Can I have your RAW files??

[ProPho]

In short, no.

[Redgum]

Storm in a teacup. What difference does it make? Anything can be changed be it Jpeg or RAW so it has nothing to do with reputation. The question is - if you can make more money selling the RAW format, take it.
Out of interest most professionals, including the well known, hand their negatives (RAW) to the client because most clients contract for that condition. Particularly corporate clients, any worthwhile magazine and industrial users. It's a condition of contract with Discovery/National Geographic, most State Governments, the Federal Government and just about all the mining companies. The reason why? Very few people on this forum could match the processing skills of the graphic artists employed by those bodies and usually they're looking for a particular theme or feel in their project which must be under their specific control.
One to one contracts (such as weddings) really don't matter that much because they rarely have an ongoing value.

[JM Tran]

One to one contracts (such as weddings) really don't matter that much because they rarely have an ongoing value.

and thats what we are focusing about here - wedding photography/clients, not corporate or commercial clients as that is a different ball game.

[Dylan & Marianne]

redgum - i was specifically referring to weddings intiially but I think the discussion has become broader!
I can't pretend to know about these other areas other than to say that the couple of magazines I've had the opportunity to work with never want RAW files? (popular photography, australian photography and the awe inspiring SA life lol)

[Redgum]

JM, wedding photography is no different to corporate or commercial work. Like Rick says, it's always contract based in which you agree to sell a product and they agree to buy. If including the RAW photographs earns more then you should take the money. Those of us who have done weddings know quite well that any repeat business after a year or two is quite negligible and you'll end up archiving or throwing away the RAW files in the long run.

[Redgum]

redgum - i was specifically referring to weddings intiially but I think the discussion has become broader!
I can't pretend to know about these other areas other than to say that the couple of magazines I've had the opportunity to work with never want RAW files? (popular photography, australian photography and the awe inspiring SA life lol)

Sure dtoh, low circulation Australian magazines don't often require RAW because in many cases they're not available and we'll stick with Jpeg's. I publish two mags in this country with less than 8000 circulation and chasing RAW's is just not worth the cost. But look at any of the international mags (about 97% of the market) and it's a different story. You would know from your own experience that the money you earn from the magazines you mention wouldn't put the groceries on the table for one week.
I guess the point is that if they offered to buy your RAW's (for extra money) you'd take the bootie and run. To say you wouldn't sell your RAW's borders on the silly when you have generally given that mag exclusivity to a shot anyway.

[Wayne]

My view is like Redgum, I don't want to be archiving for years for both storage and responsibility reasons, so to me if they are paying, they can have the RAW and my job is done and dusted.

[reaction]

You're all missing the point.
When a couple ask if they can have the RAW files, the next question on their mind is can they have a discount now since they're going to do their own editing on the RAW files you just promised and save you a lot of time.


separately, I got the RAWs for my wedding photos. Lucky too, since the jpgs I got were crap, looks like he just pressed 'auto' in LR, added vignettes and reduced saturation on everything. Some were so underexposed....
I have no idea why they offered RAWs, we didn't ask for them, they just said we could have them if we wanted, so yeh, why not?

I would have preferred if they did a proper p/p job and only gave me jpgs, jpgs that I could use immediately instead of me still editing RAWs from my wedding almost 2 years ago.

go figure...

[Dylan & Marianne]

Maybe it's just genres but I doubt any fine art landscape photographer would be pleased with anything less than their vision of a scene and that means , yes, I do object to them using my RAW and doing what they want - ps. popular photography found my image through a flickr search and wanted it for online and feature purposes - they did pay significantly more than aus photography and I believe they are a very large magazine - there was never any mention of RAWs - remember again that that is my n=1 series of experience but from the landscape community at least, I have ALWAYS seen the work presented as images they have procesed themselves. (edit, oops, there was one instance -Steve Parish wanted images for potential publication and his company wanted them as unedited versions - but therein lies our issue - I do not want my work processed in Steve Parish's fashion - no matter how sucessful he is. The fact that I don't have to make a living from photograph greatly influenced that decision I am sure. My one other publishing experience with Ian Wallace last year - he wanted every image processed with our vision of the scenes for the Tasmania book)

Perhaps I'm just extrapolating that kind of ethos into our wedding photography for better or worse. I think I'll just state my definite preference to say no , I don't give my RAWs away. This thread however has been great to educate me regarding situations where people would and when I should be considering doing it if I come across new situations in the future

[Xenedis]

Maybe it's just genres but I doubt any fine art landscape photographer would be pleased with anything less than their vision of a scene

As someone who does the sort of stuff you do, I can attest to that.

While there are a lot of very capable people out there who can probably process to a higher standard than I can, it's my own work and I'm not happy with other people working on it.

Perhaps I'm just extrapolating that kind of ethos into our wedding photography for better or worse. I think I'll just state my definite preference to say no , I don't give my RAWs away. This thread however has been great to educate me regarding situations where people would and when I should be considering doing it if I come across new situations in the future

In my view, justification for your decision to suppress or provide raw files is not owed to anyone (and I agree with your stance of 'no'), but yes, it is interesting to see other people's views on the matter.

