They must have a reason for this decision. Hopefully, we will learn what it is.
Longshadow wrote:
"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.
"Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing."
This announcement is causing more confusing than it's worth. They should have explained it when they made the announcement.
LittleRed wrote:
………Guess in certain circumstances jpegs still rule!……..
When I was shooting with film we never had a RAW option. As I emerged into digital, I didn’t care very much for it. Now after 24 years I don’t pay it much mind. Even though my 5D has two separate memory cards, I would develop a headache trying to do RAW photos.
I believe that National Geographic started this trend.
The files would be too large and an opportunity to
”doctor” the image!
Only allow whatever processing the camera does!
jerryc41 wrote:
"Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing."
This announcement is causing more confusing than it's worth. They should have explained it when they made the announcement.
Yup.
Ambiguous writing always leads to multiple interpretations.
LittleRed wrote:
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)
Found this article posted in website petapixel.com... (
show quote)
Reuters is trying to avoid even the appearance of imaging impropriety. Out-of-camera files are less likely to have been modified to remove, move, or add imagery to the frame. Or at least, that's their story and they're sticking to it!
This is a NEWS organization, not an art gallery. They value truth in journalism and journalistic reputation over photo tonality.
Back in the early 2000s, news organizations were ASKING for raw files, or 16-Bit TIFFs in Adobe RGB color space. Professionals were extremely reluctant to provide them. That's like giving your news agency unprocessed film or developed negatives and saying, "Here, do what you like with it."
Sadly, the legal and political realms have more to say about photographic processes than the creative community, where truth hangs in the balance.
burkphoto wrote:
Reuters is trying to avoid even the appearance of imaging impropriety. Out-of-camera files are less likely to have been modified to remove, move, or add imagery to the frame. Or at least, that's their story and they're sticking to it!
This is a NEWS organization, not an art gallery. They value truth in journalism and journalistic reputation over photo tonality.
Back in the early 2000s, news organizations were ASKING for raw files, or 16-Bit TIFFs in Adobe RGB color space. Professionals were extremely reluctant to provide them. That's like giving your news agency unprocessed film or developed negatives and saying, "Here, do what you like with it."
Sadly, the legal and political realms have more to say about photographic processes than the creative community, where truth hangs in the balance.
Reuters is trying to avoid even the appearance of ... (
show quote)
Didn't many news photographers sent their unprocessed film back to the publisher?
SonyA580 wrote:
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?
Do some research! Jpg files Cannot be Manipulated like Raw files…Not even close. Where did you get this information? Totally False!
markwilliam1 wrote:
Do some research! Jpg files Cannot be Manipulated like Raw files…Not even close. Where did you get this information? Totally False!
MUCH more latitude in RAW.
BebuLamar wrote:
Didn't many news photographers sent their unprocessed film back to the publisher?
Yes. If they were staff photographers, the news organization had darkrooms and staff to process and print.
Independent photographers could soup their own, print to order… time permitting.
markwilliam1 wrote:
Do some research! Jpg files Cannot be Manipulated like Raw files…Not even close. Where did you get this information? Totally False!
JPEG can't be manipulated as much as raw files because a lot of details in the original raw files have been discarded but if you do the manipulation to reveal things that the raw files captured but you could not see before the manipulation then you only try to reveal what's there. If you manipulate an image to fake things that aren't there for example replacing the sky then there isn't an advantage in using the raw file.
How many pages will be dedicated to this info from 2015?
Could the rules possibly have changed since then?
---
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.