Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's been causing quite a stir. But whoever want to deceit, will continue to do so with JPEGs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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….  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Edited by Martin P Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by MDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by dustydingo
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

  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 :( )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.