REUTERS HAVE BANNED RAW FILES

[erwiurewurwehu]

Won't fakers be able to easily produce fake RAW files? 

[bnoc1970]

A good move whatever the motives. Some people rely way too much on manipulation. If you spend hours in front of a screen with working on your files what does that say about your ability as a photographer?

 

[CRAusmus]

There's actually a whole movie about the picture of the raising of the flag, and the marines involved in the photograph... Flags of our Fathers.  Great movie.  And there was quite a bit of controversy surrounding that photo, the marines, and the flag when the boys came home from the war...

[Paul Crespel]

Digital images can't be trusted, says war photographer Don McCullin

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/27/don-mccullin-war-photographer-digital-images

[Tom H.]

Digital images can't be trusted, says war photographer Don McCullin

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/27/don-mccullin-war-photographer-digital-images

So can film images, especially by masters of the art and the darkroom. It's no coincidence that the tools we use most in photoshop are actually named after dark room tools. There is a long established record of doctored film images.

 

The medium has been hijacked by 24 hour news cycles, demanding ever more "breaking news" and sensation. Blame editors, shareholders and the reader for not having the decency anymore to pay a proper wage for proper reporting. And the patience to let a photographer build a proper reputation, while weeding out the frauds...

[Tom H.]

So can film images, especially by masters of the art and the darkroom. It's no coincidence that the tools we use most in photoshop are actually named after dark room tools. There is a long established record of doctored film images.

 

The medium has been hijacked by 24 hour news cycles, demanding ever more "breaking news" and sensation. Blame editors, shareholders and the reader for not having the decency anymore to pay a proper wage for proper reporting. And the patience to let a photographer build a proper reputation, while weeding out the frauds...

And I am the first to agree with him that HDR is usually an assault on the senses. But his arguments against "too colourful images" is silly. Back in the glory days of film, you could go anywhere from greyish black and white to LSD like trippy colours too... Or why else are we using "film simulations"?

 

If he wanted to make his misty mountain look moody, he could easily have done so digitally too, just like a moody film selection would have done.

 

But yeah, for most older people, "things used to be better in the old days"...

[Tom H.]

A nice book on the ever opposing tensions in photojournalism, artistic vs realistic, is Russell Miller's "Magnum".

 

Also, people claim nowadays we just "burst away", but the likes of Cartier-Bresson would take anywhere from 700 up to 1000 frames a day too... Many greats still have stockpiles of undeveloped film lying around because they shot so much. There are plenty of contact sheet books out there that clearly show just how darkroom processing used to work. As well as the editing of negatives of what you may consider unique and true images...

[Tom H.]

But the same silly arguments were used back in the day against photographers who used colour film instead of black and white, as it was considered as too commercial and glamourising for editorial and news reporting...

[Paul Crespel]

With the "old fashioned" method of negatives, i.e. until about 15 or 16 years ago, the photographer had to give the NEGATIVE to the publisher or agency.  The negative could not be "photoshopped", but the publisher or agency knew the photo was what the camera photographed.  Naturally, the photographer could have posed the shot, but at least one of the two variables was avoided.

Now, if an agency insists on the untouched original RAW file, the photographer doesn't want to, or is too scared to provide it. 

 

Is that really progress?

 

Cheating, lying and dishonesty has always existed in photography, but in the last 15 years it has become "normal".

Reuters have started to try to minimise the possibilties for cheating.  Others will follow.

I sense that the people making the most noise against Reuters' move are the greatest users of Photoshop

I repeat:  Photography - Photo Graphy - means drawing with light.  Photoshop means drawing with a computer.  Photoshop is NOT photography.

And yes, I'm one of the "older people" but I say things are MUCH better now with digital than they ever were with film.  Read my postings above.... particularly post number 22

[Tom H.]

With the "old fashioned" method of negatives, i.e. until about 15 or 16 years ago, the photographer had to give the NEGATIVE to the publisher or agency. The negative could not be "photoshopped", but the publisher or agency knew the photo was what the camera photographed. Naturally, the photographer could have posed the shot, but at least one of the two variables was avoided.

Now, if an agency insists on the untouched original RAW file, the photographer doesn't want to, or is too scared to provide it.

 

Is that really progress?

 

Cheating, lying and dishonesty has always existed in photography, but in the last 15 years it has become "normal".

 

Reuters have started to try to minimise the possibilties for cheating. Others will follow.

 

I sense that the people making the most noise against Reuters' move are the greatest users of Photoshop

 

I repeat: Photography - Photo Graphy - means drawing with light. Photoshop means drawing with a computer. Photoshop is NOT photography.

 

And yes, I'm one of the "older people" but I say things are MUCH better now with digital than they ever were with film. Read my postings above.... particularly post number 22

Yes, but by your logic, the closest thing to the old film negative, would be a digital negative? So a raw file. That's why the argument makes no sense. If the photographer refuses to share his raw, then that surely is reason enough to doubt him... If he does share it, I truly don't see the issue here...

 

For me, it's mostly a poorly judged PR stunt to raise their profile again after the recent scandals... Nothing more.

