Reuters bans RAW

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Fred, which Reuters news articles do you find to be biased in particular? I am sure that they're working to ensure the integrity of the text as well; it's a continuous process. As for general media, it varies in quality. It is common nowadays that the text, layout, and pictures do not work properly together to make a coherent story. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>It is about being fed up with asking photographers for photos and instead receiving the result of photographer's free expression and their 'personal' (i.e. the tricks raw-processing software has to offer) take on visual arts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If that's the issue, as opposed to jpgs being quicker to work with which is the only sensible reason to require they be used, then Reuter's should be demanding that RAW files be used. RAW files, when converted with a neutral and light touch, look much less pumped up or aesthetically enhanced than jpgs do. I often shoot in both RAW and jpg files, using the jpgs so my subjects can easily and quickly browse through the photos of themselves and then using the RAW files from which to make my final prints. In pretty much all cases, the jpgs have the stamp of interpretation (tricks) on them, the skies look bluer, the colors more vivid (and this on the most tame settings my camera will allow). Sure, the RAW files have the <em>capacity</em> to be manipulated, <em>but of course so do the jpgs</em>, even further than they already are enhanced by default in the camera (by software as opposed to a human). But the RAW files generally start out looking much LESS manipulated and artistic. If they are asking for jpgs instead of RAW because they want a lack of imposed vision or a lack of artistry, then they are completely misguided.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The thing with raw files is that they <i>have to</i> be pulled through the converter with all of those profiles available (you can buy a shipload from companies like DxO or On1 (107 for ACR for free...), though just one - plain and neutral - would be enough) that help the photographer be distinctive (Ha!). The temptation is too strong, apparently. Sure, jpegs are processed too, and cameras allow to use in-camera settings to have control over how they turn out. But as long as there aren't hundreds, the situation is still better with jpegs.<br>I think it will go the same way as those wipes and the loudness war i mentioned earlier. Even the people who thought those wipes were great and subjected us to the results of their over-enthusiastic misuse eventually saw the light. Even the music and broadcasting industries are getting tired of what they have been doing to the noise levels in our homes for too many years now. Now we see a part of the image industry showing first signs of being annoyed by all this raw-processing nonsense and not getting what they really want. Good for Reuters to speak up.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Illka, just google "bias in Reuter's reporting" and you'll get a sample of various controversies that have taken place and that seem to be ongoing. I don't want to get into the specifics here, because most of them are politically charged and would invite Off Topic tangents from the usual suspects, which I don't want to invite. You'll notice that the photo biases based on digital manipulation, though they get the most press because they're the most clearcut, are not the most significant photo violations, which also include the staging of events by groups being covered, the staging of events by photographers themselves, and the captioning involved.</p>

<p>Now, obviously, these days it's almost a given that each side of a news report is going to scream "bias" when they feel their own side isn't given its due and, as we well know, a lot of media-bashing is more about self interest and wanting them to be biased to one's own viewpoint as opposed to wanting them to be neutral. But there are some pretty compelling cases made for both intentional and non-intentional bias even in the case of Reuter's which I do agree is among the most respected outlets, and deservedly so.</p>

[dianedh]

<p><strong>[Well, I am not Diane, but I am using her computer, so I will let the following post stand unless the moderators want to delete it.--Landrum Kelly]</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>RAW photos do allow for a greater degree of post-processing flexibility, so based on the new policy, it appears that Reuters found that photos processed from RAWs are more likely to distort the truth. --the petapixel article</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither JPEG nor raw distorts the truth. Photographers can distort the truth using either. I shoot raw + JPEG but typically (not always) use raw so that I can <strong><em>more nearly approximate what I sa</em><em>w, rather than enhance it</em></strong>. I find JPEG images to be typically over-processed, as Fred mentioned above. I hate the over-saturated colors with too much contrast that the Nikon engineers (among others) love to build in for consumers who like to shoot expensive cameras with a minimum of thought and work. Don't even get me going on dynamic range.<br /> <br /> Is it worth the time to shoot raw + JPEG? I don't have a problem with time with the pictures that I shoot. Some photojournalistsl admittedly might. I will concede that shooting raw + JPEG does consume a lot of disk space--and I do have to change cards more often while shooting. That can be a decisive factor for many shooters, as can the time factor. But making that into a "one size fits all" solution? Give me a break.</p>

<p>I shot "JPEG's only" for years and came away with some nice photos, but I sure wish that I had the raw files for some of those early shots. I still tend to go with the JPEG if the picture looks fine without additional manipulation. I am glad to have the raw files for those cases in which I didn't nail the exposure, or the dynamic range or color balance was not adequate. (No, I don't always nail the exposure the first time, and I don't know anyone who does.) Again, however, I am as likely to "manipulate" in the direction of more conservative color and contrast treatments, not the reverse--and I shoot a lot at night. JPEG can be a nightmare for night shooters.</p>

