# Potential upcoming gig wants the RAW files



## DepthOfFocus (Aug 6, 2013)

Hey Guys - While I was shooting a wedding on the weekend, a couple (who are both hobbyist photographers) approached me to do their wedding next month. They mentioned how their experts in PS and wanted the RAW files themselves so they can do the editing to cut costs and to their taste.

From MY perspective -I don't have any major issues with this. I would definitely note this in the contract and clearly state the photos/services will be provided on an AS-IS basis.

From your experiences, and from a business perspective, are there any serious issues by providing them the RAWs, even if they're negotiating this beforehand?

Thanks!


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 6, 2013)

we dont give out raw files to anyone. not even friends and family. doesnt matter if they are photographers or not. 
if someone hires you as a photographer, they are purchasing your skills to provide a finished product. that has YOUR name on it. 
if they want to do the editing, you have no idea what the final product will be like, and you could be judged by someone elses work. 
what if someone else sees those pictures and finds out you shot them, and assumes it is all your work? you could be hired based on a final product you may not be able to provide, depending on the level of editing the other people are able to do. 
if all they need is someone to press a shutter button, they can get a friend or family member to take the pictures, and they can do the editing. 

when you hire a photographer, you are basing that decision on what their final product looks like. you would be giving up all creative control of your photos. 
I wouldn't do that, personally speaking.  we get emails from time to time from people wanting portraits or an event covered that want the raw files to do their own editing...
I "HATE :madmad:" turning down work (IE:money) but I will not turn over anything but a finished product to a client. 
I wouldn't blame you for taking the money though. it really comes down to how badly you want/need the work, and how much you care about  your reputation. 
Its like doing work for very cheap. once you start doing it for people, it becomes expected and is a hard reputation to shake.


----------



## kathyt (Aug 6, 2013)

Heck no. If they don't trust you as their wedding photographer then they should look elsewhere. If they are trying to cut corners then let them do so at someone else's expense. If I would ever consider selling a RAW file it would be for a commercial type contract and the price would be much higher then my normal fees.


----------



## KmH (Aug 6, 2013)

Sell them the Raw files, but charge a hefty premium for doing so.
For 2 reasons:
1. You lose all potential advertising and promotional value from those Raw files for your business, because not all the edits to those files will be yours.
2. You lose the potential of licensing the images elsewhere.

Hopefully, your contract already has a use license clause.


----------



## Light Guru (Aug 6, 2013)

DepthOfFocus said:


> They mentioned how their experts in PS and wanted the RAW files themselves so they can do the editing to cut costs and to their taste



If someone wants the raw files I would actually charge more, and at that point that are not saving any money.


----------



## ronlane (Aug 6, 2013)

Agree with the above, I'd have to pass on this one.


----------



## Designer (Aug 6, 2013)

(just an aside) Have you seen their editing?  Are they good?  Does their style include "instagram" type filters, goofy tilting, and selective colorizing?  Is there anything in their style that would harm your reputation?  

Just wondering.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Aug 6, 2013)

Next month?? That makes me wonder if they've been shopping around and might be having a hard time finding someone to do this on the terms they want. I don't know that too many good photographers would agree to this.


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 6, 2013)

People get so uptight about this... geez.

I'd do this in a heartbeat.  It's not like I'm expecting to make anything off the pictures of Joe and Jane Schmo.  And if I am then something is already rotten with my photography business.  Get paid for a day of shooting and NOT have to schlub around for hours on end processing and printing?  Please... it's a gift from heaven.

Basically, they want to pay you to shoot it and nothing else.  Pick a number for what *that day is worth* to you.   If your wedding season is filled up, and booking that day with another client is worth $X, then tell them that, and that's your price, no discounts, as that's the opportunity cost of one of your precious wedding season dates.  If however your calendar is open, and shooting it is simply additive income... then pick a value for your day that reflects that.

You'll still reserve the right to use the images for promotion since it's already in your contract, and IF YOU'RE ALL UPTIGHT that they might "damage your reputation"?? somehow?? then there is a VERY SIMPLE fix for this.  Take an ink pen, and add the following line to your contract:  "Client agrees that Photographer may not be identified or associated in any way with any RAW images, nor with any images not post-processed exclusively by Photographer ."

See how easy that was?