[Paul Crespel]

Tom H,

 

The article clearly states that Reuters will no longer accept files created FROM raw files.

 

It does not actually say they will not accept the untouched, unmodified RAW file. 

 

When I provide images for publication I am expected to send either the negative, or the untouched RAW file.  I am happy with that, but it seems that the majority are not willing to do that.

[Tom H.]

Tom H,

 

The article clearly states that Reuters will no longer accept files created FROM raw files.

 

It does not actually say they will not accept the untouched, unmodified RAW file.

 

When I provide images for publication I am expected to send either the negative, or the untouched RAW file. I am happy with that, but it seems that the majority are not willing to do that.

Indeed, but the topic title is misleading in that case :-)

[Paul Crespel]

Hi Tom,

 

yes, the title is misleading.... but as a responsable photographer, I felt it would be wrong to photoshop what was, in my opinion, an error

However, the quoted email, below, states "that were processed from RAW or CR2 files".
 

Hi,

I’d like to pass on a note of request to our freelance contributors due to a worldwide policy change.. In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. If you want to shoot raw images that’s fine, just take JPEGs at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc).

Cheers,

[Tom H.]

 

Hi Tom,

 

yes, the title is misleading.... but as a responsable photographer, I felt it would be wrong to photoshop what was, in my opinion, an error

 

However, the quoted email, below, states "that were processed from RAW or CR2 files".

 

Hi,

I’d like to pass on a note of request to our freelance contributors due to a worldwide policy change.. In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files. If you want to shoot raw images that’s fine, just take JPEGs at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally JPEGs, with minimal processing (cropping, correcting levels, etc).

Cheers,

So again, no raw files then at all. It says so quite clearly. And that's what I find silly. I can perfectly understand the argument against processed from raw. But raw in itself is an unprocessed negative.

[Paul Crespel]

Hi Tom,

 

post 15, penultimate paragraph:

I think you will find that Reuters will accept, and even welcome the RAW file of an exceptional image, but that means the original, virgin, untouched RAW file, not a frankenstein hatched from the RAW file.

 

But first they would want to see it in JPEG to decide whether it's exceptional enough to want the RAW image. 

Reuters' email wasn't worded exceptionally well... maybe the original version was, but somebody photoshopped it prior to publication   I think a news gathering agency could have done better.... maybe we should ask to see the RAW version of their email

[Tom H.]

Hi Tom,

 

post 15, penultimate paragraph:

 

I think you will find that Reuters will accept, and even welcome the RAW file of an exceptional image, but that means the original, virgin, untouched RAW file, not a frankenstein hatched from the RAW file.

 

But first they would want to see it in JPEG to decide whether it's exceptional enough to want the RAW image.

 

Reuters' email wasn't worded exceptionally well... maybe the original version was, but somebody photoshopped it prior to publication I think a news gathering agency could have done better.... maybe we should ask to see the RAW version of their email

Yes, indeed not the most clear communication. It missed the point by quite a margin ;-)

[CRAusmus]

Couldn't the agency just request DNG and throw away all the adjustments if they choose to do so.  I've heard of many requesting DNG files since they can see where the photo was taken, and what changes have been made.  I'm not aware of any other RAW format that does that.

[Paul Crespel]

Hi Clinton, I guess they could, but they get so many files sent, that by asking only for JPEGs they don't need as much bandwidth or storage, and they can then choose the ones they are really interested in, and then ask for those files.  This is very much also about saving expensive bandwidth and storage.

[pizzaman]

peterh, all photographers have different ethics levels.  Some strive to produce accuracy, but sadly most don't.

 

I have only ever used two focal lengths for my journalism images, 35mm and 50mm (full frame equivalent). 

 

I do everything I can not to blur the background, because the background is part of the scene. 

 

I have been fortunate enough to work with many photographers, some of whom are household names, who have always done the same.  40 years ago, when I started, that was how the majority of photographers worked.  Super long lenses and lenses with huge apertures didn't really exist then, and if they did they were not regarded as usable in daily reporting.  Blurring backgrounds is a relatively recent trend and innovation, which you will see if you look back at photos of even 20 or 30 years ago.

 

Choice of ISO on film is fixed.  You cannot adjust curves on a negative.  You cannot compare film ISO with adjusting curves in Photoshop. 

 

Modern camera JPEGs are already light years ahead of film.  We now have advantages that we would never have dreamed of or imagined even 20 years ago, and yet we coped remarkably well with the comparatively primitive equipment we had, so much so that most modern photographers read books and look at photos in order to try to become more like Henri Cartier-Bresson, Robert Capa, Don McCullin, etc... so if they want to do that, why do they then continue to use Photoshop?

 

Photoshop is not necessary.  I don't use it.  I don't even have it on my computer, because I took the trouble to learn how to take photographs that do not need Photoshop. If there's something in my image that is unsightly I leave it there... if the image is not quite level, I leave it like that... that's how the photo was taken, and many other photographers of my generation do the same.... though very few of us have converted to digital.  Most of the great photographers that we admire, who are still alive, still use film.

