Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos

scottishguy

scottishguy

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,100
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
Is this to limit extensive manipulation eg cloning out a piece of straw? Or is it to speed up files being sent instead of time being spent in postprocessing?
 
Makes sense. Each photojournalist have different cameras, for example, some use Nikon, some use Canon, etc. As we know, each camera manufacturer have their own RAW format which is incompatible with each other, and not all programs can open them all. I can image that the photojournalist taking photos in RAW would have to be responsibility for their own loading into Lightroom, Photoshop, or their camera's own software (for example, Nikon and their Capture NX software), adjust exposes and colours and such, then having to export into universal format like JPEG which they can then email to the agency or newspapers.

Whereabouts by shooting in JPEG, they could just upload to their laptop then send it by email. The sooner the agency gets it, the sooner it gets sold to the newspapers.

Beside, a freelance photojournalist may be shooting RAW with a Sony Alpha DSLR, send file to agency, who then moan: "Our Lightroom only got the Canon and Nikon RAW plug-in, we can't open Sony's own RAW!"

Something like you take photos and send the film direct to the agency and they moan: "Jeez! That photojournalist send us a slide film that needs E-6 development, we do C-41 development and printing!"

So I can image maybe that's why Reuters ban RAW, to stop photojournalist sending them RAW files.
 
Major Eazy said:
Beside, a freelance photojournalist may be shooting RAW with a Sony Alpha DSLR, send file to agency, who then moan: "Our Lightroom only got the Canon and Nikon RAW plug-in, we can't open Sony's own RAW!"
...
So I can image maybe that's why Reuters ban RAW, to stop photojournalist sending them RAW files.
Click to expand...

No. Nobody is sending raw files to Reuters.
 
Jayst84 said:
No. Nobody is sending raw files to Reuters.
Click to expand...

Then Reuters don't seems to have any reasons for banning RAW. If they're not getting RAW images from photojournalist, then why ban RAW?
 
Major Eazy said:
Then Reuters don't seems to have any reasons for banning RAW. If they're not getting RAW images from photojournalist, then why ban RAW?
Click to expand...

Probably for the reasons they stated: speed, and to discourage manipulation.

Load of balls though, it's not going to make things any quicker, and manipulation is down to the photographer, not the file format.
 
Jayst84 said:
No. Nobody is sending raw files to Reuters.
Click to expand...

Hang on...

According to that website...

Photographers must now only send photos that were originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs.


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.


So if you are right, about "Nobody is sending RAW files to Reuters" so why would Reuters bother telling photographers to only send JPEG and not RAW, if photographers haven't send RAW in the first place? :-)
 
Major Eazy said:
Hang on...

According to that website...

Photographers must now only send photos that were originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs.


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.


So if you are right, about "Nobody is sending RAW files to Reuters" so why would Reuters bother telling photographers to only send JPEG and not RAW, if photographers haven't send RAW in the first place? :)
Click to expand...

They aren't telling them to only send the JPEG as opposed to the raw file. Read what you have quoted. "...please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files".
 
Jayst84 said:
Probably for the reasons they stated: speed, and to discourage manipulation.

Load of balls though, it's not going to make things any quicker, and manipulation is down to the photographer, not the file format.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
Jayst84 said:
They aren't telling them to only send the JPEG as opposed to the raw file. Read what you have quoted. "...please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files".
Click to expand...

Isn't a photo processed from RAW usually better than a photo processed in-camera? I thought that's the reason people are encouraging a switch to RAW?
 
Jayst84 said:
Wonder what the real reason is though... maybe they were just fed up with all the terrible processing (not dodgy ethically, just dodgy). So asking for relatively unmolested JPEGs may actually discourage some of that.
Click to expand...

But surely some photographers would not be happy with the look of the original JPEG image that was processed in-camera, so they load it into Lightroom or Photoshop and make some adjustments themselves, then resave in JPEG, so how would banning RAW discourage it?
 
A Reuters spokesperson said, "the decision was made to increase both ethics and speed".

Personally I think the issue of speed is a bit of a red herring. The real reason behind this move is to ensure (as far as is possible) the images aren't altered during post-processing.

The spokesperson went on to say, "Reuters Pictures must reflect reality. While we aim for photography of the highest aesthetic quality, our goal is not to artistically interpret the news."

They want camera produced JPEGs "with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc)".

This sends an unequivocal message to freelancers working for Reuters that they want no manipulation of submitted images. Reuters have fallen foul of this in the past, most notably a couple Adnan Hajj's photos from the Middle East in 2006, which lead to him being sacked and all his images being pulled from Reuters' library.

