Reuters: RAW format is banned


Been spending a lot of time on here!
Dec 13, 2012
Reaction score
Behind the Irony Curtain
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Reuters banned images developed from RAW files for their freelancers. Only SOOC JPEGs will do now.
Last edited:
Reuters banned images developed from RAW files for their freelances. Only SOOC JPEGs will do now.

Any idea what the reasoning is behind this?
Official Reuters comments regarding this are here. Reuters Issues a Worldwide Ban on RAW Photos

Basically...improved speed, lower workflow for photographers, a more "realistic" interpretation of scenes, FASTER turnaround from shooting to delivery, less chance for artistic license or unethical shot toning/editing/massive corrections that would alter the reality of the scenes, and so on.

I recall a few basic, rather general details from an incident I read about here in the USA a few years back, when a photographer shot a political rally, and very significantly ALTERED the weather in the image he submitted. I can't recall if he made a cloudy day into a bright day, or took a dark, gloomy day and lightened it up significantly, but it was one of those two basic things: materially mis-representing the weather at a scene, to a very significant degree. As I recall, the paper ran the photo, and then immediately editor started receiving phone calls from people who had been at the event, stating emphatically that the weather was the exact opposite of the way it had been shown in the newspaper's image. As I recall, the photographer was let go, for basically, deliberately "faking" a reality that had been seen by thousands of people in the metro area; the undertone was alleged or thought to be trying to cast the speaking politician in a negative light. I wish I had the exact details of this incident handy.
Is there a way to tell if a JPEG began life as a RAW file?

Could the editor tell by looking?
Does my dslr shoot jpeg :laughing::laugh2:

using tapatalk.
Does my dslr shoot jpeg :laughing::laugh2:
o_O Why, ... NO. No sir, it most certainly does NOT. :icon_thumright:
Why did you rate my question as "funny"? I think it is a legitimate question. Not funny if I don't know the answer.
I got on the wrong line when I was trying to tag jaomul's post as funny. Now that you've pointed out my error, I'll tag that as funny too! You were entirely justified in your confusion.

I suppose that a serious response to your question would be that it should be entirely possible to strip the EXIF data from a raw file in converting it to JPEG
The headline in Petapixel calls it a ban - that does not seem accurate - IF that email is legit (don't know the source or where/how they got the email). I wonder because the article says PP confirmed it with Reuters, so that doesn't seem that they got the info. directly from Reuters (or they wouldn't have had to confirm it).

If that email was actually sent out to their freelance photographers from a Reuters editor, it says they can shoot Raw, but should also shoot JPEGS and submit those. It doesn't say anything about a ban.

I know in sports often a photo is on a team's website before the game is even over so I would think this is to get photos fast. Working photographers may already be shooting JPEG.
This is from a thread of mine from July. Cannot recall if SOOC or not....

PS- yes, that is bacon in Godzilla's mouth.
If they are not accepting any images derived from raw, that's in effect, a ban. You can take them, but they won accept them.

Most reactions

New Topics