Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Maybe the people posting weren't members in 2015.....
But it's not in my interest to check that, or if a subject was discussed prior.
Or get upset about many people discussing it again.
I would NEVER expect someone to check if a subject has been posted prior before making their post.

srt101fan

And the rules are easy to understand. I don't understand why so many folks are having trouble understanding them....

RKastner Loc: Davenport, FL

Maybe I don't understand what the metadata is going to tell them...but would they really be able to tell whether the image was shot in JPEG or if it was shot in RAW and processed, say in LR or PS, and sent to them as a JPEG file.

Also....while this was in 2015, has Reuters come out to say now that they are going to authenticate that any images that they publish aren't AI? If not, then they're just hypocrites.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

It's not that the topic was posted on UHH in 2015 (was it?)
The point is that Reuters issued this rule in 2015. It's nothing new. And might have changed since then.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am sure the majority here are not professional photographers. For a majority of us only RAW data shines but for a news agency speed on reporting the news is paramount. It is not the same a processed JPEG from a RAW data than a JPEG straight off the camera. I believe that the news agency is trying to get the images fast avoiding the manipulation that is done to a RAW data....and the associated delays.

I shoot both types of files depending on the circumstances. Modern JPEG files have been improved to give us today excellent images and I have several of them which to my eyes look spectacular. It is true that RAW data is flexible and with its 12, 14 or 16 bits of information we can manipulate it knowing there will not be sudden changes of colors, banding or other artifacts. I want to emphasize again that modern JPEGs are better than ever and although some over here believe those files can be manipulated as if there is no tomorrow I totally disagree, the less manipulation the better for a JPEG.

I occasionally shoot wildlife, I occasionally shoot street photography but when I have done it I have gone with JPEG. I keep on saying that modern JPEG files are of excellent quality, if we manipulate RAW data we will end converting to JPEG and lots of data will be lost, no matter what.
Software engineers are not stupid and news agency are not either. I still believe there is a reason why a JPEG is not only the universal file but it is the primary file in our cameras when we buy them. I can see a significant difference between JPEG files from around 2001 and those of today. It all seems to indicate to me that software engineers keep on working to extract from our cameras the best images we can achieve.

nealbralley Loc: Kansas

When it comes to photo journalism JPEG is king. The files are small, and the photographer can transmit them nearly instantly. As others have mentioned, reduces alterations which might reduce the credibility of the publications.

Also, many professional photo journalists use cameras having minimal megapixels. Really blows the high megapixel camera arguments right out of the water!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

On internet, every is new to the reader, especially if said reader does not pay attention to the date of publication...

Bill_de Loc: US

Missed the point again!

Keep on posting

---

gouldopfl

Jpeg only has a portion of the information to do post processing. The jpeg files are camera specific as they are processed in camera and only can get some partial edits

TheShoe Loc: Lacey, WA

Did you intend the irony? The jpeg from the cameras is not unprocessed. The camera has processed the raw image according to the camera settings, either default or specified by the shooter. In either case, the image will have been processed. If they are going to be picky about it, they should require that raw images be provided. That would give them complete control over the processing of the image.

BebuLamar

I think they should demand the raw file only.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Newspapers print at low resolution. The Internet is a low resolution medium most of the time. More than 16 MP is just a waste for the vast majority of news coverage.

MJPerini

This is old news, and if you think about it, it (mostly) makes sense.
There are already rules in place at all the wire services about limited 'processing' of News Photographs.
They do not care if you shoot RAW + JPEG , but as a 'News" organization they want a camera created JPEG with minimal "corrections'
They want direct JPEGs with minimal (specified) corrections, but they also want all your submissions to have the same "corrections" to avoid any chance of processing to influence content.
The Photographer can still do that with 'point of view', or timing of the picture etc but they have been embarrassed in the past with having to retract pictures that were later found to have been altered.
It is sort of a non story.

Hip Coyote

I just looked at the link. It was a podcast wherein the author noted exactly why this was done, ethics and all that. If one just looks at the initial click bait title, it would be easy to get spun up for those who are like moths to a flame on raw vs. jpeg. But listen for a few minutes and all is revealed.

As the saying goes, "if you are going to drink, drink deeply."

User ID

Exactly.
And so such a "ban" is unenforceable.
A jpeg is a jpeg is a jpeg.