Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by NickCyprus, Nov 19, 2015.
Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos
Just read this and it sounded pretty crazy to me
Yeah, cuz everyone knows you can't manipulate jpegs.
It reads like a story from The Onion. Is this for real?
That's pretty odd. The notion of it been a speed issue seems very weird. Granted JPEGs are smaller but with broadband and storage being cheap the entire notion of banning RAW doesn't really seem like it'll have that much impact. Any photo journalists out there care to weigh in?
Oddly, I find this reasonable for a news organization if they feel it will ensure greater accuracy. A journalists job is not to create art. It is to present a record of an event. Reuters effectively stated this. As for the speed reference they were talking about removing the post processing step from the photographer's workflow not that jpeg are faster than raw.
Sounds crazy, since the logic of their argument is flawed from a technical standpoint. But then again, most mainstream news organizations have lost their legitimacy. (and I don't mean due to the use of RAWs.) It's business first.
I agree that this edict could sound reasonable to some bureaucrat in charge of maintaining whatever integrity any of the news services can claim. But if someone with a camera wishes to distort "reality" for their own purposes, forcing them to shoot a jpeg is hardly a deterrent. And having greater ability to enhance an image, as long as the intent is to make the subject of the photo more clearly seen and understood, doesn't strike me as journalistic malpractice.
If this story is true, then it sounds to me like some bigwig at Reuters just felt the urgent need to manage something.
i think everyone is overthinking it
jpegs are way more universal than the many different raw files.
news groups use twitter posts and instagram videos as sources. posting from cell phones
and tablets. or cloud computers
all of the above don't have the ability to handle raw out of the box (not yet)
in the mean time. no one can be bothered with an 'xtra step' i think they made the legitimacy argument up just for kicks
This isn't the case of not able to handle RAW image data files. Of course Reuters has the ability and resources to handle RAWs just like you and I.
They aren't pushing out RAWs, but aren't accepting RAWs from their associated freelance photographers and possibly staff photographers if they still have any.
If you're in the news business, part of that should be presenting the truth. Truth is absolute, as would be the best possible image quality. But they'll settle for JPEG as a 'good enough' standard. On a rare case, image detail could matter. But it's been disposed.
I see it as let's stick with VHS, when digital 4K is available. But it's too big and digitally alterable. Which makes its authenticity suspect.
The way I see it:
- JPEGS are good enough, and have been good enough, regarding image quality, for photojournalism, for a long time now.
- Many sports photogs already have been shooting JPEG only for a log time. It makes files transfers much faster, and making the deadline, and beating your competition, is what puts bread on the table.
- A straight out of the camera JPEG is potentially more faithful than a JPEG from RAW. Of course you can always process the JPEG and alter it, but then those alterations are traceable.
Vérité taking priority over optimal post-processing flexibility? I'm okay with that!
Prize-winning photographer fired after he doctored Syrian war picture
Interesting article...my first reaction was wow, what a price to pay.
But then from the business POV, I thought they pretty much have to have a stern 'zero-tolerance' approach or the whole operation could start to get too casual, and when it was discovered by the public or competitors, the business reputation would be permanently damaged.
If they want authenticity the would ask for RAW for every photo sent in.
A quote of Eddie Adams:
Reuters had been caught with their pants down using (very poorly and very obviously) photoshopped photos before.
Adnan Hajj photographs controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You'd think they would only be asking for RAWs after this.
How can they ask for RAWs only? A raw photo is bland and in many cases lacking corrections. A raw cannot be displayed without a compatible raw converter and or codec. If they wanted to be over the top thorough they could ask for the raw version to be accompanied with a submitted jpeg. That would however create overhead in workflow, storage and man-power.
Ha! I love that statement!
In Plato's Republic, Socrates suggests that truth is defined by the wealthy.
--- edit ---
I think I may have made an error - instead of Truth being defined by the wealthy, it may have been justice being defined by the wealthy (but I'm not going to take the time to look it up and report back - think what you want, then think about it some more).
I think it's along the lines of history is written by the victor/conqueror.
And there is no justice IMHO, since wealth and power are the strings manipulating that puppet.
As for truth there is no gray area. One can manipulate, hide, self-interpret, condemn it....but facts are facts, not opinion.
Winston Churchill expressed it best:
“The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.”
Yes, it's far better to risk your reputation publishing someone's half assed fakes... AFAIK Canon's JPEG authentication key has been broken a while ago.