# Looking for advice for TFP/Raw issue.



## deduceme221 (Apr 18, 2013)

Hi-hi!

I'm a second year photo student and in order to build my portfolio I have recently started doing Time-for-Print shoots. I drew up a general mutual-release contract to use, and in it states that I will give x-amount of digital images (jpegs) with the most basic of correction, and 1 fully edited, high res digital file and print. I put in that any additional prints would cost x amount of money. 

What I failed to consider was adding anything about raw files or the cost for additional high res digi images, and lo! my very first TFP shoot ended with the model asking for raw files (go figure- well at least I'm learning now). I know better than to give those away, but in the moment I panicked and said that photographers don't normally give raw files and if I were to do that, I'd have to charge an astronomical figure, and I explained why. I told her that she'd get what we'd agreed upon in the contract and then if she wants extras that we'd work it out then. 

I've sent her the images and she's just emailed me back asking how much I would charge per image for raw files. I'm thinking I can convince her to take high res images instead. I guess I was hoping to get some over-all opinions here.

Thanks all,
Ash


----------



## Light Guru (Apr 18, 2013)

deduceme221 said:


> What I failed to consider was adding anything about raw files or the cost for additional high res digi images, and lo! my very first TFP shoot ended with the model asking for raw files (go figure- well at least I'm learning now). I know better than to give those away, but in the moment I panicked and said that photographers don't normally give raw files and if I were to do that, I'd have to charge an astronomical figure, and I explained why. I told her that she'd get what we'd agreed upon in the contract and then if she wants extras that we'd work it out then.



Why an astronomical amount. A extremely high price would only be appropriate if you are giving them exclusive rights to the image. Exclusive rights and giving the raw file are two totally different things.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 18, 2013)

deduceme221 said:


> I'm thinking I can convince her to take high res images instead.



I think I'd keep working on that.  Or, tell her that she got you you agreed to give her, and that's that.

It sounds to me like you have fulfilled your end of the contract?  Anything beyond the scope of that would have to be on a new contract, IMO...


edit
If you have not actually delivered yet, I would do that first.  Deliver what you said you'd deliver.  Then, after you have fulfilled your obligations, get a new contract started if you want to give her the RAWs.  If you don't want her to have them, do what you said you'd do and end it there.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2013)

Let's face it: if you're a beginner who is a second year student in the process of building a portfolio, your images probably are not "all that great". They might be good, yes, sure, but how much MONEY do you actually think any other third party would pay for the raw files? How many might be commercially valuable? Unless they are glamour/nudes/evocative, or in some other way "unusual" or "desirable" images, the photos made of that one woman are **probably** not commercially valuable, and are **probably** valuable only to her, or her boyfriend or husband, or maybe a dear family member. I mean, unless she's like a celebrity's child, or something similar.

So, with those cold, hard likely realities set forth: ask yourself how much should you charge? I have no idea how many shots you have. If you have 1,000 frames, I'd say charge her between 50 cents and 75 cents per image, and walk away with a cool $500 to $750 for a 15-minute, two-DVD burning session that sets you back 15,20 minutes' worth of time and 59 cents in DVD media.

If you have 200 images, say $2.25 per image. "Something" along these lines is what I would shoot for. You HAD an agreement, and I assume she was a willing participant, and that she signed the form. NOW, it is she, who wants additional items for herself. Say YES to her...always say "YES, I can do that for you--for a price." Grant her access to the raw files, with reasonable use limitations, but by all means, don't just "sit on" images that you could SELL for a very tidy profit. Because, unless she's a very unusual person, they are probably just going to SIT ON A SPINDLE with 50 other DVD discs, for decades.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 19, 2013)

To me giving away my Raw images (or with my camera, DNG images) would be like giving away my film negatives. I wouldn't do either.

I wonder if people who don't know much about photography have heard that they should request the Raw images from a photographer. Maybe high resolution images would actually meet someone's needs if you explained how the hi res images could be used. 

I think ASMP has info. on their website about how to determine pricing; other photographers organizations may have that type info. as well.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2013)

Except negatives are "originals" and are "first-generation", and are one-of-a-kind (unless duplicated, but even then, there are subtle changes). RAW digital image files can be duplicated, for free, and are identical even if 50 copies are made...a negative is fine as an original, but every subsequent duplication builds contrast and degrades the image (as a general rule). And unlike printing negatives, today there are literally millions of people who are quite, quite capable of "developing" raw images into absolutely stunning images...in many cases, people who are skilled at image processing are often better at it than many "photographers".