----------



## Mach0 (Aug 6, 2013)

Where are you from? Funny- I just got a call like this yesterday lol.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 6, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> People get so uptight about this... geez.
> 
> I'd do this in a heartbeat.  It's not like I'm expecting to make anything off the pictures of Joe and Jane Schmo.  And if I am then something is already rotten with my photography business.  Get paid for a day of shooting and NOT have to schlub around for hours on end processing and printing?  Please... it's a gift from heaven.
> 
> ...



I don't see anyone here getting "uptight".
the OP asked a question based on other peoples experiences, and wanted their opinion on the situation. 
plus, the OP specifically asked about any possible issues from a business perspective. 
Which is exactly what the OP got. 
I have yet to see any opinion posted here that somehow invalidates any of the others.


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > People get so uptight about this... geez.
> ...



Not to pick nits, but your exact words:  "that has YOUR name on it. if they want to do the editing, you have no idea what the final product  will be like, and you could be judged by someone elses work."  That was the "risk" I fixed by modifying the contract to remove attribution.

I'm renovating a house now (no really I am... 16 hour days every weekend)... We wanted to do the kitchen a certain way, so I bought unfinished cabinets rather than finished ones.  First, they cost half as much.  Second, we already have paint shop cost (setup and supplies) for other stuff in the kitchen (custom moldings and trim), so we can incrementally paint them easily and cheaply cheaply alongside the other work we are doing for the kitchen and also have them match the other design details perfectly.

Should the cabinet maker be insulted that I didn't trust them to finish the cabinets?

Should they be insulted that I chose to pay them only for the part of the job that I can't or won't do myself?  

Should the cabinet maker be worried that my paint will be horrid and they will be judged poorly by my work?

Or should the cabinet maker graciously accept the order and be happy to sell me the cabinets?

I dunno... still seems like a lot of uptight hand wringing to me.  No?


----------



## DepthOfFocus (Aug 6, 2013)

@KmH - You make a GREAT point from a promotions perspective. I've got business based on other people seeing my watermarked images posted by past clients on Facebook.


@Designer - I haven't seen their editing style, so no idea how that will turn out.


@vintagesnaps - I don't know why they've left it to the last minute ... They were just going to rely on guests taking crappy images with their iphones and 7 year old digital cameras.


@nycphotography - You actually make some REALLY good points. It's safe for me to do this as long as note the contract accordingly. It would be nice to shoot for 8 hours without the extensive editing involved. The wedding is in September, outside of prime season, so I have nothing to loose by doing this. 


@Mach0 - I'm based in Toronto


----------



## paigew (Aug 6, 2013)

I'd sell for the right price for sure. Why not?


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 6, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



one of us just doesn't seem to understand. 
could be me...but..
the OP SPECIFICALLY asked for possible business issues concerning handing out raw files. 
he wasn't asking for a pat on the back, or a "go get 'em tiger", but actually LOOKING for things that could potentially go wrong with giving out raw files. (a genuine concern for some people)
the OP ASKED for these things based on peoples experiences, as well as from a business perspective. 
the OP got some specific answers on some possible concerns/issues, as well as some positive aspects.  noone has said anyone elses opinion here was right or wrong, just that it was how they personally felt about the question the OP asked. 
seems like a thread that worked out pretty good for the OP. No? I think so. 
so...im not really seeing an "uptight" part here. just because some people have differing opinions, doesnt make that opinion somehow less valid than any other. (btw, noone has said anything about YOUR opinion being less than any of the others, certainly not me, and yet you seem to be intent on attacking my opinion on the matter for some reason and calling other people uptight.)
just sayin...


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 6, 2013)

Ahh I see.  It's the word uptight.  

Just because someone is uptight about some particular thing doesn't make their opinion invalid.  I for one am very uptight about some things.  The word just conveys the fact that someone is more concerned about something than the speaker thinks is necessary.

I'll stand by that, you seem more concerned about it (the risks of giving out raw files) than I would think necessary.  Doesn't mean you're wrong or that I'm right.

Please don't choose take the use of uptight as an attack on your opinion or on you.  I didn't mean it that way.  I was just showing relative importance.

I think the word popped into my head as more of reaction to the collective uptightness that this particular community as a whole tends to exhibit about image rights and business practices.  Of course, I expect photographers to care about image rights.  But as is usually the case (with the professionals in any discussion group), they sometimes get more butt hurt over their own special interests than is really necessary.

