No more RAW at Reuters - JPEG only !

[xpatUSA]

Encountered this post by Jim Hein on another site:

Apparently Reuters has determined that only JPEGs represent reality.

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...flect-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.

Hmmm . . must go and shoot a vehicle pile-up on a sunny day with my WB set to incandescent and every scene slider set to max . .

[Mike Buckley]

I'd like someone, especially Jim Hein, to show us where Reuters said "that basically only JPEGs represent reality." If they wrote or said that, I haven't seen it reported including in the piece accessed by the link provided in Hein's post. The same story was reported days ago by Petapixel and Reuters wasn't quoted in that piece to suggest any such thing.

[Shadowman]

I'd like someone, especially Jim Hein, to show us where Reuters said "that basically only JPEGs represent reality." If they wrote or said that, I haven't seen it reported including in the piece accessed by the link provided in Hein's post. The same story was reported days ago by Petapixel and Reuters wasn't quoted in that piece to suggest any such thing.

Nice link, commentors to the post only seemed to fuel the debate between what is a realistic image format. I guess more thorough information to the article would have been interviews with photojournalists.

[george013]

I'm afraid many people don't know what a RAW-file is, or not is. It's a representation of the digitilized values of the sensels, it's not yet a RGB raster image.
You don't proces a RAW-file. You proces a raster image created out off that RAW-file.
Strange story. Can't find it back on Reuters.

George

[Rob Ekins]

Hmmm . . must go and shoot a vehicle pile-up on a sunny day with my WB set to incandescent and every scene slider set to max . .

I didn't go down the rabbit hole that the comments section is/might be, but I am guessing that as a professional photographer if you shot your assignment with WB issues and sliders maxed out the phone would stop ringing pretty quickly.

[DanK]

I'd like someone, especially Jim Hein, to show us where Reuters said "that basically only JPEGs represent reality." If they wrote or said that, I haven't seen it reported including in the piece accessed by the link provided in Hein's post. The same story was reported days ago by Petapixel and Reuters wasn't quoted in that piece to suggest any such thing.

A number of the reports indicated that this was one of Reuters' two motives and provided quotes, although with somewhat different wording than "representing reality". For example, check out the ars technica story.

[george013]

A number of the reports indicated that this was one of Reuters' two motives and provided quotes, although with somewhat different wording than "representing reality". For example, check out the ars technica story.

The question arises if those reports reflect Reuters article. Difficult to say without seeing the origional post. But the link to arstechnica do make me think they didn't understand it.
However in that link there is another much more interesting link http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites...l%20report.pdf

George

[Thlayle]

The question arises if those reports reflect Reuters article. Difficult to say without seeing the origional post. But the link to arstechnica do make me think they didn't understand it.
However in that link there is another much more interesting link http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites...l%20report.pdf

George

I saw this news linked from The Verge, and their posted relied directly on information from PetaPixel (http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9...-ban-worldwide)

In their post, The Verge cites Reuters via PetaPixel as follows:

"As eyewitness accounts of events covered by dedicated and responsible journalists, Reuters Pictures must reflect reality," a Reuters spokesperson tells PetaPixel. "While we aim for photography of the highest aesthetic quality, our goal is not to artistically interpret the news."

Specifically, Reuters told free lance photographers that they did not want anymore submissions that were derived from Raw or CR2 files and that they want JPEG files that have been "minimally processed."

So I think it's clear, Reuters is concerned about the reliability of the photos they use for news purposes. Banning RAW seems drastic but there also seems to be a basis for it . The Verge cites the fact that "World Press Photo disqualified 20 percent of entries in the penultimate round of its 2015 awards, for instance, after comparing submissions to the unmodified RAW files. "

The other part of the rationale that Reuters apparently offered made less sense: they also said "speed is very important to us," indicated they didn't want their photographers to get bogged down in time-consuming, labor-intensive processing. I thought deadlines were just that: DEADlines.