 

It may be hard to believe, but it is actually easier to learn how to take a great photograph that doesn't need manipulation, than it is to learn how to use Photoshop, especially with modern digital cameras, that let you adjust the settings for contrast, colour, sharpness, etc., in the camera. 

 

Modern digital photographers have everything that the real pioneers of photography would have given their right arm for, and yet they still want more and more.... but strangely enough, even with all the modern advantages, very few seem capable of producing photographs as good as those produced by the great names of the past, who used film and just one or two short lenses.

 

We now use cameras that are effectively computers, we have amazing advantages over photographers of 20, 30 and more years ago.  These advantages should, theoretically, lessen the desire to "cheat", but instead, for some perverse reason, it's encouraging people to seek more innovative ways to cheat... an interesting analogy would be to compare it with drug use in sport over the last 40 years.

 

Photography - Photo Graphy - means "drawing with light"  -  Photshop means drawing with a computer.  Photoshop is NOT photography.

Photographers have different purposes depending on the line of their work or the nature of their assignment.

It is not 'sad' when a photographer doesn't strive to tell the truth if that is not their job. Photographs are not truth, never have been and never will be. 

 

Reportage/photojournalism/whatever you want to call it is as much a practice of aesthetic training as commercial portraiture. 35 mm lenses on a Leica, Tri X and dodging and burning for drama were as much a visual style as a 3 light studio portrait with a Hasselblad. The methods of finishing a photograph are different now, but discounting that just reeks of grumpy old person resistant to change. My example of blurring a background was just one in a number of possible ways to manipulate the scene. There is no recreating it. A 35mm lens distorts an image. There is nothing that recreates the reality of a situation. A photograph subjectively cuts out a certain part of a real scene and therefore it already lies by omission. It often strips of context, which is most important. 

 

See this piece - by a very noted photojournalist - which I believe gets at the heart of some of these issues rather poignantly.

 

No one is disputing the value of making a good image in camera - and I would say that most times I see examples of manipulate photojournalism it doesn't actually make the photo any better. The classic examples, like the removal of the fence in the Kent State protest are just silly aesthetic elements that have nothing to do with the relevant content of the picture (which is why it is any good). 

 

I'd also disagree that modern photographers are not capable of making images like the greats of the past. A lot of photojournalists still use the very same lens set up (not that this means anything) and make very strong work. If you can't recognize this I would say you're either romanticizing the past or you're not looking at the work that is being produced today. There are so many good documentary photographers out there risking life, limb and stability and yea, making images that are just at strong as those of the past - maybe even more so. 

 

Reuters and now World Press are trying to make rules around something that is ultimately a challenge to do. I understand and even sort of admire the motivation, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation in that news photographs have always been manipulated, but it in my opinion it has never really made them any better. Most tone manipulation is in pretty shit taste and heavy handed anyways. A lot of photojournalists don't know the first thing about aesthetic and narrative restraint and actively try to overly dramatize whatever it is they photograph. 

[Paul Crespel]

Peter, your arguments are good and valid, but we're getting away from the point being raised by Reuters, and by me.

 

Reuters want unmodified files, like they wanted the negatives in the past.

 

When I supply my images nowadays, I always supply the unmodified RAW file, as is expected of me, as if I were supplying the negative.

 

Throughout my time as a news photographer (1975 - 1997), photographers, with just one exception that I know of, were never, ever allowed to edit their own images (talking about the British press here).  That was a privilege awarded to just one, single photographer, whose reputation was based on trust and honesty.  There were very good reasons for this.  The newspapers and publications wanted to ensure that their good name was never damaged by a photographer's "creativity".  They wanted the truth. 

 

Reuters, and I am now informed that others are about to follow, want to get back to being in control of their own reputation.

 

The argument is not about what was done in the past, or in the present, with regard to dodging and burning, or removing fences, etc., it's about who does it.  It's about journalism and the responsibilites and expectations of being a journalist, and about not crossing certain lines that were drawn in the sand probably around 90 or 100 years ago.

 

Photoshop is not bad in itself, but it is VERY bad when the photographer uses it prior to subitting his or her version of the "truth".

 

My duty as a photographer, for the 23 years that it was my trade, was to file undeveloped film.  I was not allowed to even develop it myself, let alone edit it.  That all came under the umbrella of the picture editor, whose job it was to uphold the credibility and reputation of his publication.

 

Reuters are trying hard to right a bad situation, and with all the technology available today, they are going to have a difficult job.

 

The big question one should ask is: why would any honest photographer criticise Reuters' attempt to bring some credibility and dignity back to the world of photography?

[deva]

Lots of published photos these days are from unpaid people with their iphones... bystanders end up at various events before any paid staff can get there. You will see more diversity of photos and viewpoints across lots of 'amateur' sites, facebook etc. Paid staff are disappearing everywhere. 

[Paul Crespel]

deva, I know, I was a news photographer for over 20 years.

Here's an article I wrote a few years ago that discusses changes in photography over the last 20 years:

 

It's definitely not for the squeamish - it's not intended to insult, it's based on hard experience, and it is intended to provoke thought and discussion.

http://streetphotography.international/page13/index.html

[Guest Ridgeback]

And in other news: A sack of rice fell over in China today.