No RAW image files for Reuters

[jyl]

When did photographs cease being truth?

Once upon a time, a photograph was accepted as a truthful, accurate image of the scene recorded. With traditional darkroom techniques, significantly altering photographs was difficult, especially the negative.

Digital photography has changed that. Objects can be altered, removed, added. Photographs are not longer trustworthy witnesses.

I was interested to see that Reuters is now refusing to accept freelancers' photographs unless they were shot and stored as JPG in the camera. The idea, I think, is that while JPG files can be altered, doing so is more cumbersome and changes are more easily detected than if the images were shot in RAW and post processed. Reuters presumably doesn't want to publish a "news photo" and then find out the image was fabricated or significantly enhanced.

Reuters bans submission of RAW photos:

I wonder if this will force camera makers to do more processing in camera, before the image is stored.

[5String43]

You're right, of course. These days there's a whole lot one can do to manipulate a JPEG image. This move by Reuters makes little sense to me, though I can understand the desire for JPEG's much smaller files rather than huge RAW files, since that will make the images easier to send, receive and store.

[GH85Carrera]

Yea, it does seem backwards. It is easy to alter a JPEG image and make it undetectable if you are good at Photoshop. That camera RAW image is the real deal. I guess shooting zillions of photos and carrying a few camera cards is too difficult for today's photographers. Just a few rolls of film is way more to tote around and once you are out of film you are done. Photos can be deleted and more photos taken.

Whatever. I am out of that business anyway.

OK, geexer voice: Back in my day a roll of 35 MM film had a maximum of 36 photos. If I was toting that crazy heavy Hassleblad I got 12 or 24 photos on a roll of film. If you had B&W film in there was no switching to color unless you had a spare back for the Hassleblad. The FAST film was ASA or ISO of 400. Now they shoot at 3,200 and can get hundreds of images on on tiny little featherweight card. My heart bleeds for them.

[widebody911]

I guess you could say they're getting a... RAW deal...

(I'll show myself out)

[Scott Douglas]

(I'll show myself out)[/QUOTE]

Don't let the screen door hit ya on the way out.