Some don't care and some care a lot.

Whatever works for the photographer at the end of the day is what counts.

As long as people know the pros and cons on both sides of the fence, and that suppressing raw images is not a silver bullet against unauthorised editing/publishing, that's all one can ask.

[zollo]

Storm in a teacup. What difference does it make? Anything can be changed be it Jpeg or RAW so it has nothing to do with reputation. The question is - if you can make more money selling the RAW format, take it.
Out of interest most professionals, including the well known, hand their negatives (RAW) to the client because most clients contract for that condition. Particularly corporate clients, any worthwhile magazine and industrial users. It's a condition of contract with Discovery/National Geographic, most State Governments, the Federal Government and just about all the mining companies. The reason why? Very few people on this forum could match the processing skills of the graphic artists employed by those bodies and usually they're looking for a particular theme or feel in their project which must be under their specific control.
One to one contracts (such as weddings) really don't matter that much because they rarely have an ongoing value.

there you go. raw files keep further use/editing possibilities with the raw file owner. and mostly too - 'ownership' of the image. so if someone wants to pay for the processing potential/copyright of the raw files, sure, it's theirs.
but i see no argument for giving away raw files with a wedding as a 'matter of course.' What if i want to edit some of my work from a year ago in a new way to showcase the new direction my photography is taking? raws are worth hanging onto, at least for a few years after the event.
and as dylan says, for landscape type work, it would be bordering on an insult to ask for the raw file to someones work

[zollo]

by the way Getty are a rather large 'commercial' outfit, who has had photos from their stock library of jpegs appear on very worldwide magazines (Time) . no raw files were used and raw is not required or accepted by getty... just a thought

[Redgum]

This forum is about "the business of photography" and the debate is about keeping RAW files. I would argue that both Getty's and Landscape photography are entirely speculative pursuits and keeping RAW files may be worthwhile but not entirely necessary. However, as many have said, keeping RAW files for commercial business reasons where the contractor, or well over 90% of them, require the RAW file for their purpose of promotion is entirely normal.
The debate asks should I keep them or not (in a business context). That's entirely up to the owner but I can tell you now that most professional photographers (other than wedding specialists who live in hope), don't. But of course, if you want to hang on to them it is not only your right but also your privilege.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I understand your point entirely
- this thread was in f-stop and moved here by a mod with the original question:

"Marianne and I just had an enquiry about a wedding where the client wanted RAWS to do their own processing?
In short, we weren't available anyway but if we were, I think we would have said no anyway?
We haven't been in the game that long but it's our first experience with someone asking for original files
Is this a common request and do photographers actually give their RAWs out to clients? - just curious is all"

perhaps I should have stated 'wedding photographers' and not photographers in general
I like the way you've shot down landscape and wedding photographers in the one paragraph too .........

[Kym]

It's still a Business related discussion.
I.e. processing and customer relationships re: Weddings.

[Redgum]

I like the way you've shot down landscape and wedding photographers in the one paragraph too .........

Evolution! Having once been a wedding photographer and realising it's hard enough to feed yourself, let alone a family, I moved on as most do. I have the utmost respect for Landscape photographers but in respect the good ones are "artists" not necessarily business people. Another genre designed of the heart, not the head.
The "business of photography" is about making a good living and a good career AND having fun in life but specifically in that order or it won't work. I love all forms of my work but I've been around long enough to learn priorities. Keeping RAW files is not one of those.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I agree with you wholeheartedly and that's why I maintain my day job so that I don't have to make compromises in the genres I prefer
I am very lucky in that regard so that's where I'm coming from

[zollo]

appreciate your experience, and next to yours, mine is definitely lacking in the years department. but i started up my photography smack bang in the middle of the gfc, (not a good time to start anything new), and not giving away raw files has still got me through. I mainly do advertising photography (clients that want and pay for, raw, get it) with an ecletic mix of other types thrown in, but 99% of the time the raw stays with me. I wouldn't call it a priority, but in a business sense, i still see no reason to give away raw files.

landscape and wedding photography are more 'personal' styles of photography where you are hired more for the style of your work than the equipment you use (or the raw files). arguing that they are not a valid business pursuit because you did not make it, is a bit blinkered

[Longshots]

reality ? real world ?

Almost never.

Clients I shoot for almost never ask. In the past 10 years I've been asked twice. I said no, and still got both jobs. FWIW, both were editorial clients.

Would it be a decision maker ? no. If the client wanted them badly enough I would supply them because theres little gained in not doing so - of course like any professional agreement it would be dependent on cost.

[ApolloLXII]

I would think that, seeing how it was your skills with the camera that captured the images in RAW format in the first place, a person would be mad to hand over their RAW files to someone else to potentially mangle into an edited image (unless they have a clue and actually know what they are doing and know their way around Photoshop). Would be a bit like asking a well known recording artist to provide just a vocal track so that Uncle Fester playing the spoons while someone strangles a cat in the background is added as the music.