Reuters Issues A Ban On Images Processed From RAW

I wasn't shooting "back in the day", but didn't agencies used to just accept slide film rolls? Doesn't seem much different to me.

If my little X100 can get great jpgs from the camera, in nearly any lighting condition, I don't see how the pro equipment people are using these days would have any problems.
 
The funny thing is anybody who shoots alot knows photographs are very often totally misleading without any help from anyone.

The camera itself these days applies all sorts of "fixes". A good photojournalist wants the image to "report" an event, just as a writer picks their words. RAW gives the best chance to achieve this, it seems to me.

You either trust the reporter or you do not.

I suppose really, this is all about lots of freelance people, who are poorly paid and little vetted.
 
This also seems like a workflow problem to me.

The memo is directed at their freelance photographers, which I would assume range in quality and experience to a greater degree than their staffers, working day in, day out. Some of these freelancers likely are also involved in areas of photography other than editorial/news, likely influencing their post processing preferences. It's possible some are getting creative with raw conversions in apps such as Lightroom. Pushing shadows, pulling highlights, cranking clarity, etc.. But more of a problem likely is that the time spent futzing around on images is time lost by the agency when they receive images later than they could have.

Having worked in the news industry shooting sports on deadline, the priority was always sending images as quickly as possible. It trumped technical quality. Having also worked at the receiving end while at a news organization, as the guy who fixed images for publication, the images received with the least amount of adjustments allowed the greatest technical leeway for preparation for the presses.

That said, I'm sure the concern is very much about 'as the camera saw it' representation of events, rather than 'artistic embellishment' by the photographer for visual effect. But this isn't anything new in news photography. Well before digital there was the 'hand of god' burning/dodging of images for dramatic effect, for example...
 
It's ironic that the bosses in an industry that's so biased and editorial these days and incapable of reporting simply what happened should take to blaming the input side rather than examining the output and trying to get that part right. I guess blaming someone else is always the easy out.
 
I rarely use in-camera JPEGs. I even shoot TIFFs on my iPhone.

I applaud Reuters' decision.

  • Manipulating JPEGS is limted because JPEGs contain much less information. Detecting manipulated JPEGs is easier than detecting manipulated raw files that are expored as JPEGS.
  • Contemporary digital platforms have more than enough signal-to-noise and dynamic range to properly support in-camera JPEGs for journalistic purposes
  • Rueters will spend less time and money validating images
  • This is not an either/or situation. Photographers can record raw and JPEGs simultaneously. So images used for journalism now could be optimized later on for non-journalism purposes.

As pointed out above, raw can be optimized in-camera before the JPEG files are written to the storage card. With the camera attached to a decent external monitor, this would be a way to image rendering without the disadvantages due to JPEG compression. Yet this rendering is limited to the JPEG parameters available for that particular camera's firmware. So the photographer rendering tools are limited. For instance It would be difficult (right now) to selectively render objects in an image to increase the dramatic content of an image. Even shadow push automation is applied to the entire image.

Fraud will never be eliminated, but it can be suppressed.
 
mdarnton said:
It's ironic that the bosses in an industry that's so biased and editorial these days and incapable of reporting simply what happened should take to blaming the input side rather than examining the output and trying to get that part right. I guess blaming someone else is always the easy out.
Click to expand...

By this logic art forgers are blameless and efforts to detect and punish them are unnecessary.
 
willie_901 said:
I rarely use in-camera JPEGs. I even shoot TIFFs on my iPhone.

I applaud Reuters' decision.

  • Manipulating JPEGS is limted because JPEGs contain much less information. Detecting manipulated JPEGs is easier than detecting manipulated raw files that are expored as JPEGS.
  • Contemporary digital platforms have more than enough signal-to-noise and dynamic range to properly support in-camera JPEGs for journalistic purposes
  • Rueters will spend less time and money validating images
  • This is not an either/or situation. Photographers can record raw and JPEGs simultaneously. So images used for journalism now could be optimized later on for non-journalism purposes.

