Wedding Photographer and Raw

Started 5 months ago | Questions
Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,201
Re: Clarity
2

tbcass wrote:

In a previous post, I said I would make the RAW files part of the agreement when the contract was signed or not use that photographer.

And you likely would have to use some kind of inexperienced, not so skilled photographer to be able to make that kind of agreement, because it seems that the experienced pros generally don't do such a thing.... for the very reasons that have been mentioned on this thread over and over again. You're choice though: lesser quality work in return for being able to play around with the RAWs. I think even most experienced photographers wouldn't want that kind of thing for their own wedding, knowing just how much time and energy that it takes to sort through and edit what are likely to be a couple of thousand photos, particularly since they likely have other things on the kind at that time and would like to show off those photos to friends and family ASAP.

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
MOD Biggs23 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,488
Re: Because

tbcass wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

tbcass wrote:

See my previous sentences which address those issues. One of the most important things in any business is good customer relations. If the client feels the photographer is being unfair or ripping them off they will make sure they tell everybody they know not to hire them.

And yet, that's not what happens with the higher end of the market. The higher end wants an experience; they don't want to get their hands dirty with 'raw' files.

It should be obvious I am not talking about the higher-end market. I'm talking about us slobs who have to go into debt to pay for overpriced weddings.

You said I'd get replaced because I didn't offer them. It wasn't at all clear that you were not directly addressing the high end market.

-- hide signature --

Any opinions I express are my own and do not represent DPReview. I'm just a regular poster unless explicitly stated otherwise in the body of the post.
https://500px.com/biggs23

 Biggs23's gear list:Biggs23's gear list
Nikon D4 Nikon D5 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z9 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED +10 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 51,872
Re: Because
1

Biggs23 wrote:

tbcass wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

tbcass wrote:

See my previous sentences which address those issues. One of the most important things in any business is good customer relations. If the client feels the photographer is being unfair or ripping them off they will make sure they tell everybody they know not to hire them.

And yet, that's not what happens with the higher end of the market. The higher end wants an experience; they don't want to get their hands dirty with 'raw' files.

It should be obvious I am not talking about the higher-end market. I'm talking about us slobs who have to go into debt to pay for overpriced weddings.

You said I'd get replaced because I didn't offer them. It wasn't at all clear that you were not directly addressing the high end market.

Since I was stating that the high cost of weddings in general and photographers, in particular, was a problem I thought it was clear I was not referring to the high-end market which is made up of people with money to burn. All the common middle-class people I know are looking for every way possible to keep wedding costs down. This is especially true as more and more people are paying for their own weddings. Both of my kids paid a substantial part of the cost for their own weddings with help from the parents of both the bride and groom.

-- hide signature --

Tom

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Tamron SP 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di USD +7 more
ms18
ms18 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,237
I do give.
1

I give all RAW files to them as well. I only keep RAW files to myself after the out put is given when the photos are exceptionally good and clients will allow me to showcase them or use it for marketing.

I also have a package where i will just give the RAW files instead of finished product. I enjoy taking pictures more than fiddling them in computer.

-- hide signature --

If you like my pictures follow me on Insta
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/

 ms18's gear list:ms18's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +1 more
Buke
Buke Regular Member • Posts: 405
Re: Wedding Photographer and Raw

I shoot jpegs, and the images are my property.  If the client wants to buy a CD that's another charge.  By contracting with me to shoot their wedding, they don't get the rights to the imagery I shoot.  I give them scaled down images, but the full resolution images are mine.

Buke

-- hide signature --

A camera is just a light tight box. Photographs are created mentally, they don't just
happen by accident.

 Buke's gear list:Buke's gear list
Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus E-620 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 +13 more
Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,201
Re: Because
1

tbcass wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

tbcass wrote:

Biggs23 wrote:

tbcass wrote:

See my previous sentences which address those issues. One of the most important things in any business is good customer relations. If the client feels the photographer is being unfair or ripping them off they will make sure they tell everybody they know not to hire them.

And yet, that's not what happens with the higher end of the market. The higher end wants an experience; they don't want to get their hands dirty with 'raw' files.

It should be obvious I am not talking about the higher-end market. I'm talking about us slobs who have to go into debt to pay for overpriced weddings.

You said I'd get replaced because I didn't offer them. It wasn't at all clear that you were not directly addressing the high end market.

Since I was stating that the high cost of weddings in general and photographers, in particular, was a problem I thought it was clear I was not referring to the high-end market which is made up of people with money to burn. All the common middle-class people I know are looking for every way possible to keep wedding costs down. This is especially true as more and more people are paying for their own weddings. Both of my kids paid a substantial part of the cost for their own weddings with help from the parents of both the bride and groom.

