Reuters bans the usage of RAW files from contributors

"Restricting photographers to original JPEGs will also reduce the time it takes for photos to go from camera to client" and "increase ethics", guess they haven't had to process jpegs before

Here is the rest of the articles

http://petapixel.com …ldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/

I have a feeling the main reason for the change was " that Reuters found that photos processed from RAWs are more likely to distort the truth".

DGStinner wrote in post #17788628
I have a feeling the main reason for the change was " that Reuters found that photos processed from RAWs are more likely to distort the truth".

I have seen some photos that look really heavily processed, that could be the main reason also

And this does what exactly to increase ethics?


I have a ray tracing program I wrote back in university that can pump out photorealistic pngs of marbles, and with a few keystrokes I can change that to a jpg file fresh out of my Canon 5Dsr with my 800mm L lens... neither of which I own.

Kudos to Reuters to encourage truth in news photographs. How effective it will be I don't know.

Seems horribly short sighted for something as useless as it is.


"Oh, you are a photographer, but not a regular Reuters photographer, and therefore had your camera set to record only .cr2 files as you always have when you took that photo of some amazing and once in a lifetime event? Meh, too bad for you, we'll have to instead buy it off someone else who snapped a blurry cellphone photo that could be someone's thumb instead."

Funny, in a court of law the only way a digital photo can be considered as undoctered evidence is if it is still the original raw file.

Methinks someone at Rueters really missed the point.

Archibald wrote in post #17788668
Kudos to Reuters to encourage truth in news photographs....

I don't see the connection.

I agree with the intent, but fail to see the connection.

It sounds like they've adapted the general policy for sports photographers to their entire contribution system. Yes it might speed things up, but authenticity I find an odd thing to throw in there as a reasoning since nothing stops you altering a JPEG. If you're going to lie you will no matter if your source material is JPEG or RAW - only that if you have a RAW version then in theory someone can get you to show the original unadjusted result (at which point you can only lie with frame, composition and content).

Seems odd, but I guess they want to be the first and really open up their market to phones and tablet shots of events to get them in first as soon as they happen; rather than potentially wait for RAWs to be processed.

That said an outright ban is odd; sports togs might well shoot in JPEG+RAW leaving them a quick ready to go JPEG for the now and a RAW for if things need to be tweaked more later if the shot does really well.

Wasn't Reuters involved in the "stuffed animals of war" episode and at least one incident involving the clone-stamp tool ten or twelve years ago? If so, that would indicate that Reuters needed a serious ethics boost starting 'round about then.

I guess in the film days, it would be polaroids over the negatives.. Hahahahahahaha........​..

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17788679
Funny, in a court of law the only way a digital photo can be considered as undoctered evidence is if it is still the original raw file.

Methinks someone at Rueters really missed the point.

I could be wrong, but I believe evidentiary photos need to be in their original form which would depend on what is selected in camera at the time.

cory1848 wrote in post #17788739
I could be wrong, but I believe evidentiary photos need to be in their original form which would depend on what is selected in camera at the time.

Depends on where it is from my understanding. I've only had to deal with providing documents for different courts a few times, but each time all that was really required was to sign paperwork declaring that the contents were as stated and were fair representation of the originals, without omissions or alterations which could affect the case at hand.

Archibald wrote in post #17788668
Kudos to Reuters to encourage truth in news photographs. How effective it will be I don't know.

It's not that, it's the fact even jpeg can be manipulated by adding/subtracting things to a photo. Fair enough, you can do a lot to "enhance" a photo in RAW that you can't do in jpeg, though it will probably take a lot longer per photo

Overread wrote in post #17788705
It sounds like they've adapted the general policy for sports photographers to their entire contribution system. Yes it might speed things up, but authenticity I find an odd thing to throw in there as a reasoning since nothing stops you altering a JPEG. If you're going to lie you will no matter if your source material is JPEG or RAW - only that if you have a RAW version then in theory someone can get you to show the original unadjusted result (at which point you can only lie with frame, composition and content).

Seems odd, but I guess they want to be the first and really open up their market to phones and tablet shots of events to get them in first as soon as they happen; rather than potentially wait for RAWs to be processed.

That said an outright ban is odd; sports togs might well shoot in JPEG+RAW leaving them a quick ready to go JPEG for the now and a RAW for if things need to be tweaked more later if the shot does really well.

Sports photographers, I can guarantee you, shoot jpeg, unless you know otherwise