Reuters Issues A Worldwide Ban On Raw Photos
Mar 3, 2024 19:34:36 #
Mar 3, 2024 19:35:23 #
Mar 4, 2024 00:12:33 #
jerryc41 wrote:
and if you had read the replies on page one you would know that reason.They must have a reason for this decision. Hopefully, we will learn what it is.
Mar 4, 2024 05:46:25 #
canonuser25
Loc: Cardiff (Wales NOT England)
I was always told that images taken for legal/insurance putposes had to be RAW so that the original image is always available as well as all processing steps recorded, How else to prove the provenance of a published image?
Mar 4, 2024 06:11:40 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
LittleRed wrote:
Found this article posted in website petapixel.com... (show quote)
AHHHHHHHHHHH MAN, and I have over 100 award winning shots in RAW I was just about to send them!!!!!!!!
Mar 4, 2024 07:33:08 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Didn't many news photographers sent their unprocessed film back to the publisher?
Back in my newspaper days (late 70's-early 80's) we would typically shoot the assignment and process the film. A photo editor would edit, marking frames and crops. We would then print the photos marked. Often you would have a horizontal, vertical and square because you never knew what the layout guy needed.
The negs were then filed. You were limited to burning, dodging and cropping. Even in those days you would take heat over something like burning a sky to make it darker than normal etc.
A photojournalist should be able to get their exposure and composition right in camera. Taking a jpeg straight is about as close to a negative as you can get. Also it's been pointed out that speed matters.
Mar 4, 2024 07:37:38 #
chuckla
Loc: Kennesaw, GA USA
BigDaddy wrote:
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.
I suspect that it is to ensure that the photos submitted have not been altered (Photoshopped or AI) enough to get them in trouble.
Mar 4, 2024 07:42:39 #
Personally, I never realized news photographers shot in RAW at all. Do not understand the point since they all have to be uploaded to the news organizations.
Mar 4, 2024 08:05:28 #
Mar 4, 2024 08:37:44 #
Mar 4, 2024 09:35:05 #
David Martin wrote:
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.
The point is that Reuters issued this rule in 2015. It's nothing new. And might have changed since then.
The point is the article is interesting. Plenty of old news is discussed. Adam & Eve, Noah's Arc, Moon Landing, Kennedy assassination, Aunt Margaret's affair with Howard Hues... Doesn't much matter how old the article is as long as the subject is interesting to enough people. The OP was interested in it, as were many people commenting on this subject. Even a few apparently not interested in it are commenting. The interest yardstick of any subject is measured by the amount of participation, not the age of the article.
Mar 4, 2024 09:43:52 #
gouldopfl wrote:
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
Actually RAW files are camera specific. Jpg's are created in the image and likeness of the JPG file format provided to the world in 1994 and ALL jpg's must conform the JPG standard. That's why ALL jpgs created since 1994 are readable by any jpg reader/editor. That's what is meant by raw files are proprietary and jpg's are not.
Mar 4, 2024 09:51:45 #
Longshadow wrote:
Okay.
I misunderstood the post to which I replied.
I misunderstood the post to which I replied.
The post you replied to was current the day you replied.
It's not like topics can only be discussed that occurred at this moment in history...
Mar 4, 2024 10:10:03 #
bdk wrote:
I'll bet it was a legal reason, someone took a raw pic, did major editing and it came back to bite them in the butt.
Someone wearing the I shoot RAW t-shirt must have incorrectly informed them that JPG's can't be edited, when that is exactly opposite. Most, if not all, raw editors never touch the raw file, and use a side-car file to store the edits. As has been mentioned numerous times in this thread, raw files are a much better way to check that the image was not altered. That's specifically why the original article made no sense from an authenticity standpoint. Super easy to manipulate a jpg file and leave the viewer unaware that anything is amiss.
Besides, I'd guess the overwhelming majority of photo manipulation is done by the news editors with an agenda, not the photographers. For example, a common manipulation is showing a closeup of a crowd, making it look like the venue was packed when other photo's actually showed the opposite.
Mar 4, 2024 10:20:51 #
Dikdik
Loc: Winnipeg, Canada
I'm not a pro... other than for exceptional photos of objects do I use Raw. These are very seldom... maybe one or two a year. I don't photo process my photos; I'm not a pro and don't have the skills or the time.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.