<p>So. . . number me with the "raw + JPEG crowd." I like the options that that gives me. JPEG only? That is great for beginners and those who really don't have time to fool with raw. I will concede that the latter exist, and perhaps they are a majority of those who work through Reuters. More power to them if it works for them. It too often does not for me.<br /> I doubt that this policy change for Reuters will stand the test of time. There are alternative ways of approaching the problem of over-processing.</p>

<p><br /> --Lannie</p>

<p>(Sorry, Diane. I forgot that I was on your computer. Is dinner ready yet?)</p>

[donald_miller5]

<p>Just to speak to journalism today and my personal experience. We and many victims that we knew at the Va Tech massacre were approached personally by members of the press from CNN to NBC to small independent producers and I doubt anyone would believe what these undertakers did. Suffice to say that hell is neither hot enough or long enough for most of those who came flocking here solely out of interest for their career. This I can discuss without contaminating it with political bias</p>

[art_thomas1]

<p>1. Any buyer of anything should get to choose what they want to buy. Of course, that does not apply anymore to products that have been politicized/government controlled like healthcare or automobiles here in the USA.<br>

2. Photojournalism has taken a few hits because of altered photos. At least they are making a good faith attempt to revive a sense of journalistic integrity among the readership of publications they contribute to.<br>

3. Most newspaper photos are printed at a screen rate that needs little detail. Compressed jpegs can meet that standard and take up less hard drive space.<br>

4. I can understand why unskillful photographers would hate the rule.<br>

5. I like it.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Any buyer of anything should get to choose what they want to buy. Of course, that does not apply anymore to products that have been politicized/government controlled like healthcare or automobiles here in the USA.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Off Topic and . . . YAWN!</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I treat digital just like film. I come back from a trip and take the media card to the photo lab and have them make 4x6 inch prints. Usually I have about 100 - 125 photos equal to about 3 to 4 rolls of film. I used to do my own darkroom work but there is no way that I would spend days making 125 4x5 inch photos. My color processing drum could hold two 8x10 papers = eight 4x5 inch photos and took about 1/2 hour to do.

 

Who says you can't edit with JPEG? I shoot mostly JPEG and can remove wrinkles, give a tummy tuck (my wife loves that), adjust color and contrast crop, copy and paste, etc. etc.

[clive_murray_white]

<p>I think we're overlooking the fact the ban was aimed at "freelance" photographers submitting work to Reuters. The definition of Freelance is very important and to me always implies that you are free to offer your work to whoever may wish to use it.</p>

<p>I'm never going to try and argue that the client isn't entitled to insist that we deliver our work in whatever file type or size they may want, though no one for any purpose at all has asked me to supply an 18 MB 7360 x 4912 - 62 x 41 cm, 300dpi RGB Jpeg and of course no one has asked for a RAW file either.</p>

<p>In terms of news pictures the real issue isn't Jpeg or RAW shooting, it's fabricating an image and pretending it's the truth.</p>

<p>And when I think of what I've always got to be prepared to be able to supply my clients, I realise that one image could be a small jpeg for the web, a 300dpi RGB version, a 300dpi CMYK version, PNGs and small and press ready PDFs.............much of my recent work has been for wineries and the most interesting question these days in Australia is the requirement that photographers get permission from people who may be in published images, which in terms of casual shots of people enjoying my client's wine certainly puts a dint in any spontaneity. The way round it is really quite amusing, make sure the wine is in focus but the person who's drinking isn't.</p>

 

[art_thomas1]

<p>To Fred G...</p>

<p>1. Your comment "Yawn!" I get. After all, you are you and entitled to your interest levels, perspective, etc.. But Off Topic? Reuters buys photos and articles. Is it off topic to suggest that the buyer does not have to take that what the seller wants him to buy (usually) simply because the Photonet users are more sellers than buyers? Is it wrong to point out to Photonet photo sellers that even though one runs with the hounds, the fox may have a different point of view, especially when the foxes have the cash they want? </p>

<p>2. Depending on the moderator <b>Moderator: Do not discuss moderation in threads.</b> </p>

<p>To Clive Murray-White... </p>

<p>"The definition of Freelance is very important and to me always implies that you are free to offer your work to whoever may wish to use it." </p>

<p>Yes, that is the essence. Freelancers are free to sell what they want to and to whom they want to. Reuters is free to buy what they want to and from whom they want to. That philosophy of life is rapidly going out of fashion here in the USA, but has not YET been displaced and/or disallowed for most products and services.</p>