Short version:  I'm sorry.  Didn't mean offense.  Can see where it was taken.  Can we put it behind us?


----------



## cptkid (Aug 6, 2013)

no no no no no

Walks in to bakery 

Hi, I love your cakes, but hows about you give me all the ingredients you use, i'll bake them, and then i'll put them on your self, then when people taste how awful they are, they can blame it on you? 

Oh yeah thats fine go right ahead.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 6, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> Ahh I see.  It's the word uptight.
> 
> Just because someone is uptight about some particular thing doesn't make their opinion invalid.  I for one am very uptight about some things.  The word just conveys the fact that someone is more concerned about something than the speaker thinks is necessary.
> 
> ...



done and double done!


----------



## KmH (Aug 6, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> It's not like I'm expecting to make anything off the pictures of Joe and Jane Schmo.


True, but you never know.
Images of Jane and Joe Schmo could suddenly become a hot commodity.

That's what happened to a photographer in little Kentwood, Louisiana. Some high school senior pictures he took of Jason Allen Alexander suddenly had a lot of value to national media outlets several years after he made them.
In 2004 his client married a girl he knew back in high school. but the marriage got annulled 3 days later. The girl was the singer Brittney Spears.


----------



## CCericola (Aug 6, 2013)

You will become known as the photog that will shoot and burn for a lower price. Never to sell a complete wedding package again! Ok, well, maybe not ever but do you want that rep?

I would only do it if 1. their date was a day I wasn't doing anything including editing other jobs. (Which makes that only January-April)  2. They promise NEVER to tell anyone who shot their wedding.


----------



## ronlane (Aug 6, 2013)

I just have an uncomfortable feeling about the purposed clients mentioning that they are experts as PS and want to be able to edit to their style/liking.

What constitutes an expert (I know this is subjective). This has me asking would I accept a similar engagement to shoot photos for Scott Kelby or any of the guys at NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals) with the terms of turning over my raw files to them? They are people that teach LR and PS and I have seen them do some pretty awesome stuff with photos. Could they take one of my photos and make it look WAY better then I could do it, yeah probably without too much effort. Would I do it for them? I don't know guess it would depend on what they were paying and what was agreed upon for credits and rights.


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 6, 2013)

KmH said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > It's not like I'm expecting to make anything off the pictures of Joe and Jane Schmo.
> ...



If you're really valuing the potential future value depending on random world events... then you're better off buying lottery tickets.

There are complex models for actuaries (insurance losses) and for valuing financial derivatives (call options) that price in lots of esoterica, but a dead simple one is based on EV (expected value):  EV = value * probability

If an event has a "value" of $5m if it happens, and the odds of it happening are 1 in 1 million, then the value of that potential revenue is... wait for it... $5m times (1 over 1million) = $5.  So add $10 to your price for the shoot and walk proud knowing you doubled your money.

And that's just if it happens tomorrow.  For every year in the future, you also have to depreciate the present value for inflation, and again for the time value of money (ie interest).  So it may be closer to $1 or $2 if the event happens 20 years from now.

Or better yet, if the event DOES come to pass, you still have your contract saying you still own all rights to republish the images, and you STILL sell the pictures for $5m.

But if some yuts puts a contract in front of me asking me to sign away all future rights to the uses of pictures of ME at MY WEDDING (ostensibly because I might become famous some day and then they're worth a lot for the paparazzi value)... I'm not even going to offer them the $5 as payment in full.  I'm going to tell them pound rocks as I find that position kinda skeezy.


----------



## Tailgunner (Aug 6, 2013)

DepthOfFocus said:


> Hey Guys - While I was shooting a wedding on the weekend, a couple (who are both hobbyist photographers) approached me to do their wedding next month. They mentioned how their experts in PS and wanted the RAW files themselves so they can do the editing to cut costs and to their taste.
> 
> From MY perspective -I don't have any major issues with this. I would definitely note this in the contract and clearly state the photos/services will be provided on an AS-IS basis.
> 
> ...



Ask your self this, is this standard across the board with other Wedding photographers? My guess is no and why these people are approaching amateur photographers. This couple just so happened to be at a Wedding and looking for a Wedding photographer for next month? They already know a Professional would turn them down, just listen to what the Pros are saying in this thread for example. So their looking for someone green to sell them the RAW files.


----------



## manicmike (Aug 6, 2013)

No. Just. No. 

Why would you risk them doing a crappy job of editing and have your name attached.?


