Reuters vs RAW?

[Meister]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ssions-because-they-don-t-reflect-reality.htm

In short Reuters wants their protogs to only send "unaltered jepgs" to "reflect reality".

Sounds like someone there doesn't know how image processing works.

 

[Laird Knox]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ssions-because-they-don-t-reflect-reality.htm

In short Reuters wants their protogs to only send "unaltered jepgs" to "reflect reality".

Sounds like someone there doesn't know how image processing works.

It sounds like a mashup of three different issues. JPEGs are fine for print and web media so there really is no need for the added size of RAW files. RAW files require extra processing that shouldn't be needed by the outlet. Editorial photographs shouldn't be edited.

Three reasonable issues but when mashed up into one item they don't make any sense.

Then there is this gem:

Also, once a JPEG image file is saved, everything is locked and can no longer be edited, but some folks have found ways to do it, so Reuters is not yet on a home run.

I can't believe that after all these years I've missed the write protect tab on JPEG files.

 

[Meister]

Editorial photographs shouldn't be edited.

But jpegs are always edited.
There is no such thing as an unedited jpeg.
If they wanted the most unedited, 'real' image then they would want raws.

 

[Designer Dale]

I agree with Meister. If the camera folks submit RAW files then the photo editor in chief would be able to see the original settings and "reprocess" if deemed necessary. With all the jpeg settings to choose from in any dslr, the camera edits the image before it's saved.

RAW editing in journalistic photography to pull up shadow detail, correct exposure and such is of no concern to me as a media consumer. It's Photoshop enhancement that I don't agree with. Especially in advertising.

Dale

 

[Laird Knox]

As I said they seem to be combining three ideas into one. The three separate ideas have merit but when mashed together it is nonsense.

 

[Meister]

I agree with Meister. If the camera folks submit RAW files then the photo editor in chief would be able to see the original settings and "reprocess" if deemed necessary.

But only the photographer knows how the scene looked like and can process accordingly. Also framing and composure are part of what is shown in the photo.

It does make sense that they only want jpegs sent in for speed and convenience sake, but to demand in-camera processed jpegs only is plain stupid.

 

[Laird Knox]

I never said it wasn't stupid.

In fact I think the quote about JPEGs being uneditable was pretty stupid. Because magic!

 

[swordio777]

But jpegs are always edited.
There is no such thing as an unedited jpeg.
If they wanted the most unedited, 'real' image then they would want raws.

Yes and no, because raws aren't images.

You're right though, the photographer was there and the editor wasn't, so the editor is certainly in no position to tell the photographer what looks most realistic.

It certainly makes sense that they'd only want JPGs, but not for the reasons outlined in the article. I don't think the journalist understands what they're talking about.

 

[ChrisA]

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/1...ssions-because-they-don-t-reflect-reality.htm

In short Reuters wants their protogs to only send "unaltered jepgs" to "reflect reality".

Sounds like someone there doesn't know how image processing works.

They are simply asking for "unaltered jpg" which to me means that after you make the JPG you don't edit it any more. Of course you need to alter the RAW image to make the JPG but that's different and is very much like the old negative to print process.

Creating a print from a negative requires the photographer to make some decisions about how to render the dark and light parts and what contrast to use (photo paper comes in a range on contrasts and you always have to pick one.) With RAW to JPG you do about the same things. Of course you can always let your camera create the JPG and it will make the decisions for you but with your hints -- You have to set the camera to "vivid" or "portrait" or "normal" or whatever.

While their requirement is technically vague at best, I think we all know what they want. Perhaps even the vagueness is intentional to give the photographer so room to work.