Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Reuters Bans RAW Photo Format (petapixel.com)

Posted by timothy on from the for-greater-accuracy-eh dept.

grcumb writes: Reuters is the latest agency to join the ranks of the technically clueless who think that ethical problems can be solved using technical means. They recently issued a circular to their contributors, stating in part: "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...." The problem they claim to be addressing is doctored images, but they don't explain how they plan to ensure that the JPEGs weren't simply exported from RAW files with their EXIF data altered, or heck, just altered as JPEG. They also assert that getting JPEG files straight from the camera is quicker, which is fair enough. Lots of professionals shoot with RAW+JPEG at newsworthy events. They can send the JPEGs off quickly to meet the first deadline, then process the RAW files at leisure for higher quality publications.

5 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. You did Something vs. You didn't do Anything by retroworks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A lot of executive decisions boil down to demands to solve a problem (e.g. photos may be doctored) and an executive deciding he has to "do something", else when it does blow up he did NOT do "something". For example, if an unknown terrorist might strike, it doesn't matter whether the action (ban refugees at a state level) actually matters, it's insurance that when something did happen that you demonstrated precaution. CYA

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:You did Something vs. You didn't do Anything by Iamthecheese · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And it's an insult to my intelligence. What makes it more galling is the number of people this kind of ass covering pacifies. When a doctored photo slips through they'll say, "see, we did something but it happened anyway!" as though it's relevant. People are fucking retarded sometimes.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    2. Re:You did Something vs. You didn't do Anything by x0ra · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Every single photo is doctored. Any photographer will only publish what he believes is the best light, best composition, taken with the right lens, etc.

    3. Re:You did Something vs. You didn't do Anything by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You don't even need to post-process anything to make a fake photo.
      Just choose the right position to hide context from the photo, the right angle for emotional effect or simply ask people to do something or rearrange some objects.
      One could say that by even merely being present, a photographer influences the content of his photos.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  2. Size & standards, not doctoring by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am pretty sure the real issue is file size and standards, not doctoring. As manufacturers keep ridiculously upping sensor MP size, photo sizes continue to balloon to larger and larger sizes. RAW files are notoriously huge and non-standard. The extra processing they are referring to is probably just the need to convert those various RAW files back to JPEG, which takes/wastes time/energy by their staff.

    You would have to be a pretty big idiot to think that JPEG files are harder to doctor than RAW files. Any photo format can be used when exporting a doctored image... has nothing to do with how it is saved.