Reuters kills raw submissions and photos created from raw. Accepts JPEG ONLY
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 640 Image Height 341 Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2706324
>and photos created from raw
but what if you create a jpeg from raw?
didn't think of that one, did you?
faggot
checkmate atheists
>>2706324
For fuck's sake, OP. At least post a damn link so everybody knows what you're talking about.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9759620/reuters-raw-photos-ban-worldwide
The thing that pisses me off isn't that they're doing this. It's that this (a) didn't create the problem they are trying to solve, and (b) this won't fix the problem.
Sure, a raw file will give you more latitude in editing, but not for fucking changing an entire photo to something else. If somebody wants to drastically alter a photo---add an element, remove an element, etc.---then they'll still do it with a high res jpg. Reuters has created this bizarre boogie man with raw file formats that doesn't exist.
>>2706330
Not allowed. Shot in raw ONLY
>>2706331
>http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9759620/reuters-raw-photos-ban-worldwide
>In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files.
What the fucking fuck? CR2 is a fucking type of RAW file.
Reuters' problem is that they've clearly got non-photographers coming up with their photography standards.
While we're at it, let's band photographs shot with telephoto lenses. It's just distorting reality. We don't want the viewer to think that the photographer was up there in the action when he was really 100 yards away with a 500mm lens. From now on, let's require that all photos be shot with 50mm or wider. If I"m looking at a war photograph, I want to to that the photographer was fucking right there in the fucking action.
How is this going to prevent photographers from altering their pics?
>Today Reuters announced a ban on images shot with lenses faster than f/3.5. "A wider aperture blurs a bigger part of the image. As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety. Excessively blurred backgrounds allow a photographer to select which elements from reality to include in the photo, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism", Reuters spokeperson said.
>>2706345
Because RAAAAW!
>>2706345
>How is this going to prevent photographers from altering their pics?
It isn't. The press release was probably written by their human resources department. At least it's the kind of cock-eyed, shit-for-brained notion that HR departments everywhere are famous for coming up with
>Today Reuters announced a ban on images shot above ISO 800. "A high ISO allows the photographer to capture an unnatural amount of light. As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety. Excessively high ISO allows a photographer to select which elements from reality to include in the photo, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism", Reuters spokeperson said.
>Today Reuters announced that all photographers are now required to use single-use, Kodak FunSaver cameras, with the film developed at a local Walgreens, CVS, or Rite Aid on 4x6 paper with a matte finish and a white border. "As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety.Digital photography allows a photographer to alter the photograph digitally, and that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism. With the film developed by a local 16-year-old part time drugstore worker, we have greater assurance of truth,' Reuters spokesperson said.
>>2706339
Brilliant suggestion.
If it's not shot at 35mm (135) or wider, the photo should be rejected desu. As things have to be SOOC filmfags are BTFO. Get a Leica M9/M(240) or go home fags. HAHAHAHAHA
>>2706363
Don't rope their HR department into it. It's clearly some new middle manager who's trying to improve productivity.
>>2706324
Next step is to allow only people who shoots in PRO mode.
Are they implying you can't alter, edit, or counterfeit jaypeggs? Because I alter, edit, and counterfeit jaypeggs all the fucking time idgaf.
>MFW I went through the trouble of experimenting how to make a good image with my camera's jpeg engine
>>2706377
>I'm a massive faggot!
Translated by Bing!
>>2706401
Not only that, it's some middle manager who has sped-read the Wikipedia article on digital photograph and is trying to use some new buzzwords he learned.
>>2706436
>trying to improve perfection
>>2706446
what's wrong with f/4?
>>2706324
Ken Rockwell is crying tears of joy
>>2706752
omfg my sides
>>2706746
>obviously not a photojournalist
>>2706339
Telephoto compression can distort reality.
This picture would not look so dramatic if it was taken with a 50mm.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 760 Image Height 487 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2013:12:24 23:36:43 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 450 Image Height 288
"no cropping" - reuters
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make RICOH IMAGING COMPANY, LTD. Camera Model PENTAX K-3 Camera Software darktable 1.4 Photographer Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 75 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Image Created 2015:11:20 23:14:17 Exposure Time 1/200 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 6400 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 50.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 480 Image Height 720 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Low Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Close View
>>2706345
>How is this going to prevent photographers from altering their pics?
