Client asking me for all raw files.

RhysM said:

brucet said:

RhysM said:

brucet said:

I would be worried about what they did with the file. I they 'edit' them and do a bad job then that may well reflect on you. Photography now days is more than just taking photos. Editing them goes hand in hand with holding the camera. So your 'creative' skills are very much a part of those raw files.

regards

Click to expand...

They can do just as much damage editing a JPEG as they can a RAW file.

Click to expand...

True but editing a jpeg will downgrade quality.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So the resultant image will be an even worse advert for the photographer.

Click to expand...

Are you honestly saying we should just resort to turning over our half-baked images because someone is going to mess them up anyway?

If that is the case, what business advantage do I have to making sure my images look good to begin with (according to you)? Why should I even bother focusing my images? Someone might put a stupid blur filter on it anyway, right?

I'm wondering where your point of view begins and ends. I've never had anyone mess with my pictures after I processed them. If someone so much as wants to print a different aspect ratio from what I gave them, I'll re-crop those images to maintain the integrity of the vignette (for example). If they want my color images in black and white, I'll process that too because I want to ensure the contrast is adequate.

I've got pride it in what I put my name on....I'm sure you do too.

They apparently have value to the customer, but they belong to me. Such is the stuff of capitalism.

You do realize that you can copy a RAW file and send it somewhere, and still have a RAW file for yourself?

The RAW file in your computer is not the RAW file on your memory card. The computer file is just a copy of the Card file.

It's much harder to copy a real negative, although using a scanner and turning the negative into a digital file comes close.

BAK

markhayphotography said:

RhysM said:

brucet said:

RhysM said:

brucet said:

I would be worried about what they did with the file. I they 'edit' them and do a bad job then that may well reflect on you. Photography now days is more than just taking photos. Editing them goes hand in hand with holding the camera. So your 'creative' skills are very much a part of those raw files.

regards

Click to expand...

They can do just as much damage editing a JPEG as they can a RAW file.

Click to expand...

True but editing a jpeg will downgrade quality.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So the resultant image will be an even worse advert for the photographer.

Click to expand...

Are you honestly saying we should just resort to turning over our half-baked images because someone is going to mess them up anyway?

If that is the case, what business advantage do I have to making sure my images look good to begin with (according to you)? Why should I even bother focusing my images? Someone might put a stupid blur filter on it anyway, right?

I'm wondering where your point of view begins and ends. I've never had anyone mess with my pictures after I processed them. If someone so much as wants to print a different aspect ratio from what I gave them, I'll re-crop those images to maintain the integrity of the vignette (for example). If they want my color images in black and white, I'll process that too because I want to ensure the contrast is adequate.

I've got pride it in what I put my name on....I'm sure you do too.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you, I or anyone should or shouldn't hand over RAW images. Though I'm certainly not as precious about it as some, if someone wants to be charged a bit extra for my time to supply the RAW files as well as JPEG or Tiff then i'll oblige. Maybe they might want to use a similar image of a product/scene for a spring catalogue and want a slightly cooler colour temperature with a brighter tone then in the future put it in a christmas advert and want a warmer more cosy feel to the image.

I am just pointing out:

a) not doing so doesn't prevent anyone editing the images, it's a moot point.

and

b) in this particular case the OP is questioning the damage giving his RAW files away could do AFTER he's given 1400 images to the client. Which is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The point I am making is that the best way of avoiding this whole situation is to be more selective with the images you provide and process them to a higher standard. Agreeing to provide 100 beautifully edited images is better than supplying 1400 OOC JPEG's.

sledzik102 said:

I am wedding photographer with 5 years experience and over 100 weddings.

Client asking me for ALL raw files.

Would you give it or if not how would you explain it.

It is not in the contract. Between two photographers we shot 4000 images and client got 1400 JPEGs.

Click to expand...

No thankyou. Then they would see all the mistakes I've been making. You get the finished product that does you and me honour.

Such requests are easily guessed as from people who fancy they can develop and print for themselves and would relegate the photographer to the status of an hourly rate shooter with a nice camera. Request might also come from someone fearful that you hold them to ransom for a good image somehow. I would prefer to simply explain that the client gets the worthwhile pictures treated in the worthwhile way, and the process inbetween is my Magic Circle trick, thankyou very much.

--
Hi-iso Sensor & NR software comparisons: http://bit.do/ritmikov

"Raw" can mean two different things:

Do they want to see all of the photos you shot, which video folk call "raw footage" , or copies of all the raw format frames.?

ask your client which they want.

Ellis Vener said:

"Raw" can mean two different things:

Do they want to see all of the photos you shot, which video folk call "raw footage" , or copies of all the raw format frames.?

ask your client which they want.

Click to expand...

They obviously just mean the raw image files like NEF, RAF, CRW, CR2, etc.

markhayphotography said:

... I've never had anyone mess with my pictures after I processed them. If someone so much as wants to print a different aspect ratio from what I gave them, I'll re-crop those images to maintain the integrity of the vignette (for example). If they want my color images in black and white, I'll process that too because I want to ensure the contrast is adequate.
I've got pride it in what I put my name on....I'm sure you do too...

Click to expand...

I think I'm seeing a disconnect between the photographer and the client here. I haven't been a client for wedding photos for a very long time now, but I suspect that the client considers the pictures their property since it was their wedding, and the photographer considers the pictures their property because they put a lot of effort into them. This is where we see the importance of the contract, which should be complete enough to spell things out. In particular, who decides which pictures get published and who gets prints, jpgs, RAW files. The contract has to be much more than "You give me $$$$ and I take pictures".

If you don't want to release the RAW files for the client to transmogrify, maybe TIFF is a better solution. You can't really edit a RAW file in the sense that you can lock in the white balance and crop it to remove things that you don't want seen (although some programs do modify the RAW file, I suspect most pros would prefer to go for the nondestructive editing programs). The TIFF file doesn't have those limitations.

So you don't want to release the RAW files because they're published under your name, and therefore represent your artistic capabilities. That's a valid point of view. If you hold that point of view I suspect you wouldn't want to release jpgs either, just hard copy prints.

Do you enforce copyright on your photos? Or can the client scan one of the pictures and send it to a family member at some time in the future? After all, at the time of the wedding you won't know how many family members you will have in the future who would like copies of the wedding pictures, so the client is unlikely to order enough to pass out for an indefinite time. What about after you retire from photography? Would you send the client your RAW files then? (Assuming you're not incorporated).

Do you even keep your RAW files after some fixed period of time, like 10 or 20 years? What if a client wants to get from you a copy of one of their wedding pictures way down the road. Presumably they will recognize that they will have to pay you for it. Could you find the picture that far into the future in such a way that they could afford it? I'm sure this is a very limited scenario. Most people would probably just scan it and print it out without telling you. Most people don't have a clue about whether a copy is good or not. It's just a copy. Maybe taken with their iphone. If they then send the copy to a relative, I doubt that your name would be attached to it. It would be a picture of their wedding, not a picture by photographer xxxx. And even if your name were attached to it, it was 20 years ago. Surely your reputation is based on more recent events. Do you think the client would have a copy of the contract from back then? Would you have a copy?

Is there a limit to the length of time you keep the images proprietary?

dwight3 said:

markhayphotography said:

... I've never had anyone mess with my pictures after I processed them. If someone so much as wants to print a different aspect ratio from what I gave them, I'll re-crop those images to maintain the integrity of the vignette (for example). If they want my color images in black and white, I'll process that too because I want to ensure the contrast is adequate.

I've got pride it in what I put my name on....I'm sure you do too...

Click to expand...

I think I'm seeing a disconnect between the photographer and the client here. I haven't been a client for wedding photos for a very long time now, but I suspect that the client considers the pictures their property since it was their wedding, and the photographer considers the pictures their property because they put a lot of effort into them. This is where we see the importance of the contract, which should be complete enough to spell things out. In particular, who decides which pictures get published and who gets prints, jpgs, RAW files. The contract has to be much more than "You give me $$$$ and I take pictures".

If you don't want to release the RAW files for the client to transmogrify, maybe TIFF is a better solution. You can't really edit a RAW file in the sense that you can lock in the white balance and crop it to remove things that you don't want seen (although some programs do modify the RAW file, I suspect most pros would prefer to go for the nondestructive editing programs). The TIFF file doesn't have those limitations.

So you don't want to release the RAW files because they're published under your name, and therefore represent your artistic capabilities. That's a valid point of view. If you hold that point of view I suspect you wouldn't want to release jpgs either, just hard copy prints.

Do you enforce copyright on your photos? Or can the client scan one of the pictures and send it to a family member at some time in the future? After all, at the time of the wedding you won't know how many family members you will have in the future who would like copies of the wedding pictures, so the client is unlikely to order enough to pass out for an indefinite time. What about after you retire from photography? Would you send the client your RAW files then? (Assuming you're not incorporated).

