# Reuters ban RAW ?



## Sporgon (Nov 18, 2015)

Is this for real posted on Facebook ?

How are you supposed to know if a jpeg originated from saved raw file anyway ?

And all that time Sony spent increasing the DR. Looks like it's actually 'unethical' to use it. (The DR, not the Sony ).


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 18, 2015)

and the race to the bottom continues......


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Nov 18, 2015)

Just like with any competitive profession. Once enough people cheat, everyone has to cheat to compete. 

Sounds like a good decision to attempt to get back to slightly resembling the inherent truthfulness of using something like slide film. 

You can still enable JPEG functions that boost the shadows in-camera.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 18, 2015)

I forgot to add the link. 

Here it is: 

http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/


----------



## NancyP (Nov 18, 2015)

I might point out that Reuters is a news agency and not a post-processing lab. If you waste a lot of time post-processing the RAW file "just so", your competitor photographer has likely delivered usable jpgs and the jpgs will have been posted by the time you finish putzing with the file. Look, it's a 24 second news cycle, not a 24 hour news cycle nowadays.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 18, 2015)

NancyP said:


> I might point out that Reuters is a news agency and not a post-processing lab. If you waste a lot of time post-processing the RAW file "just so", your competitor photographer has likely delivered usable jpgs and the jpgs will have been posted by the time you finish putzing with the file. Look, it's a 24 second news cycle, not a 24 hour news cycle nowadays.



my gut feel is that reuters wants photos that are not processed unduely so that the posisbility of faked images is reduced.

Question is.. how can they tell the difference between a JPEG produced from a raw image and one straight from camera?.. surely at most the difference is just a detail in the EXIF that could be faked anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Any image can be photoshop'd so the first paragraph doesn't make sense.
> 
> It's what NancyP said - Reuters don't want to waste time creating an image, they want the finished product. They don't care if it is JPEG out of your DSLR, iPhone or Photoshop. Just don't expect them to spend time doing "photograph developing."
> 
> ...



Hey dilbert, if I give you a dollar, will you go buy a clue? Pretty please??


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 19, 2015)

Our local rag has had the same policy for years. I think they are an NYT affiliate.


----------



## JohnLofy (Nov 19, 2015)

I think maybe misunderstanding about Reuters memo.

They said "Reuters has implemented a new worldwide policy for freelance photographers that bans photos that were processed from RAW files. Photographers must now only send photos that were originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs." 

They do not say that they are banning RAW files (although that may already be a requirement, I don't know), only banning photos that were PROCESSED from raw files.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 19, 2015)

JohnLofy said:


> I think maybe misunderstanding about Reuters memo.
> 
> They said "Reuters has implemented a new worldwide policy for freelance photographers that bans photos that were processed from RAW files. Photographers must now only send photos that were originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs."
> 
> They do not say that they are banning RAW files (although that may already be a requirement, I don't know), only banning photos that were PROCESSED from raw files.



No misunderstanding. I think this is S0P for photojournalists, now official for all Reuters submissions.

Reduces manipulation.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Nov 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> rfdesigner said:
> 
> 
> > NancyP said:
> ...



They're not talking about people sending in raw files, they are talking about people sending in jpegs that were processed FROM raw files.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> They're not talking about people sending in raw files, they are talking about people sending in jpegs that were processed FROM raw files.



You just saved me a dollar!


----------



## Aglet (Nov 19, 2015)

Typical mainstream media, they don't want you to see what's lurking in the shadows.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Nov 19, 2015)

Holy cow there is a lot of garbage being thrown around about this topic today.

First: I see this as a means to lower the amount they pay freelancers and a lowered standard for quality. Nothing about this is for "faked" images...you can't fake an image by processing a RAW file, you do that in Photoshop! RAW simply allow nondestructive alteration to the esthetic and increased latitude for exposure corrections.

Second: JPEG is about speed. Speed in transfer, upload, and delivery. RAW is slow. To minimize this reduction in speed, many of us already have a "recipe" we've created to all uploads into Lightroom. JPEG is widely used by many sports photographers and journalists for speed alone. Any of them that tells you JPEG is better is simply an idiot...and anyone that keeps preaching the "get it right in camera" nonsense is lost in the woods of ignorance.

My clients hire me for my final product. How I get there is literally my business. Professional sports teams, race teams, and magazines have never asked for out of camera JPEGs because they don't want me to change anything. They expect quality. I go through every image in only deliver the images that meet my expectations.

If you're already going through each image, it's very easy to apply minimal changes to a RAW file. If you're not touching every single image and looking at them, I have no idea how you possibly keep getting work. It's not the clients job to go through your images and find the "keepers".


----------



## Monchoon (Nov 19, 2015)

Aglet said:


> Typical mainstream media, they don't want you to see what's lurking in the shadows.



Could be  But I think they don't want you to put something there ;D


----------



## -1 (Nov 19, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> NancyP said:
> 
> 
> > I might point out that Reuters is a news agency and not a post-processing lab. If you waste a lot of time post-processing the RAW file "just so", your competitor photographer has likely delivered usable jpgs and the jpgs will have been posted by the time you finish putzing with the file. Look, it's a 24 second news cycle, not a 24 hour news cycle nowadays.
> ...



It's har to give a RAW derivate the EXIF of a camera JPEG out of Lightroom or something. But: Take your RAW and process it ad lib to a .jpg. Then open the original companion JPEG and and replace the content with with the RAW derivate. And your "level adjusments" are done... 
Up next: How to get writing journalists to give up MS Word and start using MS Notepad...


----------



## StudentOfLight (Nov 19, 2015)

If I were to guess, Canon's JPG processing is a very important factor of their success in the sports/reportage scene.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 19, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> and the race to the bottom continues......


+1 to this comment
-1000 to Reuters

I can understand Reuters that they're not willing to handle RAW files. But that's not the point here.
Reuters is trying to patronize the photogs in their working style up to the point when they receive a JPEG from them. What the...  : 

I cannot understand why, as I don't believe that the pictures will become more "truthfully" or that they could control that.



LSXPhotog said:


> ...
> My clients hire me for my final product. How I get there is literally my business.
> ...


That's my thought. If JPEG works better for me and is cheaper, okay. If I want RAW in my PP process to deliver a good JPEG, that's my decission.


----------



## michalk (Nov 19, 2015)

It sounds like a very short sighted policy. The quality of Reuters pictures will suffer and it is only going to harm their own image.


----------



## dolina (Nov 19, 2015)

If banning RAW speeds up the workflow and the known shortcomings are acceptable to Reuters then who are we to judge?

If Reuter's customers wants faster deliverables and and want it that way then that's the way it has to be.

Customer's always right, if you disagree then do not accept their business.


