Don Kiyoti: This is clearly about the growing problem of some unethical photographers altering the content of their images by adding or deleting elements. There have been some well-publicized cases of this happening. Sometimes it's to "improve" the image by removing something distracting but otherwise unimportant. In other cases it's been to make the image tell a different story, and that's what Reuters can't tolerate.
Despite the wording of the announcement, this has nothing to do with speed. It's all about the integrity of the scene.
You can, but they are very easily detected, and it's easy to differentiate an unmodified file from the camera from one that has been altered.
DStudio: In the PetaPixel article Reuters cites the extra time photographers take on editing RAW images. And they're correct - it is often a waste of time when news-gathering - even when the photographer has an efficient RAW workflow.
However, that's the *photographer's* problem to solve, not theirs. I guess their liberal mindset (the bad side of it) is showing through here. They want to solve someone else's problems. And they will do so by mandating "the correct solution" for them.
It's good for Reuters to manage their workflows. But it's dubious to dictate the freelance photographer's workflow for him. I don't mind them specifying the types of edits allowed, but it's dubious when they get their fingers into the photographer's pie, dictating the original image format.
You're kidding yourself if you think this is really about workflow. It's about the integrity of the image, and that is all. And injecting" liberal mindset" into your argument is just inane.
Great Bustard: You know, if you have that little trust in your photographers, then...
As is often the case, a few bad apples spoil the whole barrel. Some photographers have proven themselves untrustworthy, and so the rest deal with the negative consequence.
Raist3d: Love it. Clear present evidence that JPEG is also used in professional workflows. The RAW snobs think only RAW is valid when it's hardly the most important part of the photo- particularly documentary stuff (Note: and I am shooting mostly raw at the moment)
Don't kid yourself. This has nothing to do with image quality. No doubt that Reuters knows full well they'll be taking a hit in terms of image quality.
This is clearly about the growing problem of some unethical photographers altering the content of their images by adding or deleting elements. There have been some well-publicized cases of this happening. Sometimes it's to "improve" the image by removing something distracting but otherwise unimportant. In other cases it's been to make the image tell a different story, and that's what Reuters can't tolerate.
A vacuum cleaner? Why?
guido1953: Sure hope the focusing motors have been replaced on any new (or old) lenses. The old SDM models were a pathetic joke.
Guido, truly, it would not be possible to dumb down your comments any further.
Well, since you are uninformed, have no interest in the camera, and are unaware of the lens quality Pentax is capable of, then there is no point in your commenting on this article, is there?
If you were well-informed, you'd know that those original SDM moters are long gone. But you aren't well informed, so you just bitch about a non-issue and look silly.
bakhtyar kurdi: I know this is like religion, no logic will help, but I ask photographers to do a simple thing, download the picture of the flag that has no shadow, then open photoshop, then file, open as, camera raw Now move the exposure slide all the way to the right, you will see clearly that the flag was been selected,then pasted as a perfect rectangle shape, then they darkened the extra areas or brushed or whatever to blend it to the rest of the picture, but unfortunately they forgot to make shadow for the flag on the earth(studio or moon) , and don't forget, this is after 2 million times of editing so that they don't leave any signs of mistakes,so how do you want me to accept the rest of their lies?The flag has been added later to another picture that also been faked in studio .
You're right. No logic will help you. You are a fool.
Smitty1: It would have been interesting, to me, to have had a couple similar Pentax bodies in the DR comparison. Especially since Pentax was referenced in the review a couple of times.
Hopefully the top LCD panel catches on to more entry and mid tier bodies across brands as it can be a really useful feature. But I'm sort of shocked Canon hasn't introduced Weather Sealing at this point on these.. esp since a 300 dollar K-50 has it.
Glad to hear that, Richard. I've been looking forward to the K-S2 review.
Tip: when shooting propeller airplanes, use a much slower shutter speed to avoid that awkward stopped-prop look that makes it look like the engine's quit.
Massively, and badly, Photoshopped. What a joke.
fisherman_lol: To DPR Moderators; This jpino79 guy is been flooding this forum all day with his inflammatory comments and you are not doing anything about it? I think if he was bashing CANIKON he would be banned for life. ;)
390 comments as of now, and most of them from the amazingly narcissistic jpino79. I wonder what goes on in that guy's noodle that makes him need to troll Pentax-related articles.
madeinlisboa: Correct me if I'm wrong. Lightroom still has a huge problem. There is no list of filters applied to images, which means that an user must navigate through radial, gradients, brushes, etc, in order to check which ones were applied to an image.
madeinlisboa, by deleting your history, for one. Why on earth do you delete that? It's THE LIST you're asking for. If you have a hard time keeping track of your edits, you can always use the Virtual Copy function and go nuts on that one.
madeinlisboa, you're doing it wrong.
Hugo is correct. Just check your history. You do not need to navigate through the filter menus.
PhotoKhan: I said this many years ago, I'll repeat it now for the benefit of avoiding any more future hassle.
The sooner any professional or advanced amateur photographer who rely in Raw output starts using LR and exploring it in order to get the amazing potential it entails, the sooner you'll be doing yourself an huge, mind-peace-inducing favor.
This has been my method since I first installed Lr. It works great and gives me huge flexibility. I export full-size uncompressed JPGS for importing to iPhoto. LRs export presets make it simple to send out JPGs for Flickr, email, Facebook, etc. I use iPhoto strictly for organizing and sharing photos with my Apple TV. I won't be using Photos at all.
SmilerGrogan: Is there a way to "hide" iPhoto from my system so that the update won't delete it? There are times when I need its functionality....and it sounds like Photos won't do it for me.
Wilcy, I've heard the same thing (haven't updated yet). But read this: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55640206
So you've installed Photos and you cannot share photos from your Mac to your ATV locally? Just via iCloud?
jwd8002: With the release of this software AppleTV (the device that connects iTunes to home TVs) users can no longer connect to their photo libraries on their computers, rather connection is only available with their photos in iCloud. There is a monthly charge to store >5 gig in the cloud. Thus we see blatant (and I believe illegal at least in Australia) price gouging by Apple. Very poor show Mr Apple, ripping off consumers through market manipulation is not nice.
I discussed this on the Mac forum here just the other day because I had heard this exact same thing, and it seemed to be confirmed by Apple support. But one poster has contradicted this, saying he's able to share photos to his ATV just as before: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55640206Have you found this out from your own experience or is this something you read elsewhere like I did? (I haven't installed the update yet.)