Less easy to selectively darken/brighten parts of the image to make elements invisible.
And with sharpening and white balance already applied it's harder to add elements with the exact same sharpening and white balance.
It might also be easier to detect alterations with special software.
I did see some fucking hideous as fuck HDR going on with the front page pic of the Financial Times recently.
I couldn't believe it. It was just so damn bad.
>Today Reuters announced a ban on composition. As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety. Selecting which elements to include in a photograph allows a photographer to select which elements from reality to include in the photo, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism", Reuters spokeperson said.
>>2706815
what? I'm not sure what you're implying here, but to me bokehwhoring is pretty rare in photojournalism. Well, at least when it matters.
>>2707132
make me keke
>>2706850
>It might also be easier to detect alterations with special software.
This is the reason. The major camera manufacturers embed checksums and stuff into the EXIF data that makes it very hard to modify an image without detection by their special and very expensive software. This is to target the forensic market but I think all the cameras do it by default, so it seems likely reuters will be using that.
>>2706375
I ugly laughed at this full throttle
good job
>>2708266
Nope. It's a combination of stupidity and workforce work flow optimization.
What you're talking about exists, but is tripped by *any* adjustment, even just bumping up the brightness by 1/10000 of a stop (which is allowed by Reuters).
>Today Reuters announced a ban on images shot with cameras with a Field of View less than 270 degrees. "A narrower field of view distorts the image and enable photographers to selectively show and omit subjects, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism. Therefore submitted images must be made with a gopro action cam inside a fish bowl and be submitted as a 8 megapixel .gif."
>1966
>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 film slides. If you want to shoot film that’s fine, just take Polaroids at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally Polaroids, with minimal processing (cropping).
>>2706458
do you even play with the highlights and shadows options in your camera bro
First they gut Nat Geo and now this...wtf?!
>>2710033
Literally this, perfect comparison, anon.
just read today that to send something to World Press Photo, you need now to send the submission, and 6 extra photos: the 3 previous ones to your submission, and the 3 ones that were taken after submission.
i guess they want truth on its entirety?
>>2710038
>First they gut Nat Geo
wot
>>2710040
What if the three previous photos were snapshits or dick pics? I guess only pro togs take 7 photos and use that pro burst mode, right?
>>2706324
so why not ask the raw?
that's harder to fake.
>>2706455
probably came from ken rockwell's website.
>>2710041
rupert murdoch bought Nat Geo and immediately laid-off 10% of the company, particularly the creative directors, reporters, and editors
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 420 Image Height 280
>less work for me
>no bullshitting with post-processing
Why should I hate?
Don't some cameras have built in filters and functions? You can still make ugly HDRs and other heavily edited shit straight from your camera's JPEG engine.
>>2706855
did it trigger you?
>>2706324
Does not matter much. Newspapers are fast information, not fine print magazines. Nobody with the skills to take a good picture with any camera will care about this, they already pick their formats based on needs and what saves more time.
>>2706324
Meh, JPEG is just fine for 99.9% of shots especially press to print or web. I would even say shooting the lowest quality jpeg is fine and speeds up the process. That doesn't mean the photog can't shoot RAW+JPEG just in case he gets a good shot.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 500 Image Height 278
>>2711853
The problem with this is that most SOOC jpegs tend to have sharpening, noise reduction, and lens corrections applied in camera, meaning they aren't even an accurate representation of the image as it was actually taken
>>2711926
>reuters before and after SOOC noise reduction
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 715 Image Height 420
Oh, no! Whatever will I do with my 500Gb of BlackLivesMatter protest photos now?
>-Every NEET in America
>>2706346
But now everyone will see the thousands of 20 year old men behind that family in the Syrian refugee line.
>>2711926
>meaning they aren't even an accurate representation of the image as it was actually taken
Real life doesn't need sharpening, noise reduction or lens corrections, bruh. All of those are distortions of reality and ought to be removed.
>>2711982
I do believe that is the argument he was making.
>>2711926
your po-mo makes me yawn
>>2706324
Well, nothing changes for sony users
>2015
>they're STILL shooting digital
>>2711935
Underrated post.