----------



## Ladislav (Nov 19, 2015)

dolina said:


> If banning RAW speeds up the workflow and the known shortcomings are acceptable to Reuters then who are we to judge?
> 
> If Reuter's customers wants faster deliverables and and want it that way then that's the way it has to be.
> 
> Customer's always right, if you disagree then do not accept their business.



100% agree. 

+ many people who are complaining about this seem to trust more their post processing skills than their photography skills.


----------



## dolina (Nov 19, 2015)

Ladislav said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > If banning RAW speeds up the workflow and the known shortcomings are acceptable to Reuters then who are we to judge?
> ...


More likely, they read the headline and made up their own "body of the news article" to fit their position on RAW vs JPEG.

The topic is moot as I know what both file formats strengths and weaknesses are. I use either to make it most convenient for me.

When I do parties I shoot 99.99% jpeg. I often go a step further and select a JPEG resolution that's around 2MP.

Why 2MP? Because 99.99% of the time it'll be viewed on Facebook or some online photo album.

Once Facebook and other sites go 4K or 5K then I will adjust with the times.

I used to shoot RAW but it eventually occurred to me that it makes no sense fix people up as they themselves made sure they dressed well for the party.

Heck, I wasn't paid for to do this job.

For birds and wildlife I would insist on RAW.

Any of my SLR + L glass or Leica images will outdo any point and shoot, SLR + kit lens or smartphone present there.

Now, if you enjoy doing that sort of thing then more power to you.


----------



## whothafunk (Nov 19, 2015)

> While we aim for photography of the highest aesthetic quality..


that's funny. because compared to EPA and Getty, Reuter's *sports* photos are just beyond terrible.


----------



## blanddragon (Nov 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Any image can be photoshop'd so the first paragraph doesn't make sense.
> ...



+1 For dilbert it probably needs to be $100, clueless seems to be his way, and there's some catching up to do.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 19, 2015)

Does anyone here know the answer to these questions...

if I sent them a JPEg, how would Reuters know if the image was originally shot in RAW or JPEG? What if I had simply converted to JPEG from RAW before sending it to them? Is there a way to determine this?


----------



## dolina (Nov 19, 2015)

Northstar said:


> Does anyone here know the answer to these questions...
> 
> if I sent them a JPEg, how would Reuters know if the image was originally shot in RAW or JPEG? What if I had simply converted to JPEG from RAW before sending it to them? Is there a way to determine this?


EXIF data and forensic software.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2015)

dolina said:


> EXIF data and forensic software.



How do you reconcile citing speed to press as a factor in shooting in-camera JPG with the idea that they'll perform forensic analysis on submitted images?


----------



## frumrk (Nov 19, 2015)

You guys all have it wrong... it has nothing to do with Camera processing/capabilities/etc. It's all because RAW is not a PC term. If only they had named them something else like "Negatives". oops ... that doesn't sound very positive either... ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 19, 2015)

Seems to me that Reuters can make pretty much any legal rule they want. Their game, their rules. 

Don't like the rules, don't send stuff to Reuters. 

It is not like they are gonna miss anything. ;D I am sure they will have plenty of submissions that will be good enough and fast enough for the purpose of reporting the news.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 19, 2015)

frumrk said:


> You guys all have it wrong... it has nothing to do with Camera processing/capabilities/etc. ...


Somehow I suppose it has to more to do about copyrights.
No RAW -> no proof that you're the rightsholder. All rights got to Reuters. 

Maybe I'm wrong here, too. 
But this really seems fishy to me. 

If you pros out there have no problem with that, please excuse our headaches about your future business.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > frumrk said:
> ...


Yeah! That was the reason I didn't write it in my first post. 
But the whole behavoir gets me puzzeled. 

I can understand that Reuters want to slim down their internal processes. 
But if a photog delivers a pic in a format that they'd accept, e.g. JPEG with a certain MP number and claiming to be according to their "ethics" it shouldn't matter, how his PP was.

And I cannot imagine them running all the pic through any process to find out if they are OnCam JPEGs or converted JPEGs. And the question of how to do the detection was asked before.

As for the "ethics"... no, I'd better not share my opinion about ethics of press and jounalism.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 19, 2015)

Has anyone been able to find this story on a Reuters' website? I can't.

All I have been able to find is internet sites that simply repeat/repost stuff... which is hardly a good source.

But when I go on the various Reuters websites there is no mention at all of this. 

Does anyone have a link from Reuters on this issue?


----------



## Spokagrapher (Nov 19, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> Is this for real posted on Facebook ?
> 
> How are you supposed to know if a jpeg originated from saved raw file anyway ?


You can't unless you can forensically examine the photo for evidence of editing. I don't know if that's possible, but if it is, it's probably not worth Reuters' time to do that. 

Reuters says that its freelancers can shoot RAW all they want, but they need to shoot JPEG at the same time, and send only the JPEGs to Reuters.

It's a simple, reasonable request. To ensure credibility and speed, Reuters doesn't want its photographers to waste time editing photos more than just the very simplest editing, such as adjusting levels, so they can meet their deadlines and deliver trustworthy images to the public.

I don't see why any photographer would object to that, unless they rely on post-processing to correct their mistakes. If they do, they're probably in the wrong business.


----------



## rfdesigner (Nov 19, 2015)

One thought.. what does Reuters do when NASA publishes an image of Pluto or the Cosmos?

Sorry.. it's not out of camera JPEG, we can't accept it?

(clue for the clueless.. most NASA images are extremely heavily processed ususally from many many sub images being glued together to either get sensitivity or field of view, or both)


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 19, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> One thought.. what does Reuters do when NASA publishes an image of Pluto or the Cosmos?
> 
> Sorry.. it's not out of camera JPEG, we can't accept it?



For something like that, I am sure they will handle it on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## dolina (Nov 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > EXIF data and forensic software.
> ...


I shall clarify.

A simple way of verification would be the EXIF data.

If doubt still remains then a more thorough digital forensic process would then be used.

Making all submission be in-camera JPEG would give Reuters the leeway to discipline erring employees.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 19, 2015)

dolina said:


> Making all submission be in-camera JPEG would give Reuters the leeway to discipline erring employees.



I think that is the right answer. Reuters wants to have a official policy so that if, in the future, some photographer submits an altered photograph, and is caught; Reuters can state that the photographer violated their rules.

This may be just a form of preemptive corporate CYA


----------



## geekpower (Nov 19, 2015)

i was under the impression that 99% of editorial photos are shot jpeg anyway. making it "official" seems like a non-issue.


----------



## dolina (Nov 19, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Making all submission be in-camera JPEG would give Reuters the leeway to discipline erring employees.
> ...


With everyone being so P.C. these days... you just have to.


----------



## Solar Eagle (Nov 20, 2015)

LSXPhotog said:


> My clients hire me for my final product. How I get there is literally my business.