It seems that you're conflating the cost of wedding photography with the idea of the photographers keeping the RAW images, which by the way is standard practice. If you really can't afford a photographer, or simply feel that there are better things to spend your money on then there are other options, like having a friend do it (and hoping for the best with that) or having disposable film cameras on every table so that guests can shoot more informal type photos (something that's actually done a lot).

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
nordic_shooter Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: Wedding Photographer and Raw
1

Buke wrote:

I shoot jpegs, and the images are my property. If the client wants to buy a CD that's another charge. By contracting with me to shoot their wedding, they don't get the rights to the imagery I shoot. I give them scaled down images, but the full resolution images are mine.

Why downscaled photos? What's the point? To sit in the basement clutching the high-res pictures.. "my preciousssss...."?

In general: Giving out the raw files is not entirely uncomplicated, but not from an economic standpoint. Editing can in some cases save a less than perfect shot, so giving out the raw file might not look that good. How would it in that case help by getting extra money? There's no logic to this. "Sure, my reputation as a photographer might be ruined if I hand out the raw files, but for just some extra cash, I'll happily do it!"

 nordic_shooter's gear list:nordic_shooter's gear list
Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-T3 Panasonic Lumix DC-S5 Nikon 85mm F1.8G Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +7 more
Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,201
Re: Wedding Photographer and Raw

nordic_shooter wrote:

Buke wrote:

I shoot jpegs, and the images are my property. If the client wants to buy a CD that's another charge. By contracting with me to shoot their wedding, they don't get the rights to the imagery I shoot. I give them scaled down images, but the full resolution images are mine.

Why downscaled photos? What's the point? To sit in the basement clutching the high-res pictures.. "my preciousssss...."?

In general: Giving out the raw files is not entirely uncomplicated, but not from an economic standpoint. Editing can in some cases save a less than perfect shot, so giving out the raw file might not look that good. How would it in that case help by getting extra money? There's no logic to this. "Sure, my reputation as a photographer might be ruined if I hand out the raw files, but for just some extra cash, I'll happily do it!"

Except for the fact that Buke didn't say "RAW files," but "full resolution images." I took that to mean full resolution JPEGs. If it's standard practice to write your contract to say that you will deliver edited JPEG images that are suitable for online or small prints, but charge extra to release full resolution images suitable for bigger enlargements, why would a photographer not charge extra for providing them?

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
nordic_shooter Junior Member • Posts: 41
Re: Wedding Photographer and Raw

Aaron801 wrote:

nordic_shooter wrote:

Buke wrote:

I shoot jpegs, and the images are my property. If the client wants to buy a CD that's another charge. By contracting with me to shoot their wedding, they don't get the rights to the imagery I shoot. I give them scaled down images, but the full resolution images are mine.

Why downscaled photos? What's the point? To sit in the basement clutching the high-res pictures.. "my preciousssss...."?

In general: Giving out the raw files is not entirely uncomplicated, but not from an economic standpoint. Editing can in some cases save a less than perfect shot, so giving out the raw file might not look that good. How would it in that case help by getting extra money? There's no logic to this. "Sure, my reputation as a photographer might be ruined if I hand out the raw files, but for just some extra cash, I'll happily do it!"

Except for the fact that Buke didn't say "RAW files," but "full resolution images." I took that to mean full resolution JPEGs. If it's standard practice to write your contract to say that you will deliver edited JPEG images that are suitable for online or small prints, but charge extra to release full resolution images suitable for bigger enlargements, why would a photographer not charge extra for providing them?

I know, that part wasn't directed at Buke and should perhaps have been in a separate post. Anyway, in this day and age, it seems like a really really antiquated business model to charge extra for something that is of no extra cost to the photographer (high resolution jpegs).

 nordic_shooter's gear list:nordic_shooter's gear list
Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-T3 Panasonic Lumix DC-S5 Nikon 85mm F1.8G Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R +7 more
Aaron801 Veteran Member • Posts: 7,201
Re: Wedding Photographer and Raw
1

nordic_shooter wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

nordic_shooter wrote:

Buke wrote:

I shoot jpegs, and the images are my property. If the client wants to buy a CD that's another charge. By contracting with me to shoot their wedding, they don't get the rights to the imagery I shoot. I give them scaled down images, but the full resolution images are mine.

Why downscaled photos? What's the point? To sit in the basement clutching the high-res pictures.. "my preciousssss...."?

In general: Giving out the raw files is not entirely uncomplicated, but not from an economic standpoint. Editing can in some cases save a less than perfect shot, so giving out the raw file might not look that good. How would it in that case help by getting extra money? There's no logic to this. "Sure, my reputation as a photographer might be ruined if I hand out the raw files, but for just some extra cash, I'll happily do it!"