I've been shooting JPG exclusively for years. Only time I've deviated in 3 years has been for senior portrait sessions (where I knew I would edit heavily) and when requested by a Wedding photog I was 2nd shooting for.
Just because all of you fucks can't take the photo correctly in camera and need to fix your exposure mistakes in post doesn't mean JPG is bad.
learn 2 photo /p/
>>2713096
>I've been shooting JPG exclusively for years.
>learn 2 photo /p/
the irony. i love it.
>>2713104
fite me irl
>>2713115
Nah, no point. but I'd be happy to walk you through the ridiculous usefulness of raw at your convenience. It's for more than just "fixing" bad photos.
>>2713221
Camera records raw image data on sensor
Camera copies raw image data to internal memory
Camera's internal microprocessor creates jpg from raw data.
Camera also applies some proprietary noise reduction, knowing current sensor conditions and lens/dust information.
If the camera already processed the image from raw, why would I waste my time and hard drive space to do it.
>>2713300
you stupid trolls with your stupidity confuse the fuck out of newbs that browse this board, rendering it literally useless. dont be a prick, stop the nonsense anon. go to /tv/ and banepost if you are in the mood for posting bullshit.
>>2713304
calm down froooooo
>>2713300
So the camera does all your work for you :^)
>>2713304
Not trolling. Noobs should do what they want. Here's one of my recent JPGs. If you want more, let me know and I'll resize some more.
Lets get this shit started
>The city of Jewfro
BASED ROCKWELL BLOWS HIM OUT AGAIN
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties:
>>2706375
>ethics of journalism
the irony...
>>2713563
That looks like shit anon.
ITT: People who don't know recent, high-end Canon, Nikon, and Sony DSLRs insert cryptographic signature and checksum into JPEG files at the point of capture, allowing agencies to verify if the JPEGs have been modified in any way after capture
>>2713300
Why would you keep negatives when you can just scan the 4x6" prints?
>>2713563
dude, do you take pride on the photography you do? or is it just a quick buck/free pass/free booze card?
>>2713681
I take pride in capturing the image in camera, then being able to publish it within minutes without any correction needed.
One of the things I enjoy most is looking at the image through the viewfinder and having it come out exactly as I saw it in my head. No "Oh, let me just bring the shadows up, get rid of some of those highlights, bump contrast." None of that. I know my camera, react to the scene, and publish.
>>2713636
Yeah, the 35 I had when I took that was kind of bad with direct light.
Here's another one without direct light.
>>2714246
This is awful
The concept of the photo is just as stupid as the singer
Light is not good either, but that I won't blame on you
More dof than it should have
>>2713563
Don't blame the camera, it's not the direct light or something, this is just shit
also, the focus is on the amplifier
But that's ok, none of this is your fault, since your camera does all the work for you, right?
>>2714243
>without any correction needed
that's why your photos are shit and you are pretentious as fuck: because eventhough your photos are shit, you think they're awesome, and don't try any harder to do better
>stay pleb
>>2714600
>focus is on the amplifier
Focus is on the bassist's face.
Let's see some of your photos, bra.
>>2713571
This guy visited a camera store, which then proceeded to shut down shortly after
>>2706850
but if there's any doubt over a photo's authenticity you can just hand over the raw file itself
>>2714246
that show looks lame af
>>2714683
hes right tho. the bassist's face is a little blurry and unfocused
>>2706324
ken rockwell approves
>take photo in RAW
>process
>take screenshot of photo and give to reuters
they'll never know
>>2706364
>Today Reuters announced a ban on images that were composed. "Composition allows a photographer to select which elements from reality to include in a photo, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism," Reuters spokesperson said.
>>2714683
>bra
please stop
>>2706324
Meh, most press have been doing that for ages because of conveniense and transfer speed. Press photographers have been shooting raw+jpg for ages too when it's and assignment they actually care about. Nothing new here, move along.
>>2714246
>that crowd
fucking soft cunts
>>2713638
So what you're saying is there is already a solution to the problem they're trying to solve, dodgy photojournalism. Everyone has to submit a signed raw and with their ethically edited jpegs. Then the editor looks at them side by side to verify they weren't shooped. And since photographers are going to edit the jpegs that come out of the camera still the checksum and signature will be meaningless, unless submitted along with the unedited jpeg, which is fucking pointless because they could do the same thing with the raw file.
