Can I have your RAW files??

[Dylan & Marianne]

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

[ameerat42]

Are they pRAWns? RAW pRAWns?

That's enough to start a WAR!

[Steve Axford]

Er, why not? If they are doing the paying and the pay is reasonable, why would you care?

[Xenedis]

I'm not sure what other photographers do, but I'd be saying no.

[Kym]

No, Nyet, Nein, Nay, Non !!!!!
http://www.freelang.net/expressions/no.php

You have lost all creative control if you do.

Edit: @Steve Why you must care... Say they really bugga up the processing and people see the images and ask who the 'tog was ... your professional name is mud.

[Dylan & Marianne]

Steve - mainly for the reason kym stated- my thinking is that we'd like people to associate 'everlook' with the kind of images we put out - if said client did what we considered a butcher PP job and then blamed us or even credited us with a look we didn't appreciate, then Marianne and I aren't comfortable with it - just a personal preference and a reason why we definitely we would say no.
I was just interested in the opinions of others coming from a viewpoint that everyone's views are valid (it's not my intention to start a flame war !)

[Xenedis]

Dylan: Bingo. My reason for declining echoes yours.

[JM Tran]

Er, why not? If they are doing the paying and the pay is reasonable, why would you care?

LOL, Kym's post is a pretty good summary as to WHY:)


After only 4 years of doing weddings, and 80 ish weddings - never once have I given out RAW files even if the client offered to pay more.

Primarily because I dont trust their processing and editing, and if they do a crappy job, my name is still associated as being the photographer who took that badly edited photo - thus making my business name look bad. Not to mention potential loss of future clients and sales etc.

[Dylan & Marianne]

how often do you get asked Jackie? it's the first time we have been and we were taken a little aback lol - noone's ever asked us for a RAW of our landscape shots for instance

[JM Tran]

how often do you get asked Jackie? it's the first time we have been and we were taken a little aback lol - noone's ever asked us for a RAW of our landscape shots for instance

about 50% of my weddings are Asian clients, and about 1 in 4 will sometimes ask - oh can we have the raw files so we can edit later? The dilemma here is that only half of them will really know what a RAW file is, they think raw means just an unedited jpeg:)

Questions I have had asked before

-can we have the raw files along with the edited photos you include for us on disc - NO

-can we have the raw files of our parents before they go home or go back to Asia? - NO

-can you change those B&W shots into colours as well for us, or give us the raw files so we can do it? - NO

-can we get the RAW files off you at the end of the night before you leave? - NO

-can your 2nd photographer give us the RAW files when he finishes tonight? - NO


so yeah, you get all sorts of funny questions. But 99% of them will just acknowledge it and never bug you again:)

YOU GOTTA BE FIRM!

friendly, fair, but firm:)

[junqbox]

For all the reasons above I wouldn't give anyone a Raw file, or a JPEG larger than a basic version.

[Xenedis]

Questions I have had asked before

Easily summarised as "Can <blah blah> raw files <blah blah>?"

"No."

:-)

[JM Tran]

Easily summarised as "Can <blah blah> raw files <blah blah>?"

"No."

:-)

yeah pretty much it! as soon as hear the word RAW my brain switches off and I start thinking about cool things, like sleep, or Lego etc.

[Brian500au]

Very interesting discussion here - what stops a client editing the smallest jpeg you give them, and making a hack of it but still putting it on display.

I have had many a model take a 0.25mb jpeg and edit it without my permission (normally a terrible job).

You are assuming all your clients know the difference between a raw file and a low quality jpg. I reckon I could ask 100 people where I work if they knew what a raw file was, and I would bet 98 would say no. Then again if I asked you photographers what a stopple fitting was I would assume not many would know.

Have you guys found a magic code that stops your clients editing any jpeg you pass to them?

[Xenedis]

what stops a client editing the smallest jpeg you give them, and making a hack of it but still putting it on display.

Legally: Whatever condition you specify in the contract which forbids people to modify and republish your work.

Practically: Nothing.

But why make it easy for them? Giving them a raw file -- the least processed and most pure form of image -- provides the potential for a would-be editor (who knows what (s)he is doing) to extract the most from it.

[JM Tran]

Legally: Whatever condition you specify in the contract which forbids people to modify and republish your work.

Practically: Nothing.

But why make it easy for them? Giving them a raw file -- the least processed and most pure form of image -- provides the potential for a would-be editor (who knows what (s)he is doing) to extract the most from it.


Not to mention if one is spot on with processing and editing, the model or client would have no urge/incentive to edit them anyway:D

[Xenedis]

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.

[NikonNellie]

what stops a client editing the smallest jpeg you give them, and making a hack of it but still putting it on display.

I am only very new to having clients but I get them to sign a contract that forbids any modification or replication of my images as well as getting them to acknowledge that I own the copyright to the images. I provide them with full sized jpegs on a disk to have printed as they please as well as specific web -sized images and collages for their facebook page - this way I basically have some control as to what images go on facebook as I tell them that they are the only images that I give permission to be posted on the net. So far so good! I would never give out my RAW images. Like I say I am very new to the business side of photography and probably still have a lot to learn business wise. :)

[kiwi]

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 ;-)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ricktas]

I gave out my 'originals' (which I decided meant RAW) files once. The couple came back to me about 2 days later saying they could not open the files on their computer. Which I knew was going to happen. Then I told them that there was a reason I was the photographer, and that they had paid me to edit them, and edit them I will, and provide them with the finished product.

I knew before I handed them the RAW files on DVD that they were not going to get anywhere. A bit computer illiterate.

hehehe

[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:eek:!

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. :rolleyes: Had to put my best poker-face on when she asked me that one.

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

[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:eek:

[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:eek:

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.

[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 :th3: .........

[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 :th3: .........
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. :cool:

[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.

[Dylan & Marianne]

One point that's been made is that if someone wants RAWS and you're worried about them mangling the processing, they're probably just as likely to try with edited files lol - /shrug - I'm still most definitely on the 'no' side of the argument but I can see some of the points raised by others from the other side of the fence

[mercho]

I have been asked after delivering the final product on disc (wedding) if the client could have the RAW files also to "practice" editing etc.. I politely declined (nothing in the contract about handing over raws) and stated pretty much what has been said here already. Not comfortable with people editing my shots and then asking who the photographer was etc...

But as stated they can still do this with the jpegs i guess so :confused013 Personally I am just not comfortable handing them over lol

[Redgum]

In reality there is no argument, yes or no. Consider this, if you were to give away your RAW files (or even sell them) you would retain a copy, no? Unless you've signed an agreement not to do this (in which case you have sold your rights) everything is perfectly legitimate. I feel that many amateurs are not concerned about the physical transfer but more concerned that the person they give them to may be a tad better at processing, not worse. If they were disfigured that responsibility would lay with the new owner and except by them being completely dishonest, wouldn't reflect on the original owner because you could sue them. And keep in mind, if they intended to disfigure your shots they can do that just as easily with a Jpeg.
So the question really is not yes or no but why. If there is a good reason (amateurs) or value (professionals) you can do as you wish and you don't have to impose your opinion on others because circumstances vary in every case. :)

I like to get rid of most RAWS. In the last eighteen months I've been to Africa, Asia and South America on photo shoots and all up taken about 7000 frames. I've literally deleted close on 6000 shots. The others I have to retain as part of my contract and that's for a period of fifteen years. They sit on a hard drive and are copies of the originals that were submitted to my contractor. I've still got all 7000+ Jpeg's on a hard drive which is the least expensive way of archiving photos.

[I @ M]

In reality there is no argument, yes or no. Consider this, if you were to give away your RAW files (or even sell them) you would retain a copy, no? Unless you've signed an agreement not to do this (in which case you have sold your rights) everything is perfectly legitimate. I feel that many amateurs are not concerned about the physical transfer but more concerned that the person they give them to may be a tad better at processing, not worse. If they were disfigured that responsibility would lay with the new owner and except by them being completely dishonest, wouldn't reflect on the original owner because you could sue them. And keep in mind, if they intended to disfigure your shots they can do that just as easily with a Jpeg.


Can't quite see logic in this, I really feel that it would be very hard to sue anyone as either an amateur or professional for the disfigurement of your work if you have sold or given away the rights to the image unless you get heavily involved with contracts that specifically state that your name ( photographer ) will never be attributed to such edited images.

I also don't agree with the summation that maybe only "amateurs" have a good reason to give away images or that only "professionals" will place a value on them. Plenty of "amateurs" sell images as well and some "professionals" are happy to give away some images.

[Redgum]

I'm sorry I @ M but your reply is not relevant to what I said at all. In fact your words imply the opposite. Could you highlight for other members the words in my statement that match your misquoted passages? It's not even out of context, your answer is wrong. Perhaps you can look at what I said that matches this statement -
I also don't agree with the summation that maybe only "amateurs" have a good reason to give away images or that only "professionals" will place a value on them. Plenty of "amateurs" sell images as well and some "professionals" are happy to give away some images and perhaps you can tell me where I stated this
Can't quite see logic in this, I really feel that it would be very hard to sue anyone as either an amateur or professional for the disfigurement of your work if you have sold or given away the rights to the image
Make an argument but don't misquote me even if you don't understand fully.

[I @ M]

So the question really is not yes or no but why. If there is a good reason (amateurs) or value (professionals) you can do as you wish and you don't have to impose your opinion on others because circumstances vary in every case. :)

I fail to see where you feel I am misquoting you.
Above is a direct quote from your post.
I responded that I don't agree with the wording that to me implies that amateurs are the ones to give away images because the wording states good reason and that professionals are only concerned with value. I take that as meaning amateurs are more likely to give away images for reasons such as exposure or recognition and that professionals will only do it for the money.


In reality there is no argument, yes or no. Consider this, if you were to give away your RAW files (or even sell them) you would retain a copy, no? Unless you've signed an agreement not to do this (in which case you have sold your rights) everything is perfectly legitimate. I feel that many amateurs are not concerned about the physical transfer but more concerned that the person they give them to may be a tad better at processing, not worse. If they were disfigured that responsibility would lay with the new owner and except by them being completely dishonest, wouldn't reflect on the original owner because you could sue them. And keep in mind, if they intended to disfigure your shots they can do that just as easily with a Jpeg.


In that paragraph (directly quoted) I read the wording by you that says the original owner can sue the new owner if they disfigure the original owners work. You also say that people may have "sold their rights" to an image.
To me, if the ownership of an image changes and there is an agreement in writing for that ownership to change either by a monetary exchange or as a gift then I feel that the original owner has cast away any claim upon those images so I fail to see how they may be able to sue the new owner at a later date.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your intent, maybe you haven't worded it in a way that is clear but I definitely have not misquoted you.

[Arg]

Regarding wedding photos, there is another factor I would like to see discussed.

I think there IS a case for sharing the raw files.

Wedding photos are personal (to the client) and they are lifelong. In fact they are intergenerational.

In 25 years the married couple will often wish to reprint their faded/scratched/missing photos. In 50 years their kids and grandkids will.

Where is the photographer and the raw files in the face of this need? Retired, gone, dead, deleted.

The deeply personal and long-term value of wedding photos makes me wish there was a way to hand them to the client under a time lock. "These will open in 10 years."

[Dylan & Marianne]

Arg, why would you want or need a RAW file to reprint an image?
Surely the edited version provided would be much more convenient ?
If the bride and groom had no post processing skill or knowledge, they'd have to get someone else to do it all over again and may not achieve the same look as the original ' retired/dead/deleted' photographer

ps. I'm saying this based on the packages we offer which is all digital : all proofs in low res, clients pick 'x' number of high res files for use (edited) depending on the contract signed
its a different kettle of fish if all the photographer offers is actual prints and the reasons you have stated are why we have gone digital with what we offer.

[Arg]

perfectly fair point dtoh. Good enough jpegs for high quality prints of the size of the original prints ordered should suffice.

[Redgum]

Arg, you can choose to give a copy of the RAW files to the client. That's your judgment and you would know best from talking with that person. You have a copy and they have a copy. If doubt exists as to what they might do to them simply get them to sign an agreement stating exactly what is expected. That's called a "contract" and can be enforced if things go off the rails but in 99.9% of cases everything will be fine.
Like I said earlier, it's not a matter of yes or no but why. If the "why" is good enough go with it. Personally, I would hate to be called up in 25 years time to do reprints. Probably won't have paper then. :)

[Xenedis]

I feel that many amateurs are not concerned about the physical transfer but more concerned that the person they give them to may be a tad better at processing, not worse.

Speaking for myself, absolutely not.

This is how it is:

If someone is engaging me to deliver photographic images, then a finished product, in the form of high-quality processed JPGs, is what I will deliver.

The raw (no pun intended) ingredients aren't part of the package.

I know there are people out there who are more skillful at image processing than I am; I really don't care one iota, and any perception of someone else being 'better' simply doesn't enter my mind.


If they were disfigured that responsibility would lay with the new owner and except by them being completely dishonest, wouldn't reflect on the original owner because you could sue them.

Unfortunately suing people is time-consuming and highly expensive business, and is therefore completely unattainable for a lot of people.



So the question really is not yes or no but why. If there is a good reason (amateurs) or value (professionals) you can do as you wish

I can do what I wish anyway, and a reason (good, bad or indifferent) is not owed.

[Xenedis]

Regarding wedding photos, there is another factor I would like to see discussed.

I think there IS a case for sharing the raw files.

Wedding photos are personal (to the client) and they are lifelong. In fact they are intergenerational.

In 25 years the married couple will often wish to reprint their faded/scratched/missing photos. In 50 years their kids and grandkids will.

Where is the photographer and the raw files in the face of this need? Retired, gone, dead, deleted.

I agree with all the sentimental fluff, but I'm afraid none of is remotely constitutes a compelling reason for providing the raw files.

If the wedding party is provided with the high-quality, processed JPGs, then surely prints can be made from those, don't you think?

What if we were to step back to the pre-digital days of film?

Would you expect the wedding photographer to hand the negs to the client? Absolutely not.

Yes, negatives are unique and raw files can be copied, but that isn't the point.

A wedding photographer is engaged to provide a finished, polished product in the form of prints, processed digital images on a CD, etc.

I do not consider raw images a finished product at all.

If a photographer is willing to provide his/her raw files to a client, that's his/her business.

The point is that it's a personal choice, and either way, no justification is owed.

[WhoDo]

Wedding photos are personal (to the client) and they are lifelong. In fact they are intergenerational.

In 25 years the married couple will often wish to reprint their faded/scratched/missing photos. In 50 years their kids and grandkids will.

Where is the photographer and the raw files in the face of this need? Retired, gone, dead, deleted.

I understand the point you are making, arg, and I certainly have no wish to jump on the bandwagon over what is clearly a reasonable argument in terms of the emotional attachment of the client to the images. The one thing I'd like to add, however, is that I doubt any medium exists that will allow you to preserve either the RAW negatives or the hi-res JPEG products for 25-50 years anyway! CD's are only guaranteed for around 10 years AFAIK. I don't think flash media has any similar shelf life, but would stand corrected.

So how can these memories be kept for any length of time? I honestly don't know and it's a question I don't think has been answered yet technologically either.If someone does have an answer then I'd like to know, because at work I'm required to keep student records for 30 years but except for paper copies no-one seems to be able to tell me how to do that! :confused013

[Dylan & Marianne]

I'm with John about worrying that someone might be better at post processing than me
That's the complete opposite of my concerns and likewise doesn't enter the equation at all regarding handing over of RAWs
I value my pictures for reasons that are my own (whether others deem them good , bad or neutral, they are still my personal reasons!)

[farmer_rob]

I think there is a distinction here between being in business (selling what the customer wants to buy) and photography as an artform/hobby (any sale is a bonus, but the photographer's artistic integrity becomes more important).

On the business side, there needs to be concerns about damaging brand image (e.g. poor editing by the customer), loss of future sales (e.g. prints), and ensuring that customers and business both understand what is being sold (labour for hire, finished photos, photos for print etc.). Taking these into account, arguments can be made for both supplying and not supplying raw files. I do think that from a business perspective, if a sale depends on supply of raw files, then the contract price needs to be considered, and the desire/need for that sale needs to be considered.

On the artform/hobby side, I think the argument is more about "don't impinge my artistic integrity".

However, wedding photography is probably the most difficult amalgam of these two sides. I tend to think that the customer view should hold sway, but for a price. Brand image is also more easily damaged - by refusal, by other photographers doing what you won't, and by your carefully crafted look and feel being messed up by an amateur with photoshop.

(Take the above with a grain of salt if you wish - I sell cattle, not photos, but I work hard to manage the quality of my cattle to maximise sale value. What happens afterwards is beyond my control.)


Regards,
Rob

[Redgum]

Well put, Rob. Takes a cattleman to round the herd up!

[Arg]

...If the wedding party is provided with the high-quality, processed JPGs, then surely prints can be made from those, don't you think?yes that would be sufficient.


What if we were to step back to the pre-digital days of film? Would you expect the wedding photographer to hand the negs to the client? Absolutely not. well, why not? Say, for the same price as a large print portfolio.... The photographer get money for nothing. The client gets intergeneration security.


I understand the point you are making, arg, .... however, ....I doubt any medium exists that will allow you to preserve either the RAW negatives or the hi-res JPEG products for 25-50 years anyway! CD's are only guaranteed for around 10 years AFAIK....Thanks for the comment WhoDo. Longevity is a different issue and a long topic too. CD's last 10 years? Your car is probably guaranteed for 3 years but will easily run for 30. Your home builder probably guaranteed it for 5 years, but....

Similarly good data discs can be expected to last an awfully long time. I use Taiyo Yuden DVD+R for family archival material and fully expect 100 years' life.

Besides, we are not talking about time capsules here. That is a specific problem. We are talking about family material that will be transferred to latest tech media from time to time as life goes on.

Finally, thanks for the good discussion. I realised after my initial post that high res jpegs would be good enough. The nice thing about raw files would be the chance of better converters, eg if I took raw files from a 2000 shoot and loaded them into 2012 converters the jpegs would be better than the jpegs that came out of the old 2000 era raw converters.

[Xenedis]

Similarly good data discs can be expected to last an awfully long time. I use Taiyo Yuden DVD+R for family archival material and fully expect 100 years' life.

It's highly unlikely that CD/DVD media will exist in 100 years.

Your digital data needs to be format-shifted as the technology changes.

[fillum]

Your digital data needs to be format-shifted as the technology changes.Also might be fun trying to find a bit of software that will read a 30 year old NEF/CR2/etc.

Something not mentioned is that a lot of people now have access to scanners (as part of their multi-function printer). So even providing prints won't necessarily stop people from reproducing/altering your work. The scanning stage would give them an additional point at which to "place their own personal imprint" :rolleyes: on the work.


Cheers.

[farmer_rob]

It's highly unlikely that CD/DVD media will exist in 100 years.

Your digital data needs to be format-shifted as the technology changes.

This is already occurring with some of the older format tape media (as well as floppy disks.) It is important to move old data to newer media on a regular basis. I am aware of a (non-photography) problem with data from 2003 on DLT tapes. The group involved no longer has DLT drives, and it's main IT supplier cannot source a suitable drive anymore.


Regards,
Rob

[Sobriquet]

I often get photographers to photograph, weddings and portraits, they don't tend to ask me for raw, I have only been asked once but no I don't give out raw files (except 1 commercial client for a magazine and that was the requirement of me getting the job). My name is not associated with them so I don't care once I get paid, it is also a very specialised magazine that would have a small but loyal following.