/p/ - Photography » Thread #2706324

[94 / 15 / ?]

47KiB, 640x341, image.jpg

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO

YOUR CAREER IS DEAD

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 15:32:31 No.2706324 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>2706330 >>2706331 >>2706404 >>2706752 >>2710054 >>2710120 >>2711853 >>2712110 >>2716426 >>2719502

Reuters kills raw submissions and photos created from raw. Accepts JPEG ONLY

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 15:42:21 No.2706330 Report

Quoted By: >>2706336

>>2706324
>and photos created from raw
but what if you create a jpeg from raw?

didn't think of that one, did you?
faggot

checkmate atheists

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 15:42:40 No.2706331 Report

Quoted By: >>2706337

>>2706324
For fuck's sake, OP. At least post a damn link so everybody knows what you're talking about.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9759620/reuters-raw-photos-ban-worldwide

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 15:46:53 No.2706335 Report

Quoted By:

The thing that pisses me off isn't that they're doing this. It's that this (a) didn't create the problem they are trying to solve, and (b) this won't fix the problem.

Sure, a raw file will give you more latitude in editing, but not for fucking changing an entire photo to something else. If somebody wants to drastically alter a photo---add an element, remove an element, etc.---then they'll still do it with a high res jpg. Reuters has created this bizarre boogie man with raw file formats that doesn't exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 15:47:55 No.2706336 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706330
Not allowed. Shot in raw ONLY

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 15:48:43 No.2706337 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706331
>http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9759620/reuters-raw-photos-ban-worldwide
>In future, please don’t send photos to Reuters that were processed from RAW or CR2 files.

What the fucking fuck? CR2 is a fucking type of RAW file.

Reuters' problem is that they've clearly got non-photographers coming up with their photography standards.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 15:51:13 No.2706339 Report

Quoted By: >>2706399 >>2706446 >>2706848

While we're at it, let's band photographs shot with telephoto lenses. It's just distorting reality. We don't want the viewer to think that the photographer was up there in the action when he was really 100 yards away with a 500mm lens. From now on, let's require that all photos be shot with 50mm or wider. If I"m looking at a war photograph, I want to to that the photographer was fucking right there in the fucking action.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 16:06:21 No.2706345 Report

Quoted By: >>2706360 >>2706363 >>2706850

How is this going to prevent photographers from altering their pics?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 16:07:35 No.2706346 Report

Quoted By: >>2706446 >>2711975

>Today Reuters announced a ban on images shot with lenses faster than f/3.5. "A wider aperture blurs a bigger part of the image. As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety. Excessively blurred backgrounds allow a photographer to select which elements from reality to include in the photo, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism", Reuters spokeperson said.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 16:37:28 No.2706360 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706345
Because RAAAAW!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 16:46:24 No.2706363 Report

Quoted By: >>2706401

>>2706345
>How is this going to prevent photographers from altering their pics?
It isn't. The press release was probably written by their human resources department. At least it's the kind of cock-eyed, shit-for-brained notion that HR departments everywhere are famous for coming up with

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 16:46:36 No.2706364 Report

Quoted By: >>2718651

>Today Reuters announced a ban on images shot above ISO 800. "A high ISO allows the photographer to capture an unnatural amount of light. As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety. Excessively high ISO allows a photographer to select which elements from reality to include in the photo, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism", Reuters spokeperson said.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO this shoots truth.jpg, 32KiB, 400x381

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 17:18:30 No.2706375 Report

Quoted By: >>2706377 >>2708270 >>2713578

>Today Reuters announced that all photographers are now required to use single-use, Kodak FunSaver cameras, with the film developed at a local Walgreens, CVS, or Rite Aid on 4x6 paper with a matte finish and a white border. "As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety.Digital photography allows a photographer to alter the photograph digitally, and that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism. With the film developed by a local 16-year-old part time drugstore worker, we have greater assurance of truth,' Reuters spokesperson said.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 17:20:29 No.2706377 Report

Quoted By: >>2706448

>>2706375
>As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety.

lmaoooooooooooo im dude weed lmao right now and this is the funniest thing ever

youre the "translated by bing" guy right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 18:22:11 No.2706399 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706339
Brilliant suggestion.