When a client, even a TPF modeling client, asks you if you can provide such and such...think about what's really going on. I mean, really think about it...are the images worth anything to anybody except HER? WHy not sell her what she is asking you to provide, and which you made??? Sell her what she wants, but do not labor under the false premise that the images you shot are someday going to be 'irreplaceably valuable'...sell her some RAW files at a reasonable price, and set some use limits on them. You are not yet Annie Liebovitz or Mary Ellen Mark or Sally Mann.


----------



## KmH (Apr 19, 2013)

Derrel is right and it's not likely one of your TFP clients will ever make the 'big time' or even have '15 minutes of fame'.

A retail photographer in Kentwood, Louisiana made some high school senior shots for a local boy - Jason Alexander.
Some time later the local boy married a girl also raised in Kentwood. They get married at the The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas.

The marriage was annulled just 55 hours later because it was claimed the bride "lacked understanding of her actions".

The bride was the pop singer Britney Spears, and suddenly lots of major media outlets, worldwide, wanted images of the groom - Jason Alexander.

The only place they could get them was from that retail photographer back home in Louisiana - Cha! Ching!


----------



## cptkid (Apr 19, 2013)

Never, I repeat NEVVERR give your RAW files to anyone. 

Thats like giving away your negatives. 

You should just tell her that you not comfortable to give RAW files to her and that this would be standard practise for any photographer. 

I'm sorry, but if as a photographer, you give away your RAW files, imo you're just plain silly.


----------



## runnah (Apr 19, 2013)

KmH said:


> Derrel is right and it's not likely one of your TFP clients will ever make the 'big time' or even have '15 minutes of fame'.
> 
> A retail photographer in Kentwood, Louisiana made some high school senior shots for a local boy - Jason Alexander.
> Some time later the local boy married a girl also raised in Kentwood. They get married at the The Little White Wedding Chapel in Las Vegas.
> ...



George from Seinfeld?


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 19, 2013)

I'm wondering if she is confused about what she is asking.  I can sell someone a RAW file and still have the RAW file on my computer, it's no diffrent then selling a JPG image. the question I have is if she thinKs by saying I want to buy the RAW image, she thinks she is buying the rights to the image. If not it sounds like maybe she just wants the RAW file because she wants to edit her own photo, or wants to have someone else edit your photo, so you have to decide if thats something you want someone else doing. Most people I have worked with doing TFP arn't loaded with cash and wouldn't have $500 to drop on a bunch of unused photos. 

I'd deliver what was promised and then ask her why she wants the RAW files and wether she thinks she is getting the rights to them. two diffrent things there.


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 19, 2013)

12sndsgood said:


> I'm wondering if she is confused about what she is asking.  I can sell someone a RAW file and still have the RAW file on my computer, it's no diffrent then selling a JPG image. the question I have is if she thinKs by saying I want to buy the RAW image, she thinks she is buying the rights to the image. If not it sounds like maybe she just wants the RAW file because she wants to edit her own photo, or wants to have someone else edit your photo, so you have to decide if thats something you want someone else doing. Most people I have worked with doing TFP arn't loaded with cash and wouldn't have $500 to drop on a bunch of unused photos.
> 
> I'd deliver what was promised and then ask her why she wants the RAW files and wether she thinks she is getting the rights to them. two diffrent things there.



You can do a lot more to a raw file than a full size jpeg. You can completely alter the aesthetics of the shot more accessibly than you can with a jpeg. I would never give a raw file. Ever.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2013)

cptkid said:


> Never, I repeat NEVVERR give your RAW files to anyone.
> 
> Thats like giving away your negatives.
> 
> ...



No, it's not at ALL like giving away negatives.

Who is talking about "giving" anything away? The original TFP contract was fullfilled. This is an additional business deal, where MONEY ought to be exchanged for goods. In other words, this second year student who is building her portfolio would be SELLING some RAW files to a client. Not giving....but SELLING images. This whole conversation borders on the ridiculous. What's the difference between selling a high-resolution .TIF file versus a .PSD versus a 3 to 4 megabyte, high-quality JPEG? Once any image is sold in any electronic file format, the horse is out of the barn. Selling 120-megabyte 16-bit .TIF files or 3- to 6-megabyte .JPG files...basically, for practical purposes, there is almost no important difference. RAW schma...sell the files, with clearly-definded rights. Client is satisfied, money has been made, rights delineated, both parties have their files....

