What some idiots. They obviously do not understand that an out-of-camera JPEG is no more a "real" representation of a scene than a JPEG processed from a RAW file. Heck, I can set inappropriate white balance, apply a radical custom "picture style" or perform other shenanigans in-camera that result in an out-of-camera JPEG that in NO way reflects reality. At least with a RAW file, the agency has a way to verify what data the camera collected and that the submitted image actually has not been unduly manipulated. With JPEG, they have no such validation path.
I Ass-u-me that they probably got this terrible idea from sports photography, where the JPEG process flow is still well entrenched simply because every second counts in getting the product through the pipeline. While journalists are also under time constraints, it is not at all to the same degree.
Idiots who clearly do not actually know what a RAW file is...
Regardless, photographers should all shoot both raw and jpg and keep the raw as a "negative" to show in the event the "validity" of the jpg is every brought into question.
"While we aim for photography of the highest aesthetic quality, our goal is not to artistically interpret the news."
Sounds like some of the fundamentalist photographers here, who prefer minimal editing & regard photoshop PP as "tricks," & expert editing as cartoon fantasyland having nothing to do with 'real' photography.
"While we aim for photography of the highest aesthetic quality, our goal is not to artistically interpret the news."
Sounds like some of the fundamentalist photographers here, who prefer minimal editing & regard photoshop PP as "tricks," & expert editing as cartoon fantasyland having nothing to do with 'real' photography.
I actually think that it's a different driver entirely. Photojournalism has been stung a few times in recent years by "fudged" news photos. They are trying to control this, but in a very misguided manner. By eliminating RAW-sourced photos, they are actually eliminating their best source of evidence for the veracity of the end product as an accurate representation of a scene. Not to mention reducing the quality of what they publish.
The history of fudged photojournalism goes right back to the beginning of photojournalism. It's always been an issue. Banning RAW files won't do a thing to change it. JMO of course.
From time to time I wonder where the idea originated-- that a photo is or should be a reliably unbiased record of reality.
Some Utopian photojournalist, I'd venture... It's a nice thought, that PJ images are an unbiased record of events. Never been true and never will be true, though. Every choice the photographer makes, even such simple things as framing or choice of focal length, dramatically affect our perception of a scene.
So then what's needed is a quick & reliable way to be sure that the final product accurately represents the original capture. Nobody can verify that it represents the original scene, not even people who were there.
I agree with this being goofy, to say the least.
I'm guessing that they are assuming that conversion from RAW always has intervention by the photographer using software outside the camera - while JPG is made in-camera - typically with default settings (for amateurs anyway, not likely the people submitting to Reuters).
JPG can be processed with LR and other software just like RAW, and I have to assume they know all this stuff -
The decision must be based on them getting submissions from similar/same events from different photographers that looked drastically different due to processing. Just a guess.
So then what's needed is a quick & reliable way to be sure that the final product accurately represents the original capture. Nobody can verify that it represents the original scene, not even people who were there.
Obviously an established global corporation with 150 years of processing and distributing news items and evaluating their sources, like dpc, could set up a system demanding that the original RAW file be available. You can't expect that sort of thing from a tuppenny-halfpenny crew like Reuters.
So then what's needed is a quick & reliable way to be sure that the final product accurately represents the original capture. Nobody can verify that it represents the original scene, not even people who were there.
Yes, exactly... and that evidence is the RAW file, the data within which is never modified by editing programs. So it makes *absolutely* no sense to me why they want to ignore this evidence.
I think Reuters would be better off requiring something like the rarely used basic editing rules. with more limitations.
If you are going to be strict, at least have it make sense. Photographers should follow a set of rules and be obligated to do so - otherwise THEY get banned. Not the file format.
