LittleRed

Found this article posted in website petapixel.com. Tis an interesting one fer sure. This is a portion of a letter sent out to their freelance staff. Guess in certain circumstances jpegs still rule!
Quote -

I’d like to pass on a note of request to our freelance contributors due to a worldwide policy change.. In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. If you want to shoot raw images that’s fine, just take JPEGs at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc).

LittleRed (Ron)

tradio Loc: Oxford, Ohio

Outlaw RAW shooter.

BebuLamar

So raw is only for amateurs like me. Good to know.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Makes no sense. Why do they care if the jpgs started out as raw only capture? I can see why they don't want gigantic raw files, and certainly jpgs are all a news organization would need, but how the photographer took them originally is a moot point I would think.

Shellback Loc: North of Cheyenne Bottoms Wetlands - Kansas

OLD news - Nov of 2015 - https://petapixel.com/?s=reuters+issues+worldwide+ban

SonyA580 Loc: FL in the winter & MN in the summer

I thought all digital images started out as raw files. Since the jpg files can be manipulated as much as raw files, what difference does it make?

Hip Coyote

It’s actually a very common practice in photo journalism. The AP has very strict
Guidelines on what can and cannot be edited. For instance a photo can be cropped but people cannot be edited out. They don’t allow for a lot of leeway.

The point is that the photog is trying to capture an image that is documentary, not necessarily artistic. Al thought the good ones often do both. RAW simply requires too much editing and allowance for interpretation of the image.

A good example was years ago Time had a photo of OJ Simpson that they intentionally darkened his face with deep shadows to make him look more sinister. There were significant ethics issues involved and they clearly editorialized a photo through editing.

As usual a blanket statement, without context, is not often accurate or helpful. In this case the news agencies need accuracy and raw does not help. In some ways it hinders.

Often field photogs are uploading their pics on the fly. Others may be downloading them, determining what goes to publication etc. in addition They simply don’t have time to mess with each photo. Just like some wedding photogs and others. Time is money. And they’re on a very tight schedule.

I shoot almost exclusively RAW the latitude it provides my amateur skills. The news agencies are trying to achieve the exact opposite. Now if they could achieve neutrality and accuracy in reporting we’d all be better off.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

"Banned RAW files" and photos that were processed from RAW photos are different.
"Processed" seems to be the keyword here, it appears that they want the original JPEG from the camera, unprocessed.

alexol

In answer to what difference does it make, the answer is speed. Reuters is news, not Art.

Reuters wants to receive a photo ready for immediate publication RIGHT NOW. For 99.9% of their purposes a reasonable JPG is ideal, and if a pro photographer can't turn in a reasonable JPG then he isn't much of a photographer.

No-one in the pro photo journalism world is going to faff-about with RAW. For their purposes, the adjustments that can be done to a JPG is sufficient.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

Of note, the original Petapixel article, "Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos." was posted on November 18, 2015.

Two snippets from that original article:

“As eyewitness accounts of events covered by dedicated and responsible journalists, Reuters Pictures must reflect reality. While we aim for photography of the highest aesthetic quality, our goal is not to artistically interpret the news.”

“Speed is also very important to us. We have therefore asked our photographers to skip labour and time consuming processes to get our pictures to our clients faster.”

Hip Coyote

That’s half the story but I agree. The RAW vs jpeg thing is a consistent discussion amongst rank amateurs. It’s low hanging fruit.

srt101fan

I agree with your interpretation (supported by David Martin's post). The issue is not RAW but how the JPEG is created. RAW processed to JPEG in the camera is OK, RAW processed to JEPG in an external editor is not OK.

Makes sense to me. Creating the JPEG with an editing program offers too much of an opportunity for manipulating the image compared to "straight-out-of-the-camera".

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Exactly. Actually jpg editors typically have far more tools available to manipulate images than raw editors. They could tell their photographers they want unedited original images, and in jpg format, no problem. They can reject any photo's submitted in RAW format, but if a photographer wishes to edit a photo, shooting in jpg format is about meaningless.