>>2871748
what
why don't you have the original files anymore

>>2871767
Because... I converted them and deleted them without thinking about it.

>>2871772
You fucked up.
I'm 90% sure you lost them
This is how it felt when my undeveloped film exposed to light. Welcome to the club.

>>2871748
google 'recuva' and cross ur fingers

You are fucked unless you recover the actual files from a backup, etc.

Once you downsample, the information is gone.

Try Adobe's DNG converter. Free app. May at least get you to a more usable format.

>>2871748
Actually you're not fucked per se. You saved the content data without any header information. In principle you can re-construct the header information. This is why the soft ask you for parameter for opening it, which normally would stand in the header.

So, first try all combinations and post the result which looks the least fucked up.

In case there is no useable combination, it seems like - for some reason - your soft saved the content data of a file type, of which it cannot guess the header when re-opening at all. which is insanely stupid btw.. Then you have to do it manually (if there is no repair soft by acvident).
therefore the crucial question is in which format was it originally opened and in which format was it actually processed before it was saved.

>>2871829
and by 'all combinations' I mean all bit sizes with 1,2,3 or 4 channels with the correct resolution. If you don't know the resolution anymore things will get tough..