Mac formats???

T
Posted By
Thomas
Mar 6, 2005
Views
536
Replies
13
Status
Closed
I have a disk of images that my wife scanned into her mac and gave to me to ‘optimise’ and ‘touch up’ and then print… trouble is these files have no extension… fine I thought… she scanned them through photoshop, lets just rename them with a .psd extension. however PS7 refuses to open these files… ‘this is not a recognised file format’ Please does anyone have any ideas??? This will get me out the doghouse…

ps I know nothing about macs….

TIA

Thomas

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

MR
Mike Russell
Mar 6, 2005
Thomas wrote:
I have a disk of images that my wife scanned into her mac and gave to me to ‘optimise’ and ‘touch up’ and then print… trouble is these files have no extension… fine I thought… she scanned them through photoshop, lets just rename them with a .psd extension. however PS7 refuses to open these files… ‘this is not a recognised file format’ Please does anyone have any ideas???

Use Open As and try a variety of formats. Jpg, tiff, and pict would be high on my list

This will get me out the doghouse…

Sorry, you’re on your own there. 🙂

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
M
me
Mar 6, 2005
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:07:07 -0000, "Thomas"
wrote:

I have a disk of images that my wife scanned into her mac and gave to me to ‘optimise’ and ‘touch up’ and then print… trouble is these files have no extension… fine I thought… she scanned them through photoshop, lets just rename them with a .psd extension. however PS7 refuses to open these files… ‘this is not a recognised file format’ Please does anyone have any ideas??? This will get me out the doghouse…

ps I know nothing about macs….

TIA

Thomas

Did you try renaming to jpg or tif, maybe even bmp? Normally renaming works for me, it’s just a question of what they were saved as. (There have been a time or two though that a mac file wouldn’t open so be prepared for that also)

Bob
T
toby
Mar 6, 2005
wrote:
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 01:07:07 -0000, "Thomas"
wrote:

I have a disk of images that my wife scanned into her mac and gave
to me to
‘optimise’ and ‘touch up’ and then print… trouble is these files
have no
extension… fine I thought… she scanned them through photoshop,
lets just
rename them with a .psd extension. however PS7 refuses to open
these
files… ‘this is not a recognised file format’ Please does anyone
have any
ideas??? This will get me out the doghouse…

Photoshop won’t open them if the extension and/or file type are wrong for their actual format. If you can upload an example then we should be able to tell you immediately what it is from its internal signature.

–Toby

ps I know nothing about macs….

TIA

Thomas

Did you try renaming to jpg or tif, maybe even bmp? Normally
renaming
works for me, it’s just a question of what they were saved as.
(There
have been a time or two though that a mac file wouldn’t open so be prepared for that also)

Bob
E
edjh
Mar 6, 2005
Thomas wrote:
I have a disk of images that my wife scanned into her mac and gave to me to ‘optimise’ and ‘touch up’ and then print… trouble is these files have no extension… fine I thought… she scanned them through photoshop, lets just rename them with a .psd extension. however PS7 refuses to open these files… ‘this is not a recognised file format’ Please does anyone have any ideas??? This will get me out the doghouse…

ps I know nothing about macs….

TIA

Thomas
For the future I would suggest to your wife that she always save using the extensions. She can turn them on in Preferences. I always use them on both platforms and never have any problem opening files cross-platform.


Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html
T
Thomas
Mar 6, 2005
"Thomas" wrote in message
I have a disk of images that my wife scanned into her mac and gave to me
to
‘optimise’ and ‘touch up’ and then print… trouble is these files have no extension… fine I thought… she scanned them through photoshop, lets
just
rename them with a .psd extension. however PS7 refuses to open these files… ‘this is not a recognised file format’ Please does anyone have
any
ideas??? This will get me out the doghouse…

My lovely wife had saved then as Photoshop 2 files. I just went to her mac and saved the files as tiffs, problem solved…
Still I’m curious as to why these files have no extension and why they are not compatible with PS7… they are definitly PSD’s
Now to see if I can add her Mac to my Network…
Now to start banging down the door of my kennel!!
T
Thomas
Mar 6, 2005
I have a disk of images that my wife scanned into her mac and gave to me
to
‘optimise’ and ‘touch up’ and then print… trouble is these files have no extension… fine I thought… she scanned them through photoshop, lets
just
rename them with a .psd extension. however PS7 refuses to open these files… ‘this is not a recognised file format’ Please does anyone have
any
ideas??? This will get me out the doghouse…

ps I know nothing about macs….

