I see people running around in circles on this phone photo thing, and I can offer some badly needed context. Some facts need to be introduced to minimize the noise:

1. Chip is a staff Getty shooter, and his images are wholly owned by Getty. He has very little leeway to release them on his own. Though surprising to many, he might not even have them archived off the Getty system. He's been a staff shooter for them for years.

1. "Roll" is vernacular used by shooters to generically describe blocks of photos. Its a carry-over from the days of film. It can describe the products of one of several cameras (or more appropriately their cards), or discrete blocks of similar content in the context of an entire shoot. It is frequently co-opted by non-Photofags to generically imply the latter.

1. Chip was likely shooting at least two bodies, one on a remote, and one hand-held with a telephoto, from that position. He was probably triggering the remote while scanning with the telephoto for opportunity. I'd suspect he probably shot several shots of the women with the phones over a period of time.

1. Its likely Getty was using either a runner for cards, or had their shooters tethered digitally to get raw images back to editors during the speech. These editors were likely making selections for the wire, retouching, and posting.

1. If they were using the method above, once the editors got the card in hand, they likely ingested the complete contents of the card, and reformatted it, before it came back to the shooter. This would mean the RAWs (if they exist, see next comment) would be on the Getty server, and potentially not even in the shooters hands.

1. For breaking news like this, its entirely possible the workflow for Getty is to shoot JPEGs. These buffer faster than RAWs, and if something happens, require less processing time to get onto the wire. While a RAW is desirable in all conditions, Anons might actually be looking for the big unedited JPEG straight from the body, currently described as RAW. Either is possible.

1. Holders of a congressional press hard pass have very strict limitations on allowing private information into their imagery set by the Press Office. It is not uncommon to select images for the wire based on this constraint, or in some cases I've seen, throw a gaussian blur over personal or questionable content. Getty (and by inference, Chip) would be very careful about meeting this constraint and would probably default to caution, unless there was a news value assigned to the content or the image. This might not necessarily be nefarious at first blush, more a function of just keeping private personal texts out of the public record out of an abundance of discretion.

1. The best way to likely get this image, is to pressure Getty to release the content due to its newsworthy nature. Harrassing or shaming Chip is not likely to produce a result. In fact, Chip is probably one of the most ethical shooters in DC, beloved by anyone who knows him and seen as a idealized example of the Fourth Estate. The DC press corps will gather around him in defense, inside of a hot second, if it looked like he was being unfairly maligned.

1. Finally, Getty is a major player in photo and is the agency of note for virtually every news and editorial publication or channel. If there was a strong case made for the important news value of an image, and that value served the public good, it is not inconcivable this image would be released. If nothing else, something on this level is important enough to make history. A strong case can be made to bring this into the public selects from that evening.

1. Pancho Bernasconi, VP, News, Getty Images

>>285630

>>285661

>>285611

Hey, no worries. Us professional lurkers get our licks in when we can.

BTW…someone else mentioned an FTP in the EXIF of the file. That'd likely be where these got ingested to.

>>285936

Trust me.