Except for the fact that Buke didn't say "RAW files," but "full resolution images." I took that to mean full resolution JPEGs. If it's standard practice to write your contract to say that you will deliver edited JPEG images that are suitable for online or small prints, but charge extra to release full resolution images suitable for bigger enlargements, why would a photographer not charge extra for providing them?

I know, that part wasn't directed at Buke and should perhaps have been in a separate post. Anyway, in this day and age, it seems like a really really antiquated business model to charge extra for something that is of no extra cost to the photographer (high resolution jpegs).

I don't think that it's antiquated at all. All kinds of businesses charge extra for usage rights for all kinds of things. Think of songwriters, they get paid whenever their song is used in a move, featured on a compilation, if someone else covers it, etc. I know that there are lots of other examples of similar too... it's just the way that business is done.

-- hide signature --
 Aaron801's gear list:Aaron801's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Leica Summilux DG 25mm F1.4 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Samyang 7.5mm F3.5 Fisheye Panasonic Lumix G Vario 45-150mm F4-5.6 ASPH Mega OIS +1 more
Michael Firstlight Veteran Member • Posts: 4,330
Re: Wedding Photographer and Raw

Aaron801 wrote:

nordic_shooter wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

nordic_shooter wrote:

Buke wrote:

I shoot jpegs, and the images are my property. If the client wants to buy a CD that's another charge. By contracting with me to shoot their wedding, they don't get the rights to the imagery I shoot. I give them scaled down images, but the full resolution images are mine.

Why downscaled photos? What's the point? To sit in the basement clutching the high-res pictures.. "my preciousssss...."?

In general: Giving out the raw files is not entirely uncomplicated, but not from an economic standpoint. Editing can in some cases save a less than perfect shot, so giving out the raw file might not look that good. How would it in that case help by getting extra money? There's no logic to this. "Sure, my reputation as a photographer might be ruined if I hand out the raw files, but for just some extra cash, I'll happily do it!"

Except for the fact that Buke didn't say "RAW files," but "full resolution images." I took that to mean full resolution JPEGs. If it's standard practice to write your contract to say that you will deliver edited JPEG images that are suitable for online or small prints, but charge extra to release full resolution images suitable for bigger enlargements, why would a photographer not charge extra for providing them?

I know, that part wasn't directed at Buke and should perhaps have been in a separate post. Anyway, in this day and age, it seems like a really really antiquated business model to charge extra for something that is of no extra cost to the photographer (high resolution jpegs).

I don't think that it's antiquated at all. All kinds of businesses charge extra for usage rights for all kinds of things. Think of songwriters, they get paid whenever their song is used in a move, featured on a compilation, if someone else covers it, etc. I know that there are lots of other examples of similar too... it's just the way that business is done.

None of these models are right or wrong.  If a customer wants the RAW files and the photographer doesn't want to provide them (or charge too much extra for them), there's a long line of competitors these days that will - that's how business is done today.

-- hide signature --

The one thing everyone can agree on is that film photography has its negatives. It even has its positives and internegatives.

 Michael Firstlight's gear list:Michael Firstlight's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR +29 more
Mark B.
Mark B. Forum Pro • Posts: 28,461
Re: I'm not a wedding photographer but...

tbcass wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

... I wound't think that this is standard practice. I might shoot such a thing RAW and do editing (that's the way that I like to work) but I consider my edited versions of the photos to be the "product" that I've been hired to produce. I would probably have a contract that stipulate this and not even mention anything about RAW, but if a client really wants that stuff then I would renegotiate and change extra for that...

Why charge extra? It's no extra work or effort. Once the wedding is over what value are the RAW files to the photographer? If they want to keep them just make copies to give to the client. It just seems like a scam to me.

When film reigned, was it common to include the negatives with the wedding package?

Ellis Vener
Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 16,008
Re: Wedding Photographer and Raw

What does the contract call for? 
if delivery of the raw files is part of the contract and the photographer will not live up to the contract, that is a problem. 
If delivery of the raw files is not covered by the contract,  the photographer can choose to deliver copies of the raw files  of so, the two sides can work out what if any additional compensation is agreeable to both sides

a question about raw files. I have on occassion had clients request copies of the raw files, but what they actually meant were JPEGs of everything that was shot, not the raw format files. I thought they were asking for the latter but once they got them, they had no idea of what to do with tem.

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
A working photographer since 1984.
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z7 II +1 more
ms18
ms18 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,237
I'm just curious.
2

If I were to do it, the fee would be enormous.

Why is that? What extra work you have to do to just give the RAW files?

or What value that RAW files have for you to keep them instead of giving to them.

May be do you expect they'll get print from you later thus they have to come to you and you can make money out of it? This might be possible if you only give album or printed photos only.

Here mostly package also include digitally delivered images which they wanted to upload in social media send in email like that.

