Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: jhein on November 19, 2015, 12:26:08 pm
-
Apparently Reuters has determined that only JPEGs represent reality. :o
http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/11/reuters-bans-submission-of-raw-photos-our-photos-must-reflect-reality/
I get that Reuters may not want to "develop" RAW submissions but to say that basically only JPEGS represent reality is just plain wrong.
Jim
-
It's not wrong if Reuters is in some kind of reality vortex. It appears they are. :o
-
I wonder what else they do to ensure "reality" in their reporting...
-
Probably because film seemed more real and less altered, verses digital being retouched to the point no one knows if it is real or not. Almost delves into the realm of being an artist's illustration now too.
Ever been to a gallery showing where the photographer has printed, or had someone else print for them, an image of a scene where the colors are super-saturated, phone lines removed, people move/altered, etc.? People can alter the shot to the point news can be "Generated" and made-up or manufactured.
However, even a cellphone has the capability to alter shots now with apps that can alter their JPG's to the point it could be a Photoshopped RAW.
I get their point - just I cannot see it being accurate for news as they'd like it - ever.
SG
-
Why worry about it.
Their company, their rules, their decision. Pretty much every photographic forum has multiple threads on this issue. I don't understand why.
Pretty sure that Reuters knows what is good for Reuters' business model.
-
Just last week I was playing around with a new-to-me feature of my Canon. Seems I can shoot up to 9 frames and have the camera merge them together in one of 4 ways, creating some cool effects, saved as the final in-camera jpeg.
Not sure yet, but I think I could completely eliminate Hillary from the debate stage shot. Need to send that one to Reuters.
-
I thought the Raw format was considered a digital negative that would stand up in court as unaltered evidence, so I'm not understanding Reuter's logic behind using the straight out of the camera jpeg as reassurance of best practices for ethical photographic standards.
What ethical standard are they going by?
-
What ethical standard are they going by?
Ethics in the news media? Get wise.
-
Perhaps the point is that they really want "out-of-camera JPEGs" (i.e. more difficult to alter radically by the photographer), rather than not wanting raws?
I can see why OOC Jpegs are deemed less prone to tinkering (by non-techie, somewhat ethical photographers) than something that has passed thought Lightroom, although it is not technically or legally 100% safe.
-h
-
Perhaps the point is that they really want "out-of-camera JPEGs" (i.e. more difficult to alter radically by the photographer)
They said "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)."
Can't distort a picture's meaning with a crop, can you?
John
-
I think we're in danger of over-analysing Reuter's thinking on this. They simply don't understand the nature of processing that takes a raw image from the sensor and creates a jpeg.
What's the difference between a photographer setting white balance, picture control (or equivalent) settings, colour space etc on the camera or in PP? Both might alter tone, contrast, colour and so on in the same way. One resulted from a decision taken before the shutter was pressed, one after. Is it more real to make that decision from a guess beforehand?
As everyone says, a raw image is closer to "reality" than a jpeg - but even that's not reality. Exposure settings alter the tone and feel of the image, shutter speed and DoF also alter the "reality". Filters alter the colour...
And IMHO anyone that thinks any photograph represents some objective reality just hasn't thought about it. Point of view, composition (what to include in the image and what to exclude), lens, context - a thousand subjective decisions the photographer makes alter the "reality" of the image.
Homing in on raw vs. jpeg suggests a serious lack of understanding by Reuters.
-
Just for clarity, ArsTechnica pretty much totally got it wrong, certainly as far as the headline is concerned. I don't actually think that Reuters have ever accepted actual raws. What Reuters have banned is JPEGs that have been created from raw images. E.g., by Photoshop. So presumably they will be checking metadata to see that the original image was created in-camera, and in cases of doubt can request the original in-camera JPEG.
-
So basically freelancers working for Reuters are back to shooting slides...
-
If you want to submit to Reuters, play be their rules. What's the issue here? If you want to shoot raw...then skip Reuters. Seems very clear and simple to me.
-
If you want to submit to Reuters, play be their rules. What's the issue here? If you want to shoot raw...then skip Reuters. Seems very clear and simple to me.
Difficult to argue with that logic. On the other hand (and it's not an argument :D ) photographers working for companies like this have had to submit to requests about how they capture and submit images for years and rarely if ever objected or got their way. Look at the Stock industry and how rolling over to the 'demands' of the big company worked out for the little guy. Oh well, maybe after shooting all day, MacDonalds will up the minimum wage to $15 so some photographers can continue to sell images at a buck a shot.
IF someone wanted to shoot raw and pass it off as a camera generated JPEG, it wouldn't be that hard to do.
-
IF someone wanted to shoot raw and pass it off as a camera generated JPEG, it wouldn't be that hard to do.
Probably not...but there is always people who think the rules are above them and try to circumvent the system. Life's like that.
While the lad who shot in raw is racing home to convert the shot to jpeg...the shmuck with the cell phone just snapped the same photo ( maybe not as technically as good as the raw shooter )...but he instantly submitted to Reuters and by the time the raw has been converted to jpeg...the shmuck has his pay electrically transferred into his checking account.
No one wants great shots that are old news...with the electronic age, news is instant...no time to perfect the raw image into a masterpiece.