If it's not shot at 35mm (135) or wider, the photo should be rejected desu. As things have to be SOOC filmfags are BTFO. Get a Leica M9/M(240) or go home fags. HAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 18:24:34 No.2706401 Report

Quoted By: >>2706455

>>2706363
Don't rope their HR department into it. It's clearly some new middle manager who's trying to improve productivity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 18:30:47 No.2706404 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706324
Next step is to allow only people who shoots in PRO mode.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 18:33:34 No.2706406 Report

Quoted By:

Are they implying you can't alter, edit, or counterfeit jaypeggs? Because I alter, edit, and counterfeit jaypeggs all the fucking time idgaf.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1447796729396.jpg, 53KiB, 500x375

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 19:18:43 No.2706436 Report

Quoted By: >>2706458

>MFW I went through the trouble of experimenting how to make a good image with my camera's jpeg engine

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 19:46:49 No.2706446 Report

Quoted By: >>2706746

>>2706346
>>2706339
>tfw fuji 2.8-4 kitlens
>tfw only f4 at longer than 50mm
fuq should have went with canikon

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 19:47:49 No.2706448 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706377
>I'm a massive faggot!

Translated by Bing!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 19:58:53 No.2706455 Report

Quoted By: >>2710057

>>2706401
Not only that, it's some middle manager who has sped-read the Wikipedia article on digital photograph and is trying to use some new buzzwords he learned.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 19 Nov 2015 20:10:46 No.2706458 Report

Quoted By: >>2710036

>>2706436
>trying to improve perfection

vosh !35mmF/4Qi6

vosh !35mmF/4Qi6 Fri 20 Nov 2015 08:52:30 No.2706746 Report

Quoted By: >>2706815

>>2706446
what's wrong with f/4?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Nov 2015 10:00:17 No.2706752 Report

Quoted By: >>2706772

>>2706324
Ken Rockwell is crying tears of joy

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Nov 2015 11:55:42 No.2706772 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706752
omfg my sides

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Nov 2015 13:55:50 No.2706815 Report

Quoted By: >>2707135

>>2706746
>obviously not a photojournalist

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO The-vulture-and-the-girl.jpg, 109KiB, 450x288

Anonymous Fri 20 Nov 2015 15:03:59 No.2706848 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706339
Telephoto compression can distort reality.

This picture would not look so dramatic if it was taken with a 50mm.

!!Me2iIexFVez

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B0124565-y720px.jpg, 57KiB, 480x720

!!Me2iIexFVez Fri 20 Nov 2015 15:04:52 No.2706849 Report

Quoted By:

"no cropping" - reuters

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Nov 2015 15:12:08 No.2706850 Report

Quoted By: >>2708266 >>2716261

>>2706345
>How is this going to prevent photographers from altering their pics?

Less easy to selectively darken/brighten parts of the image to make elements invisible.
And with sharpening and white balance already applied it's harder to add elements with the exact same sharpening and white balance.

It might also be easier to detect alterations with special software.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Nov 2015 15:30:29 No.2706855 Report

Quoted By: >>2710119

I did see some fucking hideous as fuck HDR going on with the front page pic of the Financial Times recently.

I couldn't believe it. It was just so damn bad.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 20 Nov 2015 23:32:22 No.2707132 Report

Quoted By: >>2707152

>Today Reuters announced a ban on composition. As a news agency, we want the truth in its entirety. Selecting which elements to include in a photograph allows a photographer to select which elements from reality to include in the photo, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism", Reuters spokeperson said.

vosh !35mmF/4Qi6

vosh !35mmF/4Qi6 Fri 20 Nov 2015 23:47:32 No.2707135 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706815
what? I'm not sure what you're implying here, but to me bokehwhoring is pretty rare in photojournalism. Well, at least when it matters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Nov 2015 00:32:50 No.2707152 Report

Quoted By:

>>2707132
make me keke

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Nov 2015 23:13:37 No.2708266 Report

Quoted By: >>2708273

>>2706850
>It might also be easier to detect alterations with special software.
This is the reason. The major camera manufacturers embed checksums and stuff into the EXIF data that makes it very hard to modify an image without detection by their special and very expensive software. This is to target the forensic market but I think all the cameras do it by default, so it seems likely reuters will be using that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Nov 2015 23:17:11 No.2708270 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706375
I ugly laughed at this full throttle

good job

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Nov 2015 23:18:10 No.2708273 Report

Quoted By:

>>2708266
Nope. It's a combination of stupidity and workforce work flow optimization.

