Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos

[Mario]

See the info on the photools.com Facebook page or here

[sinus]

See the info on the photools.com Facebook page or here

Sorry, they are idiots.
And to excuse this with speed is ridiculous (when time is necessary, then photographers can shoot anyway in jpg).

[Menace]

I can also manipulate jpgs (Uses Tele, PS, ...). Strange behaviour.

[RalfC]

And to excuse this with speed is ridiculous (when time is necessary, then photographers can shoot anyway in jpg).

OK, I am not a professional photographer but I think that most press photographers are using JPEG anyway (if they want to sell quickly). So for most that would not be a change and from speed/exclusive rights point of view that surely makes sense.

You need to remember that the first agency offering photos from a news event will be selling (others might not sell anymore although the photos are paid). It is all about making money...

I can also manipulate jpgs (Uses Tele, PS, ...). Strange behaviour.

That is true but the limits are coming earlier and might get quicker visible, showing that the image was manipulated (to dramatize a certain aspect?).

I also remember that Reuters had to withdraw a photo from Beirut because the sky / smoke in the sky had been edited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy

Surely, they want to avoid similar episodes as they harm the credibility.

Regards,
Ralf

[sinus]

And to excuse this with speed is ridiculous (when time is necessary, then photographers can shoot anyway in jpg).

OK, I am not a professional photographer but I think that most press photographers are using JPEG anyway (if they want to sell quickly). So for most that would not be a change and from speed/exclusive rights point of view that surely makes sense.

You need to remember that the first agency offering photos from a news event will be selling (others might not sell anymore although the photos are paid). It is all about making money...

Regards,
Ralf

Yep, Ralf, you are right. But quite a lot does also shoot in Raw (or both).
And a press photograhper does usually exactly know, if a shooting is very urgent or not. If yes, then he will use jpg anyway, but far not all images are that urgent, that the time is not enough using and edition raws.

And btw, a photographer, specialy in the press industrie, is not a long time press photographer, is  not long on this business, if he/she is too slow.
He/She knows exactly, what when to do. Well, usually.

[Erik]

Is it really that easy for them to enforce this?  Couldn't a photographer just manipulate metadata (if even necessary) to make a processed JPG (from a RAW file) look like it was straight from the camera?  Heck, we're here with IMatch, where we could just use versioning, scripts, ExifTool, etc. to automate that metadata transfer. 

Perhaps the reality isn't that easy, but then I'm not sure how thorough Reuters can be.  It might just come down to their volume.

Regardless, this type of prejudice seems akin to some of the other pointless prejudice's out there.  It's as if only RAW files can be modified.  Heck, I think it would be almost better to require RAW files because then you could almost guarantee the files haven't been edited.  But, of course that would put the burden of post-processing on Reuters.

[RalfC]

Let's not forget that Reuters is a news agency. Being first to report/cover an event (with reliable sources) is surely one for their primary business targets and every second might be worth money...
A workflow requiring editing on a computer, slows the whole process down: RAWs have a bigger size than JPGs (making the download time to the computer bigger) and every editing step requires some time.

But quite a lot does also shoot in Raw (or both).

Reuters has nothing against shooting both. They just want to have the JPEGs [quickly and with some certainty that the image recorded the scene without manipulation].

The photographer then still can try to sell a (background / more profound) story using the RAWs, although the photographer might need to sell such a story via different channels.

Regards,
Ralf

What also crossed my mind: in the time of cameras with WLAN, i.e direct upload possibility to a server, Reuters might not be willing to handle all the different RAW-formats (and maintain converters for those). Instead insisting on a generally accepted standard (which every camera can deliver), makes sense to me.

[sinus]

What also crossed my mind: in the time of cameras with WLAN, i.e direct upload possibility to a server, Reuters might not be willing to handle all the different RAW-formats (and maintain converters for those). Instead insisting on a generally accepted standard (which every camera can deliver), makes sense to me.

Professionaly will surely NOT send raws to Reuters, simply jpgs, so Reuters has nothing to do with raws.

But Reuters want now, that these jpgs are DIRECTLY out of the cam, not edited from original RAWs. And this, my point of view, is ridiculous. As I said, this is my view and if I know as a professional, that an event is urgent, then I will surely take pics in RAW and JPG and send Reuters the jpgs.

But now Reuters does demand, that the pic MUST be taken original as jpg., and for me this is a bad thing.

They can simply say, we want the pics in 5 minutes or whatever, and if a photographer cannot deliver in this time, because he does shooting only in raws, then this photographer is out of business with Reuters.
OK, that would make sense for me.

But anyway, it is like it is and I do not work with Reuters (not more) 

[Jingo]

Professionaly will surely NOT send raws to Reuters, simply jpgs, so Reuters has nothing to do with raws.

But Reuters want now, that these jpgs are DIRECTLY out of the cam, not edited from original RAWs. And this, my point of view, is ridiculous. As I said, this is my view and if I know as a professional, that an event is urgent, then I will surely take pics in RAW and JPG and send Reuters the jpgs.

But now Reuters does demand, that the pic MUST be taken original as jpg., and for me this is a bad thing.

They can simply say, we want the pics in 5 minutes or whatever, and if a photographer cannot deliver in this time, because he does shooting only in raws, then this photographer is out of business with Reuters.
OK, that would make sense for me.

But anyway, it is like it is and I do not work with Reuters (not more) 

With RAW+JPG shooting in most cameras, I don't see that this is such a big deal.  Cameras and editing software are getting so much better - that most would be hard pressed to know the difference between processed photos from RAW vs JPG... so, if you are shooting something for Reuters, just set to JPG+RAW and submit the JPG's... then you still have the RAW files for your own post processing and other submission options.  Since it is so easy to maniuplate an image - this is their step toward authenticity.