I'm pretty sure this type of attitude is the reason they now have this policy. They don't want a product, they just want the shot. If they were not having problems with people producing their own artistic versions of their shots they would not put out a policy like this.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 20, 2015)

I can understand their desire for speed. If a newsworthy event occurs they want a photo of it immediately, because in the online world, minutes really matter. 

If I’m shooting a college basketball game, they want the photos within an hour after the game ends...sometimes they request photos DURING the game. Every minute counts...RAW is too slow.


----------



## Spokagrapher (Nov 20, 2015)

rfdesigner said:


> One thought.. what does Reuters do when NASA publishes an image of Pluto or the Cosmos?
> 
> Sorry.. it's not out of camera JPEG, we can't accept it?


Reuters' policy is not aimed at outside organizations whose images Reuters uses. It's aimed at photographers who shoot for Reuters. If Reuters does a story about a NASA activity and NASA submits a photo to go with the story, and Reuters chooses to use it, Reuters will use the photo with credit given to NASA. If NASA has manipulated the image, so be it. Reuters can't control that.


----------



## Spokagrapher (Nov 20, 2015)

dolina said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > dolina said:
> ...


The Reuters policy is not a case of CYA or being politically correct. If you read their handbook regarding photos and Photoshop (http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards%2C_Photoshop_and_Captions), you'll see exactly why they have this policy. It's a matter of reflecting reality in photos: “Our news photography must depict reality. Any attempt to alter that reality constitutes fabrication and can lead to disciplinary action, including dismissal.”

The handbook gives specific instructions -- and limits -- on digital manipulation. Reuters' credibility is on the line, as is the credibility of photographers who shoot for Reuters. What the new policy tells photographers is that they need to set up their cameras to process JPEGs to get the best quality and then leave it alone after that. Get the shot right in the camera; don't rely on digital manipulation to correct mistakes. Let readers see what the photographer saw when he or she tripped the shutter, not how the photographer saw the image after a few hours of reflection and manipulation.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 20, 2015)

Here's a balanced view, and with an excellent 10 min Lynda.com video embedded:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ethics-matters-why-reuters-new-photo-policy-raw-deal-jim-heid


----------



## Luds34 (Nov 20, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Making all submission be in-camera JPEG would give Reuters the leeway to discipline erring employees.
> ...



In this day and age? For sure. Seems like a very likely reason.


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 22, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > My clients hire me for my final product. How I get there is literally my business.
> ...



"If they just want the shot" ... They shall send out dumb automatic imaging droids, rather than imaging professionals.

The 2 reasons stated - speed, ethics - are both questionable. Even in the news business, many images are not extremely time-critical. And trying to improve ethics by asking for ooc jpgs only, without a chance to detect non-compliance is just ridiculous.

There must be other reasons/hidden agenda at play.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Solar Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > LSXPhotog said:
> ...



Shhhhh...It involves contrails, fluoride, and the Greys.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 23, 2015)

The RAW vs. JPG debate just got real. It's time to choose your side (and Weapons!) And possibly T-Shirts.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 23, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> The 2 reasons stated - speed, ethics - are both questionable. Even in the news business, many images are not extremely time-critical.



Actually, it gets more critical everyday. First to publish gets more eyeballs, add images into the mix - something which also helps to get eyeballs - and speed is everything.


----------



## kten (Nov 23, 2015)

why do people keep bringing the raw vs jpeg, speed etc issues up. We all know pros/cons of shooting raw/jpeg/both but this clearly states it is about Jpeg [made in camera from raw] vs Jpeg [made in comp from raw] so raw vs jpeg and speed etc are null point here.

I agree it is more likely to give leverage for overly postprocessed images and common in journalism ethics to demand nowt but capture sharpening and "normal" colour profiles in camera. Admittedly they could ask for Jpegs made from raw in software to be processed similar to direct out of cam ones, they'll look the same except maybe with smaller file size or less compression artifacts given the increased power but it gets wordy specifying that and easier to say what they have.

Sure people can fake exif but generally speaking for most they wont and seeing software tags in the exif shows it has been pp'd where direct out of cam wont have the dpp/adobe cs*/etc etc modified info in there so makes it easier to check.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 23, 2015)

My point in raising this topic is how far do we go in recording reality ? Virtually every picture taken is inaccurate to the reality of the scene in terms of definition, colour and contrast. Colour balance, saturation, contrast response is nearly always false in order to produce a picture that we perceive as pleasing to the eye. 

The response of Reuters is to ban pictures that have been processed from the camera raw, National Geographic has banned processing in Photoshop. All of these dictates, and others like them are missing the point on photographic 'ethics'. Photography has always lied; the old adage was ''photography doesn't lie, it just bends the truth a little''. Now with digital it is much easier to bend that truth, and has become available to many more people, but it has always happened, not only from the beginning of photography but from the beginning of art when man first picked up a piece of charcoal. 

You can say that to keep it real you must just submit OOC jpegs, but the saturation, colour balance and contrast available on the OOC jpeg are as far away from reality as adding or subtracting elements form the picture. And of course jpegs can be totally manipulated in post processing; it doesn't have to be raw. 

A popular phrase in landscape photography is to say ''make it look as you remember it''. So that is how it really was. Hmmm....who's kidding who ? Photography lies. It's as simple as that.

On the other hand, in appropriate circumstances the viewer doesn't want to be conned; they want to know that this is how the scene really was, if that picture is being put forward as a recording of reality, be it a National Geographic landscape or a siege in Syria. And that is up to the photographer to provide the appropriate image. 'Banning' images from raw conversion, or 'banning' images processes in photoshop is not the answer.


----------



## kten (Nov 24, 2015)

I'm with you on it is all lies compared to how we see it never mind how we remember it. OoF rendering, focal length perspective distortion for given framing etc alone is inaccurate compared to eyes. Even at 50mm the fov is "wrong" for human vision and when fov is right (35mm ish oft quoted for that) then perspective is a little exaggerated.

For pj's in certain areas there is always accepted "lies" such as what is left out of the frame dramatically changes the pic and can convey things out of context, promote total falsehoods and so on. The unaccepted is messing with scenes or doing stuff in post that changes it more than a little capture sharpening or minor curves for contrast. I had seen some stuff on worldpressphoto.org which doesn't sit well with me because it changed the scene too much as was akin to writing outright fabrications rather than spinning/twisting truths which all major news does to some degree.

I get the need to set a reasonable ethics boundaries to safeguard which this seems to be. Sure I do stuff in portraiture that for a PJ shooting news coverage that is not on. There is a lot of misunderstanding around raw though linked to the "fix it later" crowd who have poor shooting skills AND poor post ones from what I've seen so it could be linked to that but I doubt it as most freelancers working press shouldn't fall into that since pp is minimal in that area and they tend to be good shooters.


----------



## Dick (Nov 24, 2015)

This makes no sense. In camera jps is processed from RAW isn't it? How can a processed RAW be banned?