Thx for everyones input……
N
nomail
Mar 6, 2005
Thomas wrote:

I have a disk of images that my wife scanned into her mac and gave to me to ‘optimise’ and ‘touch up’ and then print… trouble is these files have no extension… fine I thought… she scanned them through photoshop, lets just rename them with a .psd extension. however PS7 refuses to open these files… ‘this is not a recognised file format’ Please does anyone have any ideas??? This will get me out the doghouse…

Open Photoshop on your wife’s Macintosh, create a new document and choose ‘Save as…’. The document format that Photoshop suggests is the last one used, so very good chance that is what your wife used for all of them.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/
R
ronwong
Mar 7, 2005
In article , "Thomas"
wrote:


My lovely wife had saved then as Photoshop 2 files. I just went to her mac and saved the files as tiffs, problem solved…
Still I’m curious as to why these files have no extension

Apple computers use an OS that doesn’t require the user to append extensions to their file names. Any application developed for a Mac automatically includes the file type in the resource fork in the header of the file it creates. When the OS later opens this file, it looks in the header, checks the resource fork, determines the file type and launches the appropriate application based on this information.

The real question is why over 95% of the microcomputer users still need to deal with extensions.

The answer is that they are using an OS made by Microsoft called Windows XXXX. Earlier versions of Windows were shells built around an OS called MS-DOS so that the computers would look/feel more like a Mac. MS-DOS itself was based on an earlier OS called CP/M (some say it was stolen from the creator of CP/M but it’s a little more complicated than that see:

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm)

CP/M was the OS of choice among the small number – compared to today – of "serious" microcomputer users in the 70’s (mostly small businesses). It was designed for the 8-bit microprocessors that were used in the computers at that time and it had all the bells and whistles that you still see today when you get down to the nitty gritty of current Windows-based, 16-bit PCs – including the "8.3" file name constraint with it’s 3 letter extension.

During this same period of time, microcomputers were being developed by entrepreneurs for the home market (Apple II, Pet, Amiga, Atari, TRS 80, etc.). Each of them came with their own version of an OS. Apple was one of a number of companies whose OS did not require file name extensions and it continues that tradition to this day (almost from the start, file names up to 256 characters in length were allowed by Apple’s OS and others at the time).

As you discovered, applications that run on a Mac, like Adobe’s PS, are smart enough to know that, in the real world, files will often find their way to computers that use MS OS. Their default setting is set so that any file saved by the application has the appropriate extension appended to it’s name.

Lucky you. Dragging the files needed to a single folder/directory and doing a batch-save to a tiff file to the same (or another) folder/directory solves the problem of converting Mac savvy PS files to PC ones.

ron
C
Clyde
Mar 7, 2005
Ron Wong wrote:
In article , "Thomas"
wrote:


My lovely wife had saved then as Photoshop 2 files. I just went to her mac and saved the files as tiffs, problem solved…
Still I’m curious as to why these files have no extension

Apple computers use an OS that doesn’t require the user to append extensions to their file names. Any application developed for a Mac automatically includes the file type in the resource fork in the header of the file it creates. When the OS later opens this file, it looks in the header, checks the resource fork, determines the file type and launches the appropriate application based on this information.

The real question is why over 95% of the microcomputer users still need to deal with extensions.

The answer is that they are using an OS made by Microsoft called Windows XXXX. Earlier versions of Windows were shells built around an OS called MS-DOS so that the computers would look/feel more like a Mac. MS-DOS itself was based on an earlier OS called CP/M (some say it was stolen from the creator of CP/M but it’s a little more complicated than that see:
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm)

CP/M was the OS of choice among the small number – compared to today – of "serious" microcomputer users in the 70’s (mostly small businesses). It was designed for the 8-bit microprocessors that were used in the computers at that time and it had all the bells and whistles that you still see today when you get down to the nitty gritty of current Windows-based, 16-bit PCs – including the "8.3" file name constraint with it’s 3 letter extension.

During this same period of time, microcomputers were being developed by entrepreneurs for the home market (Apple II, Pet, Amiga, Atari, TRS 80, etc.). Each of them came with their own version of an OS. Apple was one of a number of companies whose OS did not require file name extensions and it continues that tradition to this day (almost from the start, file names up to 256 characters in length were allowed by Apple’s OS and others at the time).

As you discovered, applications that run on a Mac, like Adobe’s PS, are smart enough to know that, in the real world, files will often find their way to computers that use MS OS. Their default setting is set so that any file saved by the application has the appropriate extension appended to it’s name.

Lucky you. Dragging the files needed to a single folder/directory and doing a batch-save to a tiff file to the same (or another) folder/directory solves the problem of converting Mac savvy PS files to PC ones.

ron

95% of computers don’t have to use two ‘files’ to get around the extension issue. Don’t forget Mac OS’s "Data Fork". It does practically the same thing as those three letters in the extension.