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 6, 2013)

manicmike said:


> No. Just. No.
> 
> Why would you risk them doing a crappy job of editing and have your name attached.?



as noted earlier, the OP could always just do the job, edit the files they want for their own portfolio, and give the unedited files to the client without any presumption of name recognition. of course, there's never any way of knowing whether or not the clients will give out your name to people in regards to who took the shots, whether they are edited poorly or not. word of mouth is what it is. if the OP is happy with the monetary compensation and is willing to capitulate to the clients demands, then there really is no reason not to do it if the OP has no further objections. 

just because there are people that aren't willing to shoot under that clients conditions, doesn't make it the kiss of death for someone else to. 
I cannot recommend strongly enough however, that whatever the conditions of the job are, you have a contract in place detailing all aspects of how those images can be used by the clients, and what your rights to them are. (especially if you plan on using them for your own portfolio)
this has less to do with pictures that may or may not become more valuable later, and more to do with clients that later see their pictures up on your web site and decide they dont want to be part of your portfolio. (it happens)


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 6, 2013)

manicmike said:


> No. Just. No.


----------



## Jean1234 (Aug 6, 2013)

I don't know how much editing you do or what type of people they are, so I don't know how much of an issue this could be.  It's just a thought.

But, based on their request, I could envision that these customers might be difficult to work with in other aspects.  As hobbyists, they may be critical of photographs.  As hobbyists & cheapskates, they may be hypercritical of photographs that they are paying for.  When digging into the editing of the images, I'd worry that they would be unhappy with the results and come back to complain/sue.  It may not matter what your skill level is, it could be as simple as they would have used the "golden mean", but you used the "rule of thirds" to compose a shot, so it's not the shot they had envisioned from in front of the camera, so it's "crap".


----------



## orljustin (Aug 6, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> if someone hires you as a photographer, they are purchasing your skills to provide a finished product. that has YOUR name on it.



The don't know the skills of the OP.  They came up to him at a wedding.  Obviously they want someone who is able to stand in the right place at the right time and get simple captures.  They just want the ability to process the raw material themselves.

To the OP.  If you want the cash, do it.  If you don't, don't.  Don't worry about whether or not you'll gain business by using them as advertising.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 6, 2013)

KmH said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > It's not like I'm expecting to make anything off the pictures of Joe and Jane Schmo.
> ...



Yeah, and there's 8 billion other seniors and clients who never got famous after they had their picture taken.  That's a silly argument.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 6, 2013)

$100 per file, and take every one I shoot or no deal!  

The reason I wouldn't do this is because even if they are masters of PS, the style in which they edit the images would not be my style, and as is the case with a lot of photographers, they may not be the experts they think they are, so, they do a half-donkey'd job of editing the images, and have a bunch of prints around their place.  Their friends who are getting married soon and need a photographer come over and see the images and either (1) like them because of the editing style and ask who shot their wedding, contact you, and then are disappointed because your portfolio looks nothing like those images, or (2) and much more likely IMO, they come over, look at the pictures, shudder in horror, ask who shot their wedding and make a mental note NEVER to book you for anything because the editing style is so atrocious, and they tell all their friends how bad it was... hmmm... yeah, I can see where that might cost me money.


----------



## Trever1t (Aug 6, 2013)

Some good arguments above but I didn't see mentioned that when working as a second shooter a photographer always hands his raws over...as copies. Now of course you are working under the umbrella of another photographer but the situation isn't SO FAR removed to not be a similar circumstance. 

I'd be hesitant to say the least but if I did agree it would be 1) at an added cost and 2) I'd keep my originals for my port/blog whatever.


----------



## Stevepwns (Aug 6, 2013)

Regardless if they get the RAW or not. If you give them a digital copy, they can edit the file and have it printed.  Is it not common practice to provide a CD full of pictures that did not seem good enough for the Wedding Album?  It could be a jpeg, RAW files arent the only file that can be edited. So if people give CD's full of pictures and do fine, what difference does it make. If they want the RAW files charge more and just give them a copy of the flash drive. 

Now I am no pro by any means but I if people provide digital copies at all, I don't see the big deal.


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 6, 2013)

Back in 2007, I spent a whopping 11 minutes shooting The Temptations. The price for that gig was $600.00. When the guy who hired me told me (after the shoot) that he wanted my memory card, the price jumped exponentially. We were at an impasse. He wouldn't pay me without me giving him the card, and I wouldn't give him the card without him agreeing to my expanded fee.