[Manfred M]

I know a couple of ex-Newpaper photographers who would totally agree with that as they are primarily jpeg only photographers. For that type of business, speed is of the essence, so SOOC and out onto the website or print version. PP will simply slow down the process.

One doesn't have the time to spend in the digital darkroom, when the photo editor wants to see all of your image NOW!

[Mike Buckley]

Reuters said they are requiring their freelance photographers to submit images only made from JPEGs for the purpose of increasing chances that the photos will "reflect reality." Jim Hein wrote and Ted agreed with him that they said that "basically only JPEGs represent reality." For me, there is a world of difference between those two statements. Reuters did not make the latter statement, at least not that I have seen nor what has been displayed so far in this thread.

This is my last comment on that aspect of this subject.

[george013]

I saw this news linked from The Verge, and their posted relied directly on information from PetaPixel (http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9...-ban-worldwide)

In their post, The Verge cites Reuters via PetaPixel as follows:

"As eyewitness accounts of events covered by dedicated and responsible journalists, Reuters Pictures must reflect reality," a Reuters spokesperson tells PetaPixel. "While we aim for photography of the highest aesthetic quality, our goal is not to artistically interpret the news."

Specifically, Reuters told free lance photographers that they did not want anymore submissions that were derived from Raw or CR2 files and that they want JPEG files that have been "minimally processed."

So I think it's clear, Reuters is concerned about the reliability of the photos they use for news purposes. Banning RAW seems drastic but there also seems to be a basis for it . The Verge cites the fact that "World Press Photo disqualified 20 percent of entries in the penultimate round of its 2015 awards, for instance, after comparing submissions to the unmodified RAW files. "

The other part of the rationale that Reuters apparently offered made less sense: they also said "speed is very important to us," indicated they didn't want their photographers to get bogged down in time-consuming, labor-intensive processing. I thought deadlines were just that: DEADlines.

Still I would like to see the source.

There is a difference when your quote

Specifically, Reuters told free lance photographers that they did not want anymore submissions that were derived from Raw or CR2 files and that they want JPEG files that have been "minimally processed."

and what I read in that article

Reuters, the news and photography agency, has issued an outright ban on photographs captured and submitted in RAW format. Instead, freelance contributors must now only submit photos that were processed and stored as JPEG inside the camera.

That World Press article involves more and is really worth to read complete.

George

[Thlayle]

I know a couple of ex-Newpaper photographers who would totally agree with that as they are primarily jpeg only photographers. For that type of business, speed is of the essence, so SOOC and out onto the website or print version. PP will simply slow down the process.

One doesn't have the time to spend in the digital darkroom, when the photo editor wants to see all of your image NOW!

Hi Manfred,

For sure. I just wondered at the idea that Reuters would address that issue since it should be more or less 'self regulating' -- at least just in the area of speed and meeting deadlines.

[William W]

. . . I think it's clear, Reuters is concerned about the reliability of the photos they use for news purposes. Banning RAW seems drastic but there also seems to be a basis for it .

I agree Rueters is concerned, especially about the images from stringers and there's more from that source now, than before.

I don't agree that is a 'drastic' move: it's been telegraphed for a while.

Reutres has always had restrictions on what the photographer (staff or stringer) could do to any image in Post Production:

“Image-Editing Software

Below is the statement on Adobe Photoshop taken from the Reuters code of conduct:

"Photoshop is a highly sophisticated image manipulation program. We use only a tiny part of its potential capability to format our pictures, crop and size them and balance the tone and color. For us it is a presentational tool.

The rules are: no additions or deletions, no misleading the viewer by manipulation of the tonal and color balance to disguise elements of an image or to change the context."

Materially altering a picture in Photoshop or any other image-editing software will lead to dismissal.

Modern professional cameras produce images straight from the camera of such high quality that the need for adjustments in image-editing software is much less than in the past. Photographers and editors should strive to use as little post-processing as possible while adhering to our standards of image quality. All photographers should understand the limitations of their laptop screens and their working environments.

