[virusn3t]

Its amazing to know that everyone here is searching a way to manipulate the metadata to make them believe is a sooc jpeg ans not a developed raw.... The simple answer is, if you want work with them you follow their rules, they rules said sooc jpeg only and you deliver that.

[Steve.Ledger]

I think ppl are just exploring and highlighting the stupidity of the ban.

[j0n4hpk]

Man! I used to shoot RAW+JPEG and then decided to work with just RAW. Well, it may be back to RAW+JPEG and the biggest SD card I can get on my camera.

[tuco]

Single exposure photography is becoming a lost art in the digital camera world. People who shoot straight or candid photography generally have that limit as apposed to still life, landscapes, etc where combining multiple photographs and altering its content to make one is more graphics art than photography, IMHO.

But perhaps for Reuters this is more protection than anything. Their credibility is at risk when they inadvertently buy altered photos.

[Digitalis]

Did they only accept Polaroids before, and reject shots printed from negatives?

The impossible project makes 8X10 inch Polaroids*...you just gave me an idea.

* I have used these before and unfortunately, they take about a month to completely dry and require specialized processing hardware.

[Murfy]

Did they only accept Polaroids before, and reject shots printed from negatives?

I was took a class by one photographer who said he shot reversal film for news publication. Still, the shooting in jpg-only format puzzles me for the reasons they state. I guess they will look at the metadata to see if it has gone through a image processing software, which seems like it would slow down the whole process, instead of speeding it up.

[Pavel_Zhelev]

I think this is reflecting the scandal last year on World Photography Awards, if you remember there was a post processing issue with journalistic images reflecting on certain subjects.
The notion now is to get closer to the "original film era" photography, the question is really the alternation of certain aspects of image considered as "distorting the truth" or just under-marking certain aspect of already existing feature.... Who knows, the only thing I can say is that we need the act as per the reality and the reality is we are in the digital era, putting rules from different century is not going to fix peoples morale and work ethics.

[Paul the Sunman]

I think this is reflecting the scandal last year on World Photography Awards, if you remember there was a post processing issue with journalistic images reflecting on certain subjects.
The notion now is to get closer to the "original film era" photography, the question is really the alternation of certain aspects of image considered as "distorting the truth" or just under-marking certain aspect of already existing feature.... Who knows, the only thing I can say is that we need the act as per the reality and the reality is we are in the digital era, putting rules from different century is not going to fix peoples morale and work ethics.

Yes, but the "original" is the RAW file, i.e., the "negative". It has no artistic fiddling attached to it, unlike any jpeg. The ban is the wrong way around.

[Steve.Ledger]

The ban is the wrong way around.

Yep....

Like I mentioned earlier, are film shooters banned?

You have to develop a film negative and there you have the opportunity to distort reality even before you scan the print to create a JPEG for Reuters..
It's ill thought out and actually sounds like a hoax/rumor to me.
Petapixel have a bit of a reputation for iffy info don't they?

[jkomp316]

Reuters make whatever policy they want. They can also follow their own policy at will. It's thier business. My interpretation is they want pictures quickly as possible as there are others racing to the same headlines.

[boriscleto]

Man! I used to shoot RAW+JPEG and then decided to work with just RAW. Well, it may be back to RAW+JPEG and the biggest SD card I can get on my camera.

Or get a K-3 and use both SD slots

[UncleVanya]

I'm completely serious when I say this:

The only way we get to attestation of SOOC images (Raw or JPG) is via some form of crytographic signing. Public Key Cryptography makes this a real possibility. You could literally issue a certificate to Pentax and they could issue a child one for the K50 and specific cameras could even have their own cert if desired. The camera would sign the cryptographically hashed file contents and the exif and it would not be practical to modify without detection. (implementation errors not withstanding).

The files could then be imported by tools using the same methods and changes made could be logged and signed. In this way the files would have a chain of evidence showing precisely what was done (in the interests of artistic license it could be a bit obsured like "saturation increase" rather than what specific amount.

The certificates would be revoked if they were compromised and a means of importing them into firmware would be needed.

My biggest concern would be speed. Cryptographic signing isn't computationally easy. Frame rates might suffer.

But the question of authenticity would be at least back to the level of film negatives. Yes things can be manipulated outside the camera to show things that are not quite real but the veracity of the "negative" at least is more accepted at that point.

[BrianR]

Yep....

Like I mentioned earlier, are film shooters banned?

They allow you to use raw+jpeg and submit the jpeg, so I'd assume a camera that can output film+jpeg would be fine.

[Nicolas06]

I'm completely serious when I say this:

The only way we get to attestation of SOOC images (Raw or JPG) is via some form of crytographic signing. Public Key Cryptography makes this a real possibility. You could literally issue a certificate to Pentax and they could issue a child one for the K50 and specific cameras could even have their own cert if desired. The camera would sign the cryptographically hashed file contents and the exif and it would not be practical to modify without detection. (implementation errors not withstanding).

The files could then be imported by tools using the same methods and changes made could be logged and signed. In this way the files would have a chain of evidence showing precisely what was done (in the interests of artistic license it could be a bit obsured like "saturation increase" rather than what specific amount.

The certificates would be revoked if they were compromised and a means of importing them into firmware would be needed.

My biggest concern would be speed. Cryptographic signing isn't computationally easy. Frame rates might suffer.

But the question of authenticity would be at least back to the level of film negatives. Yes things can be manipulated outside the camera to show things that are not quite real but the veracity of the "negative" at least is more accepted at that point.

Security also say that client side security doesn't exist and even server side is often compromized, including cryptographic keys. The photographer has the camera he can do what he want with it, including taking photo of a fake scene, ask people to act the way he want, take a photo of an processed photo or whatever. A software update of the firmware could also change the camera behavior and would need to be encrypted too.

But this is even worse for post processing. I could as well change the code of the program so it doesn't record what I do and sign what he think is an un-modified image. This would also ban all kind of open source or non official software from ever being used and not counting the equivalent of "experimental features" or bugs that would allow you to do all you want anyway. You would even create a black market with this.

This would only mean that the average joe would have more difficulties to fake things, not that somebody that really want to couldn't do it.

[Na Horuk]

So the next step for Pentax is to have in-camera Topaz de-noise and Alien skin exposure and Nik Efex as well. Bonus points is they add zit-removal to the Portrait mode. Hey, we have red eye removal, why not that next?
Because if a robot lies to us, its not really a lie. If a human has the opportunity to lie, then he is a liar, even if his story is as close to truth as possible. I suggest we also add photo interpretos, so that viewers don't go and make false assumptions when looking at photos. From now on, when someone looks at a Reuters jpeg a voice over should start playing, telling the viewer what they are supposed to see.

This would only mean that the average joe would have more difficulties to fake things, not that somebody that really want to couldn't do it.

And this is what it comes down to. So many rules these days cause a lot of delays and hassles for everyone, except the people who were cheating all along. Whats this called, security theater?