Our back-and-forth was all very cordial and friendly and, once I explained my position to him (much the same as what others have mentioned here) he agreed to my fee.

I have no doubt that was one of the most expensive CF cards ever purchased...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 6, 2013)

cptkid said:


> no no no no no
> 
> Walks in to bakery
> 
> ...



But here's the thing: That won't happen. That's like you buying a paint brush and some paints, and then blaming Pablo Picasso because you're a bad artist.

No bueno.

If someone else edits the photos, then the final product cannot be blamed on the photographer. Period.

Here's what I would do: I would charge them out the ass for the raw files. Before I gave them those files, though, I would copy everything. If they only want to be able to edit the photos, then they should have no problem with this. It allows them to do what they want, but it also protects you in that you've got original files that _you _can edit...


----------



## bratkinson (Aug 7, 2013)

As an amateur that won't do weddings (which is me), I'd say go for the easy money, if your aren't already busy on that day (as mentioned previously).  

As someone who makes a living behind the camera as you do, I'd either refuse or price it about 75% of what you'd charge for fully-edited results.  The problem is that if they post the pix <wherever> and give credit to you, if they are terribly edited (selective colored, screwy tilts, etc, then your reputation will suffer.  Conversely, if they do a superlative job editing (which they claim they can) and give you credit, then you will be expected to live up to that level of editing for all future work.  It's a two-edged sword.  

Howerver, in the alternative proposed previously, having the clause that states that your name excluded from all (public) credit, there may be some drop-dead-fantastic pictures you succeeded in taking that you won't be receiving credit for.  So that has a downside as well.

Should you decide to provide the RAW files, I would at least remove any of the 'messed up' shots prior to providing anything to them.  My screwy workflow is that I shoot in RAW+JPG (with AWB) and use Windows Photo Viewer to simply browse through the JPGs, and remove any corresponding RAWs that I don't want to bring into Lightroom for editing.  Whether it is test shots, blurred, missed focus, closed eyes, whatever, they are gone as RAWs.  It saves my editing time.  If you shoot RAW only, then a mass-convert to JPG for editing on your computer would provide the same capabilities.  And should the happy couple say 'hey, there's some pix missing', tell them why you deleted them...to save THEM editing time.

As I have learned the hard way (experience), and from others on this site, showing other than 'your best' ultimately leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.  By providing the RAW files, 'your best' is not what they will be seeing.  So consider wisely.


----------



## texkam (Aug 7, 2013)

If you're concerned about artistic control and how the lack of that could impact your business, don't do it. If not, go for it. Certain times I want total creative freedom. In these cases, I am being hired as an artist, the exclusive artist, to "make pictures". You are buying my vision, my interpretation. Other times I am being contracted as a partner. Ever done a commercial shoot with an Art Director and/or Creative Director over your shoulder? In this case, these are not just your pictures. They will be cropped and edited to the taste of the AD/CD and client. When my sister shoots the KY Derby for the AP she downloads copies of each and every shot to them. I did the same when I shot the Cotton Bowl Classic.



> I don't have any major issues with this.


I like creative control as much as the next guy, but depending on the situation and the conditions I may want to set and the conditions I am willing to accept, why the heck not?


----------



## manaheim (Aug 7, 2013)

This is going to be one of those "count up the nos and yesses" type deals.

I say no.  Everything tirediron said.

Here's a twist, though... you could put in the contract that they are not allowed to attribute the photography to you. (if they buy the raws)

For me that's the biggest problem... photography is part capture, part processing.  If they destroy your images with their post processing- or even if they simply choose a style of processing that is not reflective of yours- then you have the risk of people saying "oh so and so did those" and those people either never wanting to use you ever (because of poor quality or different style) or even worse... hiring you because of someone ELSES style, which you then won't replicate.

So write in the contract that they're not allowed to credit you for the work, formally or informally.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 7, 2013)

No.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Aug 7, 2013)

Lock up a solid contract, charge them a good fee, hand them the card,and like Steve5D mentioned keep a clean copy for yourself. This is your legal backup.  You make the money, you save all the editing time.  It is unlikely they will be selling them or using them for anything more than their own personal use. 

