>Reuters bans RAW. only accepts OOC-JPEGs. Where were you

>>>/p/2706324

also, this story's a week old. even on /p/ it's stale.

>>51519927
>news media dislike RAW edits because it allows unreal dynamic contrast editing and the likes
It's not surprising. This ban is stupid and not really enforceable though.

File: neregeta Lietuva 010.jpg (704KB, 1500x1126px) Image search: [Google]

704KB, 1500x1126px

That's stupid.
>tfw this is the future photography

>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.
Ha. That's super fucking retarded.

>>51519927
I don't understand.

...why?

>>51521239
>This ban is stupid
Eh i think it makes sense, but also doesnt.

If you go in to fix the lighting/contrast, you might as well fix some of the other shit like that rock in the way, or some dudes ugly face.

> and not really enforceable though.
But exactly this, as long as they pictures don't look processed, they will never know.

I'm sure theres a way to preserve exif data in photoshop.

Unless camera manufacturers sign the photo with a digital signature how will this be enforceable?
And even if they do sign the photos, won't that be bad for business?

>>51519927
shoot raw, take home, camera raw to jpeg and submit

why should someone else do your work for you?

camera processors do a good enough job anyway. good move i reckon

what's reuters?

>>51519927
they didn't ban raw. read the source.