As pointed out above, raw can be optimized in-camera before the JPEG files are written to the storage card. With the camera attached to a decent external monitor, this would be a way to image rendering without the disadvantages due to JPEG compression. Yet this rendering is limited to the JPEG parameters available for that particular camera's firmware. So the photographer rendering tools are limited. For instance It would be difficult (right now) to selectively render objects in an image to increase the dramatic content of an image. Even shadow push automation is applied to the entire image.

Fraud will never be eliminated, but it can be suppressed.
Click to expand...

A bit Naive. Any determined "forger" will shoot RAW, change it, and forge the EXIF as well. You think the overworked editor will be the wiser?

I also admire your confidence in Canikon white balance to reflect reality.
 
the photographer who doesn't listen and shoots raw and changes exif will be the photographer who will never get work again from reuters and whose name will be spread far and wide as someone who can't follow orders. you'd be surprised how many photojournalists shoot jpeg and have no problems with it. and these are photos that run huge. ymmv if you've never shot for wires
 
Well, from my perspective, I capture 100% RAW that gives me the most latitude for exposure and color balance. In JPEG with PS it's where the manipulation can take place. Photoshop is about blending and layers and this is where a lot of things can be changed to a photograph.

If I were in a decisiion position at Reuters I would only accept RAW Files. In RAW, a side car file is created to tell the original file to set items like exposure, color balance and others. When I work on a RAW file it doesn't change the original file; rather, the changes are put in this additional "sidecar" file. It is quite easy to delete this sidecar file and what is revealed is the original RAW file.
 
While probably unlikely, the risk with raw files, esp for wires like Reuters etc, is future proofing their archive. Do they really want to find out in ten or twenty years that Nikon NEFS from 2015 can't be opened ? Jpegs afaic, will never be an issue.

really, when they're shooting sports etc, they make sure they get colour balance and exposure locked down before working. get those two things dialled in and life is not bad. I find many shooters fall back on raw because they're too lazy to do the work upfront. ymmv
 
According to the story, they allow (slight) postprocessing of camera-generated JPEG files, but the same is not okay for JPEGs generated outside of cameras (as they are evil anyway and must not be accepted). Sounds like they don't really understand any part of this technology. :)

I guess I will care about their policy when I wish to send them pictures.
 
The only place I could lock down exposure and color balance was in my studio where I had consistent lighting. I still used RAW capture, even in studio, as it is my workflow. With outdoors sports photography, any outdoors photography, light changes; clouds, the rotation of our earth which changes how much atmosphere the sunlight has to pass through and other ingredients, changes both exposure and color balance. Inside sports can have various temperatures of light from multiple sources. It's not simple and easy but can be analyzed and mastered by those who can see the light.

All digital cameras, well maybe not Leica, first create a RAW file and in many cases the cameras computer process the RAW file into a JPEG. I choose to process RAW files with ACR and my computer, much like I develop film. I need to read about Leica as I believe they use the DNG format.
 
At an NHL game, the World Series, whatever, every one is dialling in K settings vs letting raw do it all. Hang around the dugout or photo filing room at an arena before a game and one question you're guaranteed to hear is "what's the colour temp ? "

makes you wonder how people got anywhere shooting chromes lol ?
 
newsgrunt said:
At an NHL game, the World Series, whatever, every one is dialling in K settings vs letting raw do it all. Hang around the dugout or photo filing room at an arena before a game and one question you're guaranteed to hear is "what's the colour temp ? "

makes you wonder how people got anywhere shooting chromes lol ?
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. The only people with their panties in a twist are those who use RAW as a crutch for getting the image right in camera. PJs don't have time to screw around in Lightroom for hours tweaking.
As for image quality, jpegs have been published in newspapers and magazines for over 20 years now so I don't think the current offerings from camera makers is going to be a limiting factor in that regard.
Once again people making a mountain out of a mole hill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom