Reuters Issues Worldwide Ban On RAW Photos

[michalrz]

How can they know a jpg comes from a raw file? I imagine if there is any info that gets stored into the jpg there is probably a way to strip it out, or just take a screen shot and paste into a program and resave it. (hard to do with high res images I guess unless you have a super high res monitor)

Also you can still do some adjustments on jpg like brightness/contrast anyway.

A RAW image is unprocessed so it contains camera-specific artifacts. If you dig into the paperclips photo I posted, there are areas where the 'mosaic' artifact is visible. It looks like a maze of pixels. The JPEG will not have that - it will be blurred out as unnecessary/erroneous detail.

Really? What DSLRs (with interchangeable lenses) lack RAW support? Only my P/S cameras lack Raw support.

Pretty sure that PJ has always had far stricter standards than everyone else. That said, I'd think that Saturation, contrast and even dialing back highlights would be allowed. Of course the best Press togs probably nail most of their shots.

Gonna hae to check out this RAW Therapee. Thanks for the heads up.

You got me about the specific models. The latest I can recall was a mirrorless camera with changeable lenses and a full frame CMOS sensor. Quite the beast specs-wise in a compact package, but I remember tossing it aside due to lack of RAW. For the life of me I can't find it right now in my bookmarks. So you might as well have me on this one.

For press photography, in some scenarios, I'd agree that the 'rate of fire' with JPEG is vastly more important than maintaining minute details but bogging down the camera during saving, especially if it's a huge sensor.

But for landscapes, macro or other staged/prepared shots I would vote RAW.

BTW. I've been shooting solely in full manual mode for like 8 years. In the case of my FZ30, I had my aperture ring under my index finger and a timing ring under my thumb. It quickly became second nature, to the point I was bragging to friends how I can tell the current dialed-in settings based solely on how much I turned the wheels. I would then show the camera to my friend, stated the aperture and exposure time (without looking at the displays) and I was spot on 9/10. For metering I choose 'center spot' and then pan to my desired frame. Every automatic metering I've ever used had a tendency to over-expose and this was annoying in low-light scenarios, like a forest at sunset.

With my paperclips example, compare - for example - RAW went towards aquamarine while JPEG is simply green. Also, luminescence noise is present in RAW, while JPEG is blurred out. Thing is, with RAW, you get to choose the _amount_ of luminescence noise.

 

[michalrz]

Oh, and I always use a 2-second timer to avoid camera shake when pressing down on the shutter.

Oh, and about auto metering, I had an interesting deal happen at the local cemetary.

Of all the photos I had taken that day, all of them were perfectly adjusted by the internal computer. But four shots... were heavily overexposed. What's special about those four photos is... (spooky music) they were taken with a 10 second timer with the camera laying on top of a tombstone as a tripod substitute :O

 

[nilepez]

A RAW image is unprocessed so it contains camera-specific artifacts. If you dig into the paperclips photo I posted, there are areas where the 'mosaic' artifact is visible. It looks like a maze of pixels. The JPEG will not have that - it will be blurred out as unnecessary/erroneous detail.

I only looked at what was in the post. I didn't attempt to pixel peep, because from a press picture, that'd be irrelevant. The image in the post is of higher quality than most newspaper pics. I've got a friend who often posts stuff on FB and occasionally it ends up in the paper, and it always looks worse in print (though the paper was neer known for it's quality print)

You got me about the specific models. The latest I can recall was a mirrorless camera with changeable lenses and a full frame CMOS sensor. Quite the beast specs-wise in a compact package, but I remember tossing it aside due to lack of RAW. For the life of me I can't find it right now in my bookmarks. So you might as well have me on this one.

It's all good. I'm really surprised anyone would put out any full frame camera without Raw. Even mirrorless (perhaps especially mirrorless) camas with a full frame sensor are expensive. Either way, it's a side issue and not worth worrying about (though if you find it post...interested to see what they were thinking).