Do you even keep your RAW files after some fixed period of time, like 10 or 20 years? What if a client wants to get from you a copy of one of their wedding pictures way down the road. Presumably they will recognize that they will have to pay you for it. Could you find the picture that far into the future in such a way that they could afford it? I'm sure this is a very limited scenario. Most people would probably just scan it and print it out without telling you. Most people don't have a clue about whether a copy is good or not. It's just a copy. Maybe taken with their iphone. If they then send the copy to a relative, I doubt that your name would be attached to it. It would be a picture of their wedding, not a picture by photographer xxxx. And even if your name were attached to it, it was 20 years ago. Surely your reputation is based on more recent events. Do you think the client would have a copy of the contract from back then? Would you have a copy?

Is there a limit to the length of time you keep the images proprietary?

Click to expand...

You're reading too far into it. I'm not talking about a proprietary ownership of the image necessarily. This isn't a copyright issue. It's a reputation issue.

All I'm saying is that the product released by me to the client needs to pass my quality control because it will be attributed to what my business produces. A jpeg is a final product and a RAW file is a means to that final product.

If all I shot were Jpegs, I wouldn't release those unless they passed my quality control either. If you think about it, RAW images look like crap. There is no way to make prints from them unless they are processed, right? If my name is attributed to the final product of that RAW image, then you better believe I'm the one who is going to process that image.

Yes you can say that the client could alter the Jpeg, but at least I can point back to the originally released Jpeg as my product should my reputation came in question. How could I point back to a RAW file in that case? It's just data.

sledzik102 said:

I am wedding photographer with 5 years experience and over 100 weddings.

Client asking me for ALL raw files.

Would you give it or if not how would you explain it.

It is not in the contract. Between two photographers we shot 4000 images and client got 1400 JPEGs.

Click to expand...

By the time I'm throwing in my two cents, I see there have been a lot of great replies. But here's my two cents.

You are free to conduct your business as you wish. But since you ask how I would do it, I would not hand over raw files. Explanations aren't needed between me and my clients as my contracts spell out most everything I can think of without being intimidating and nowhere does it say I'll hand over raws.

The reason that I don't is that the raws are useless to most people. As in the film days, many people thought it'd be great to have the negs. Why? Do you have a darkroom wherein you can print your B&Ws to perfection? Do you have a quality calibrated monitor and expertise to process a raw? Well, even if you did, when you're buying my services, the end result of what I do with that raw is part of it all. In fact, I have had a few requests over the years for the raws, mostly along the line of "I (or we) am/are graphic artists and we would prefer to have the raw files to process them" or something similar. I usually suspect they think it will save them money as they usually follow with "what would be the price once you hand over the raws as opposed to process and print?". Pretty good hint. But sometimes it's just been people who think that if they have the raws, they have something tangible other than "just" jpegs. Or maybe they do have some photo manipulation programs and want to release their inner artistic selves.

Again, I explain to people that you're buying the wedding day through my eyes. That means me processing the raws as I see fit followed by any further manipulation in photoshop.

Finally, since it's not in your contract to hand them over, don't. If the client truly wants them (and you feel comfortable giving them your "negs" so to speak), you'll have to decide what you want to charge for them. I don't know your business model and whether or not you rely on prints and so forth. To me mine are not for sale so I've never priced them.

markhayphotography said:

You're reading too far into it. I'm not talking about a proprietary ownership of the image necessarily. This isn't a copyright issue. It's a reputation issue.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

markhayphotography said:

All I'm saying is that the product released by me to the client needs to pass my quality control because it will be attributed to what my business produces. A jpeg is a final product and a RAW file is a means to that final product.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

markhayphotography said:

If all I shot were Jpegs, I wouldn't release those unless they passed my quality control either. If you think about it, RAW images look like crap. There is no way to make prints from them unless they are processed, right? If my name is attributed to the final product of that RAW image, then you better believe I'm the one who is going to process that image.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

markhayphotography said:

Yes you can say that the client could alter the Jpeg, but at least I can point back to the originally released Jpeg as my product should my reputation came in question. How could I point back to a RAW file in that case? It's just data.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

RhysM said:

Ellis Vener said:

"Raw" can mean two different things:

Do they want to see all of the photos you shot, which video folk call "raw footage" , or copies of all the raw format frames.?

ask your client which they want.

Click to expand...

They obviously just mean the raw image files like NEF, RAF, CRW, CR2, etc.

Click to expand...

Nothing in the OP's statement said anything like that. Ellis is correct. Experience in the field tells me that what lay people say is often not what they mean.

The earliest example for me was clients handing me a stack of slides and saying. " I want a duplicate of ash of these." Delivering a stack of dupes was NOT what they wanted. They thought they were ordering prints. We quickly learned to ask.

This was not a fluke. This happened on fully half the slide to print orders we received.

RhysM said:

Ellis Vener said:

"Raw" can mean two different things:

Do they want to see all of the photos you shot, which video folk call "raw footage" , or copies of all the raw format frames.?

ask your client which they want.

Click to expand...

They obviously just mean the raw image files like NEF, RAF, CRW, CR2, etc.

Click to expand...

I posed the question for the OP as this has come up a couple of times over the years with different commercial clients.

The first time It came up I delivered the raw format files to the client and they wrote back a couple of days later asking what they were. A quick phone call cleared up the mystery : what they wanted was to see all of the "raw footage" (they were used to dealing with video) photos. On big budget commercial shoots this is not an uncommon request.

sledzik102 said:

Client asking me for ALL raw files.

Would you give it or if not how would you explain it.

It is not in the contract.

Click to expand...

I would simply send them a copy of the contract and point out what had been agreed for the amount they have paid. And then also let them know what the estimated fee would be, should they want me to provide them with more than that.

So in this case, I'd probably include a set of contact sheets, to let them see all the images - as well as let them know what the fee would be, for each additional image* they wanted to use.

*Based on the assumption, that your contact did actually clearly state the number of images, etc, that they would receive from you here afterwards.

Cheers,
Ashley.

ampimage.com

markhayphotography said:

... I'm not talking about a proprietary ownership of the image necessarily. This isn't a copyright issue. It's a reputation issue...

Click to expand...

I get that. And I did say that's a valid concern.

If you don't want your images changed, don't release electronic copies. RAW or TIFF or jpg.

A lot of my post was concerned with long term availability of photos. The client is probably more interested in that than the photographer is.

The statement has been made that the RAW files are the digital negatives. They're not quite that. If I had a negative from, say, 1940, I could still print it. I don't have a darkroom any more, but I could find someone who did to print it for me. Will RAW files be usable 75 years from now? Will the photographer be around so I could buy another print from him for a photo taken in 1940? I have heard that a lot of photographers from the film era would destroy their negatives after 10 or 15 years. Do digital photographers do this? (I've only been taking digital images for about 15 years now). I understand that locating archival photos can be a real time sink.

And I agree with comments that releasing ALL the RAW files is not a good idea, even if the client can handle a RAW file. A lot of your reputation will depend on what you don't release. I take a lot of event photos (not so much weddings) and I get people with the most ridiculous expressions and poses (and some people are much more prone to funny expressions than others). I don't release them. Otherwise I would make clients or potential clients unhappy for holding them up to ridicule. Even if I am willing to release RAW files, those images will not be among them. If the problem is with someone on the edge of an otherwise good photo, I would probably release a TIFF instead of a RAW. That way I could crop out the problem.

RhysM said:

I understand protecting your work by only allowing your very best photos to go to the client. But in this scenario, supplying 1400 images to a client (unless he spent somewhere in the region of 250+ hours editing) is hardly fully protecting the integrity of your work.

Click to expand...

These figures address a question that I (a serious amateur) have had. "How much time (on average) does a pro spend editing and post-processing each image before he is satisfied that it is a satisfactory representation of his photographic capabilities?"

These figures work out to something in the range of 10 minutes per "keeper" image. That's comforting confirmation because it is not unlike what I do after photographing an "event" before sharing the results with interested participants.

Doug Haag said:

RhysM said:

I understand protecting your work by only allowing your very best photos to go to the client. But in this scenario, supplying 1400 images to a client (unless he spent somewhere in the region of 250+ hours editing) is hardly fully protecting the integrity of your work.

Click to expand...

These figures address a question that I (a serious amateur) have had. "How much time (on average) does a pro spend editing and post-processing each image before he is satisfied that it is a satisfactory representation of his photographic capabilities?"

These figures work out to something in the range of 10 minutes per "keeper" image. That's comforting confirmation because it is not unlike what I do after photographing an "event" before sharing the results with interested participants.

Click to expand...

Yes, with average photoshop skills, I would say 10 mins for an image that came out of a camera with no significant errors or compositional issues, is a good rule of thumb as an average for a wedding album image.

If an album is going to contain 100 photos then that would take two 8 hour working days to edit the images. This sense checks against the sales mantra that a wedding photographer will tell clients the fee includes the fact that the album takes more time to edit and prepare for print than the time it takes on theactual day to photograph the event.

Of course the end use of the image will influence the amount of time needed. A 30"+ sized print intended to be framed will need more attention than a 10x8 or 5x7.

sledzik102 said:

I am wedding photographer with 5 years experience and over 100 weddings.

Client asking me for ALL raw files.

Would you give it or if not how would you explain it.

It is not in the contract. Between two photographers we shot 4000 images and client got 1400 JPEGs.

Click to expand...

This is entirely a policy decision on your part. You need to determine how your decision will affect your business and your marketing.

.

Some have suggested that giving out RAW files will result in substandard prints - which will reflect badly on your business.

You have already given the clients JPEG images. Thus you have already given up control over the quality of the prints. Your clients may print them at the local drugstore, on a color laser printer, or a high end inkjet with clogged nozzles and a the wrong color profile. Giving our RAW files won't result in worse images.

I am going to suggest that if the client has asked for RAW files, then the client probably has some level of technical expertise. Providing RAW files would likely increase the quality of prints made by this client.

Some have suggested that giving out RAW files will result in the loss of future print sales. I am going to suggest that if the client already has the JPEGs, then giving them RAW files won't affect your print sales.

.

Some have suggested that you should cull your images an not give the client images where people appear in embarrassing poses, or with unflattering faces.

The problem here is that the photographer doesn't know the family. You may remove the 5 images where uncle Fred is scowling, and select the one where he has a normal smile on his face. On the other hand, the family may love his scowl.

When the photographer is picking the images, he tends to pick the images that work best for the photographer. If the family selects the images, they tend to pick the ones they love.

Are you building an album to make you happy, or to make your client happy?

.

There are marketing considerations. How does it affect your reputation to allow a client to have an image where uncle Fred is scowling? Are you concerned of negative reactions from people who view the album, or do you want the glowing recommendations from a client that's very happy?

Are you better off with work that you love, or with work that your client's love?

Is it in your best interests to make your clients as happy as possible?

.

I see nothing wrong with offering clients the options of purchasing all the images, or of purchasing RAW files. Just price your work accordingly.

.

Yesterday, I shot some catalog photos for a swimwear manufacturer. At the end of the shoot I gave the clients the complete set of RAW files. The client's art department handles color correction, silhouetting, and even changing the color on some of the suits.

The client doesn't always pick the same shots I would have picked. The client certainly retouches differently than I would have. The client is ecstatic with this arrangement, and I get a lot of repeat business.

This is a situation where I know what the client wants, and I provide it to them. This a typical formula for a successful business transaction.

Michael Fryd said:

Yesterday, I shot some catalog photos for a swimwear manufacturer. At the end of the shoot I gave the clients the complete set of RAW files. The client's art department handles color correction, silhouetting, and even changing the color on some of the suits.

The client doesn't always pick the same shots I would have picked. The client certainly retouches differently than I would have. The client is ecstatic with this arrangement, and I get a lot of repeat business.

This is a situation where I know what the client wants, and I provide it to them. This a typical formula for a successful business transaction.

Click to expand...

I would certainly be fine releasing the RAW files if the client had these type of needs, where I know a professional would be color correcting, etc.

It is when I'm shooting a standard wedding, event, portrait session, etc., where I'm concerned about quality control. Product photography for a manufacturer who had a department for that sort of thing changes the situation for me.

markhayphotography said:

markhayphotography said:

Yesterday, I shot some catalog photos for a swimwear manufacturer. At the end of the shoot I gave the clients the complete set of RAW files. The client's art department handles color correction, silhouetting, and even changing the color on some of the suits.

The client doesn't always pick the same shots I would have picked. The client certainly retouches differently than I would have. The client is ecstatic with this arrangement, and I get a lot of repeat business.

This is a situation where I know what the client wants, and I provide it to them. This a typical formula for a successful business transaction.

Click to expand...

I would certainly be fine releasing the RAW files if the client had these type of needs, where I know a professional would be color correcting, etc.

It is when I'm shooting a standard wedding, event, portrait session, etc., where I'm concerned about quality control. Product photography for a manufacturer who had a department for that sort of thing changes the situation for me.

Click to expand...

Actually, in my opinion, they don't do a good job of retouching. However, the client is happy, and pays me my rate.

To me, the client's opinion of the product is frequently more important than the actual quality.

If I give the client a great product, but they don't like it, I will lose that client, and they won't say good things about me.

If I give the client a mediocre product that they are thrilled with, they will hire me again, and tell everyone what a great photographer I am.

As most clients are not able to actually judge the quality of a photographer's work, they give a lot of weight to recommendations.

.

You have to step back and decide what kind of business you are running, and who you are trying to make happy.

If your goal is to make yourself happy, no matter what the business consequences, then there's a reasonable chance you are running a hobby and not a business.