----------



## sanj (Nov 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> My point in raising this topic is how far do we go in recording reality ? Virtually every picture taken is inaccurate to the reality of the scene in terms of definition, colour and contrast. Colour balance, saturation, contrast response is nearly always false in order to produce a picture that we perceive as pleasing to the eye.
> 
> The response of Reuters is to ban pictures that have been processed from the camera raw, National Geographic has banned processing in Photoshop. All of these dictates, and others like them are missing the point on photographic 'ethics'. Photography has always lied; the old adage was ''photography doesn't lie, it just bends the truth a little''. Now with digital it is much easier to bend that truth, and has become available to many more people, but it has always happened, not only from the beginning of photography but from the beginning of art when man first picked up a piece of charcoal.
> 
> ...



Beautiful.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 24, 2015)

sanj said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > My point in raising this topic is how far do we go in recording reality ? Virtually every picture taken is inaccurate to the reality of the scene in terms of definition, colour and contrast. Colour balance, saturation, contrast response is nearly always false in order to produce a picture that we perceive as pleasing to the eye.
> ...


+1 
Thank you, Sporgon, for finding those words.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> My point in raising this topic is how far do we go in recording reality ? Virtually every picture taken is inaccurate to the reality of the scene in terms of definition, colour and contrast. Colour balance, saturation, contrast response is nearly always false in order to produce a picture that we perceive as pleasing to the eye.
> 
> The response of Reuters is to ban pictures that have been processed from the camera raw, National Geographic has banned processing in Photoshop. All of these dictates, and others like them are missing the point on photographic 'ethics'. Photography has always lied; the old adage was ''photography doesn't lie, it just bends the truth a little''. Now with digital it is much easier to bend that truth, and has become available to many more people, but it has always happened, not only from the beginning of photography but from the beginning of art when man first picked up a piece of charcoal.
> 
> ...



Nicely written, and I agree with you, apart from that last sentence.

For Reuters, a news agency, it does seem to be the answer. They are a business and it is all about speed, especially with breaking news stories, and a .jpg helps to not only reduce speed to "publish", it also reduces storage needs.

Remember we are entering an era where cameras are shooting at massive resolutions (5DS, 5DS R and A7 II etc). When you consider how many photographers Reuters deals with around the world, saying they do not want RAW will make a massive difference to their storage as well as their bandwidth needs, and also possibly the editing requirements (staff and time) for pictures sent in.

They are not saying the photographer cannot shoot RAW, they are saying they want OOC .jpg not the RAW files.

Makes perfect sense to me, but I am looking at this from a business perspective not an artistic one. Reuters is a business.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> My point in raising this topic is how far do we go in recording reality ? Virtually every picture taken is inaccurate to the reality of the scene in terms of definition, colour and contrast. Colour balance, saturation, contrast response is nearly always false in order to produce a picture that we perceive as pleasing to the eye.
> 
> The response of Reuters is to ban pictures that have been processed from the camera raw, National Geographic has banned processing in Photoshop. All of these dictates, and others like them are missing the point on photographic 'ethics'. Photography has always lied; the old adage was ''photography doesn't lie, it just bends the truth a little''. Now with digital it is much easier to bend that truth, and has become available to many more people, but it has always happened, not only from the beginning of photography but from the beginning of art when man first picked up a piece of charcoal.
> 
> ...



Pseudo-philosophical nonsense. Saturation issues equivalent to replacing a cow with an elephant? Or removing a gun from the hand of a suspect shot by police?

Online forums... :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> They are not saying the photographer cannot shoot RAW, they are saying they want .jpg not the RAW files.



They are saying photographers cannot submit photos shot as RAW.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > They are not saying the photographer cannot shoot RAW, they are saying they want .jpg not the RAW files.
> ...



Yes they want OOC .jpg.

All about speed, bandwidth, storage and ensuring the image's story has not be overly modified etc.

I fully understand Reuters on this.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 24, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



+1

It doesn't need to be any more complicated than this.

In this age of digital imagery, Reuters wants unadulterated shots as close as possible to the old film standards of photojournalism, and this is the policy they think works best for their purposes. Good exposures "developed" in a straightforward manner. They aren't concerned with photographers' inner Ansel Adams.


----------



## geekpower (Nov 24, 2015)

expatinasia, it has nothing to do with storage requirements. as agencies ramp up to supporting 4k video, any differences in resolution or format of stills becomes irrelevant, as far as storage is concerned.

this is a publicity stunt, and nothing more. they want to assure the public that their images are legit, but it wont make any practical difference, as the vast majority of sports and editorial imagery is shot jpeg already. the only exception would be photo essays, where quality is more important than time to press.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 24, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> wants unadulterated shots as close as possible to the old film standards of photojournalism,



Well there's a naive statement if I ever saw one. 

It's just that in the 'old film days' people like you didn't know what could be done.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > wants unadulterated shots as close as possible to the old film standards of photojournalism,
> ...



People like me?

The key is not what could be done, but ''standards of photojournalism.''


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 24, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> Yes they want OOC .jpg.
> 
> All about speed, bandwidth, storage and ensuring the image's story has not be overly modified etc.
> 
> I fully understand Reuters on this.



Speed, bandwidth and storage? Ummmm, no. Not overly modified? Sure, because you can't modify a jpg. Ummmm, no. 

Sorry, I don't think you fully understand.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 24, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



So you're suggesting that photojournalists of yesteryear had more integrity than those of today ?


----------



## AvTvM (Nov 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they want OOC .jpg.
> ...



+1 
a lot of posters have not really carefully read and understood, what exactly it is Reuters is now demanding of their photographers. Many seem to believe it is all about "sending in jpgs instead of RAWS" ... oh well.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 24, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm suggesting Reuters is broadening a policy aimed at maintaining standards.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they want OOC .jpg.
> ...



Enlighten us.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 24, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



I agree with you, but 'banning' images that have been processed from the saved raw isn't the right way to go about it.


----------



## unfocused (Nov 24, 2015)

I get what Reuters is trying to do. But, I think they are missing some key facts about the nature of photography. 

The greatest challenge for any photographer is trying to wring some truth out of these compulsive liars we call cameras. The problem for photojournalism (and it has always been this way) is that the biggest lies are told before the shutter clicks and the only way to secure even the slightest semblance of truth is to rely on the integrity and intentions of the photographer.

There is strong evidence that Robert Capa's _Loyalist Militiaman at the Moment of Death,_ was very likely staged 80 years ago.

Both Stephen Shore and John Szarkowski have written about the essential nature of photography – in brief, photographs by nature must convert three dimensions into two, select a vantage point, extract a fraction of a second out of the continuum of time, carve a frame out of a world that has no edges and select a subject to focus on. Each of these decisions has a far greater impact on the "truth" of a photo, yet they are all out of the control of the editor. 