Personally I don't give anyone raw files, but back when I was shooting film and it had to be somewhere fast, I was sending unprocessed film to clients, it wasn't until I got the film back months later that I even knew how the shoot really went,other than the client telling me a few days after the shoot that things looked good.


----------



## DepthOfFocus (Aug 7, 2013)

WOW! Thanks for all your opinions/responses.

It would be nice to shoot a wedding and not have to spend all that time editing .....

Do I need to explain to the client(s) why RAWs are not provided, or should I just No, leave it at that, and only explain if I ask why not?


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 7, 2013)

DepthOfFocus said:


> WOW! Thanks for all your opinions/responses.
> 
> It would be nice to shoot a wedding and not have to spend all that time editing .....
> 
> Do I need to explain to the client(s) why RAWs are not provided, or should I just No, leave it at that, and only explain if I ask why not?



I have two pretty basic rules.

The first rule is "You don't get to see the bad ones". After every shoot, every photographer ends up with photos he would never want anyone to see. For whatever reason, we (as photographers) deem these photos unacceptable, primarily because we do not want those bad photos flying around with our name attached to it.

My second rule is "Everything is for sale". If you really, really want to see the bad ones, you're going to pay for the privilege, and you're going to pay handsomely for it. 

As I suggested earlier, do the shoot. Make copies of EVERYTHING you shoot that day. Attach a price tag which is comfortable for you, and sell them the raw images. Personally, I would make it so that the raw images would cost them more than paying me to do it. In that scenario, they will probably not hire you, which is fine. 

Just because they're trying to cut corners doesn't mean that you should...


----------



## cptkid (Aug 7, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> cptkid said:
> 
> 
> > no no no no no
> ...



But that awful work can still be tied to your name. 

Who would want that?


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 7, 2013)

cptkid said:


> But that awful work can still be tied to your name.
> Who would want that?



Anyone with a lick of sense can see that my portfolio looks nothing like those pictures.  And anyone without a lick of sense... do you really want them for a client in the first place?  Think of it as a free idiot filter for your business.  I mean how cool is that.


----------



## DepthOfFocus (Aug 7, 2013)

Dammit - I don't know what to do!

This is one of those "I have nothing better to do" weekends ... 
If someone were to shoot my wedding, I'd definitely want the raws myself LOL ...


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 7, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> cptkid said:
> 
> 
> > But that awful work can still be tied to your name.
> ...



the one issue i can see with this idea is (and this is strictly hypothetical, but COULD happen) a potential client sees pictures on someones page, pictures that you took but were edited by someone else, and maybe they don't like them. but you were credited with taking them. they might be looking for a photographer and not even go to YOUR website because they believe they are looking at examples of pictures that you would deliver to them, and since they don't like or want that style, they simply move on without looking deeper into the matter. 

in all reality, the whole argument on this subject is purely academic anyway. 
it is either worth it for the OP to do, or it is not. only they can decide. 
many business decisions are made for personal reasons, and not by popular vote. 
I can honestly say that while we have thus far not turned any raw files over to a client, (as a point of personal preference) it is not implausible to me that a situation will arise at some point that will make us rethink that position. (most likely due to monetary gain offsetting any personal distaste or creative issues)
when the pros of handing over raw files overcome the cons (or, perceived cons, so to speak) then that's what I will do, because the situation will make it the best decision for me. I never fault anyone for just doing the job and taking the money. 
its easy to sit back and advocate turning down work when its not your bills that need to get paid, or you have other sources of income that negate the "need" to make money with photography.


----------



## texkam (Aug 7, 2013)

So you shoot a wedding and after the client views the proofs they request different editing choices that you may not personally care for. How many here would refuse to re-process to a desired look, re-crop, liquidfy, clone, remove things, convert to a b/w, give them an image that was culled because the groom's eyes were closed but it was the only one that had Aunt Bertha in it, and the biggie, use selective color? So how far does one go to give the paying customer what they want? Sure it's to the degree that matters, but every time you agree to re-edit an image for a client you are straying from your original creative vision. Bottom line, unless you are good enough and in demand enough to be a total prima donna, you are a whore. We all just have to decide how far we are willing to go for the money.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 7, 2013)

texkam said:


> So you shoot a wedding and after the client views the proofs they request different editing choices that you may not personally care for. How many here would refuse to re-process to a desired look, re-crop, liquidfy, clone, remove things, convert to a b/w, give them an image that was culled because the groom's eyes were closed but it was the only one that had Aunt Bertha in it, and the biggie, use selective color? So how far does one go to give the paying customer what they want? Sure it's to the degree that matters, but every time you agree to re-edit an image for a client you are straying from your original creative vision. Bottom line, unless you are good enough and in demand enough to be a total prima donna, you are a whore. We all just have to decide how far we are willing to go for the money.