What you're talking about exists, but is tripped by *any* adjustment, even just bumping up the brightness by 1/10000 of a stop (which is allowed by Reuters).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Nov 2015 23:22:21 No.2708281 Report

Quoted By:

>Today Reuters announced a ban on images shot with cameras with a Field of View less than 270 degrees. "A narrower field of view distorts the image and enable photographers to selectively show and omit subjects, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism. Therefore submitted images must be made with a gopro action cam inside a fish bowl and be submitted as a 8 megapixel .gif."

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 15:51:23 No.2710033 Report

Quoted By: >>2710039

>1966
>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 film slides. If you want to shoot film that’s fine, just take Polaroids at the same time. Only send us the photos that were originally Polaroids, with minimal processing (cropping).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 15:59:05 No.2710036 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706458
do you even play with the highlights and shadows options in your camera bro

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 16:11:11 No.2710038 Report

Quoted By: >>2710041

First they gut Nat Geo and now this...wtf?!

!kurwaRB7YU

!kurwaRB7YU Wed 25 Nov 2015 16:11:40 No.2710039 Report

Quoted By:

>>2710033
Literally this, perfect comparison, anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 16:15:25 No.2710040 Report

Quoted By: >>2710044 >>2716108

just read today that to send something to World Press Photo, you need now to send the submission, and 6 extra photos: the 3 previous ones to your submission, and the 3 ones that were taken after submission.

i guess they want truth on its entirety?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 16:16:27 No.2710041 Report

Quoted By: >>2710070

>>2710038
>First they gut Nat Geo

wot

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1446436347669.jpg, 53KiB, 1280x720

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 16:23:55 No.2710044 Report

Quoted By:

>>2710040
What if the three previous photos were snapshits or dick pics? I guess only pro togs take 7 photos and use that pro burst mode, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 17:18:57 No.2710054 Report

Quoted By: >>2716108

>>2706324
so why not ask the raw?
that's harder to fake.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 17:23:31 No.2710057 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706455
probably came from ken rockwell's website.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1399743-murdock3.jpg, 122KiB, 420x280

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 18:14:26 No.2710070 Report

Quoted By:

>>2710041
rupert murdoch bought Nat Geo and immediately laid-off 10% of the company, particularly the creative directors, reporters, and editors

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 19:35:10 No.2710107 Report

Quoted By:

>less work for me
>no bullshitting with post-processing

Why should I hate?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1448046777695.jpg, 141KiB, 543x405

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 20:06:35 No.2710119 Report

Quoted By:

Don't some cameras have built in filters and functions? You can still make ugly HDRs and other heavily edited shit straight from your camera's JPEG engine.

>>2706855
did it trigger you?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 25 Nov 2015 20:06:52 No.2710120 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706324
Does not matter much. Newspapers are fast information, not fine print magazines. Nobody with the skills to take a good picture with any camera will care about this, they already pick their formats based on needs and what saves more time.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 274.jpg, 21KiB, 500x278

Anonymous Sun 29 Nov 2015 00:36:18 No.2711853 Report

Quoted By: >>2711926

>>2706324

Meh, JPEG is just fine for 99.9% of shots especially press to print or web. I would even say shooting the lowest quality jpeg is fine and speeds up the process. That doesn't mean the photog can't shoot RAW+JPEG just in case he gets a good shot.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Nov 2015 02:20:53 No.2711926 Report

Quoted By: >>2711935 >>2711982 >>2711990

>>2711853
The problem with this is that most SOOC jpegs tend to have sharpening, noise reduction, and lens corrections applied in camera, meaning they aren't even an accurate representation of the image as it was actually taken

Muhmegapickels !!0Z+XAssRGPW

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO reuters pls.jpg, 62KiB, 715x420

Muhmegapickels !!0Z+XAssRGPW Sun 29 Nov 2015 02:35:20 No.2711935 Report

Quoted By: >>2712801

>>2711926
>reuters before and after SOOC noise reduction

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Nov 2015 03:52:42 No.2711972 Report

Quoted By:

Oh, no! Whatever will I do with my 500Gb of BlackLivesMatter protest photos now?