In the end, every news organization is at the mercy of their writers and photographers to present the "truth," but that will always be the truth as the individual sees and experiences it. Banning Raw images has the ring of rearranging deck chairs on the titanic.


----------



## captainkanji (Nov 24, 2015)

Reuters has been burned too many times in the past with photoshopped images from unscrupulous stringers. The most infamous was the very poorly edited photo from the 2006 Lebanon conflict where The photographer cloned buildings and smoke to make the damage seem much worse. It has to be one of the worst photoshopped photos that I've ever seen. I have a feeling that this is a big part of the reason.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > Yes they want OOC .jpg.
> ...



Would you like to expand on what it is you feel I do not understand?

This is from that petapixels article:
http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/



> Hi,
> 
> 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).
> 
> Cheers



It is not difficult to understand.

What I meant by speed is how fast Reuters can get the images to clients and into their own news stories. RAW files are larger and consequently slower to upload and may need to be modified which again slows the process.

What I meant by bandwidth is if you imagine hundreds of Reuters photographers around the world uploading 50MB RAW files all at the same time. Bandwidth and storage requirements become even important considerations for the company.

Speed is the name of the game for news outlets now, and their competition for eyeballs has never been fiercer. They need the images as fast as physically possible. This applies to news stories, sports, finance, absolutely everything.

The outlet that gets the images and news up first gets the most articles, just ask anyone that deals with Google News and such like. People no longer want to wait for the morning paper to see images (or video) of the Man City v Liverpool game, they want it asap., same with news and pretty much everything else.


----------



## geekpower (Nov 24, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



what you STILL aren't understanding is that (almost) nobody was uploading RAW images in the first place, and they are not saying anything about uploading RAW images, therefore everything you are saying about speed and storage has nothing to do with the announcement about the policy change. they are saying that any jpegs being uploaded should be straight from the camera, not photoshopped. that is all.

we all know that somebody who wants to fudge can image can always do so, and easily change the exif to cover it up, but the public doesn't know that. the only thing this announcement does is send a message to an uneducated public saying, "you can trust us now". even though it isn't true, it doesn't cost them anything to put that idea out there, and lots of people will believe it.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 24, 2015)

geekpower said:


> what you STILL aren't understanding is that (almost) nobody was uploading RAW images in the first place, and they are not saying anything about uploading RAW images, therefore everything you are saying about speed and storage has nothing to do with the announcement about the policy change. they are saying that any jpegs being uploaded should be straight from the camera, not photoshopped. that is all.
> 
> we all know that somebody who wants to fudge can image can always do so, and easily change the exif to cover it up, but the public doesn't know that. the only thing this announcement does is send a message to an uneducated public saying, "you can trust us now". even though it isn't true, it doesn't cost them anything to put that idea out there, and lots of people will believe it.



Seriously?! The general public does not care if an image was uploaded OOC, was shot RAW or .jpg, or was sent by courier pigeon to Reuters. I would imagine the only interest in this entire announcement was from camera-related forums such as this one. General public, no way.

Also, do you have any Reuters stats to back up what you said about what the thousands of photographers around the world were sending to Reuters?

You may think I am wrong, and I may well be, but for me this announcement has zero to do with telling the public "you can trust us now" as you say, and everything with telling the photographers we only want you to send us OOC .jpg and the reasons for that are speed, storage and bandwidth - especially as we are moving towards higher and higher MP cameras. Business decisions.

Because as you have quite rightly said, any image can be manipulated.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 25, 2015)

Solar Eagle said:


> LSXPhotog said:
> 
> 
> > My clients hire me for my final product. How I get there is literally my business.
> ...



But you can still select a whole load of presets in camera to make the jpeg come out differently. That's just a cruder version of the same process. 'The shot' insofar as it exists is the raw image, or the raw data, not a jpeg created from it, or which there are infinite variations or contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc.



Northstar said:


> I can understand their desire for speed. If a newsworthy event occurs they want a photo of it immediately, because in the online world, minutes really matter.
> 
> If I’m shooting a college basketball game, they want the photos within an hour after the game ends...sometimes they request photos DURING the game. Every minute counts...RAW is too slow.



Sure, but those guys not shooting jpegs in that context wouldn't be first to get the shots to them, and so wouldn't be able to compete. Making it a rule seems redundant, if that's the motivation.



Spokagrapher said:


> Get the shot right in the camera; don't rely on digital manipulation to correct mistakes. Let readers see what the photographer saw when he or she tripped the shutter, not how the photographer saw the image after a few hours of reflection and manipulation.



They have every right to set guidelines, and we can all see why. But to go back to an old old debate, there is no such thing as 'not relying on digital manipulation'. I know what you're inferring - fakery - but ALL digital images are manipulated. Creating a jpeg involves making choices about different parameters, and so the raw data is being manipulated. There's no difference in the finished image's ethics between an ooc jpeg and a jpeg produced from a raw with the same settings in software.



Sporgon said:


> My point in raising this topic is how far do we go in recording reality ? Virtually every picture taken is inaccurate to the reality of the scene in terms of definition, colour and contrast. Colour balance, saturation, contrast response is nearly always false in order to produce a picture that we perceive as pleasing to the eye.
> 
> The response of Reuters is to ban pictures that have been processed from the camera raw, National Geographic has banned processing in Photoshop. All of these dictates, and others like them are missing the point on photographic 'ethics'. Photography has always lied; the old adage was ''photography doesn't lie, it just bends the truth a little''. Now with digital it is much easier to bend that truth, and has become available to many more people, but it has always happened, not only from the beginning of photography but from the beginning of art when man first picked up a piece of charcoal.
> 
> ...



Absolutely. It's the wrong response to the problem. Fakery is a matter of deception, and has no place in journalism. But anyone thinking 'Photoshop necessarily equals fakery' has no idea about how images are produced.



YuengLinger said:


> Pseudo-philosophical nonsense. Saturation issues equivalent to replacing a cow with an elephant? Or removing a gun from the hand of a suspect shot by police?
> 
> Online forums... :



Straw man. Nobody is defending adding or removing elements in an image submitted as 'real'. They are saying, quite correctly, that all images are edited to some extent, and setting artificial boundaries on which processing pipeline is used is ridiculous. How you can have missed the point so completely is baffling.



geekpower said:


> this is a publicity stunt, and nothing more. they want to assure the public that their images are legit, but it wont make any practical difference, as the vast majority of sports and editorial imagery is shot jpeg already.



I'm inclined to agree. They surely can't be so clueless as to think it's actually a meaningful step.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > expatinasia said:
> ...



Apparently it's more difficult for you to understand that you think. 