The aesthetics of news images is of far less importance than truth.
 
Jayst84 said:
Not really. Raw files give you more options with some things - most of which are irrelevant to news gathering PJs.
Click to expand...

Exactly this, technically perfect images aren't important for editorial in most times. It's the image that tells the story thats important.
I'd imaging the raw image would be a handy thing for the photographer to have in case of accusations of post editing, or for other submissions outside Reuters
 
I would have thought most proper photojournalists have cameras that can produce jpeg and RAW at the same time, so they can keep the RAW if they want to produce a book and send the jpeg to Reuters in the meanwhile.
 
shreds said:
I would have thought most proper photojournalists have cameras that can produce jpeg and RAW at the same time, so they can keep the RAW if they want to produce a book and send the jpeg to Reuters in the meanwhile.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that happens, yes, but there's been far too many cases of photojournalism being manipulated lately. It's this relentless striving for today's photographers to chase aesthetics and make "wow" images. It has no place in journalism, particularly in images of war and conflict.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I'm sure that happens, yes, but there's been far too many cases of photojournalism being manipulated lately. It's this relentless striving for today's photographers to chase aesthetics and make "wow" images. It has no place in journalism, particularly in images of war and conflict.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree but it's often the wow images that make the biggest difference. I agree on manipulation though. Some shocking examples out there of over manipulated PJ.
 
Last edited:
UaeExile said:
Not that I disagree but it's often the wow images that make the biggest difference. I agree on manipulation though. Some shocking examples out there of over manipulates PJ.
Click to expand...

Wow because it says something powerful, or wow because it's beautiful? See the link to the book I posted above.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Wow because it says something powerful, or wow because it's beautiful? See the link to the book I posted above.
Click to expand...
Often it's difficult to do one without the other.

Of the eight accompanying images in the link none really fall into that category either as far as I can see.

Art and beauty are subjective after all.
 
Last edited:
So Reuters are implying that you can't process JPEGS and they are somehow locked from being able to be edited....................... M'kay :confused:
 
rpsmith79 said:
So Reuters are implying that you can't process JPEGS and they are somehow locked from being able to be edited....................... M'kay :confused:
Click to expand...

I thin the photo editor at Reuters knows a thing or two about what you can and can't do to JPEGs.

Good on them I say. About time over manipulation was addressed, even if it is a subtle warning to start off with.
 
UaeExile said:
I thin the photo editor at Reuters knows a thing or two about what you can and can't do to JPEGs.

Good on them I say. About time over manipulation was addressed, even if it is a subtle warning to start off with.
Click to expand...

So how does sending in photos taken in JPEG differ from those derived from RAW and converted to JPEG, they can both be edited/processed in almost the same way
 
rpsmith79 said:
So how does sending in photos taken in JPEG differ from those derived from RAW and converted to JPEG, they can both be edited/processed in almost the same way
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Like I said, it's a subtle warning to start off with.
 
My interpretation is to prevent manipulation (eg. clone something important out of a photo), with speed as a positive side effect.

JPEG are compressed images. Even processed in camera at highest quality setting still produces compression artifacts. Those artifacts are hard to edit out in a convincing way, edits can usually be picked up by checking software. Perhaps Reuters have found the manipulation software can only identify modified JPEG edits, not RAW manipulations.
 
rpsmith79 said:
So how does sending in photos taken in JPEG differ from those derived from RAW and converted to JPEG, they can both be edited/processed in almost the same way
Click to expand...
Editing a JPEG changes its block structure (you've quantised the edited bit twice). Editing a RAW and saving JPEG doesn't.

Search for Detecting Doctored JPEG Images Via DCT Coefficient Analysis
 
rpsmith79 said:
So how does sending in photos taken in JPEG differ from those derived from RAW and converted to JPEG, they can both be edited/processed in almost the same way
Click to expand...


It's a warning shot across the bow for photo-journalists. Everyone is aware that it's perfectly possible to edit a JPEG (although it makes it FAR more detectable). This is clearly intended to send a clear message, that DECENT news organisations want unmolested, accurate, impartial content, not images that have been worked on for whatever reason.


UaeExile said:
Often it's difficult to do one without the other.
Click to expand...

I'd say sometime... not often.
 
UaeExile said:
I thin the photo editor at Reuters knows a thing or two about what you can and can't do to JPEGs.

Good on them I say. About time over manipulation was addressed, even if it is a subtle warning to start off with.
Click to expand...

