3 ms·

I think for photojournalism it should be original raw image, as captured in camera — zero edits for colour correction/cropping/filesize etc — platforms can link

I think for photojournalism it should be original raw image, as captured in camera — zero edits for colour correction/cropping/filesize etc — platforms can link a digital sig from a postprocessed version but you keep the provenance proof tied to a published original.

Gigachad 14d ago
That's pretty much how the Apple one works. The raw sensor data is signed. But you have to process it because raw sensor data is unviewable. Provide the raw original, and the exact processing steps used to get the presentable one.
112233 13d ago
ok, point camera at a screen. let's counter that by also taking 360° image with secondary camera. Ok build some props, let's add gps into it. fake gps. let's add inertial tracking and self-destruct on tamper. Ok, but we really need a fake image, here is our badge, give us signing keys for special use case... You cannot replace honesty with tech.
goodmythical 13d ago
Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors? "Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed" Or "here's three photos of XYZ taken on three seperate days at his new favorite coffee shop, notably across from this elementary school. Read on for our take on why he likes this shop so much!" Or even something as simple as positioning the camera just so that one national head appears shorter than another. Or, in an interview, adjusting lights on the 'hero' to make them look good and highlight the shadows on the 'villain' to make them look ominous. Use a mirror set up to make it look to the 'villain' that they are making eye contact but are instead looking weirdly askance. Limitations are the origin of creativity. Force publishing RAW would just force journalists to be more creative in their framing. Also, no edits for filesize? Lossless RAWs are huge! Especially from professional cameras. You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames. The few who care enough to see the 'real' image (that is still tainted by photographer intent regardless of file size and editting) are motivated enough to click the lossy jpg for the raw. Those who do not care aren't going to sit waiting on the order of minutes to see the first image.
- jamienk 13d ago
  Or what about: the photographer tries to hide so that they don't contaminate the real-life that they are watching, but then the person sort of hears a small sound from the photographer's direction -- they don't actually SEE the photographer, but they get interrupted. Or: the CCTV is well hidden, but the people who installed it left behind some mud that got on someone's shoes and that made them late...

Gigachad 14d ago

That's pretty much how the Apple one works. The raw sensor data is signed. But you have to process it because raw sensor data is unviewable. Provide the raw original, and the exact processing steps used to get the presentable one.

112233 13d ago

ok, point camera at a screen. let's counter that by also taking 360° image with secondary camera. Ok build some props, let's add gps into it. fake gps. let's add inertial tracking and self-destruct on tamper. Ok, but we really need a fake image, here is our badge, give us signing keys for special use case... You cannot replace honesty with tech.

goodmythical 13d ago

Are they allowed flash? What about studio lighting? What about commentary? Paid actors? "Hey, do me a favor, wear this hoodie and go hand this plastic baggie with white powder in it to that guy over there, it's for an art project, he's going to act like he doesn't know you, and then you just run in the opposite direction to where you'll be payed" Or "here's three photos of XYZ taken on three seperate days at his new favorite coffee shop, notably across from this elementary school. Read on for our take on why he likes this shop so much!" Or even something as simple as positioning the camera just so that one national head appears shorter than another. Or, in an interview, adjusting lights on the 'hero' to make them look good and highlight the shadows on the 'villain' to make them look ominous. Use a mirror set up to make it look to the 'villain' that they are making eye contact but are instead looking weirdly askance. Limitations are the origin of creativity. Force publishing RAW would just force journalists to be more creative in their framing. Also, no edits for filesize? Lossless RAWs are huge! Especially from professional cameras. You could end up loading a gig of data for a single article with 10 images, or even more for larger frames. The few who care enough to see the 'real' image (that is still tainted by photographer intent regardless of file size and editting) are motivated enough to click the lossy jpg for the raw. Those who do not care aren't going to sit waiting on the order of minutes to see the first image.

jamienk 13d ago
Or what about: the photographer tries to hide so that they don't contaminate the real-life that they are watching, but then the person sort of hears a small sound from the photographer's direction -- they don't actually SEE the photographer, but they get interrupted. Or: the CCTV is well hidden, but the people who installed it left behind some mud that got on someone's shoes and that made them late...