[quote author=Reuters]
In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that *were processed from* RAW or CR2 files.
[/quote]

You cannot have a photo _processed from_ a RAW file that remains a RAW file. So photojournalists are what...processing their RAW files to DNGs or uncompressed TIFs to send in? Ummmmm, no. They're processing them to JPGs, of course. This isn't about bandwidth or storage. Speed? Of course that's important, but a RAW workflow isn't really time-consuming, and I would think freelance photographers know the importance of speed too, because if they're the fourth one to submit a similar photo and are hours behind the first three, their work won't be used. Plus, as the quote you posted states, it's fine to process the JPGs by cropping, correcting levels, etc. If you're using editing software to do that anyway, processing RAW to JPG isn't going to add a significant delay. So, not about speed.


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apparently it's more difficult for you to understand that you think.
> 
> [quote author=Reuters]
> In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that *were processed from* RAW or CR2 files.



You cannot have a photo _processed from_ a RAW file that remains a RAW file. So photojournalists are what...processing their RAW files to DNGs or uncompressed TIFs to send in? Ummmmm, no. They're processing them to JPGs, of course. This isn't about bandwidth or storage. Speed? Of course that's important, but a RAW workflow isn't really time-consuming, and I would think freelance photographers know the importance of speed too, because if they're the fourth one to submit a similar photo and are hours behind the first three, their work won't be used. Plus, as the quote you posted states, it's fine to process the JPGs by cropping, correcting levels, etc. If you're using editing software to do that anyway, processing RAW to JPG isn't going to add a significant delay. So, not about speed. 
[/quote]

I think we will just agree to disagree on this. At the end of the day, it's your opinion vs mine. You may be right, as may I. We both could be.

I meet with people from Reuters quite a bit as part of my work, some are freelance and others work for the company, I doubt any of them are as concerned by this policy as some here seem to be.

For me this is all about speed to publish as well as current and future storage and bandwidth needs. They're just saying don't send us your RAW files, we want OOC .jpg. How hard is that to understand?! Of course, we could pick at the intricacies of the language used in the email, but.....


----------



## geekpower (Nov 25, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently it's more difficult for you to understand that you think.
> ...



I think we will just agree to disagree on this. At the end of the day, it's your opinion vs mine. You may be right, as may I. We both could be.

I meet with people from Reuters quite a bit as part of my work, some are freelance and others work for the company, I doubt any of them are as concerned by this policy as some here seem to be.

For me this is all about speed to publish as well as current and future storage and bandwidth needs. They're just saying don't send us your RAW files, we want OOC .jpg. How hard is that to understand?! Of course, we could pick at the intricacies of the language used in the email, but.....
[/quote]

Dude, it's not a matter of opinion or language "intricacy". You are simply wrong. They aren't saying "don't upload RAW", they are saying "don't photoshop your RAWs". They don't need to tell anyone to stop uploading RAW files, because nobody does anyway.

As for my credibility in making these statements, I'm going to decline naming the company, but I work for a very big name in the industry and I can tell you for a fact that none of our photographers upload RAW images, and never have. Some of them shoot RAW and convert to jpeg, but many simply shoot jpeg. We don't care which, as long as we get a jpeg in the end. For high profile events we absolutely care about speed, and try to get images through keywording and captioning in 10 minutes, with no other edits. Many of our sports photographers shoot tethered to their laptops and upload in real time. However, it is laughable to think that any self respecting agency would have ever wasted their time editing RAWs, and would only now be bringing in a policy to speed up that process. They would have gone out of business years ago if they couldn't keep up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> I think we will just agree to disagree on this. At the end of the day, it's your opinion vs mine. You may be right, as may I. We both could be.
> 
> I meet with people from Reuters quite a bit as part of my work, some are freelance and others work for the company, I doubt any of them are as concerned by this policy as some here seem to be.
> 
> For me this is all about speed to publish as well as current and future storage and bandwidth needs. They're just saying don't send us your RAW files, we want OOC .jpg. How hard is that to understand?! Of course, we could pick at the intricacies of the language used in the email, but.....



No, it's not opinion - it's reading and comprehending what was stated by Reuters. If what they meant is send only JPG images, that's what they'd have said. After all, it's their business to report facts accurately. If your opinion was correct and it was about file sizes, there would be no need for them to have specifically requested OOC JPG images as otherwise there would be no difference between RAW converted to JPG on a computer or by the camera. How hard is that to understand?


----------



## expatinasia (Nov 25, 2015)

geekpower said:


> Dude, it's not a matter of opinion or language "intricacy". You are simply wrong. They aren't saying "don't upload RAW", they are saying "don't photoshop your RAWs".



This is from that email:



> 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



It's in English. They don't want RAW. Simple. They want out of camera .jpg 

All very simple, dude.


----------



## Spokagrapher (Nov 25, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Spokagrapher said:
> 
> 
> > Get the shot right in the camera; don't rely on digital manipulation to correct mistakes. Let readers see what the photographer saw when he or she tripped the shutter, not how the photographer saw the image after a few hours of reflection and manipulation.
> ...


I didn't infer fakery; I implied it. I have a journalism/photojournalism background and completely understand why Reuters wants jpegs out of the camera, rather than the images the photographer processed from raw files. Speed and credibility are, indeed, the reasons why Reuters wants original jpegs. It's as simple as that.

Yes, the camera processes the raw image to produce a jpeg. Yes, the camera user can program the camera to process jpegs in specific ways. Camera manufacturers design their cameras to process jpegs in specific ways. In these ways the images are manipulated. Reuters knows this. Everyone who earns their living shooting digital images knows this. This is not what's important to Reuters because digital images must be processed to be seen and used.

Reuters is concerned about the credibility of the images it publishes and distributes. Reuters must accept a certain amount of necessary image processing. What Reuters doesn’t want is excessive processing. Limiting submissions to out-of-camera jpegs is as close as Reuters can come to ensuring that what image processing has been done is no more than is necessary to get a usable image. It’s how Reuters can ensure its photographers aren’t able to change the reality of a scene through the use of the more sophisticated image editing that is possible outside the camera but not inside the camera. It’s as close to an unretouched negative as they can get. An unretouched negative is an unimpeachable source, and that’s where Reuters wants to be regarding digital “negatives.” The jpegs they get from their photographers need to be unimpeachable, or at least as close to that as possible given the necessary minimum processing inherent in digital imaging. 

Reuters is sufficiently concerned about post-processing with Photoshop or other similar programs that they have strict rules on what post-processing they allow. Essentially, it’s almost none. Doing more than allowed can cost a Reuters employee his or her job. http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards%2C_Photoshop_and_Captions
This goes back to my statement that photographers who work for Reuters can’t rely on Photoshop to correct their mistakes. They must get it right in the camera, and that’s what Reuters wants.


----------



## geekpower (Nov 25, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, it's not a matter of opinion or language "intricacy". You are simply wrong. They aren't saying "don't upload RAW", they are saying "don't photoshop your RAWs".
> ...