Giving. Versus selling. And film negatives, one-of-a-kind ORIGINAL things, versus digital data, easily copied hundreds of times, with no loss of quality, and with the "originals" securely retained. It's difficult to understand why so many fail to see that when a customer wants to BUY something--just SELL it to them, for a fair price. Or an unfair price. But...*get the money!*


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 19, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > I'm wondering if she is confused about what she is asking. I can sell someone a RAW file and still have the RAW file on my computer, it's no diffrent then selling a JPG image. the question I have is if she thinKs by saying I want to buy the RAW image, she thinks she is buying the rights to the image. If not it sounds like maybe she just wants the RAW file because she wants to edit her own photo, or wants to have someone else edit your photo, so you have to decide if thats something you want someone else doing. Most people I have worked with doing TFP arn't loaded with cash and wouldn't have $500 to drop on a bunch of unused photos.
> ...




sure you have a lot more ability to alter with a RAW file. but you can still alter a ton with a high rez JPG if your competent at processing. both can be altered.


----------



## Superfitz (Apr 19, 2013)

Derrel is correct. Listen to him. Don't listen to anyone else except for me.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 19, 2013)

Superfitz said:


> Derrel is correct. Listen to him. Don't listen to anyone else.




if the op can't listen to anyone else. they can't listen to you telling them to listen to derrel and no one else.    hmmm.  lol


----------



## Superfitz (Apr 19, 2013)

12sndsgood said:
			
		

> if the op can't listen to anyone else. they can't listen to you telling them to listen to derrel and no one else.    hmmm.  lol



Lol...good point! Previous post has been edited.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 19, 2013)

lol


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 19, 2013)

12sndsgood said:


> sure you have a lot more ability to alter with a RAW file. but you can still alter a ton with a high rez JPG if your competent at processing. both can be altered.



Ownership is a lot harder to prove without the original raw file.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> 12sndsgood said:
> 
> 
> > sure you have a lot more ability to alter with a RAW file. but you can still alter a ton with a high rez JPG if your competent at processing. both can be altered.
> ...



Of course, the OP has her camera programmed to embed her copyright information into each and every file her camera creates, right??

Or the OP plugs in her IPTC metadata with her copyright and creator and contact information when she bulk ingests all her files to her computer. Right?

Lightroom: Add your IPTC metadata on Import

And, "OMG--the client might change the white balance on a frame or two!!! Horrors!!!"


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 19, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Of course, the OP has her camera programmed to embed her copyright information into each and every file her camera creates, right??
> 
> Or the OP plugs in her IPTC metadata with her copyright and creator and contact information when she bulk ingests all her files to her computer. Right?
> 
> ...



If it negatively effects the impact of your work, one might find it horrific.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 19, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> If it negatively effects the impact of your work, one might find it horrific.



Correct.  But she could do the same horrific edit On a high Rez JPG


----------



## o hey tyler (Apr 19, 2013)

12sndsgood said:


> Correct.  But she could do the same horrific edit On a high Rez JPG



Not necessarily. Yes, editing can be done. But a lot of data to aid in editing is stripped.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 20, 2013)

Tyler makes a good point. I think whether photos are given in trade or licensed for usage or sold as prints, if there's an issue with copyright violation, usage not according to the contract etc., having the original image would give you some options or recourse. I should have clarfied my original post to say I would not give out _or_ sell my original digital images or my film negatives. 

If someone misuses your images or alters/edits them extensively, it could be your reputation as a photographer on the line, so you might need to maintain your originals. Or you might need the originals as a backup if the images you sold or licensed become lost or destroyed (if a CD or digital file or a print is lost/deleted). 

And I don't think any photography is free. Besides cost of equipment and supplies I think there's a value to my time and ability and I would expect compensation for my work.

Once the OP fills the obligation of the original contract then a new contract specifying what would be provided for X amount of compensation could be drawn up. I think the photographer needs to maintain control over their work and determine what options they choose to offer to clients.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 20, 2013)

All this jibberish about who can edit what is meaningless with regards to the OP.

The agreement was for jpegs. Period. End of story. If the model now wants Raw images, that's a new contract, with new stipulations. Period. 

The OP can choose to simply hand them over (which I would disagree with), but is under absolutely no obligation to do so...


----------



## deduceme221 (Apr 20, 2013)

Thanks everyone for your voices. You've given me a lot of food for thought, and it is _much_ appreciated.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Apr 20, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Not necessarily. Yes, editing can be done. But a lot of data to aid in editing is stripped.



I can do a horrific editing job with a jpg as easily as I could a raw file. You don't need 100% of the information if your a hack. People having been editing jpgs for year and years and can do so without a raw fills


And everyone remember.  Giving someone a copy of a raw file doesn't mean you lose your rights to it or lose the file itself.  I could send everyone here a raw file of a photo and still retain the original.


----------

