Barking Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Is this genuine? http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/ if yes, then is Alamy likely to be following suit, particularly in the news uploads? I see little difference, except a possible drop in quality...you can `process' in jpeg too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Brook Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Any manipulation done on a jpeg will be easier to spot. Reuters has very strict rules about post processing and journalists have been sacked for transgressing them (I believe). News uploads aside, Alamy sells imagary, much of which is fictional, not reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vpics Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 That's been causing quite a stir. But whoever want to deceit, will continue to do so with JPEGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 If others decide to follow Reuters, the thought of having to adjust a pile of jpegs then do the same to Raws fills me with dread. Double the work, double the time. And for what? As vpics says: .. whoever want to deceit, will continue to do so with JPEGs. Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 - and it is not even the 1st of April..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barking Posted November 19, 2015 Author Share Posted November 19, 2015 Much ado about nothing then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Is this genuine? http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/ if yes, then is Alamy likely to be following suit, particularly in the news uploads? I see little difference, except a possible drop in quality...you can `process' in jpeg too. No one submits RAW images to Alamy anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Is this genuine? http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/ if yes, then is Alamy likely to be following suit, particularly in the news uploads? I see little difference, except a possible drop in quality...you can `process' in jpeg too. No one submits RAW images to Alamy anyway. I'm sure the article is referring to .jpgs produced from Raw Files. They will now only accept .jpgs produced by the camera directly with minimal adjustment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Quist Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Is this genuine? http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/ if yes, then is Alamy likely to be following suit, particularly in the news uploads? I see little difference, except a possible drop in quality...you can `process' in jpeg too. No one submits RAW images to Alamy anyway. You haven't read then: Quote Reuters has implemented a new worldwide policy for freelance photographers that bans photos that were processed from RAW files. Photographers must now only send photos that were originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs . Unquote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sultanpepa Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Is this genuine? http://petapixel.com/2015/11/18/reuters-issues-a-worldwide-ban-on-raw-photos/ if yes, then is Alamy likely to be following suit, particularly in the news uploads? I see little difference, except a possible drop in quality...you can `process' in jpeg too. No one submits RAW images to Alamy anyway. You haven't read then: Quote Reuters has implemented a new worldwide policy for freelance photographers that bans photos that were processed from RAW files. Photographers must now only send photos that were originally saved to their cameras as JPEGs . Unquote You're right I read the story elsewhere. I hadn't read that. Seems like an a-- covering exercise of over the top proportions. I guess they could check by time stamp on image or is there a better way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 So I guess I will carry on as normal then….Fuji's set to shoot RAW and J.pegs simultaneously…..RAW for stock, J.pegs for news…. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 So how can they tell between a LR export from RAW and a LR export from jpeg- surely the software flag will be the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Baker Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 So how can they tell between a LR export from RAW and a LR export from jpeg- surely the software flag will be the same. My understanding from the comments below the story is that the EXIF gives the game away. But I don't know if it's possible to edit that. Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 So how can they tell between a LR export from RAW and a LR export from jpeg- surely the software flag will be the same. My understanding from the comments below the story is that the EXIF gives the game away. But I don't know if it's possible to edit that. Richard. Most software adds its own reference into the EXIF data. But there are tools that allow EXIF be edited and options to strip it as well; although I guess Reuters will not accept images where the provenance is not explicit. A**** covering indeed. That said I would have thought that anyone shooting live news, as opposed to feature/ soft news, would have been using ooc camera jpegs already. Otherwise you will get consistently scooped by those who do. I certainly shoot raw + jpeg for news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacecadet Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 Yes but I was wondering how the EXIF would be different in the two cases. But presumably Reuters wouldn't be making the stipulation if they couldn't tell if it had been contravened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDM Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 So how can they tell between a LR export from RAW and a LR export from jpeg- surely the software flag will be the same. The metadata is different for the two files. This is easy to see in Photoshop or Bridge but I don't think it's possible in Lightroom. Use the File Info in Photoshop and click the Raw Data tab. There is a lot of extra information in the version produced from a raw conversion in ACR or Lightroom and then saved as jpeg in comparison to the camera-generated version. After all an in-camera jpeg was also a raw file - the conversion was simply done in the camera. Just