I'm starting to think you are just a troll but I will try this one last time.

We agree that:

They want out of camera jpegs? YES
They want RAWs? NO

But where you are wrong is on the policy change having anything to do with uploads.

Did they ever want RAWs? NO!
Did they formerly allow post processed jpegs? YES

The only thing that is changing is cutting out photoshop. Period. The end.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, it's not a matter of opinion or language "intricacy". You are simply wrong. They aren't saying "don't upload RAW", they are saying "don't photoshop your RAWs".
> ...



Do you comprehend English, dude?  Please explain how an out-of-camera JPG file differs in terms of bandwidth or storage requirements from a photo shot in RAW and converted to JPG on a computer? 

They are not specifying that they want just any JPG images, they are specifying that they require the RAW-to-JPG conversion be performed *by the camera and not by a computer*. Not the what, the how. Get it yet, dude?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> expatinasia said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...


To make it even more explicit here the relevant quote from the article:
_"Reuters has implemented a new worldwide policy for freelance photographers that *bans photos that were processed from RAW files*. Photographers must now only send photos that were *originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs*."_

We do not have the original text from Reuters to their photog's, but if they were just specifying to receive JPEGs only i think nobody would bother here. It is the OOC requrement and how Reuters is trying to patronize the photogs in their workflow. 

Of course if *every* pro working for/with Reuters says "I'm fine with that. Why bother?" we're making a tempest in a teapot here.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 25, 2015)

expatinasia said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > Dude, it's not a matter of opinion or language "intricacy". You are simply wrong. They aren't saying "don't upload RAW", they are saying "don't photoshop your RAWs".
> ...



You're missing the third option, jpegs converted from raw. Why would they care, if it's just about memory/bandwidth, how the jpeg was produced? Why "photos that were originally JPEGs" and not just "send us only jpegs"?


----------



## scyrene (Nov 25, 2015)

Spokagrapher said:


> It’s as close to an unretouched negative as they can get. An unretouched negative is an unimpeachable source, and that’s where Reuters wants to be regarding digital “negatives.” The jpegs they get from their photographers need to be unimpeachable, or at least as close to that as possible given the necessary minimum processing inherent in digital imaging.



No, that would be a raw image.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Spokagrapher said:
> 
> 
> > It’s as close to an unretouched negative as they can get. An unretouched negative is an unimpeachable source, and that’s where Reuters wants to be regarding digital “negatives.” The jpegs they get from their photographers need to be unimpeachable, or at least as close to that as possible given the necessary minimum processing inherent in digital imaging.
> ...


True! 
And as handling RAW seems to take too much time in their process chain they decided that OOC JPEGs comes next to that. Why ever... ? :


----------



## dolina (Nov 25, 2015)

- Those eligible for the final round of judging will have to provide original files or scans showing at least 3 frames before and after the entry.

- Images will be examined by 2 independent digital experts.

- After the jury decides on the winners, a fact-checking team will review all captions and examine the metadata in the picture files.

World Press Photo 
Introduces New Ethics
Guidelines for Contest


----------



## Spokagrapher (Nov 25, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Spokagrapher said:
> 
> 
> > It’s as close to an unretouched negative as they can get. An unretouched negative is an unimpeachable source, and that’s where Reuters wants to be regarding digital “negatives.” The jpegs they get from their photographers need to be unimpeachable, or at least as close to that as possible given the necessary minimum processing inherent in digital imaging.
> ...


Context contradicts you. 

Your statement would be true only if Reuters worked from raw files. Reuters doesn’t work from raw files and doesn’t want or need them. Raw files don’t even have to exist. For all practical purposes, raw files are irrelevant in the context of the Reuters image policy.

Therefore, the closest Reuters can come to having unimpeachable digital images is to have the jpegs straight from the camera with no, or almost no, further processing outside the camera. Jpegs aren’t digital negatives in the same way that raw files are, but since raw files play no role for Reuters, out-of-camera jpegs are the next best thing, the closest Reuters will come to having unretouched digital negatives.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 25, 2015)

Spokagrapher said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Spokagrapher said:
> ...



If they really want evidence that the images in their publications are unimpeachable, they should request OOC JPEGs AND RAW (the latter merely to verify the "truth" of the former).


----------



## Spokagrapher (Nov 25, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> If they really want evidence that the images in their publications are unimpeachable, they should request OOC JPEGs AND RAW (the latter merely to verify the "truth" of the former).


Perhaps they should. But that's impractical. At some point they must rely on the integrity of their shooters to produce credible images. To allow that, Reuters has established the maximum common denominator, if you will, that all their photogs must meet for image submissions. If there's ever a question about an image, Reuters can investigate as needed.

I'm sure Reuters' editors fully understand that absolutely preventing unauthorized image manipulation is impossible in the digital world. So they design a policy that gets them as close as possible to having pristine images that properly reflect the reality of the moments those images represent. By now in this conversation, that should be obvious.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 25, 2015)

Spokagrapher said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > If they really want evidence that the images in their publications are unimpeachable, they should request OOC JPEGs AND RAW (the latter merely to verify the "truth" of the former).
> ...



Why? Many cameras are capable of writing both. 

Actually verifying RAW vs JPEG as a matter of course would be impractical, if that's what you mean.



Spokagrapher said:


> *At some point they must rely on the integrity of their shooters to produce credible images*. To allow that, Reuters has established the maximum common denominator, if you will, that all their photogs must meet for image submissions. If there's ever a question about an image, Reuters can investigate as needed.



I agree. However, requiring a RAW file be submitting along side a JPEG meant for print would likely discourage someone from trying to slip in some manipulation. And in the instances when an image is suspect, everything necessary to investigate would be on hand.


----------



## wsmith96 (Nov 25, 2015)

This is interesting. I'm not doing any photojournalism work, but I've never really thought about people faking photos for the news. So help me understand what is being faked? From a raw image the only thing I could think of to fake is colors, exposure, etc. Is that what this move is about, or are people concerned about actually faking the pictures like the example of multiple surface to air missiles that was exposed a while back? If it's the latter, I would think that jpeg would be subject to the same manipulation capabilities as a RAW file.


----------



## Spokagrapher (Nov 25, 2015)

wsmith96 said:


> This is interesting. I'm not doing any photojournalism work, but I've never really thought about people faking photos for the news. So help me understand what is being faked? From a raw image the only thing I could think of to fake is colors, exposure, etc. Is that what this move is about, or are people concerned about actually faking the pictures like the example of multiple surface to air missiles that was exposed a while back? If it's the latter, I would think that jpeg would be subject to the same manipulation capabilities as a RAW file.


Reuters’ concern, which is not unique to Reuters, is that the photos it publishes or provides to other agencies represent the reality of a scene at the moment the photographer snapped the shutter. It’s a matter of journalistic credibility. 

