That may be a new thing happening. I haven't heard of it from my friends in the local editorial photography organization as yet.
I can understand having RAW files for credentialing purposes, but not for editorial submissions. Unless they always process them to JPEGs on the RAW converters' default settings. It's easy to batch convert a thousand RAW files at once these days if you don't want to set parameters too carefully. G On May 16, 2007, at 11:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I think what Mark's earlier post suggested was that editors want > RAW backup to verify that the jpegs are unretouched. > Paul > -------------- Original message ---------------------- > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Editors would never want RAW files unless they want to contract in- >> house staff to do the image processing. That would be like asking >> photographers to submit their unprocessed film. >> >> They want finished photographs, not RAW exposures ... TIFF or JPEG >> for digital capture submissions. >> >> G >> >> On May 16, 2007, at 10:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> On the few occassions I've shot for the NY Times, they've asked >>> only for hi-res jpegs. I shot RAW, but they never requested the >>> original files. However, none of these were for what you would call >>> "hard news" stories. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