To avoid any ambiguity, only the processes stated below may be used by the groups mentioned.
If a photographer would like more than the below adjustments to their pictures, they should make a request to the Global Pictures Desk or the Berlin, Toronto, Paris, or London Regional Picture Desks.


Photographers
Downsize photos on their longest side to 3500 pixels, when necessary.
Do minor brightness and contrast adjustments in Levels, using only the extreme left and right sliders without clipping or removing detail from highlight and shadow areas.
Crop, providing the crop does not remove information with journalistic value.
Use the crop tool to straighten a slightly slanted horizon, but not add a tilt to an otherwise level photo or flip a picture upside down or left to right.
Minor use of Levels and Curves to fix the color balance of a photo to its natural state.



Editors in the Berlin Desk, London Desk, Paris Desk, Toronto Desk and Global Pictures Desk and direct injectors working in controlled conditions on calibrated, high quality screens

Use all of the above processes listed above in the photographer section.
Use the Levels and Curves tools.
Use the Burn tool.
Use the Shadow Highlights tool.
The Eye Dropper may only be used on a neutral gray area to set color.
Use the Saturation tool.
Cloning or Healing Tools may only be used for sensor dust removal.

In rare and exceptional cases where an important photo has been improperly exposed, make significant adjustments using a variety of tools to “rescue” a photo that would otherwise be unsuitable for publication”

REF: Reuters Handbook of Journalism; Operations, Photos; 2.6.1. & 2.6.2 (last modified 13:58, 27 February 2015)

WW

Copyright Text is referenced and republished under Fair Usage – Educational.

[Thlayle]

Still I would like to see the source.

There is a difference when your quote
and what I read in that article


That World Press article involves more and is really worth to read complete.

George

Very good, points, George.

I have looked but not found any statements directly from Reuters on this (obviously I'm not on their list of free lancers; ). I have even contacted them directly myself -- will let you know if I hear anything. I'm thinking by now, or very soon at least, they will issue a press release on this topic.

The comment I cited about Reuters telling free lance photographers "that they did not want anymore submissions that were derived from Raw or CR2 files and that they want JPEG files that have been "minimally processed" came from a block quote pull-out at The Verge. By convention, that should mean they are quoting directly from Reuters.

To me it seems obvious, but admittedly speculative: Reuters is lacking confidence in the reliability of some of the photos they are getting and they are aiming at Raw files to get to the root of that problem. Not that I think they reject Raw altogether as valid or that I personally see any issues with it: it just seems they see Raw files are centrally involved in what they see as their concerns.

[Thlayle]

I agree Rueters is concerned, especially about the images from stringers and there's more from that source now, than before.

I don't agree that is a 'drastic' move: it's been telegraphed for a while.

Reutres has always had restrictions on what the photographer (staff or stringer) could do to any image in Post Production:




REF: Reuters Handbook of Journalism; Operations, Photos; 2.6.1. & 2.6.2 (last modified 13:58, 27 February 2015)

WW

Copyright Text is referenced and republished under Fair Usage – Educational.

Thanks, William: very good information & insightful to the topic at hand. I still find it interesting that with those detailed guidelines, they are seeing it worthwhile, even necessary, to go that further step in respect to images derived from Raw files.

-Randy

[William W]

. . . I still find it interesting that with those detailed guidelines, they are seeing it worthwhile, even necessary, to go that further step in respect to images derived from Raw files. . .

Randy,

I expect that one rationale might be that is an easy way for Reuters to test or to ensure credibility of the images from their Stringers: simply asking the Stringer to present the card straight out of the camera.

Though EXIF and Time/Date camera encoded data can be modified, it is not be an easy task or quick task to modify that data from a series of JPEG images which are all shot in the same situation.

There was a previous thread here at CiC where I mentioned that Judges at Photography Competitions (where there was a restriction on the Post Production which could used) have asked for exactly that - the card straight out of the camera to assure the bona fide of the image that they were judging.

Having been on both sides of the fence (Judging more often recently but also having submitted several digital News Images in the past 10 years), I think that it is it is a very good practice to capture "raw + JPEG (L)", I have done exactly that since we cut over to Digital in 2004 and even for my personal photos, it's just a good habit for me and for other reasons too, for example, for speed.