>-Every NEET in America

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Nov 2015 03:55:18 No.2711975 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706346

But now everyone will see the thousands of 20 year old men behind that family in the Syrian refugee line.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Nov 2015 04:05:48 No.2711982 Report

Quoted By: >>2711983

>>2711926
>meaning they aren't even an accurate representation of the image as it was actually taken

Real life doesn't need sharpening, noise reduction or lens corrections, bruh. All of those are distortions of reality and ought to be removed.

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w

/\M8U5H !!zJbpV0948+w Sun 29 Nov 2015 04:09:55 No.2711983 Report

Quoted By:

>>2711982

I do believe that is the argument he was making.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Nov 2015 04:25:15 No.2711990 Report

Quoted By:

>>2711926
your po-mo makes me yawn

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 29 Nov 2015 11:01:58 No.2712110 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706324
Well, nothing changes for sony users

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1196216883855.gif, 46KiB, 74x105

Anonymous Sun 29 Nov 2015 19:29:35 No.2712300 Report

Quoted By:

>2015
>they're STILL shooting digital

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Nov 2015 14:17:35 No.2712801 Report

Quoted By:

>>2711935
Underrated post.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Dec 2015 01:52:22 No.2713096 Report

Quoted By: >>2713104

I've been shooting JPG exclusively for years. Only time I've deviated in 3 years has been for senior portrait sessions (where I knew I would edit heavily) and when requested by a Wedding photog I was 2nd shooting for.

Just because all of you fucks can't take the photo correctly in camera and need to fix your exposure mistakes in post doesn't mean JPG is bad.

learn 2 photo /p/

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1389577545135.png, 127KiB, 406x325

Anonymous Tue 01 Dec 2015 02:12:56 No.2713104 Report

Quoted By: >>2713115

>>2713096
>I've been shooting JPG exclusively for years.
>learn 2 photo /p/

the irony. i love it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Dec 2015 02:38:15 No.2713115 Report

Quoted By: >>2713221

>>2713104
fite me irl

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Dec 2015 06:33:37 No.2713221 Report

Quoted By: >>2713300

>>2713115

Nah, no point. but I'd be happy to walk you through the ridiculous usefulness of raw at your convenience. It's for more than just "fixing" bad photos.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Dec 2015 14:19:45 No.2713300 Report

Quoted By: >>2713304 >>2713315 >>2713666

>>2713221
Camera records raw image data on sensor
Camera copies raw image data to internal memory
Camera's internal microprocessor creates jpg from raw data.
Camera also applies some proprietary noise reduction, knowing current sensor conditions and lens/dust information.

If the camera already processed the image from raw, why would I waste my time and hard drive space to do it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Dec 2015 14:42:01 No.2713304 Report

Quoted By: >>2713307 >>2713563

>>2713300

you stupid trolls with your stupidity confuse the fuck out of newbs that browse this board, rendering it literally useless. dont be a prick, stop the nonsense anon. go to /tv/ and banepost if you are in the mood for posting bullshit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Dec 2015 14:49:35 No.2713307 Report

Quoted By:

>>2713304

calm down froooooo

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 01 Dec 2015 15:16:19 No.2713315 Report

Quoted By:

>>2713300
So the camera does all your work for you :^)

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO MACW6290.jpg, 620KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2015 00:38:31 No.2713563 Report

Quoted By: >>2713636 >>2713681 >>2714600

>>2713304
Not trolling. Noobs should do what they want. Here's one of my recent JPGs. If you want more, let me know and I'll resize some more.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO rockwell.jpg, 73KiB, 1200x798

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2015 00:48:57 No.2713571 Report

Quoted By: >>2716122

Lets get this shit started

>The city of Jewfro

BASED ROCKWELL BLOWS HIM OUT AGAIN

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2015 00:54:41 No.2713578 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706375

>ethics of journalism

the irony...

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2015 02:34:46 No.2713636 Report

Quoted By: >>2714246

>>2713563
That looks like shit anon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2015 02:47:18 No.2713638 Report

Quoted By: >>2716108 >>2720483

ITT: People who don't know recent, high-end Canon, Nikon, and Sony DSLRs insert cryptographic signature and checksum into JPEG files at the point of capture, allowing agencies to verify if the JPEGs have been modified in any way after capture

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2015 04:15:47 No.2713666 Report

Quoted By:

>>2713300

Why would you keep negatives when you can just scan the 4x6" prints?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 02 Dec 2015 04:59:53 No.2713681 Report

Quoted By: >>2714243

>>2713563

dude, do you take pride on the photography you do? or is it just a quick buck/free pass/free booze card?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Dec 2015 05:37:16 No.2714243 Report

Quoted By: >>2714602

>>2713681
I take pride in capturing the image in camera, then being able to publish it within minutes without any correction needed.

