Good point. I hadn't thought about the legal implications. That well
could be changing things. Of course, motorsport shooters generally
aren't held to a high standard of absolute authenticity.
Paul
On Feb 25, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From my experience in various press venues, I'd say that magazine
photographers shoot RAW, newspaper photographers shoot jpeg.
Probably depends on the newspaper. When there was all that fuss about
digitally altered images in the Charlotte Observer a couple of years
ago
Patrick Schneider, the photographer whose images were involved,
revealed
that the Observer has always, even before the controversy, *required*
their photographers to shoot RAW. All their photographers' RAW files
are
archived for future reference in case of questions about their
authenticity. Since this incident I expect more papers require RAW now.
They'd probably be foolish not to in the current legal environment.
Some links to the original controversy:
http://www.newmediamusings.com/blog/2003/08/charlotte_obser.html
http://poynteronline.org/content/content_view.asp?id=47867
http://www.zonezero.com/editorial/octubre03/october.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1415685
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
