Reuters bans freelance RAW photography

socreative
socreative
deal with itPosts: 8,916 in Photography
Reuters has banned its freelance photographers from submitting images that were shot and processed in their camera's RAW format.

This is what was sent to agencies:
"I’d like to pass on a note of request to our freelance contributors due to a worldwide policy change.. In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. If you want to shoot raw images that’s fine, just take JPEGs at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc)."

I agree that editing such as removing objects/people should not be permitted but unprocessed JPEGs, really?

Comments

  • steveb
    steveb
    BitterHusk Original™ Järvenpää FinlandPosts: 24,073
    What exactly are you being surprised about?

    1) Reuters is running out of server space
    2) Jpegs are full of jaggies and digital artifacts
    3) Jpegs can only display 2^16 colours
    4) Cameras costing less than $10000 can produce photos in jpeg format
  • Nick
    Nick
    Cream of DT Posts: 18,151
    5) In an age where trust in the press is at historically low levels, how it presents it's news visually should be more truthful.
  • Nick
    Nick
    Cream of DT Posts: 18,151
    I wonder if they accept hipstergram jpegs?
  • socreative
    socreative
    deal with it Posts: 8,916
    sub wrote:
    I wonder if they accept hipstergram jpegs?

    only with #nofilter hashtag.
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,733
    In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files.

    Doesn't it seem strange that a "a Reuters pictures editor" doesn't seem to understand that all digital photos are processed from raw files?
  • Limbo
    Limbo
    Established Norm Posts: 27,293
    #nofilter shouts "look at me aren't my brilliant pictures so good that I don't need to process them in any way at all" (AKA shit photo).
  • freelancr
    freelancr
    Señor Member Posts: 7,015
    How is a JPEG any less likely to be fucked about with?
  • handcraftedweb
    handcraftedweb
    thought leader Left coastPosts: 6,733
    freelancr wrote:
    How is a JPEG any less likely to be fucked about with?

    It is less likely because now most pro cameras don't have radical/artistic raw processing builtin. But I bet pro cameras are going to be much more programmable soon. They (journalistic standards people) will need to come up with formal specs constraining the raw processing and pro cameras will have a way to bake into the image some kind of assurance that those specs be were adhered to. I predict.
Sign In or Register to comment.
© Copyright 2003 - 2016 - DT by Kooc Media