Can I have your RAW files??

[Kym]

I think most of the time they don't know what they are asking.....I think what the are probably looking for are all the high res jpegs ha you've already culled all the oof ones and colour corrected maybe only. So, without your cropping, converts to be, white vignetting or selective coloring ;-)

Still say no! Per my reasons above.

[camerasnoop]

I wonder how many wedding clients are photographers, or otherwise possess the skills to properly process photographic images.

It's said that doctors make the worst patients. Maybe photographers make the worst subjects.

I suspect that their photographer friends suggest they get the RAW files. Lots of people here know how to edit RAW files. I'd agree with Xenedis that photographers are sometimes each others' worst enemies. I've had one person ask me for RAW files and I refused, but offered him full-res JPEGs extracted from the RAW without any of my edits. He didn't want those. He wanted the RAWs or nothing. I guess he's probably editing my already edited JPEGs now.

[Brian500au]

To tell you the truth I am more worried about somebody re-editing the low quality proofs I provide them to pick the final images. I have only given out the raw files once - not a problem by me - saved me doing all the editing. I didn't lose any rights to the raws I did had for my own editing purposes.

At for for being worried about having your name associated with a bad quality edit - have any of you found one of your shots you took at a party on facebook or any other social network - you know the Christmas party shots etc. Do you worry about having your name associated with those?

To get around most of this I offer my client high quality edits of their choice in the first place - then there is little reason for them to ask for anything else.

[WhoDo]

I think the biggest reason for any client to ask for RAW, as opposed to Hi-Res, images is if a "friend" of the client knows just enough to be dangerous and suggests to the client that they might have more say in the processing if they get the RAW files for the friend to edit later. That's certainly not something any professional should be comfortable in encouraging.

Most times I'm sure all the client wants to do is to get reprints for friends and family without paying the photographer to do them. I have no problem with that where weddings are concerned. Other pro engagements are another matter entirely.

A colleague of mine wanted one of her wedding shots printed on a very large (6'x 4') canvas. The pro 'tog wanted $2,000 for that. With the Hi-Res (200dpi) jpeg's we were able to do the job for under $300 in total (no reprocessing involved). I understand the value in the pro 'tog's time to do such a job, but I don't think it's fair value when all you are talking about are reprints.

In short, no Dylan don't give up the RAW negs. If they want Hi-Res jpegs for later reprints though then I'd happily hand them over, but for weddings only and with clear copyright rules covering republishing those images other than for private use; certainly not for landscapes and other images that clearly represent your style of image. JMHO.

[ameerat42]

...He wanted the RAWs or nothing...

The puffed-up cheeky person!

You should have taken him up on the "nothing".
Am.

[Dylan & Marianne]

thanks all - our standard mode of operation is to give them a bunch of low res jpegs then from those, they pick 'x' number of images they would like as high res files (they are already edited). haven't had any issue so far with that.
As for christmas party pictures, they go up on my own FB page but not on the everlook site! I have plenty of terrible point and shoot pics there lol

[camerasnoop]

Wait till your clients start asking whether you can put them in the middle of the image instead of off to one side. Or the one who asked me to take the boyfriend's mother out of the group photo because she'd turned up uninvited. Had to put my best poker-face on when she asked me that one.

It's all part of life's rich tapestry.

[Steve Axford]

I guess I just don't care about wedding photos To me it would be just a job and they could do what they like with the raw images. But - I don't make a living from doing it, and as I used to hate being told in business "Perception is reality". To the customer that is true, so the trick is - don't try to manage reality, just manage the customers perceptions. That really grates with me, but then my take on photography (and most things) is to produce the very best that you can and to hell with what other peoples perceptions are. This is not a good formula if money is your priority. But, it can sometimes work if you are good enough and have a just a little luck.

[Chris G]

Any Raw/jpeg/Tiff files being your "digital rights to the images" should come with a very heavy price if someone does ever ask for such a request.

From what I can recall portraits alone of say a DVD of 200 raw images can set back a client in some cases upto $10,000 for the rights to those images.

What I do know is they should to be the most expensive item for client to buy.

[Dylan & Marianne]

thankfully steve, money isn't our main priority since we still have our day jobs
it's a good ethos you state though, and one that could work my /Marianne's situation

[bricat]

So I want to hire a photog for x job. I do all the set up I just need some shots for my promotion. NOt your promotion. I'm paying you for your time and expertise but this job is for me. So I need the raw files. I don't need your name because am putting my "brand" on it. I don't need your processing as I have my own ideas as well. I am not saying anything about me taking the shots etc. claiming credit etc. When you see an add on TV you don't see who took the shot or who edited etc. A Mechanic charges $100.00 an hour and puts x parts in my car. They are not his parts as I paid for them and his labour. So does not the same apply? If I pay you $100.00 an hour what do I get? Once again I want these images for my purpose not yours and I don't want your name all over it. I really can't see what the problem is other than as stated about bad images with your name on it. I think it is time to get into the 21st century. You get paid for your job end of story. Also I now want to update my wedding photo's from 42 years ago. Hang on I can't find the photog anymore and he is probably passed on by now. Seems to me to be a one sided application here where the client gets bo diddley. JMHO

[Kym]

@Bricat -- but that pre-supposes that you have a clue about processing, and (say) advertising agencies, magazine production houses etc. who actually do that sort of work obviously do.

But we are talking Weddings here, so the rules are different as the end consumer is 98% unlikely to have said clue.

It also depends on the contract, i.e. who owns the ©

[Dylan & Marianne]

As per Kym -

bricat:
using your arguments and applying them to a wedding situation:

B&G don't do all the set up and the shots aren't for their 'promotion'
They aren't using the images for their own brand whereas the photographer (ie Marianne and I in this case) would use the photographs to promote our vision of weddings to future clients.
When you see a wedding picture in a magazine, unless you know the B&G, you don't care who the couple is, you're looking to see who the photographer is!
A photographer charges $x an hour and takes x number of pictures - they ARE his pictures and the client pays for the service and end result (a vision/edited pictures - not sum of parts ie RAWS)
I don't have an answer to your last point though I'm not sure why you would want to update digital files 42 years on?

[Wayne]

One of my govt clients likes to do the edits, so I gladly hand over the RAW files. They pay well, and I do no editing so it is money for jam as far as I'm concerned. I am very careful though at the time of capture to try and make sure all is spot on.

[JM Tran]

One of my govt clients likes to do the edits, so I gladly hand over the RAW files. They pay well, and I do no editing so it is money for jam as far as I'm concerned. I am very careful though at the time of capture to try and make sure all is spot on.

my government dept clients are classified as commercial clients, them and magazines and agencies etc usually require the RAW files anyway, so its common practice for commercial clients to require RAW files.

[ricktas]

So I want to hire a photog for x job. I do all the set up I just need some shots for my promotion. NOt your promotion. I'm paying you for your time and expertise but this job is for me. So I need the raw files. I don't need your name because am putting my "brand" on it. I don't need your processing as I have my own ideas as well. I am not saying anything about me taking the shots etc. claiming credit etc. When you see an add on TV you don't see who took the shot or who edited etc. A Mechanic charges $100.00 an hour and puts x parts in my car. They are not his parts as I paid for them and his labour. So does not the same apply? If I pay you $100.00 an hour what do I get? Once again I want these images for my purpose not yours and I don't want your name all over it. I really can't see what the problem is other than as stated about bad images with your name on it. I think it is time to get into the 21st century. You get paid for your job end of story. Also I now want to update my wedding photo's from 42 years ago. Hang on I can't find the photog anymore and he is probably passed on by now. Seems to me to be a one sided application here where the client gets bo diddley. JMHO

I get where you are coming from, but here is the other side. So you get your mechanic to put a new part in your car, and it's now your part. Yep, agree. But now you take that part and copy it, and start selling a copy to friends and relatives. Innocent enough, but chances are you are breaking the law, someone has patented that part. You own the physical part in your car, but you cannot start making copies as you see fit.

You have a computer and probably use software on it, you paid for that software so you own it. Wrong, if you read the EULA for most software, what you have paid for is the right to use the software under certain conditions. You cannot take a piece of that software (the coding) and sell it to family, friends, etc.

If someone wants the RAW files and the photographer doesn't want to provide them, find another photographer. If you ask 2 mechanics what they would charge to install your part (who are both just as qualified and skilled) one who will do it for $250.00 and one will install for $150.00, which one do you get to do it?

There are many arguments for and against the conditions of any transaction between two or more people, which is the very reason contracts exist in the first place. In the end we each need to decide for ourselves, what we want to do, and do it. It is not something we should be dictated to by others, or change the way we do things cause someone else does it differently. Choosing to provide your RAW files should be based on your business model and not be just done, or not done, cause Joe's Photos down the road, do it that way.

Back to RAW, this should be written into the contract, explained to the client, and agreed upon, before to shoot is undertaken.

[geoffsta]

I convert all my RAW files to JPG's once I have finished editing them. Then put the edited and unedited files in seperate folders on the CD. Never Ever give the RAWs.

[Brian500au]

I convert all my RAW files to JPG's once I have finished editing them. Then put the edited and unedited files in seperate folders on the CD. Never Ever give the RAWs.

Geoff I honestly don't understand your logic here - you give the customer a high quality jpg and you are worried about not giving them the raw. The raw file may contain more information, but this information is only utilized if you actually need it during editing ie exposure / white balance etc. It will not stop 99.9% of people editing any quality jpg you give them. In fact you are doing them a favour by part editing the raw for them. Raw files themselves mostly look flat, etc. Not to mention you do need software and a computer to open them. If anything most people look at them and pass them by.

I will go back to my original concern - I am more worried about people who grab the low quality proof and try to edit it.

[Cris]

I don't know if it has already been mentioned but there would appear and industry arising out of run of the mill photographers having to hand over files so a proper edit can be done by someone with more than a passing knowledge of editing. So If you are a someone who just pushes the shutter button at everything and anything with no thought for exposure and composition then i would suggest that most likely you will need to hand the images over for rescuing. Not that I am implying that anyone here would be like that, just coming form a different perspective. Plus I need to reactivate and everything else I would have said has already been said.

[snappysi]

I got all RAW files from my photographer when i got married last year. That was the basis of our agreement though, he took the shots and i did the editing. He may have changed his position being that he knew i had the experience to do it or he may not have cared, i really dont know to be honest but either way that was our agreement that he honoured.

Simon.