I go as far as I feel the money makes it worth to me. 
Im not too proud to say I have my price. 
I believe everyone does, some just don't like to admit it. 

there IS a difference however, between editing a photo to the clients specifications, or making changes based on a clients preference and handing over raw files for someone else to edit.  One is still your finished product, and one is not.  Just price accordingly. 
hell, if handing over raw files isn't a concern, look at it as getting paid and not even having to spend all that time editing.  its potentially a lot of time saved not having to edit hundreds of files.


----------



## texkam (Aug 7, 2013)

> One is still your finished product


Debatable. As a graphic designer, on several occasions I may have been the one at the controls, but in the end it really wasn'y MY finished product. Graphic designer's portfolios are full of their work as originally presented.


----------



## pixmedic (Aug 7, 2013)

texkam said:


> > One is still your finished product
> 
> 
> Debatable. As a graphic designer, on several occasions I may have been the one at the controls, but in the end it really wasn'y MY finished product. Graphic designer's portfolios are full of their work as originally presented.



could be. but we were talking about photographers, not graphic designers. 
in the case of a photographer handing over raw files, since it is only captured data and requires processing to become a picture, the "finished" product really is in the processing.  I suppose you could nitpick over details like "the photographer still set up the camera settings", "chose the equipment", "composed the image"...
But in all reality, a client could simply edit the JPEG that is handed to them if they really wanted to make changes.  sure, you might have a contract saying they don't have permission to...but who is going to keep tabs on every image they sell?

I just don't personally like the idea of handing over images that I have not seen through from start to finish. unless i am paid enough.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 7, 2013)

Why did they control freaks ask you to shoot the wedding then? 

Ive only done this for a fellow photographer friend and it was just an engagement shoot. He wanted the raws and for me to give him edits as well. He asked me to do his shoot cause he liked my editing style. but he also let me use all his badass gear so he had the raws already since it was his camera gear. But he did not post any of the edits he did himself anywhere online and only promoted the work I did for him. he did make a few simple edits that he sent out to his family. 

AS you can see this is a rather rare situation and very cool close friend. I would not do this for strangers typically and if I did I would not even consider giving them any sort of break in the cost of the shoot. 

have they even seen any of your finished work? I would definitely want to see some of their work if they were editing my photos too. They could be self delusional hacks.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Aug 7, 2013)

DepthOfFocus said:


> Dammit - I don't know what to do!
> 
> This is one of those "I have nothing better to do" weekends ...
> If someone were to shoot my wedding, I'd definitely want the raws myself LOL ...



Then do it and get paid. 

One question though that bugs me, if they are both photogs why dont they have a friend that could do this for them as opposed to hiring someone and asking for this? 

This is the type of thing you ask a friend to do for you. I have done this for friends but they still got edits and promoted my work and didnt post any of the stuff they edited, that was just for family.


----------



## manicmike (Aug 7, 2013)

I change my mind. If you have nothing better to do that weekend, do it and make some money.


----------



## bratkinson (Aug 8, 2013)

Reading the rest of the thread since my addition yesterday, I just had a 'wild thought' enter my head...

They may not have the latest version of software CAPABLE of processing your RAW files!  When I moved from an XP computer to Win 7, I had to upgrade Lightroom and had to upgrade (free update) again when I bought my 5D3!  I haven't updated the firmware on my 5D3, but fully anticipate yet another free update will be required in LR.  

So, I wouldn't be completely surprised if they call you up yelling and screaming that you 'screwed up the RAWs so they can't read them!'.  

It's just the twisted mind of mine working overtime...


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 8, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> One question though that bugs me, if they are both photogs why dont they have a friend that could do this for them as opposed to hiring someone and asking for this?



I don't see that as any big mystery. Odds are the friends are invited guests.

The one wedding I shot, I was also an invited guest. I really would've preferred to have been just the invited guest, but I knew they wouldn't have photos of their wedding if I didn't do it...


----------



## DepthOfFocus (Aug 8, 2013)

Hey Guys - Just to clarify ....

