Reuters will no longer accept JPEG's created from RAW.

[Justinr]

In an email to freelance photojournalists this week, Reuters has confirmed a change in its photo submission policy requesting that photographers submit out-of-camera JPEGs rather than JPEGs created from Raw files to the news agency. The message states that original JPEGs with 'minimal processing' are acceptable, for example, level corrections and cropping.

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1135269351/reuters-will-no-longer-accept-edited-raw-files-from-freelance-photographers

Several thoughts on this -

1. For many purposes JPEG's are now considered as good as RAW.
2. The problem of manipulation is now being admitted to but I'm not sure that this is the answer.
3. It's been pointed out that it reduces Reuters costs, again I'm not sure how valid an argument this is. (Edit, I don't think it is at all.)
4. It assumes media outlets want fair and balanced reporting to begin with rather than whatever suits their agenda.

TBH I haven't shot RAW for months now and have never been asked to provide RAW files, but that's probably because I'm in the wrong end of the trade. However, it's interesting to note that a major news agency no longer automatically sees them as essential or a mark of professionalism.

[Telecaster]

Some cameras can edit RAW files, allowing you to output multiple JPEGs from the same source data with different color balance, contrast, saturation, etc. values. Will Reuters consider only the JPEG created at the time of exposure (assuming a RAW+JPEG file creation config) as valid? 

Personally I like the idea of photojournalists and news services treating image files more like transparencies. Not sure how enforceable it is, though.

-Dave-

[Justinr]

Some cameras can edit RAW files, allowing you to output multiple JPEGs from the same source data with different color balance, contrast, saturation, etc. values. Will Reuters consider only the JPEG created at the time of exposure (assuming a RAW+JPEG file creation config) as valid? 

Personally I like the idea of photojournalists and news services treating image files more like transparencies. Not sure how enforceable it is, though.

-Dave-

That seems to be what they are saying although how on earth they'll police it is beyond me. Saying that I've heard mention of software that can detect whether a jpeg has been altered from it's original (out of camera?) state. No idea how it works.

[amolitor]

It cannot be enforced. Clearly they're just saying 'don't do that' and trusting the photojournalists to comply with the requirements of the job. This isn't a particularly outlandish hope, really. There will be guys who can't resist, and some of them will get caught and punished.

[pcgpcg]

If there is currently some way to distinguish a jpeg created by software in a camera from a jpeg created by editing software, I'd like to know what it is. If there is, it is nothing software can't fix to make it indistinguishable.
And if there is, the most obvious hack (keeping pixel size in mind) is to edit the RAW file to kingdom come, print it out, take a photo of the print and let the camera make a jpeg.