Reuters Issues A Worldwide Ban On Raw Photos
Mar 6, 2024 16:59:15 #
Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. When I consider images in their RAW format, I see the meaning and significance of every pixel. We can trace to Socrates the famous insight: The unexamined image is not worth saving.
Mar 7, 2024 16:02:03 #
histrydude
Loc: West Lafayette, IN
In the words of the late, great Ronnie Van Zant: "Tell all those pencil pushers, better get out of my way!"
Mar 8, 2024 05:26:59 #
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.
They are trying to ensure minimum processing of images. For what they need the quality loss in jpgs doesn't matter, and it ensures consistency.
Mar 8, 2024 14:44:57 #
To achieve freedom and happiness, the photographer must grasp this basic truth: the RAW file gives you control over your image, the JPEG gives control to the camera. RAW lets you decide this most basic question of photography: are you the finger or the button?
Mar 8, 2024 15:01:52 #
Harry02
Loc: Gardena, CA
Evolution happens.
Camers got better just in the last 20 years.
So did the.jpgs that they make.
So did the software that can process them.
Like most decent managers I've known would say:
Don't give me a project to do! Give me the results!
At least, that's my interpretation.
Anything more than aa little Lightroom touchup is too much.
Camers got better just in the last 20 years.
So did the.jpgs that they make.
So did the software that can process them.
Like most decent managers I've known would say:
Don't give me a project to do! Give me the results!
At least, that's my interpretation.
Anything more than aa little Lightroom touchup is too much.
Mar 10, 2024 06:15:40 #
Scruples wrote:
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!
I believe that National Geographic started this trend.
The files would be too large and an opportunity to ”doctor” the image!
Right on. The raw thing seems to be more for amateurs that have the time to play around with their images. I am a photojournalist and do not have time for that nonsense. I know how to shoot, learned in in film.
Mar 10, 2024 08:11:22 #
For those who might have missed page 1, I believe this thread is based on 9 year old information.
https://petapixel.com/?s=reuters+issues+worldwide+ban
---
https://petapixel.com/?s=reuters+issues+worldwide+ban
---
Mar 10, 2024 10:10:36 #
Bill_de wrote:
For those who might have missed page 1, I believe this thread is based on 9 year old information.
https://petapixel.com/?s=reuters+issues+worldwide+ban
---
https://petapixel.com/?s=reuters+issues+worldwide+ban
---
The original post was made Mar 3, 2024 08:29:43.
The original subject may be 9 years old but people discuss interesting things forever, i.e. no time limit.
For example, JPEG became mainstream around 30 years ago. RAW format editors came out much later around 20 years ago. Both subjects are apparently highly interesting to Hogs, and BOTH are discussed incessantly here and BOTH are implicated in the original post.
There is no reason to think photographers, or anyone, would suddenly and for no reason stop discussing subjects they find very interesting.
One might think people NOT interested in a subject would simply not participate in the discussion, but alas, that's not about to happen either I reckon.
Mar 10, 2024 11:49:48 #
BigDaddy wrote:
The original post was made Mar 3, 2024 08:29:43. ... (show quote)
The OP started with "Found this article posted in website petapixel.com."
If they knew it was an old article don't you think they would have mentioned that?
Old news is no news!
---
Mar 10, 2024 12:37:16 #
Honestly, if the UHH hen house is going to drop a load of feathers, shouldn't it at least be over a topic from this decade?
Mar 11, 2024 08:29:26 #
Bill_de wrote:
The OP started with "Found this article posted in website petapixel.com."
If they knew it was an old article don't you think they would have mentioned that?
Old news is no news!
---
If they knew it was an old article don't you think they would have mentioned that?
Old news is no news!
---
This is a photography group not a news group.
I have no idea nor a care what the OP was thinking or not thinking. He currently posted an article related to photography, specifically RAW vs JPG issues and that's what's being discussed. Very much current issues and highly popular in the Hog community.
Mar 11, 2024 08:57:57 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Honestly, if the UHH hen house is going to drop a load of feathers, shouldn't it at least be over a topic from this decade?
Both JPG and RAW are current topics that are discussed regularly in this "hen house." JPG is at least 30 years old, RAW 20 years old and both are discussed frequently in the Hog.
In fact, the information posted on Mar 3, 2024 (clearly this decade, this month even) raises a number of issues directly related to the RAW vs JPG topics of current popularity to large numbers of this group.
Those not interested (including yerself) could have skipped the thread just based on the title.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.