Considering the reliance more on Stringers now, than before, I see it as also a sort of back to front quality assurance test: as Rob Ekins commented above (Post #5) - if one is 'professional' and can't present quality images SOOC then the phone doesn't ring very often.

*

With film, the (News) credibility of images was easier to establish. We would submit the negative directly or the neg was scanned and then sent "down the line" and later the neg had to be filed and had to be available for scrutiny and in some cases: legal evidence, (here, negatives required filing for seven years).

It's only been since digital medium, that this 'issue' of the Photographer's ability easily manipulate the News has become 'an issue'.

This 'issue' is now exacerbated to a critical level, (and not just for Reuters), since most News Houses have depleted or have severely cut back on Staff Photographers and are relying on (professional) Stringers and in many cases (of smaller News Houses) relying on Amateur's submissions.

WW

[george013]

@William,

I've looked in the handbook, there's a reference in the World Press paper.
Not only PP is controled, also some camera settings. Not allowed in-camera sharpening and in-camera saturation styles. In PP sharpening is allowed up to 300%. I don't have PS, I don't know what it means, but it's allowed. Can you tell me what the idea is of this?

George

[William W]

By the way and sort of related:

. . . I think that it is it is a very good practice to capture "raw + JPEG (L)", I have done exactly that since we cut over to Digital in 2004 and even for my personal photos, it's just a good habit for me and for other reasons too, for example, for speed. . .

If any digital image or video I have made could possibly be required later for scrutiny or as evidence – I copy and keep the entire shooting scenario - raw + JPEG(L) on hard drive and second ‘file copy’ on DVD.

Those digital files have only been used twice – and not for any news submission which I have made.

The first case was as evidence to uphold a Protest of an Athlete’s Disqualification “Starting before the Starting Signal”. (in this case the card was still in the camera), that was around 2006 and was a State Championship Meet.

The second and more recent case was where my DVDs were used at a Referee Competency Hearing following a Formal Compliant in respect of the Referee's bias/incompetency regarding one particular player who was repeated penalized and finally red-carded in a Grade Football Final Match. Because my technique at Field Sports is to usually shoot in 3 frame bursts and because the JPEG Files show clearly time & date and because I had no relationship to the Football Club or the Referee; the DVD copies of all the image files of the game provided credible evidence of what exactly happened at each incident which the Club cited.

WW

[William W]

@William, I've looked in the handbook, there's a reference in the World Press paper. Not only PP is controled, also some camera settings. Not allowed in-camera sharpening and in-camera saturation styles. In PP sharpening is allowed up to 300%. I don't have PS, I don't know what it means, but it's allowed. Can you tell me what the idea is of this?

George,

That’s common for News Houses not to allow any in-camera JPEG processing – i.e. to require all in-camera processing to be set to ‘neutral’ – for Canon DSLR’s that the “Picture Style” Settings.

Regarding Post Production Sharpening - all JPEGS require some sharpening to make them “crisp”.

You might have noted that previously to show images as close as possible to the scene as it was, I’ve posted images and labelled them something like: “JPEG SOOC, two stage sharpening and resized for in line viewing”

Any JPEG SOOC file submitted by me as 'publication ready' would usually use a two stage sharpening, typically these settings in PS:

The first is: about 250% @ radius 0.2~0.6 @ Threshold 0
The second is: about 80% @ radius 5.6 @ threshold 12~18

Here is an example of a bleary eyed Photographer captured by his enthusiastic second shooter.

Hopefully the inline presentation is sufficient to show the difference which is easily apparent if viewing the full resolution JPEG file – look using the light box and look at the eye for the best comparison/contrast.

The first is the JPEG SOOC just resized and the second is two stage sharpening then resized




WW

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2015

[george013]

@William,

Thanks.
I still wonder why. Is it for PP at newspapers is done by the editorial staff and not by the photographer?

George