You keep writing "over manipulation" :)

In the context of photojourn, that would be pretty much any manipulation, surely

I mean, its not like Reuters are trying to discourage bad HDR or selective colouring....:D
 
UaeExile said:
Not that I disagree but it's often the wow images that make the biggest difference. I agree on manipulation though. Some shocking examples out there of over manipulated PJ.
Click to expand...

I often think very little that taken in war & conflict make that much difference,we are still fighting them :(
 
Pookeyhead said:
It's a warning shot across the bow for photo-journalists. Everyone is aware that it's perfectly possible to edit a JPEG (although it makes it FAR more detectable). This is clearly intended to send a clear message, that DECENT news organisations want unmolested, accurate, impartial content, not images that have been worked on for whatever reason.




I'd say sometime... not often.
Click to expand...

I agree the message must be sent out
 
TonyHall said:
A Reuters spokesperson said, "the decision was made to increase both ethics and speed".

Personally I think the issue of speed is a bit of a red herring. The real reason behind this move is to ensure (as far as is possible) the images aren't altered during post-processing.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this one. You could still alter any images even after post-processing, no matter what file format they're in. People can download and Photoshop any post-processed images off the Internet. Banning RAW won't stop someone altering a JPEG image.
 
Major Eazy said:
I have to agree with this one. You could still alter any images even after post-processing, no matter what file format they're in. People can download and Photoshop any post-processed images off the Internet. Banning RAW won't stop someone altering a JPEG image.
Click to expand...

But its easier to spot on an j-peg :)
 
Here's a really interesting web site which lets you upload a jpeg and it'll tell you if it's been manipulated. It does it by analysing the different compression rates in the jpeg and looking for differences which might be indicated if something has been added or taken away:

http://fotoforensics.com

Reuters, AFP et al are hyper-sensitive about photo manipulation as it calls into question their integrity and the integrity of their "product". As well as not allowing manipulation, their photographers aren't allowed to set up shots (e.g. gathering a crowd together and getting them to wave their banners photogenically). In fact I was shooting a crowd of supporters before a football match and, being unencumbered by such stringent rules, I got a bunch of them to gather around me and hold up scarves etc while I shot close in with a wide angle. Lo and behold I found an AFP photographer next to me taking advantage of the scene I had set up, yet retaining plausible deniability that he himself had not done so! We had a bit of a joke about it afterwards where he articulated the restrictions he works under.

I suspect Reuters would be running all incoming pictures through engines that look for image manipulation. I ran a picture of mine through fotofoensics.com and got a completely useless result.

First, here's it comparing a jpeg which was created from a RAW file in Lightroom, so the jpeg is "virgin" i.e. it's not been subsequently imported, changed and re-exported, so it should be OK. The top image is the jpeg exported from Lightroom and the bottom one is the fotoforensics.com analysis which should highlight any weird changes due to compression differences in different areas of the image. Any inconsistencies should show up.

RAW to jpeg by Tobers, on Flickr

And then I took the jpeg that I'd exported from Lightroom, reimported it into Lightroom, and cloned out the child and the signage at the bottom. I then re-exported it again so the resulting image should have gone through 2 rounds of compression, one for each LR export. As you can see, fotoforensics hasn't highlighted the cloning at all, which makes it a bit crap in my opinion :). Or I could have read the tutorial wrongly!

Child removed by Tobers, on Flickr

So there you have it. Anyway, that was fun and a good waste of 30 minutes.
 
Last edited:
st599 said:
Editing a JPEG changes its block structure (you've quantised the edited bit twice). Editing a RAW and saving JPEG doesn't.

Search for Detecting Doctored JPEG Images Via DCT Coefficient Analysis
Click to expand...
OK... But how does that help? If you've edited a RAW and saved it as a JPEG, surely all you need to do to defeat this method of detection is re-edit the JPEG?
 
How will they tell the difference between a meddled with RAW saved as a jpg with the same algorithm as the camera uses and one saved straight onto a card? I have Sony software that will process the RAWS just as it does within the camera itself.
 
srichards said:
How will they tell the difference between a meddled with RAW saved as a jpg with the same algorithm as the camera uses and one saved straight onto a card? I have Sony software that will process the RAWS just as it does within the camera itself.
Click to expand...

I bet there's something in the metadata that will give it away.
 
For those who think RAW is essential, 99.999% of Getty Images photos from every Olympics and World Cups are shot in JPEG. Same will be true of Reuters, AP, AFP etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top