I'm not asking this for argument. I'm really curious. Because here we don't have point in keeping RAW files. So we give them as Negative was given in old times. It's their responsibility to keep them safe. we don't want to waste our storage and risk keeping them on our side.

In case if they want another album or work they should come with RAW files. But clients never contact me again for album / prints afterwards because they know they can do it in their own.

May be by keeping RAW i can force them to come back and earn some commission. I should ask this with follow photographers in the city as I work lonely wolf lol.

-- hide signature --

If you like my pictures follow me on Insta
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/

 ms18's gear list:ms18's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +1 more
Michael Firstlight Veteran Member • Posts: 4,330
Re: I'm not a wedding photographer but...
2

Mark B. wrote:

tbcass wrote:

Aaron801 wrote:

... I wound't think that this is standard practice. I might shoot such a thing RAW and do editing (that's the way that I like to work) but I consider my edited versions of the photos to be the "product" that I've been hired to produce. I would probably have a contract that stipulate this and not even mention anything about RAW, but if a client really wants that stuff then I would renegotiate and change extra for that...

Why charge extra? It's no extra work or effort. Once the wedding is over what value are the RAW files to the photographer? If they want to keep them just make copies to give to the client. It just seems like a scam to me.

When film reigned, was it common to include the negatives with the wedding package?

No, it was uncommon - most customers didn't have darkrooms and the fear was customers using PhtoMat for crappy reprints.

Mike

-- hide signature --

The one thing everyone can agree on is that film photography has its negatives. It even has its positives and internegatives.

 Michael Firstlight's gear list:Michael Firstlight's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR +29 more
Ellis Vener
Ellis Vener Forum Pro • Posts: 16,008
Re: I'm just curious.
2

ms18 wrote:

If I were to do it, the fee would be enormous.

Why is that? What extra work you have to do to just give the RAW files?

Because they are his or her property and the seller sets the price. If the buyer is willing to meet that price then they can make the deal.

That is the way a marketplace works.

It is business 101.

-- hide signature --

Ellis Vener
A working photographer since 1984.
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio

 Ellis Vener's gear list:Ellis Vener's gear list
Sony RX100 VII Nikon D850 Nikon Z7 Nikon Z6 Nikon Z7 II +1 more
ms18
ms18 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,237
Re: I'm just curious.

Because they are his or her property and the seller sets the price. If the buyer is willing to meet that price then they can make the deal.

That is the way a marketplace works.

It is business 101.

Ok. in this case what the point of keeping the RAW files for ourselves wasting our storage. Now i feel like we are doing a service (keeping their original) without them even paying the rent for it.

-- hide signature --

If you like my pictures follow me on Insta
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/

 ms18's gear list:ms18's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +1 more
ms18
ms18 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,237
Re: Wedding photography is a scam
1

while the "pro" keeps and uses your own images to advertise his business, because obviously he will retain all rights despite the fact that you already paid for the images representing your family.

Is that a bad deal or what?

Actually I feel it's wrong to use client images for my marketing purpose unless they agree for it!

-- hide signature --

If you like my pictures follow me on Insta
https://www.instagram.com/mahidoes/

 ms18's gear list:ms18's gear list
Fujifilm X-T20 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 56mm F1.2 R +1 more
PhotosByHall Contributing Member • Posts: 562
Re: Wedding photography is a scam
4

ms18 wrote:

while the "pro" keeps and uses your own images to advertise his business, because obviously he will retain all rights despite the fact that you already paid for the images representing your family.

Is that a bad deal or what?

Actually I feel it's wrong to use client images for my marketing purpose unless they agree for it!

Wedding photography isn't sold - it's licensed to you.

Consider a physical object, if I buy a ferrari - I buy an instance of an object that is made to a design. I don't own that design of that model of ferrari forever.

EDIT : There are a lot of bargain basement photographers in this thread who are devaluing the craft. These are the people who make an increasing number of couples just "let their guests take the shots" with smartphones.

There is a lot of expensive gear, training, pressure, organisation and editing time goes into shooting a wedding - the price is high for a reason. Failure is not an option.

 PhotosByHall's gear list:PhotosByHall's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EOS 5D Mark IV Canon EOS M50 Canon EF 50mm F1.8 II Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM +4 more
Bender79ita
Bender79ita Senior Member • Posts: 1,038
Re: Wedding Photographer and Raw
4

Buke wrote:

I shoot jpegs, and the images are my property. If the client wants to buy a CD that's another charge. By contracting with me to shoot their wedding, they don't get the rights to the imagery I shoot. I give them scaled down images, but the full resolution images are mine.

Buke

Jpegs, CDs... I must have time traveled while asleep last night

 Bender79ita's gear list:Bender79ita's gear list
Sony RX100 III Nikon D810 Nikon D5600 Sony a6400 Tamron SP 24-70mm F2.8 Di VC USD +8 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads