# Is There Any Reason To Consider Selling RAW Files to Clients?



## dvjproductions (Jul 29, 2014)

I ran across this the other day when talking with someone about photography while on vacation. I was wearing a shirt that raises some eyebrows and I get asked...A LOT... what it means. This will strike up a conversation or the person will just leave confused.

I've gotten jobs because of this shirt.

What this person asked is if they hire me for a personal portrait shoot if they can have the RAW files. 

I was taken a back and after a little while of contemplating the question I am asking you folks, I told the person no. Apparently it was a deal breaker, but aside from other photographers I cannot see any reason why they'd want the RAW files.

Anyway, here I am, asking you the question:

Is there any circumstance you'd sell a photo shoot to include the RAW files at the end?


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 29, 2014)




----------



## dvjproductions (Jul 29, 2014)

pixmedic said:


>



<3 Archer. And I am glad you agree. 

Curious on another related topic though.

What would this non-photographer wanted with the RAW files?

I know what a few 'internet' photo folks say about selling RAW, they are all against it. I am curious on the reason for it. Even if they get the JPG they can reproduce right? Or should I be only looking at selling in print?


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 29, 2014)

for me, its about a finished product. 
sometimes, the raw file freshly imported into LR looks like poo. i often shoot wide so i have more cropping options, and there are sometimes things that I am going to Photoshop in or out of a picture. I don't hand out unfinished products to clients. ever.


----------



## Trever1t (Jul 29, 2014)

When I am asked that it's usually because the potential client doesn't understand what they're asking. They're thinking large unedited jog files. I have had a client want the actual raws...no problem, only $50 ea and they have to buy all 600 or so.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 29, 2014)

Almost anything has a price.  The circumstance is you get decent $ for it lol.


----------



## dvjproductions (Jul 29, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> for me, its about a finished product.
> sometimes, the raw file freshly imported into LR looks like poo. i often shoot wide so i have more cropping options, and there are sometimes things that I am going to Photoshop in or out of a picture. I don't hand out unfinished products to clients. ever.



This concerns me as well. And is part of the reason I didn't go for it. While I try to get shots 'right' in the camera, I will often shoot wide at the same time 'just in case'



Robin Usagani said:


> Almost anything has a price.  The circumstance is you get decent $ for it lol.



I think the quote above yours states that perfectly.



Trever1t said:


> When I am asked that it's usually because the potential client doesn't understand what they're asking. They're thinking large unedited jog files. I have had a client want the actual raws...no problem, only $50 ea and they have to buy all 600 or so.



This would be a great way to make a little extra cash flow, but I would be hesitant to even present this to a client. I would rather stand on my principles and lose a client because of it than lose a client because they think I am price gouging them. I suppose it would take a lot of explaining of the 'whys' and 'what raw is used for' etc to gain that kinda price tag.


----------



## sscarmack (Jul 29, 2014)

I never sell my RAWS. Bc what Pix said. It's all about the final product. How do I know the person getting them knows how to edit and blah blah blah.

I'm not willing to put my name on that. They may come out like crap. Over sharpened. Over saturated. Etc and then my name is attached to them. 

No thanks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Overread (Jul 29, 2014)

Many people ask for RAWs but don't have  clue what they are really asking for. What they often mean is that they want a jpeg that hasn't been through "Photoshop". If you gave them actual RAW files they'd not even be able to open them, let alone respect their un-edited state. The same is true of businesses as well, again its people often saying one thing that means something totally different. 

Many people get the idea that photoshop and editing some how reduces the purity of a shot; or that the photographer is a "hack" using editing to cover up for mistakes/lack of skill in the camera. Again this is a false impression (PS advertising doesn't help the case of the average photographer either), but one that many people have. 

Others want to get their full monies worth and feel that owning the original core file is the way to do that; sometimes they are just control freaks, other times they are scared by the idea of people abusing photos of them for profit (sold your photo to an art gallery - made a fortune!) and some are just saying it because their friends told them to. 



In the end I'd subscribe to the complete package approach - when hired or paid the client is getting a photo; not a file, not a raw, not a strip of film negatives; but an actual finished photo. Thus it should be processed as expected into the final form and then presented in the desired format (print - file - internet ready file etc...). 

IF someone wants to have the RAW (or your film negative) they've both got to display good reason for it and also pay for it. Remember as a professional you don't really want to just give out your "raw" files which will then likely be displayed (or badly edited and then displayed) by clients as a mark of your ability. So they've got to show that they really do have a valid reason and a sound understanding of what they are asking for - price is a debatable subject although typically RAWs are priced very high; this ensures maximum profit for the photographer (since typically transfer of RAWs will come with an near unlimited usage licence for the client*) and also helps discourage people from asking for it in the first place (or pushing for it if they ask and baulk at the cost).



