PDA

View Full Version : Reuters bans photos from RAW files


Reef Bass
11/19/2015, 07:43 AM
No photos from RAW files (http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/)

Only in camera jpgs. In short, they feel this will increase ethics and speed of delivery. IMHO, this will likely result in lower image quality. Unfortunately, our society seems hell bent on sacrificing quality for convenience just about everywhere. It makes me sad.

Misled
11/19/2015, 07:59 AM
Doesn't make sense. Gigs are cheap!!!

dendronepthya
11/19/2015, 08:16 AM
That's the dumbest thing I've heard.

rickztahone
11/19/2015, 02:24 PM
That's the dumbest thing I've heard.

Agreed. That is backwards thinking logic.

snorvich
11/20/2015, 03:54 AM
Doesn't make sense. Gigs are cheap!!!

Exactly.

Reef Bass
11/20/2015, 05:55 AM
I don't think Reuters is concerned with the larger file size of a RAW file v. jpg. They state they don't want photos "that were processed from RAW or CR2 files", not "don't send us RAW files".

Perhaps by their ethical concern, they mean they don't want images that are heavily manipulated to the point where the image no longer conveys its original meaning. I can understand that. But to categorically refuse any image that resulted from a RAW file seems idiotic. Photoshop can alter in camera jpgs with arguably even less effort than a RAW file (no RAW import dialogue).

To me, this sounds like a case of naive, ignorant management making dumb decisions not fully understanding the technology.

Misled
11/20/2015, 06:01 AM
To me, this sounds like a case of naive, ignorant management making dumb decisions not fully understanding the technology.

So you shoot in raw, do what you want, convert to jpg and send it in. What's the diff????

Reef Bass
11/20/2015, 06:11 AM
Yeah, that's pretty much my point.

I think they fear that images resulting from the processing of RAW files are more manipulated in general than an in camera jpg. But IMHO, the changes are to improve image quality, not to manipulate the photo to the point where it is misleading or not representative of the original subject.

jroovers
11/20/2015, 08:37 AM
I get the sense in journalism and reporting that one mistake can cost you dearly, so I do get the part about ethics... that said, instead of identifying the file type, you would think they would vet the photographer and consider the source... i.e. have a short list of "accepted" or "vetted" photographers, and then for other photos, consider the source directly. Are they really going to turn away a potentially Pulitzer prize winning photo because its in RAW, seems silly... so no photos of the little Syrian refugee boy dead on the beach because they are in RAW. I wonder how/what circumstances they will bend.

dendronepthya
11/20/2015, 04:46 PM
"In future, please donít send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. If you want to shoot raw images thatís fine, just take JPEGs at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc)."

The journalistic integrity of the photo I doubt has anything to do with it. It is just a cost cutting move to avoid having to do any post processing as the standard for news gathering is a blurry cell phone pic.