I'm not a professional photographer by any means, nor am I amateur (I would consider myself intermediate). Their wedding is on a weekend were I'd be doing nothing as it is. I have a full time day job, I've shot about a dozen weddings so far and many many various events. I'm still in the process of building out my portfolio. Although I have a great portfolio, get a lot of compliments for my work, what's most important for me is getting as much work/experience as possible. 

I'd hate to turn down a gig due to the political reasons mentioned in this thread of giving clients the RAW files. I do see why it's important not to, but if that's what the client really wants and it saves ME time from not having to go through 1000+ and make edits to a few hundred of them, I think it's in both mine and my clients interests to proceed providing expectations are set that:

(A) The images being provided on an AS-IS basis and cannot make any guarantees on quality, etc.
(B) My name cannot be associated with any displayed images. 

The good side is that I can still use them on my own social media pages, website and added to my portfolio.

Having said the above reasons, If you guys think I'm absolutely crazy, please please let me know, or if there's any alternative position I can provide to the couple. I need to get back to them today asap! 

Thanks everyone for your honest kind responses!


----------



## Steve5D (Aug 8, 2013)

Burn copies.

Charge a lot.

Do not accept credit or blame.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 8, 2013)

I think you're absolutely crazy. Seriously. I wouldn't provide raws unless someone was paying me a fortune. Providing raws is not a way to avoid extra work.  It's a way to risk your work being poorly represented top future potential clients. 

I won't say any more on it though.  Good luck whatever you choose to do


----------



## Derrel (Aug 8, 2013)

Go ahead, sell them the RAW files. If they are both photographers, and it's THEIR wedding, there is some chance that they might actually have the skills and the time and the all-important* incentive *to process the images better than you could, or would, or would find reasonable. There's a very real possibility that, since these clients are both photography enthusiasts, that they might pick out a few images and spend a TON of effort optimizing them, so that your work is "presented to others" in a simply outstanding manner.

RAW files are not sacred. Every time you press the shutter release button, one is created. If you're any good at all, much of the "work" has already been done when the shutter release is pressed...people posed, lighting looks good, focus is on, timing is "right". If you're a competent event shooter, then it's not likely that every RAW file will require heroic rescue measures to be turned into a decent image. It's not like you're selling a kidney; you'll create hundreds of RAW images. Sell them what they want.


----------



## nycphotography (Aug 8, 2013)

^ this


----------



## texkam (Aug 8, 2013)

@DepthOfFocus - Sounds like you have thought it all out.


If someone wants to jack with images they would have no problem, whether they are raw files, jpegs or scanned from an 8x10 they purchase. End users sometimes do crazy things. One can buy the finest bottle of wine, store it improperly and end up serving up something that guests would feel is garbage, painting the winemaker in a bad light. You simply can't totally protect your brand image.


----------



## Kolia (Nov 26, 2013)

texkam said:


> @DepthOfFocus - Sounds like you have thought it all out.
> 
> 
> If someone wants to jack with images they would have no problem, whether they are raw files, jpegs or scanned from an 8x10 they purchase. End users sometimes do crazy things. One can buy the finest bottle of wine, store it improperly and end up serving up something that guests would feel is garbage, painting the winemaker in a bad light. You simply can't totally protect your brand image.



That was what I was about to say.

These customers could edit any format anyways.

It looks to me that traditional photography needs to follow the trends. Whit everybody taking pictures all the time, it's only natural for a breed of customers will be interested in the RAW format for the simple pleasure of editing them. We've been selling DIY kits for everything from toys to garage built airplanes. Same is happening to photography. 

Make whatever limitations to your contract to protect your image and give them the product they want. I'd still edit a few good shoots so they can see what they would be passing on and maybe sale more pictures. Or just keep the same pricing, making the edits "free". 

Why alienate a potential long term customer ? Marriage ? So future anniversaries, kids, Holyday cards ....


----------



## Hrgrace21 (Dec 5, 2013)

I have turned down a few sessions because the client wanted to "edit" themselves. When someone sees the photos on social media and asks who their photographer was, its going to come back as you even if their edits changed the picture completely. I say pass if you can.


----------



## pgriz (Dec 5, 2013)

Ok, I'm curious.  What happened in the end?


----------



## KmH (Dec 5, 2013)

The OP hasn't logged into TPF since 11/05, a month ago.


----------

