Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Fashion, Editorial & Commercial Talk 
Thread started 20 Nov 2015 (Friday) 06:58
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Reuters bans RAW files, jpegs only.

 
Tiberius
Goldmember
Avatar
2,544 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Apr 2008
     
Nov 20, 2015 06:58 |  #1

They say that a jpeg is going to have less room for editing, so less likely to be doctored to distort what was happening. Gotta get it right in camera. Jpegs also are smaller and so are transmitted faster.

What are your thoughts?

http://petapixel.com …ldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/ (external link)


My photography website!PHOCAL PHOTOGRAPHY (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,673 posts
Gallery: 1080 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7954
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 2 years ago by MalVeauX.
     
Nov 20, 2015 07:52 |  #2

Interesting.

I'm more curious as to what was going on that led to this kind of choice, more-so than the choice itself.

Edit: There's a lively thread on this subject here: http://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1446030

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)
For sale: Sekonic Litemaster L-478D (Free Shipping)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
archfotos
Member
100 posts
Likes: 26
Joined May 2016
     
Aug 18, 2016 22:08 |  #3

now that time has past I am curious how this experiment has worked out for them, anyone know? PJs frustrated not being able to color correct in off situations, missing opportunities because the camera wasn't set to Reuters specs? I can understand if you are full time staff but someone shopping images around must be questioning it by now?


DC Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,147 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2009
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt. (4 edits in all)
     
Aug 18, 2016 23:09 |  #4

JPG has less chance of modification than RAW?!

I would like to see Reuters change a RAW file, so that when it is read into a RAW conversion program it is DIFFERENT than what the lens projected onto the sensor, so that the resultant JPG which is converted does not reflect what the lens saw!

The article stated, " In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. " So a JPG created from RAW is more subject to modification than a JPG right out of the camera?!

Sounds like a bozo editor or publisher who has no idea what they are talking about, making a decision. Kinda like most of our politicians who make judgements.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
banquetbear
Goldmember
Avatar
1,584 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 134
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 19, 2016 09:58 |  #5

Tiberius wrote in post #17790517 (external link)
They say that a jpeg is going to have less room for editing, so less likely to be doctored to distort what was happening. Gotta get it right in camera. Jpegs also are smaller and so are transmitted faster.

What are your thoughts?

http://petapixel.com …ldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/ (external link)

...the story is from November. We've discussed it here before.

So its been 8 months. And Reuters have illustrated thousands of stories with thousands of images and no-one has noticed the difference.


www.bigmark.co.nzexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
4,893 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1207
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Aug 21, 2016 00:22 |  #6

Wilt wrote in post #18099637 (external link)
.... So a JPG created from RAW is more subject to modification than a JPG right out of the camera?!

No. Their point is that a RAW image is more subject to modification than a JPG right out of the camera. So it is more likely that a RAW image will be substantially altered (and then turned into a JPG) compared to a straight out of camera JPG.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,147 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2009
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 1 year ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Aug 21, 2016 12:41 as a reply to  @ Dan Marchant's post |  #7

...and yet I can modify a JPG file for relative darkness of different areas of the response curve, just as I might do in RAW prior to conversion to JPG. So what is different?!

I frankly blew this shot (stored both JPG and RAW) in the excitement of the moment, seeing this wild bird suddenly landing on my wife's arm...

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/Before.jpg

I corrected the RAW and produced this JPG...

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/LR3_zpsa757ea8d.jpg

I corrected the JPG and produced this '2nd generation JPG'...

IMAGE: http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i63/wiltonw/JPGafter.jpg

So #2 is less 'honest' than #1 (or even #3)...Reuters would prefer to get NO shot at all to use, if this same exposure error situation had occurred with my witnessing an assassination attempt and grabbing a shot?!

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
banquetbear
Goldmember
Avatar
1,584 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 134
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Aug 21, 2016 20:56 |  #8

Wilt wrote in post #18101782 (external link)
So #2 is less 'honest' than #1 (or even #3)...Reuters would prefer to get NO shot at all to use, if this same exposure error situation had occurred with my witnessing an assassination attempt and grabbing a shot?!

...they would take the unmodified JPEG and run with it. They've run with worse cellphone pictures before. According to their editorial guidelines the photo editor would be able to bring the levels up. Or if the event was of such extraordinary significance that it would "change the world" then they may ask if you captured the RAW, then they might ask for that and edit that. And because they did the editing and they knew the extent to which they did the editing they could make the appropriate disclaimers if need be.

But moments like that are incredibly rare don't you think?

I mean here are the last few days from Reuters.

http://pictures.reuter​s.com …QMV&SMLS=1&RW=1​858&RH=995 (external link)

Thousands of images, all shot in JPEG, all seemingly correctly exposed. Actual Reuters photographers seem to have no problems adhering to the guidelines. If you think you might struggle to meet their requirements then maybe a career with Reuters isn't for you.


www.bigmark.co.nzexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,169 views & 0 likes for this thread
Reuters bans RAW files, jpegs only.
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Fashion, Editorial & Commercial Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is livingHi
852 guests, 400 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.