-
I think we are looking at this the wrong way. This isn't really about the photographers or the photographs, but all about reputation and branding for Reuters. This rule basically allows them to market to other outlets as 100% authentic, so use our images instead of Getty. I doubt they will enforce the rule all that much, aside from possibly making examples of a photographer or two just to "show" they are enforcing it. It's all just smoke and mirrors.
-
I think it is funny as heck. Check out the king's new clothes... they're all jpeg!
What a hoot... we're all drowning in a world where critical thinking has been banned. Gotta laugh to keep from crying.
Rand
-
Just for clarity, ArsTechnica pretty much totally got it wrong, certainly as far as the headline is concerned. I don't actually think that Reuters have ever accepted actual raws. What Reuters have banned is JPEGs that have been created from raw images. E.g., by Photoshop. So presumably they will be checking metadata to see that the original image was created in-camera, and in cases of doubt can request the original in-camera JPEG.
I assume they don't know that the metadata can be altered. I can see where they're coming from, it just seems they haven't realised you can't stop people cheating if they really want to.
-
I assume they don't know that the metadata can be altered
And you don't even need to spend any time on it. Just copy/paste your modified file to a camera jpeg, and ship.
-
I assume they don't know that the metadata can be altered. I can see where they're coming from, it just seems they haven't realised you can't stop people cheating if they really want to.
I would think that they are looking at this from a quasi-legal perspective. They know you can't prevent cheating, but they are taking "all reasonable steps" to prevent it.
By the way, my view on this has long been that camera manufacturers should provide the ability to digitally sign images in-camera. That way you could have real assurances that (a) an image was as-shot, and (b) came from a specific camera. So sign both the image data and metadata.
-
I would think that they are looking at this from a quasi-legal perspective. They know you can't prevent cheating, but they are taking "all reasonable steps" to prevent it.
By the way, my view on this has long been that camera manufacturers should provide the ability to digitally sign images in-camera. That way you could have real assurances that (a) an image was as-shot, and (b) came from a specific camera. So sign both the image data and metadata.
I'm sure Nikon had a thing that would do this for forensic use, at least they did have at one time.
-
Just for clarity, ArsTechnica pretty much totally got it wrong, certainly as far as the headline is concerned. I don't actually think that Reuters have ever accepted actual raws. What Reuters have banned is JPEGs that have been created from raw images. E.g., by Photoshop.
Yes this is correct. I've shot for Reuters and they explicitly only wanted jpegs, but didn't have policy about how those jpegs were created. Now, it seems, they do. When you shoot for a wire service, there is a tremendous pressure to deliver the files almost instantly. I have a pretty quick setup for processing RAW files, but I would still feel the pressure while Lightroom chugged along ingesting files and processing jpegs.
A better workflow in terms of speed is in-camera jpegs + Photo Mechanic for captioning and sorting. This is what the Reuters editors encourage you to use, and it is much faster.
I think it's a mistake to read too much into the reality vs. raw argument. I don't know first hand, but I suspect, that freelancers where getting a little too comfortable with all the sliders in Lightroom and were delivering over-processed images with vignettes, heavy shadows and HRD-ish shadow recovery too frequently. The editors at Reuters are certainly aware that in-camera jpegs aren't a perfect rendition of reality, but this policy will probably make their lives a lot easier without costing too much in terms of image quality.
-
...
I think it's a mistake to read too much into the reality vs. raw argument. I don't know first hand, but I suspect, that freelancers where getting a little too comfortable with all the sliders in Lightroom and were delivering over-processed images with vignettes, heavy shadows and HRD-ish shadow recovery too frequently. The editors at Reuters are certainly aware that in-camera jpegs aren't a perfect rendition of reality, but this policy will probably make their lives a lot easier without costing too much in terms of image quality.
While in-camera JPEGs certainly are "developed raw files", they are developed by a (limited) set of generic algorithms, developed by some one independent of the photographer. Thus, they have no motivation to (willfully) alter the newsworthy content of an image, or the knowledge about what is newsworthy. They may well do things to sharpening and contrast and green hue/saturation that corresponds with how their study-groups preferred their raw files developed, but I think those things are less critical for a news agency than e.g. removing people from an image.
I agree that Reuters probably are doing this to make it "a little harder to cheat", and/or to ensure that those who "cheat" are really motivated and cannot possibly defend themselves if and when they get caught.
I believe that Lightroom makes a list of edits in its exported jpegs. It would be interesting if raw developers offered a legally/technically 99.x% believable signal chain. If you used your camera with signed raws, imported those raws into a raw developers and made some edits, the exported file could include some kind of "certificate" authenticating what it was and what was done. Perhaps this would be easier for camera developers to do (since they own the camera hardware). Then photo contests, news agencies and courtrooms could apply whatever regime they desire.
My understanding of courts is that an image has to be "an original" in order to be presented as evidence, and that it cannot be lossy compressed? If so, I find it amusing that the (quite heavy) processing done in (automatic, proprietary) raw development is of no interest. One might think that images presented in court should be processed by open-source raw development software so that the algorithms are free for anyone to find bugs and artifacts.
-h