One of the things I enjoy most is looking at the image through the viewfinder and having it come out exactly as I saw it in my head. No "Oh, let me just bring the shadows up, get rid of some of those highlights, bump contrast." None of that. I know my camera, react to the scene, and publish.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO MAC_7399.jpg, 654KiB, 1000x667

Anonymous Thu 03 Dec 2015 05:43:15 No.2714246 Report

Quoted By: >>2714600 >>2716285 >>2720435

>>2713636
Yeah, the 35 I had when I took that was kind of bad with direct light.

Here's another one without direct light.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Dec 2015 21:22:26 No.2714600 Report

Quoted By: >>2714683

>>2714246
This is awful
The concept of the photo is just as stupid as the singer
Light is not good either, but that I won't blame on you
More dof than it should have

>>2713563
Don't blame the camera, it's not the direct light or something, this is just shit
also, the focus is on the amplifier

But that's ok, none of this is your fault, since your camera does all the work for you, right?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 03 Dec 2015 21:28:24 No.2714602 Report

Quoted By:

>>2714243
>without any correction needed
that's why your photos are shit and you are pretentious as fuck: because eventhough your photos are shit, you think they're awesome, and don't try any harder to do better
>stay pleb

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 04 Dec 2015 00:27:57 No.2714683 Report

Quoted By: >>2716290 >>2718705

>>2714600
>focus is on the amplifier
Focus is on the bassist's face.

Let's see some of your photos, bra.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Dec 2015 08:44:01 No.2716108 Report

Quoted By:

KEN ROCKWELL WINS AGAIN
>>2710040
7 photos of the same thing because gotta go fast burst
>>2710054
They used to ask the raw
>>2713638
It can also be done with RAW files, in fact Canon sells kits to cryptographically sign every photo your camera takes, it's targeted at police agencies

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Dec 2015 09:14:39 No.2716122 Report

Quoted By:

>>2713571
This guy visited a camera store, which then proceeded to shut down shortly after

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Dec 2015 15:42:15 No.2716261 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706850
but if there's any doubt over a photo's authenticity you can just hand over the raw file itself

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Dec 2015 16:21:50 No.2716285 Report

Quoted By:

>>2714246
that show looks lame af

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Dec 2015 16:23:32 No.2716290 Report

Quoted By:

>>2714683
hes right tho. the bassist's face is a little blurry and unfocused

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 06 Dec 2015 19:20:29 No.2716426 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706324
ken rockwell approves

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Dec 2015 05:10:42 No.2716789 Report

Quoted By:

>take photo in RAW
>process
>take screenshot of photo and give to reuters
they'll never know

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 01:07:28 No.2718651 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706364
>Today Reuters announced a ban on images that were composed. "Composition allows a photographer to select which elements from reality to include in a photo, that is something we cannot bring to harmony with the ethics of journalism," Reuters spokesperson said.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 10 Dec 2015 02:43:10 No.2718705 Report

Quoted By:

>>2714683
>bra

please stop

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 11 Dec 2015 11:10:05 No.2719502 Report

Quoted By:

>>2706324
Meh, most press have been doing that for ages because of conveniense and transfer speed. Press photographers have been shooting raw+jpg for ages too when it's and assignment they actually care about. Nothing new here, move along.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 12 Dec 2015 22:41:37 No.2720435 Report

Quoted By:

>>2714246
>that crowd
fucking soft cunts

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 13 Dec 2015 00:15:33 No.2720483 Report

Quoted By:

>>2713638
So what you're saying is there is already a solution to the problem they're trying to solve, dodgy photojournalism. Everyone has to submit a signed raw and with their ethically edited jpegs. Then the editor looks at them side by side to verify they weren't shooped. And since photographers are going to edit the jpegs that come out of the camera still the checksum and signature will be meaningless, unless submitted along with the unedited jpeg, which is fucking pointless because they could do the same thing with the raw file.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

YOUR CAREER IS DEAD