Mac and Wintel computer owner,
Clyde
C
Clyde
Mar 8, 2005
Clyde wrote:
Ron Wong wrote:

In article , "Thomas"
wrote:


My lovely wife had saved then as Photoshop 2 files. I just went to her mac
and saved the files as tiffs, problem solved…
Still I’m curious as to why these files have no extension

Apple computers use an OS that doesn’t require the user to append extensions to their file names. Any application developed for a Mac automatically includes the file type in the resource fork in the header of
the file it creates. When the OS later opens this file, it looks in the header, checks the resource fork, determines the file type and launches the appropriate application based on this information.

The real question is why over 95% of the microcomputer users still need to
deal with extensions.

The answer is that they are using an OS made by Microsoft called Windows XXXX. Earlier versions of Windows were shells built around an OS called MS-DOS so that the computers would look/feel more like a Mac. MS-DOS itself was based on an earlier OS called CP/M (some say it was stolen from
the creator of CP/M but it’s a little more complicated than that see:
http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa033099.htm)

CP/M was the OS of choice among the small number – compared to today – of "serious" microcomputer users in the 70’s (mostly small businesses). It was designed for the 8-bit microprocessors that were used in the computers
at that time and it had all the bells and whistles that you still see today when you get down to the nitty gritty of current Windows-based, 16-bit PCs – including the "8.3" file name constraint with it’s 3 letter extension.

During this same period of time, microcomputers were being developed by entrepreneurs for the home market (Apple II, Pet, Amiga, Atari, TRS 80, etc.). Each of them came with their own version of an OS. Apple was one of a number of companies whose OS did not require file name extensions and
it continues that tradition to this day (almost from the start, file names
up to 256 characters in length were allowed by Apple’s OS and others at the time).
As you discovered, applications that run on a Mac, like Adobe’s PS, are smart enough to know that, in the real world, files will often find their way to computers that use MS OS. Their default setting is set so that any file saved by the application has the appropriate extension appended to it’s name.

Lucky you. Dragging the files needed to a single folder/directory and doing a batch-save to a tiff file to the same (or another) folder/directory solves the problem of converting Mac savvy PS files to PC
ones.

ron

95% of computers don’t have to use two ‘files’ to get around the extension issue. Don’t forget Mac OS’s "Data Fork". It does practically the same thing as those three letters in the extension.

Mac and Wintel computer owner,
Clyde

Oops. I meant "Resource Fork". See how confusing that is?

Clyde
T
toby
Mar 21, 2005
Clyde wrote:

95% of computers don’t have to use two ‘files’ to get around the extension issue. Don’t forget Mac OS’s "Data Fork". It does
practically
the same thing as those three letters in the extension.

Mac and Wintel computer owner,
Clyde

Oops. I meant "Resource Fork". See how confusing that is?

The resource fork has nothing to do with file typing or extensions; it’s actually just a poor man’s database (typically for UI objects). Even Windoze has a data fork hack to achieve something similar for its executables. What you perhaps meant are the Mac filesystem’s type/creator signatures.
–T

Clyde
B
Brian
Mar 21, 2005
toby wrote:

Clyde wrote:



95% of computers don’t have to use two ‘files’ to get around the extension issue. Don’t forget Mac OS’s "Data Fork". It does

practically

the same thing as those three letters in the extension.

Mac and Wintel computer owner,
Clyde

Oops. I meant "Resource Fork". See how confusing that is?

The resource fork has nothing to do with file typing or extensions; it’s actually just a poor man’s database (typically for UI objects). Even Windoze has a data fork hack to achieve something similar for its executables. What you perhaps meant are the Mac filesystem’s type/creator signatures.
–T

Clyde
oh no, not another Windows hater. Enjoy what you use and let others enjoy windows.
T
toby
Mar 21, 2005
Brian wrote:
toby wrote:

Clyde wrote:



95% of computers don’t have to use two ‘files’ to get around the extension issue. Don’t forget Mac OS’s "Data Fork". It does

practically

the same thing as those three letters in the extension.

Mac and Wintel computer owner,
Clyde

Oops. I meant "Resource Fork". See how confusing that is?

The resource fork has nothing to do with file typing or extensions; it’s actually just a poor man’s database (typically for UI
objects).
Even Windoze has a data fork hack to achieve something similar for
its
executables. What you perhaps meant are the Mac filesystem’s type/creator signatures.
–T

Clyde
oh no, not another Windows hater. Enjoy what you use and let others enjoy windows.

If you bothered researching the technical details you would realise that I my characterisation was perfectly accurate. I guess you’re unclear on the "two forks" concept. You should also realise that Apple’s direction for OS X has been to phase out traditional resource forks – and even, at times, to frown upon type/creator signatures. It was precisely those things which differentiated the Mac file system from single-fork, extension based systems. Even Windoze NT supports multiple forks these days…

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections