Client asking me for all raw files.

Even raw savvy customers don't understand you take a ton of shots, throw away the bad one, and process the rest for best results. The purpose of your work flow is to end w/a select set of great photos.

Giving them all away could result in disappointment. Like watching every outtake for a TV show. How many models let you take photos of them before they've done their makeup?

How come that prefect photo of Uncle Todd came out blurry (even though you provided two great ones.) Might even open the grounds for a lawsuit. Paid him for 4000 images, only 2000 came out. Sure, that's not how it works, but do people outside the industry understand? At the very least, disappointment.

What I suggest is offering to give them the raws for the JPEGs you've processed and they like. Simply explain you don't share mistakes, and it would cost time and money to sort out the usable ones.

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...

tko said:

Even raw savvy customers don't understand you take a ton of shots, throw away the bad one, and process the rest for best results. The purpose of your work flow is to end w/a select set of great photos.

Giving them all away could result in disappointment. Like watching every outtake for a TV show. How many models let you take photos of them before they've done their makeup?

How come that prefect photo of Uncle Todd came out blurry (even though you provided two great ones.) Might even open the grounds for a lawsuit. Paid him for 4000 images, only 2000 came out. Sure, that's not how it works, but do people outside the industry understand? At the very least, disappointment.

What I suggest is offering to give them the raws for the JPEGs you've processed and they like. Simply explain you don't share mistakes, and it would cost time and money to sort out the usable ones.

tko said:

...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There is always something that can go wrong. Sell a customer a perfect JPEG, and you might get complaints that the prints look like bad on the clients brand new color laserprinter that they don't know how to use.

You can't control the universe.

.

That being said, there is a middle ground between "aways give every client every RAW file", and "never give anyone a single RAW file".

Sometimes there are circumstances where it makes sense to provide the client a product tuned to their needs.

You are correct that some clients will be happier if you shield them from the realities of photography, and only show them the final results. Other clients will be happier if they get all the files.

You need to make a business decision as to whether you want to have an arbitrary rule and walk away from some clients, or if you are willing to meet a client's needs.

.

Imagine a wedding photographer who only offered one package - You get 500 4x6 proofs, and one 12 by 12 wedding album with 150 images. Furthermore the photographer will determine which prints you get and what goes into the album. After all, the photographer is the pro, he knows better than you do as to what makes a great wedding album.

I suspect a photographer who offers such a limited package will have a hard time competing against photographers who offer multiple options to meet the needs of a varied customer base.

fatmanmedia said:

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...

Do not give them the raw files, it's the digital equivalent of giving the client the film negs.

If the client is not happy with the quality of the JPEG's (and who is) then send him TIFF's instead.

Fats

Click to expand...

Do not give them the raw files, it's the digital equivalent of giving the client the film negs.

Not quite, you can duplicate raw files in a matter of seconds at no extra cost, its not quite so easy with film negatives.

Give them a set of raw files but charge them extra for this.

For nonwedding customers ( newspapers, swimwear manufacturer etc ) it may be ok to give the raw files, in case they have staff to develop the files. Then you do only photography and no processing at all.

Usually End customers do not have the ability to process many raw files, and JPGs are appropriate.

But if a wedding customer asks for RAW ( and i say this before the wedding ) and says that he indeed has someone who likes to process all raw files, and this is specified before the wedding takes place, then its ok to shoot with the purpose to give the customer the raw files, and then give the raw´s to the customer and not the JPG´s. Giving all successful raw´s should not be more expensive than giving the JPGs because you spend no editing time.

If you are not comfortable that your name is associated with the JPG outcome, then ask the customer not to associate your name with his selfdeveloped JPG´s or Prints.

But if the customer after edited JPGs have been delivered asks for also the raw´s, that is not ok, do not give the raw´s or ask for a very high price.

Just my opinion ;-)

Carl Decker said:

For nonwedding customers ( newspapers, swimwear manufacturer etc ) it may be ok to give the raw files, in case they have staff to develop the files. Then you do only photography and no processing at all.

Usually End customers do not have the ability to process many raw files, and JPGs are appropriate.

But if a wedding customer asks for RAW ( and i say this before the wedding ) and says that he indeed has someone who likes to process all raw files, and this is specified before the wedding takes place, then its ok to shoot with the purpose to give the customer the raw files, and then give the raw´s to the customer and not the JPG´s. Giving all successful raw´s should not be more expensive than giving the JPGs because you spend no editing time.

If you are not comfortable that your name is associated with the JPG outcome, then ask the customer not to associate your name with his selfdeveloped JPG´s or Prints.

But if the customer after edited JPGs have been delivered asks for also the raw´s, that is not ok, do not give the raw´s or ask for a very high price.

Click to expand...

But why? It's the end result/outcome/potential issues that are important not the point at which the RAW files were acquired. You either think it is acceptable to supply them or you don't, arguing the triviality of when they get them is irrelevant.

To add a little more food for thought to the discussion about if RAW files are damaging because they don't show photos in their best light:

a) should camera makers apply the same logic of people in this thread and limit the cameras to taking JPEG only because in the same way you can't trust your customers with RAW files, the camera makers can't trust that their customers can process RAW files as well as their JPEG engine and thus it could damage their reputation?

and

b) if a customer asks for RAW files and you are assuming the customer is going to mess about with your them, shouldn't we apply the "sharp knife" (akin to a RAW file) logic that when giving a child/young adult their first pen knife it should be sharp, as a blunt (akin to JPEG) knife is more dangerous than a sharp one?

RhysM said:

Carl Decker said:

... price.

Click to expand...

But why?

Click to expand...

I watched one of the photography training video´s of Kirk Voclain in whole length.

He would say to the customer "because I can" ;-)

RhysM said:

You either think it is acceptable to supply them or you don't, arguing the triviality of when they get them is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

For a business there should be no "you should either think this or think that".

Carl Decker said:

RhysM said:

Carl Decker said:

... price.

Click to expand...

But why?

Click to expand...

I watched one of the photography training video´s of Kirk Voclain in whole length.

He would say to the customer "because I can" ;-)

Carl Decker said:

You either think it is acceptable to supply them or you don't, arguing the triviality of when they get them is irrelevant.

Click to expand...

For a business there should be no "you should either think this or think that".

Click to expand...

Great throw away line.

smafdy said:

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

Click to expand...

What has that to do with capitalism?

Back when I was a computer programmer building custom applications for clients, I had to deal with a similar situation - clients asking for my source code. It seems clients had a valid concern about their ability to continue developments and improvements to an important application after my sudden death or going out-of-business.

Since programmers rely heavily on income from on-going support, bug-fixes and feature enhancements, giving the client the source code would be a bad idea economically. However, I was not unsympathetic to their concerns about long-term serviceability of the product I developed for them.

The solution was to deposit the source code into an "escrow" account held by an attorney. Each program revision would generate a new escrow deposit. The contents of the escrow would only be released to the client upon my death or business closure. The cost of maintaining the escrow was paid by the client on an annual basis. Their concerns were addressed, yet I was assured of continued income during the life-cycle of the product. It worked for both of us.

Does such as escrow for your RAW files seem like an option here? As long as the photographer is alive, reprints can be ordered. Upon his (her) death, the RAW files can be delivered to the client. The potential for continued income for the photographer is preserved, as well as quality control and copyright issues, and the client is guaranteed continued access to the original photography indefinitely.

imagery2 said:

Back when I was a computer programmer building custom applications for clients, I had to deal with a similar situation - clients asking for my source code. It seems clients had a valid concern about their ability to continue developments and improvements to an important application after my sudden death or going out-of-business.

Since programmers rely heavily on income from on-going support, bug-fixes and feature enhancements, giving the client the source code would be a bad idea economically. However, I was not unsympathetic to their concerns about long-term serviceability of the product I developed for them.

The solution was to deposit the source code into an "escrow" account held by an attorney. Each program revision would generate a new escrow deposit. The contents of the escrow would only be released to the client upon my death or business closure. The cost of maintaining the escrow was paid by the client on an annual basis. Their concerns were addressed, yet I was assured of continued income during the life-cycle of the product. It worked for both of us.

Does such as escrow for your RAW files seem like an option here? As long as the photographer is alive, reprints can be ordered. Upon his (her) death, the RAW files can be delivered to the client. The potential for continued income for the photographer is preserved, as well as quality control and copyright issues, and the client is guaranteed continued access to the original photography indefinitely.

Click to expand...

One business model is to lock the customer in, so that the cost of using someone else is high (i.e you retain the RAW files, the source code, etc.).

Another business model is to keep the customer happy so that he chooses to do business with you. Give him the RAW files, the source code, etc., and still retain his business.

Part of my marketing strategy is to make sure my customers know that I want to keep them as customers for a very long time. I make sure that they know my goal is for them to stay with me because they want to, not because they have to. My customers know they are free to leave, and by and large they choose to stay. I have happy customers.

When I was developing custom software, this strategy worked very well. Generally, it cost the customer less to have me maintain the product as I was familiar with it. The customer always felt safe and secure as they knew that they were using me by choice, and could switch vendors should they be unhappy with the quality of my work.

Occasionally, I have a customer that chooses to leave. I am always nice and polite, and make sure they have all of the material that they have paid for.

More often than not, they end up unhappy with the new vender, and they end up coming back to me.

.

But this is just my marketing strategy. It is not the only marketing strategy. You have to find a strategy that works for you. Locking customers in by making it difficult to leave is a traditional, and generally successful strategy for mass market sales. Apple does not license their operating system or their digital rights management software. If you spend money on content for your iPhone (apps or movies), you must walk away from that investment to switch to a different brand of phone. For people who don't care what phone they have, this helps keep them in the Apple camp.

No-no-no. Give him worked tiffs, if you must - for a handsome fee.

--
Steve Bingham
www.dustylens.com
www.ghost-town-photography.com

clager said:

Your Raw files is like a proof, a negative, a sort of prof of copyright the picture is yours! In any commercial photography, the law is: never ever part with your raw-file or negative.

Click to expand...

Never unless the price is right. Many commercial photographer do in fact deliver raw files for clients that wish to do their own post production work or who plan extensive modifications to the images. One case that comes to mind is when the photo is to be inserted into a computer graphics piece.

Of course you still have your own copy - unless you agree to erase them.

Gato

Do you get much income from reprints once the original order is finished and delivered? Could you make as much or more from selling a duplicate set of the raws? About the only risk I see is that someone might make low quality images from the files and put your name on them - and that can happen anyway with web JPEGs or even from scanning prints.

Explain to the client that this is not part of the original agreement and there will be an extra charge. Also explain that these are raw files and may need adjustment for color, contrast and brightness. And they are not retouched. Come up with a number that works for you - considering possible future income, as well as the time and effort to put together and deliver the package - and put it out there.

You will probably want them to sign an acknowledgement that you retain copyright and any rights you wish to retain such as advertising and promotional use.

A buck each for 4,000 files is probably enough to change the client's mind, but if they do bite it makes a nice extra profit.

Gato

Explain that raw files

They could edit jpg with same reflection on phitographer

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...

First, does the client know what they want? True RAW or just all the images unedited?

Second, If they mean all unedited images let them know why there is editing and put a price on the delivery of unedited JPGs.

The problem here is they think they paid a lot and deserve all the images. No matter how you approach this the client is likely to be a jerk.

Seen it too many times to revise my opinion.

Revise your contract to avoid this in the future.

Really? If it has value, it is capitalist to extract that value. Are you suggesting that giving something in demand (thus, valuable), away for free is capitalistic?

Photomonkey said:

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...

First, does the client know what they want? True RAW or just all the images unedited?

Second, If they mean all unedited images let them know why there is editing and put a price on the delivery of unedited JPGs.

The problem here is they think they paid a lot and deserve all the images. No matter how you approach this the client is likely to be a jerk.

Seen it too many times to revise my opinion.

Revise your contract to avoid this in the future.

Click to expand...

I think some of customers think that if you give over the the files unedited, they should be saving money due to your not putting in the time to edit the images.

The truth is, it will cost me more money in the long run if my reputation is damaged for handing over bad images (with my name attached to them), then the time saved on not processing them.

Those customers aren't what I'm typically seeking.

markhayphotography said:

Photomonkey said:

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...

First, does the client know what they want? True RAW or just all the images unedited?

Second, If they mean all unedited images let them know why there is editing and put a price on the delivery of unedited JPGs.

The problem here is they think they paid a lot and deserve all the images. No matter how you approach this the client is likely to be a jerk.

Seen it too many times to revise my opinion.

Revise your contract to avoid this in the future.

Click to expand...

I think some of customers think that if you give over the the files unedited, they should be saving money due to your not putting in the time to edit the images.

The truth is, it will cost me more money in the long run if my reputation is damaged for handing over bad images (with my name attached to them), then the time saved on not processing them.

Those customers aren't what I'm typically seeking.

Click to expand...

This is precisely what they think. However the OP said he had already delivered 1400 images.

I also agree with you that one can damage their reputation by handing over the culls. The average layperson thinks that the pro work they see is what they can expect from every frame.

I also agree that this is not the sort of client one wants. But the ability to detect the loser clients comes from experience with having a few.

It would be useful if the OP reported back on the outcome.

"I also agree with you that one can damage their reputation by handing over the culls. The average layperson thinks that the pro work they see is what they can expect from every frame.."

if if that is the case then you need to explain to your client that you will not turn over files where people in the photo look bad because they are blinking, have food in their mouths, their expression is lousy, or they simply look stupid.

But out you also have to be aware that as with any family or group of people there are dynamics and relationships going on that you simply don't know about or that they don't want to explain to a stranger.

And if the customer wants something else later... sorry no?! Unhappy client? No up-sell for you?