rec.photo.digital Donald Gray
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP or PSD format,


    []
    >As others have suggested, TIFF might be the best long term archival storage
    >format. Though I have my own thoughts on this also. However you
    >specifically said, "Whilst working on the photos, I save my images as PSP
    >or PSD format." Given any inkling of later wanting to continue editing you
    >should consider saving in the native format of your editor. This allows you
    >to not only append editing steps , but will allow you to undo some/most of
    >them assuming you make use of layers.

    Indeed, Ed, that is exactly why I save in PSP and PSD and always save
    the final 'work-in-progress' image with all layers, for that very
    reason. I then save 'flattened' version separately. Generally, I had
    saved as a PSD, thinking it was a 'safe' file type.

    Not knowing the general consensus made me start the thread

    >Once you convert this to a flat file
    >format such as TIFF that info is lost and you'll need to go back to the
    >original image to regain that altered info. Whether you should consider
    >this depends on the level of editing you are talking about and how you
    >weigh the cost of additional storage space vs your time over your
    >collection of images.


    I have an external 120Gb HD for back-ups and also burn CDs...

    I am very aware that technology will eventually change that will make
    ALL of our best endeavours obsolete!

    > Don't forget, what works for you now, may not be best
    >choice a year from now as you habits change.


    That is fer sure!

    --
    Donald Gray
    Putting ODCOMBE on the Global Village Map!
    www.odcombe.demon.co.uk
    You do not have to email me, but if you wish to...
    Please remove the SafetyPin from my email address first
    Thanks
    Donald Gray, Jan 30, 2004
    #11
  12. Donald Gray

    Donald Gray Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:06:15 GMT, "Jeremy" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Flycaster" <> wrote in message
    >news:4019b38e$...
    >
    >>>Given any inkling of later wanting to continue editing you
    >> > should consider saving in the native format of your editor.

    >
    >When I recommended TIF as an archival format, I was primarily thinking of
    >the original, unedited image, as it came out of the camera,

    []

    I have been in the habit of keeping all three version - Straight from
    the camera, work-in-progress with layers and then the final Flattened.
    I also keep the reduced size versions if they are to be jpg'd for www
    or email.

    I was primarily conference with loss less storage, but had not
    considered TIFF as the best 'archive' format.

    Thanks to everyone who responded. I have learned a lot.

    --
    Donald Gray
    Putting ODCOMBE on the Global Village Map!
    www.odcombe.demon.co.uk
    You do not have to email me, but if you wish to...
    Please remove the SafetyPin from my email address first
    Thanks
    Donald Gray, Jan 30, 2004
    #12
  13. Donald Gray

    Ed Ruf Guest

    On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 20:23:11 +0000, in rec.photo.digital Donald Gray
    <> wrote:

    >>On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 13:06:15 GMT, "Jeremy" <>
    >>wrote:


    >>When I recommended TIF as an archival format, I was primarily thinking of
    >>the original, unedited image, as it came out of the camera,


    >I have been in the habit of keeping all three version - Straight from
    >the camera, work-in-progress with layers and then the final Flattened.
    >I also keep the reduced size versions if they are to be jpg'd for www
    >or email.
    >
    >I was primarily conference with loss less storage, but had not
    >considered TIFF as the best 'archive' format.


    I wouldn't consider it the "best" format. If the original image from the
    camera is a jpeg, save it.

    I do have a slightly different opinion on "long term archiving" though. In
    my experience there is no such thing. I'm personally involved in archiving
    digital wind tunnel test data sets going back to some 16 years now. In that
    time it's spanned open reel tapes, 5-1/4" floppies, 3-1/2" floppies, QIC
    tapes, M-O disks, CD-Rs and now DVD-Rs, as well as several computing
    platforms.

    IMO, there is no such thing as a static archive. This is apparent from
    hardware concerns alone. Also, if one really cares about the data, you need
    to establish some minimal procedure to revalidate your archive
    periodically, just as you should your system/file backups. Just writing
    them to storage is NOT enough. I'd suggest doing this on a yearly basis, at
    least. You also need to be vigilant in moving your archives to new media
    types when you make hardware changes. Not only is this an opportunity to
    consolidate the data given higher storage densities, it is also an
    opportunity to verify the data and should be undertaken at the earliest
    possibility.

    Just some lessons learned over time, not necessarily easily.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://members.cox.net/egruf
    See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
    http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam
    Ed Ruf, Jan 31, 2004
    #13
  14. Donald Gray

    Jeremy Guest

    "Ed Ruf" <EG*nospam*> wrote in message
    news:...

    > >I was primarily conference with loss less storage, but had not
    > >considered TIFF as the best 'archive' format.

    >
    > I wouldn't consider it the "best" format. If the original image from the
    > camera is a jpeg, save it.
    >


    Well, you make an interesting point. Now that JPG is about to be completely
    revamped, I wonder how long today's JPG files will be readable, as opposed
    to how long today's TIF files will be readable?

    When I was suggesting TIF, I was assuming that the original file was created
    as a TIFF (i.e, from a scanner). But, now that you mention it, my digicam
    outputs in JPG, and I always save the original JPG (it has the EXIF
    data--when I edit the jpg, my editing software destroys the EXIF).

    When I do a scan of a photo or document, I always set my scanner to default
    settings (no sharpening, no color correction, highlights at 255, shadows at
    0, mid-tones at 2.2). I never let my scanning software perform any
    automatic corrections. I always save the original unedited scan in
    uncompressed TIF. I always make all corrections in my editing software (and
    that first, unedited scan image is ALWAYS bad!). But I always save the
    original unedited TIF file as my "digital negative," as that is the file
    that contains all the original pixels.

    I do not normally save the edited version in my editing format, because I
    figure that, if I ever re-edit, I'll just start out fresh, using the
    original unedited image file. But that is just one of those personal
    decisions. As long as you retain the original unedited file you keep your
    options open.



    > I do have a slightly different opinion on "long term archiving" though.

    In
    > my experience there is no such thing. I'm personally involved in archiving
    > digital wind tunnel test data sets going back to some 16 years now. In

    that
    > time it's spanned open reel tapes, 5-1/4" floppies, 3-1/2" floppies, QIC
    > tapes, M-O disks, CD-Rs and now DVD-Rs, as well as several computing
    > platforms.
    >



    You're right on that point. I am optimistic that there will be some way to
    read CDs for a long time, as so many institutions and individuals use them
    as archival media. CDs are the first media where the subject of archiving
    even came up. Still, it will require that future generations migrate the
    files to new media; otherwise the images may be lost. Too bad we won't be
    around to see how it works out . . .
    Jeremy, Jan 31, 2004
    #14
    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. 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
  2. Converter for psd to tiff on Linux

    , Nov 22, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,294
    Michael Meissner
    Nov 23, 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:
    676
    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:
    1,323
    David J Taylor
    Jun 27, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page