*many assume this but its not actual fact, even if they've the RAW they still don't have unlimited usage rights - get that part agreed to in the contract clearly.


----------



## dvjproductions (Jul 29, 2014)

Overread said:


> Many people ask for RAWs but don't have  clue what they are really asking for. What they often mean is that they want a jpeg that hasn't been through "Photoshop". If you gave them actual RAW files they'd not even be able to open them, let alone respect their un-edited state. The same is true of businesses as well, again its people often saying one thing that means something totally different.
> 
> Many people get the idea that photoshop and editing some how reduces the purity of a shot; or that the photographer is a "hack" using editing to cover up for mistakes/lack of skill in the camera. Again this is a false impression (PS advertising doesn't help the case of the average photographer either), but one that many people have.
> 
> ...



I think this advice sums up all the replies, including my own, in a nutshell. 

Thank you guys for helping me out with this. I think I may have passed up an opportunity to make enough to get a few cameras here...where I am vacationing has some very very very wealthy folks. She might be willing to shell out the money for it, I think I might contact her tonight with a few figures and discussion of a contract.


----------



## ruggedshutter (Jul 29, 2014)

I have mixed feelings on the topic to be honest.  On one hand I would want to immediately say no way but then again it saves you possibly a few hours of editing...lol


----------



## e.rose (Jul 29, 2014)

dvjproductions said:


> Is there any circumstance you'd sell a photo shoot to include the RAW files at the end?



ABSO-F***ING-LOUTELY NOT.


Besides. 99.99999999999999999% of the time, when a client asks for the "raw" files, they think they're asking for high resolution JPEGs. They don't really know what that means.

And on the off-chance that they don't mean "high resolution JPEGs", they mean unedited JPEGs. (And the answer to that question is STILL no). As proven on this very forum recently, there are *photographers* out there who think RAW files are something other than what they are... how are *normal* non-photographic people supposed to really know what that means?


----------



## tirediron (Jul 29, 2014)

e.rose said:


> how are *normal* non-photographic people


Huh....  how can non-photographic people be considered 'normal'??????


----------



## e.rose (Jul 29, 2014)

tirediron said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > how are *normal* non-photographic people
> ...



Be real, John. 

Photographers are not normal people.

We're all flippin' insane. :lmao:


----------



## tirediron (Jul 29, 2014)

e.rose said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > e.rose said:
> ...


Says you... I'm the normalest person I know... it's the other 6 billion people on the planet whom I find suspect!


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 29, 2014)

$10,000 for non commercial RAW files (this is unedited, additional cost for editing) 
$100,000 for Commercial RAW files (this is unedited, additional cost for editing)

You get all RAW files associated with said shoot.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 29, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> $10,000 for non commercial RAW files (this is unedited, additional cost for editing)
> $100,000 for Commercial RAW files (this is unedited, additional cost for editing)
> 
> You get all RAW files associated with said shoot.



How are you selling edited RAW files?

Are you sending your clients the actual Lightroom Catalogue with the .xmp files??


----------



## dvjproductions (Jul 29, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> $10,000 for non commercial RAW files (this is unedited, additional cost for editing)
> $100,000 for Commercial RAW files (this is unedited, additional cost for editing)
> 
> You get all RAW files associated with said shoot.



Sheesh...that's a LOT of money to keep your personal name off the photos. One could specialize in that kinda market (not that it is something I am remotely interested in)


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 29, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > $10,000 for non commercial RAW files (this is unedited, additional cost for editing)
> ...



I'm not, I just make the prices stupid high so most people will leave me alone...but I will entertain serious offers.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 29, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...



Let me rephrase... HOW would you sell someone *edited* RAW files???? :scratch:


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 29, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > e.rose said:
> ...



RAW files are unedited negatives as you know. For an additional charge, I would send them an edited set of files: RAW + Jpegs.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 29, 2014)

Tailgunner said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > Tailgunner said:
> ...



Okay, see that makes a hell of a lot more sense.

All you said initially was "edited", which made it sound like you were trying to send them "edited RAW files"... which meant you didn't know what a RAW file really was. 

But now that you have clarified... s'all good. :lmao:


----------



## Tailgunner (Jul 29, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Tailgunner said:
> 
> 
> > e.rose said:
> ...



Thats why I placed edited in parentheses () Oh well, glad it's all straightened out...although if they pay me enough, I'll call them Edited RAW files


----------