For press photography, in some scenarios, I'd agree that the 'rate of fire' with JPEG is vastly more important than maintaining minute details but bogging down the camera during saving, especially if it's a huge sensor.

It's also because it's faster to send them back to the office if it can't wait until for you to get back in. From what I've seen, most press cameras are D3/4 or the equivalent Canon. I'm not aware of any shooting anything like a D800. It's overkill for PJ.

But for landscapes, macro or other staged/prepared shots I would vote RAW.

I think Raw is the way to go, but I get why press might opt to go with JPG and they tend to know how to set the temp and all so that they get the best images. But those same togs never shoot JPG if they're shooting for themselves.

BTW. I've been shooting solely in full manual mode for like 8 years. In the case of my FZ30, I had my aperture ring under my index finger and a timing ring under my thumb. It quickly became second nature, to the point I was bragging to friends how I can tell the current dialed-in settings based solely on how much I turned the wheels. I would then show the camera to my friend, stated the aperture and exposure time (without looking at the displays) and I was spot on 9/10. For metering I choose 'center spot' and then pan to my desired frame. Every automatic metering I've ever used had a tendency to over-expose and this was annoying in low-light scenarios, like a forest at sunset.

If you mean you don't use the cameras meter, then you're better than me. I know it can be off, but I'll experiment to get it right, but if I was a PJ, I'd consider using Shutter or Aperture priority. I mostly shoot music, so I only shoot manual and I still have to underexpose in many cases.

With my paperclips example, compare - for example - RAW went towards aquamarine while JPEG is simply green. Also, luminescence noise is present in RAW, while JPEG is blurred out. Thing is, with RAW, you get to choose the _amount_ of luminescence noise.

I really don't think most PJs are worried about that. The paper will almost certainly get it wrong unless there's a skin tone to use or something to set the white balance with (perhaps a target shot if things are breaking too quickly).

Anyway, this is an argument about nothing, because really we both agree that RAW is better. I think they should take any JPG and require the original RAW to check against.

 

[michalrz]

I only looked at what was in the post. I didn't attempt to pixel peep, because from a press picture, that'd be irrelevant. The image in the post is of higher quality than most newspaper pics. I've got a friend who often posts stuff on FB and occasionally it ends up in the paper, and it always looks worse in print (though the paper was neer known for it's quality print)

Is this because they have to go from, say, sRGB or Adobe's space to a CMYK profile like the popular (here anyway) Fogra 39?
Because I did struggle with this.

It's also because it's faster to send them back to the office if it can't wait until for you to get back in. From what I've seen, most press cameras are D3/4 or the equivalent Canon. I'm not aware of any shooting anything like a D800. It's overkill for PJ.

Ha, interesting. Over here even the cheapest fish wrapper tabloid will run around a busy event with half of a Nikon's store on him. The good ones do too, though. What'd be the cheapest model they use? interested to compare it to something.

If you mean you don't use the cameras meter, then you're better than me. I know it can be off, but I'll experiment to get it right, but if I was a PJ, I'd consider using Shutter or Aperture priority. I mostly shoot music, so I only shoot manual and I still have to underexpose in many cases.

Well, my algorythm is like this. Say it's noon, I'm on a beach during an air show which is held yearly. Planes fly over a big lake and people watch from a beach with the sun bouncing off the sand and bright shipyard buildings. It's August so there's some shadows.
So I will do this half-assed shutter priority imitation by closing the aperture because I know there's plenty of light. I usually get the time right in one or two ring movements the most (observing the horizontal exposure buoy to make sure).
But suddenly a cloud rolls past covering the Sun for a second. Or I need to photograph something in a shadow.
It's bright so I'm probably at 1/500 or so, F/10. I know the frame will be a tight one so I don't care about peripheral sharpness and just drop the aperture from 10 to 5. A lot of the time that's just right If I knew I needed a darker wider angle I'll drop exposure time instead to 1/80. For anything slower than 1/500 I use the 2s timer.
So manual by me is basically a mix with a lot of switching and blending both shutter and aperture priority. I tend to underexpose because my subjective feeling is the colours are nicer. But that does look worse on paper.

 

[nilepez]

Is this because they have to go from, say, sRGB or Adobe's space to a CMYK profile like the popular (here anyway) Fogra 39?
Because I did struggle with this.

I just think papers have bad print quality overall. Some are better than others, but newspaper is low quality paper and the inks aren't that great. You can get a really nice looking image on a monitor. Now it'll look better if you take it to a photo print shop, but that's a different issue.

Ha, interesting. Over here even the cheapest fish wrapper tabloid will run around a busy event with half of a Nikon's store on him. The good ones do too, though. What'd be the cheapest model they use? interested to compare it to something.

I think most carry multiple d4's or D3's (if nikon). At one time, I think you'd see d700s too, but not so much now. D800 really is too slow for PJ and the images are too big (unless you need to crop a lot)

So manual by me is basically a mix with a lot of switching and blending both shutter and aperture priority. I tend to underexpose because my subjective feeling is the colours are nicer. But that does look worse on paper.

OK, when I say manual, I mean pure manual. I set F stop and Shutter. For concerts, it's often needed...and even then it's a challenge, especially in clubs or shows with very fast changing lights.

I generally prefer to underexpose, but the D8xx has a fair amount of headroom on top. I mostly choose to underexpose, because certainly lights tend to oversaturate the channel (i.e. Red and blue)

 

[michalrz]

I just think papers have bad print quality overall. Some are better than others, but newspaper is low quality paper and the inks aren't that great. You can get a really nice looking image on a monitor. Now it'll look better if you take it to a photo print shop, but that's a different issue.
I think most carry multiple d4's or D3's (if nikon). At one time, I think you'd see d700s too, but not so much now. D800 really is too slow for PJ and the images are too big (unless you need to crop a lot)

Thank you sir. My God that's expensive.
A D4 costs 20 000 PLN, that's around 5000 USD.
I see what you mean though, that D4 has 16 MP while the D800 has 36 MP. So yeah I see it now. Kind of useless... I'm frugal enough to state that noone will never need more than 512 kB. I mean 8 MP.
I don't like to crop because I lose some lens distortion and impurities that I actually want in a picture. Like the peripheral circles you sometimes achieve in out of focus areas. I like those because they are sort of like a 'frame' for the shot.

OK, when I say manual, I mean pure manual. I set F stop and Shutter. For concerts, it's often needed...and even then it's a challenge, especially in clubs or shows with very fast changing lights.

I generally prefer to underexpose, but the D8xx has a fair amount of headroom on top. I mostly choose to underexpose, because certainly lights tend to oversaturate the channel (i.e. Red and blue)

We're in agreement here. I too meant I solely use 'M' and center point metering. Only 'AUTO' thing I do is autofocus - I suck at setting focus manually because I can't see enough via LCD or EVF.
The thing is, the 'aperture priority' I meant is head-math. I simply remember the typical ballparks as 'starting points' for further adjustment.
I was just about to write what you wrote about the changing lights. Yes I too have attempted to shoot live music but it's super hard. Long focal length and the constant considerable jumps from dark to bright... And the autofocus likes to play dumb when the musicians move around or artificial fog is released.
For music, I normally look for a compromise using ISO walking. Normally I set it quite low - CHDK lets me override ISO in a cheapo A470 I use. It can go as low as ISO 10. And it's visibly super smooth onscreen.
But in a concert I'd set my D50 to something like 400 or 800 (range:100-1600 IIRC), close the aperture slightly to avoid blurriness due to a large focal length. 7-8 or so. And moreso I do what I can to keep the exposure time over 1/100. Sharpness is more important than chroma/lumi noise for me in such scenarios

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

OK, when I say manual, I mean pure manual. I set F stop and Shutter. For concerts, it's often needed...and even then it's a challenge, especially in clubs or shows with very fast changing lights.