to add - it is possible to export a JPEG from Lightroom without the raw conversion info but the absence of this info would probably indicate that there was something to hide in relation to the provenance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 So how can they tell between a LR export from RAW and a LR export from jpeg- surely the software flag will be the same. My understanding from the comments below the story is that the EXIF gives the game away. But I don't know if it's possible to edit that. Richard. Yeah it's possible. Whenever I buy a new camera that isn't on C1's list, I change the camera details in Raw files with an exif editor so I can process them (provided its the same make of camera, fuji pro - x-t1). Some apps allow you to do bulk routines for this if you have large volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 19, 2015 Share Posted November 19, 2015 So how can they tell between a LR export from RAW and a LR export from jpeg- surely the software flag will be the same. My understanding from the comments below the story is that the EXIF gives the game away. But I don't know if it's possible to edit that. Richard. Yeah it's possible. Whenever I buy a new camera that isn't on C1's list, I change the camera details in Raw files with an exif editor so I can process them (provided its the same make of camera, fuji pro - x-t1). Some apps allow you to do bulk routines for this if you have large volumes. But of course if anyone does that and Reuters find out, or identify the changes in other ways they are in deep doo-doo! If you are selling work through a channel like Reuters can you really afford that risk of seriously upsetting them? And do you have the time to mess about with converting raw and editing EXIF on news images? I know I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustydingo Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Martin is right, any Reuters photographer found engaging in subterfuge such as falsifying EXIF on submitted images certainly be in deep doo-doo . . . they would be sacked! . . . a tad more serious consequence than Alamy QC doles out dd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan_Andison Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 So how can they tell between a LR export from RAW and a LR export from jpeg- surely the software flag will be the same. My understanding from the comments below the story is that the EXIF gives the game away. But I don't know if it's possible to edit that. Richard. Yeah it's possible. Whenever I buy a new camera that isn't on C1's list, I change the camera details in Raw files with an exif editor so I can process them (provided its the same make of camera, fuji pro - x-t1). Some apps allow you to do bulk routines for this if you have large volumes. But of course if anyone does that and Reuters find out, or identify the changes in other ways they are in deep doo-doo! If you are selling work through a channel like Reuters can you really afford that risk of seriously upsetting them? And do you have the time to mess about with converting raw and editing EXIF on news images? I know I wouldn't. Just to point out, I was only confirming it was possible and not that I would be bothered to do it (I'm not with Reuters so it has no impact on me). It's still a faff altering exif data on mass even though it's possible. Personally, I'd just set the camera to Raw + Jpg. Hell, on the Fuji you can set bracketing to create your three favourite jpg styles at the same time. Or, select the Raw in camera and tell it to create a jpg from it. These would all be easier than trying to process Raws out of camera and then trying to cover it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Chapman Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 This restriction makes no sense to me. It's easy to shoot RAW + JPG, edit the raw to produce a new JPG and then overwrite all of the EXIF data in the new JPG with the EXIF data from the original JPG. So, I don't believe that this restriction will ensure images are "unaltered". Indeed, I suspect that some will use this approach to "rescue" news images that need the overall image exposure altering before submitting. If you'd taken a unique and valuable news image, but the exposure was way off, what would you do? Do Reuters source news images from Alamy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 This restriction makes no sense to me. It's easy to shoot RAW + JPG, edit the raw to produce a new JPG and then overwrite all of the EXIF data in the new JPG with the EXIF data from the original JPG. So, I don't believe that this restriction will ensure images are "unaltered". Indeed, I suspect that some will use this approach to "rescue" news images that need the overall image exposure altering before submitting. If you'd taken a unique and valuable news image, but the exposure was way off, what would you do? Do Reuters source news images from Alamy? On rescuing a news image. I have done that when I misexposed a key shot. As I I shoot raw+jpeg I reconverted with exposure adjustment in camera. Quicker than downloading and converting on my laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Duncan, I was not suggesting you were even thinking you would. I was just saying that it seems such a pointless and reputation risking approach for anyone to try and game Reuters in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlbertSnapper Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Reuters has very strict rules about post processing and journalists have been sacked for transgressing them (I believe). This may be of interest....from 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5254838.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin P Wilson Posted November 20, 2015 Share Posted November 20, 2015 Reuters has very strict rules about post processing and journalists have been sacked for transgressing them (I believe). This may be of interest....from 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5254838.stm Exactly my point. Why risk one's reputation for such trivial reasons? Unless it is obvious at modest sizes (i.e. full screen on my laptop) I do not usually bother looking for dust (at least with my Fuji kit, might have to on my older Canon ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.