The first rule for Reuters journalists is “Always hold accuracy sacrosanct.” http://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=A_Brief_Guide_to_Standards%2C_Photoshop_and_Captions
Reuters explains that “accuracy means that our images and stories must reflect reality. Reuters is transparent about errors. We correct them promptly and clearly, whether in a story, a caption, a graphic or a script.”

If a photographer edits a photo in a manner that materially changes the photo, the photo no longer reflects reality, regardless of the scale of the change. That could be any material alteration from correcting perspective to removing blemishes from people’s faces. I don’t know if Reuters photographers have been faking elements of their photos, but that’s not necessary to drive this policy. It’s a good policy to have.

Reuters allows photographers to do a small amount of editing, but nothing that would materially alter the image or remove journalistically valuable information. The rationale is simple: Materially altered photos don’t reflect reality, and publishing/distributing such photos can damage Reuters journalistic credibility with the public. Reuters wants the public to trust Reuters to deliver accurate, unbiased news and information. To help achieve that goal, Reuters requires photographers to avoid manipulating their images to a degree that could be perceived as materially altering the images, because materially altering them could be seen as deceptive. Deception, actual or perceived, erodes credibility, and Reuters wants no part of that. 

To help eliminate the chances that photogs materially alter their photos, Reuters says they want only jpegs created in the camera. It’s not a perfect system, but it lessens the risks quite substantially.


----------



## Spokagrapher (Nov 25, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> Spokagrapher said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...


Many cameras can write both, but who will be assigned the task of comparing the raw/jpeg files when they come in? Who will have the time for that? I could envision a small-town weekly newspaper photo editor doing that, but not a worldwide 24-hour news agency like Reuters. If it was practical and worthwhile, don’t you think Reuters would already do that? Does any news agency do that? I very much doubt it



3kramd5 said:


> Spokagrapher said:
> 
> 
> > *At some point they must rely on the integrity of their shooters to produce credible images*. To allow that, Reuters has established the maximum common denominator, if you will, that all their photogs must meet for image submissions. If there's ever a question about an image, Reuters can investigate as needed.
> ...


I’m not sure you and I are thinking along the same volume scales.
If I use my own experience as a guide as just one photographer, I can see myself sending in many tens, if not hundreds, of photos for every photo assignment. Multiply that by hundreds of photographers around the world, and you can see why I say it’s not practical to have people examine and compare every raw/jpeg that comes in for possible publication.

I doubt that Reuters asks their photogs to select only their best images for submission for each assignment. I’ll assume – until proven wrong – that most Reuters photogs submit large numbers of photos per assignment, after which the photo editors scan each collection and select the ones to publish. If this is how they do it, I can envision Reuters photo editors staying quite busy just trying to find the one or two or three best photos per assignment, never mind opening up and comparing raw photos with their jpegs.

If they don’t have raw files to bother with, they don’t have to worry about looking at them, and they don’t have to store them.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 26, 2015)

Spokagrapher said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Spokagrapher said:
> ...



I was being a little flippant 

What are the facts? A raw is essentially unimpeachable (unless someone can say otherwise?). Equivalent jpegs can be produced in camera, or by software. Jpegs can be edited to the point of falsification. Exif can also be falsified. A 'true' image can be made either in camera or by moderate computer processing.

It seems like a sticking plaster solution. Accept both types of jpeg, but require the original ooc file be kept by the photographer if at some future date falsification is suggested be it raw or jpeg. The current 'solution' is clumsy and misses the point.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 26, 2015)

How many in this thread are contributing to Reuters?


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 26, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> How many in this thread are contributing to Reuters?



Where's the relevance to that ? Reuters have stated their reasons, the discussion here is opinions on whether they are correct.

The irony of this is that in fact Reuters and anyone else for that matter who wants to guarantee the authentic integrity of an image they should be insisting that the photographer shoot in both JPEG _and raw_. Of course submit OOC jpegs, that's what virtually everyone is doing in this kind of work anyway, especially when time is of the essence and converting from saved raw would be pointless anyway unless the photographer had had a real exposure whoopsie.

But if the authenticity of an image is in question the only sure way of guaranteeing that it is unmanipulated is for the agency to have access, upon demand, to the unconverted CR2 or NEF file.


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 27, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > How many in this thread are contributing to Reuters?
> ...



Relevance? Generally, if somebody keeps beefing about something, it helps to know what is their steak in the matter.

[Ducking!] :


----------



## scyrene (Nov 27, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > YuengLinger said:
> ...



To a point. I guess many of us who've never gone anywhere near journalism find it a surprise more than anything. My primary photography is birds, and those shots need some tweaking. Macros and astro - far, far more, to the extent that most of the best of both are exceptionally post-processed composite images. Not to mention stitched panoramas... For us, sooc jpeg is a foreign concept, so this has made us sit up and take notice, and scratch our heads...

(And as elaborated in the discussion above, seems like a simplistic, even naive approach, but whatever, it has no effect on me, and little on the field, as most people have stated these shots are usually camera jpegs anyway).


----------



## geekpower (Nov 27, 2015)

YuengLinger said:


> Relevance? Generally, if somebody keeps beefing about something, it helps to know what is their steak in the matter.
> 
> [Ducking!] :



mmmmm, steak


----------



## 3kramd5 (Nov 30, 2015)

Spokagrapher said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Spokagrapher said:
> ...



Nobody. 




Spokagrapher said:


> I’m not sure you and I are thinking along the same volume scales.
> If I use my own experience as a guide as just one photographer, I can see myself sending in many tens, if not hundreds, of photos for every photo assignment. Multiply that by hundreds of photographers around the world, and you can see why I say it’s not practical to have people examine and compare every raw/jpeg that comes in for possible publication.



Submitting and storing RAW files is simple. It's far less data to deal with than, say, high-definition video of any appreciable length.

Nobody at the publication would actually have to open a RAW file unless they had reason to suspect something was manipulated (beyond color, contrast, and other camera-settable parameters).


----------



## ykn123 (Dec 9, 2015)

"RAW or CR2 files" seem to indicate they dont really care for details. CR2 are just the Canon RAW files, so it should read "RAW (like CR2, NEF,...) files.

The in camera conversion also can manipulate the image - e.g. picture style like landscape would give an image of a person a different look. Is this considered cheating or faking or just a question of how you like an image to look like ?
Anyway, they want to save time to get the images , like it is normal to send jpegs OOC via Wifi or LAN as fast as you can directly from the sports ground to the agency. They need the images as fast as possible to be able to sell as much as possible. Any workflow in between (like just a simple import, export in LR without any modification), would still mean loosing time.
It has little to do with banning photoshop or something or banning RAW as a format.

I would not exactly like this for my own workflow but on the other hand, if the client (reuters) requires it for some reason - why the heck i should care. I would just deliver the jpegs directly from the cam.
just my 2 cents


----------