I generally prefer to underexpose, but the D8xx has a fair amount of headroom on top. I mostly choose to underexpose, because certainly lights tend to oversaturate the channel (i.e. Red and blue)

I don't have as fancy gear as you guys (I'm still using my trusty old D90 I got at launch).
it spends most of its life during casual shooting in aperture priority mode, with manually set ISO.

On the rare occasion when I shoot stuff where high speed motion or light could be an issue (like sports or concerts) I have found that going into full manual mode, setting the aperture I want (either wide open, or a couple of stops down for sharpness, depending on how much light I have) and the highest exposure time I have found to give me blur free images,

Then I set Auto ISO and let the camera metering try to pick the ISO I need for the given shot. It's not very accurate, but it gets me in the ballpark, and I can fine tune the exposure of my RAW files in Capture NX2 after the fact.

I'm by no means a pro though, just something I've figured out kind of works for me, over the years.

 

[michalrz]

I don't have as fancy gear as you guys (I'm still using my trusty old D90 I got at launch).
it spends most of its life during casual shooting in aperture priority mode, with manually set ISO.
[...]
I'm by no means a pro though, just something I've figured out kind of works for me, over the years.

I can only speak for myself, but trust me, I have never used anything beyond a used and beat-up Nikon D50. 2005 camera. I just sold it a few months ago.
I don't even own a camera.
I just use whatever I can borrow. Currently it's a Canon A470. It's a point and shoot 100$ 8 year old camera.
Over the years I got into the habit of doing the opposite of logic. I no longer carry lenses. With my D50, rule 1 was - put a lens on and don't carry another. Force yourself to push the most of what falls into your hands. Use your mark I eyes and imagination. Stray off the path.
Imagine the hilarity: some guy in camo clothing comes out of the woods carrying a friggin' cannon on a Canon with a human-sized battery back, and a backpack of filters and lenses.
And then - enter I. I come out the opposite side, from between a bunch of foliage taller than myself, in a sweater and jeans. I'm packing a D50 with a 50mm 1.8 portrait lens. I do have a backpack, but that's for beer. I'm happy like a pig in mud because I know my photos will be recognizable - who uses portrait glass in the middle of a dark forest? Me. I like my 1.8 because it's a ... forest. It's dark. I need the light. No zoom? I guess my job is easier because I know my limits.
Limiting yourself can teach you a lot because you're not constantly confused which lens to use for a particular shot. There's no 'I should have switched lenses there' dillemas.

 

[lcpiper]

I would only surmise that their rules as listed above go pretty far in defining what has been going on that they don't want to see in their product.

ie ....

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.

Therefor someone's been adding visual information that wasn't present or deleting information that was. They have done so to mislead the viewer and possibly the writer. Perhaps they have made day look like night and vice versa, and overall use such manipulation to place greater visual focus on things that were never highlighted in any special way.

That would be a start.

 

[nilepez]

I would only surmise that their rules as listed above go pretty far in defining what has been going on that they don't want to see in their product.

ie ....



Therefor someone's been adding visual information that wasn't present or deleting information that was. They have done so to mislead the viewer and possibly the writer. Perhaps they have made day look like night and vice versa, and overall use such manipulation to place greater visual focus on things that were never highlighted in any special way.

That would be a start.

I think all get why they're making changes. What doesn't make sense is that a jpg from the camera can be faked. The only way to be sure that changed aren't breaking PJ ethics is to have the raw files (digital negatives)

 

[locsplitter]

people will argue about anything these days.

 

[michalrz]

people will argue about anything these days.

I agree with you. Boom! there goes your 'anything'. Disagreement by agreement.

On a serious note, this happens to be a Big Deal. RAW bypasses cheaper cameras' limitations to an extent.
If a cheap camera has a slow image processor, you are not forced to waste data your sensor picked up.
Instead, you can convert your sensor data to a JPEG without breaking any ehtics or rules - assuming you don't overdo, as was stated by many here.