Client requesting to edit work herself

<p>Hello everyone,<br>

Quick question- I have a client who stated via email she would be editing the photos from her session because she's a graphic designer and doesn't want to wait the one-two weeks it will take me to do it.<br>

I am uncomfortable with this and told her no for obvious reasons- it is my work. She came back at me with "every professional I know is okay with this..."<br>

So here's the question- would you yourself agree to this arrangement?</p>

depends . . . what are the images, what is the use, how much did charge - or in other words what what

the original agreement. . . I likely would not turn them over if that was not the original agreement . . . To

me it's a tough call. . . it basically winds up a for hire deal and if you did not price it that way, you may lose a pile of dough . . .

 

Does she plan to do the edits then send them back to you for printing?

 

Tony

<p>Are you sending her all the images or just a few that she selected from the session? Wouldn't she would be able to edit the photos anyway after she received them? Personally, I would be fine with that since it would be less work for me...as long as she is not suggesting that she pay you less then original price.<br>

I just did a shot a festival for X amount of dollars. I charged them less, since I did no PP of the images. I explained that the rate would be more if I had to edit pix, according to how many pix they wanted edited. They have their own staff to do PP as needed.<br>

Curious if there are that many photos or are you that busy that it will take you 1-2 weeks to edit the photos?</p>

<p>It's an engagement session- I usually edit 20-30 from the set and send them to the client on disc with printing rights. The price is the normal package price. A few photos will be published in the newspaper with their wedding announcement others will be used in invitations. My issue with her editing the photos is it is not an accurate representation of my work yet when someone asks her "Who did your photos?" my name may be associated for better or worse.<br>

<br /> I was being generous with the 1-2 week editing estimation. I shot two weddings over the weekend and was giving myself a little leeway. Realistically, the edits will take a few hours tops.</p>

<p>No. Not Ever. </p>

<p>By the way, next time I go to the steak place, I might just ask if I can come back to the kitchen and cook my own steak. Maybe they'll knock off a few bucks and I'll get mine a few minutes ahead of the next guy in line. LOL! I'm just sayin'. I come from the graphic design world and I have never heard of this. It' completely insulting.</p>

<p>This is pretty cut and dry as far as I see it. Hold the line . . .</p>

<p>Good luck and let us know :)</p>

<p>Karen Lippowiths </p>

two weddings in one weekend . . . huh?

 

hold the line? on what, the old business of photography. . . hold the line might mean go under . . .

<p>+1 with Karen.</p>

<p>I was going to say if she gets the wedding cake, will she apply the topping herself? And if she is a professional graphic designer, will she let someone else finnish her base design?</p>

<p>Your name as a professional photographer is at stake here, since everyone will eventualy ask, who is your photographer. And word of mouth goes quick.</p>

<p>My 2 cents</p>

<p>Having done commercial work with film, the negative responses here sound pretty odd. I used to turn over transparencies or drum scans. I had no control over what was done and they were not considered "untouchable." Then they came back to me. That was it. If someone really wants me to give them raw files, I will do it, it's no different than what I did before digital. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't she would be able to edit the photos anyway after she received them?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes and she's probably going to anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>as long as she is not suggesting that she pay you less then original price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Since it's likely to happen, trying to prevent it from happening is pointless. Agreeing is not going to ruin your career. More likely the negativity will cost referrals from the client who, as a pro GD and and a client with friends, is in a potential position to provide. Demanding no publiction of her edited versions will be the final nail in the coffin. The analogies provided really don't fit logically and are about the priniciple of the matter, rather than the practical effect, and will yield nothing if followed as a result.</p>

<p>So here's the question- would you yourself agree to this arrangement?<br>

Yes, we do that quite often.<br>

Wayne</p>

<p> </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It' completely insulting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>why?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was going to say if she gets the wedding cake, will she apply the topping herself?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And some people do - they enjoy the creative part of icing but not the drudge of mixing ingredients and baking. And there are whole lines of products that are provided in less-than-finished condition so happy DIYers can take part in the creative process. It just seems to me that a lot of photographer 'artists' get overly precious about their 'vision'. I see nothing wrong with that as a business model, but in reality you are selling two products bundled into one: firstly your experience as someone who knows how to use light and how to work with people to get the best photos; secondly the post-processing skills combined with your time to turn RAW into print.<br>

I would be quite happy to ask my friends to rovide the RAW images they took for me to process. But if I thought none of them had the skills to produce top-notch pictures, or if I wanted them to enjoy the wedding without the worries of providing quality images, I may hire a professional to do <em>that part</em> of the task.</p>

<p>All it needs is a different mindset and costing structure. And if you do choose this route, then you would have an automatic marketing advantage over half of those on this thread who say 'no way'.</p>

<p>In general I agree with Mike Hitchen. The important thing is to reach an agreement with a client that offers the customer what he/she wants at a price at which the photographer is happy to supply. Increasingly the rigid "package" approach has to become more flexible as customers demand something that meets their needs. For example several years ago when one of my dughters got married we set out a requirement that candidates had to agree to provide a dvd of xxx high res images so that she, we and potentially other guests could make prints themselves. We didn't want an album but did want 50 prints made by the photographer. The photographer had no control whatsoever over how the dvd images were subsequently re-edited or cropped or printed, and no hope of any downstream revenue. Indeed that's a bridge you appear to have walked over yourself. so I'm struggling a bit to see why you should become so concerned about retaining control over how your work looks when your std. package runs a similar risk. </p>

<p>Meanwhile every photographer signed by a decent stock agency, and most photographers carrying out commercial work, sign agreements which specifically give the agency or end client the right to alter the image. This is probably why your graphic designer client says her stuff about "every photographer" . It won't be quite every photographer since I'm sure there are some world figures that can insist that they and only they will edit their work. However, assuming you're not one of those----</p>

<p>It should normally be relatively easy to understand what outputs your customer wants ( or can be persuaded to want) and tailor what you do and how much you charge to that. Where things get complicated and potentially nasty is where that discussion never takes place and expectations differ. Also where an initial agreement is reached and documented but someone ( normally the client) changes the ground rules after. Is that what's happened here? I mean if you've had a quote accepted that includes you editing and now you don't have to isn't there a positive there? Or is she asking for a reduced fee too? If thats the case then issues like do you have a signed contract? Has she paid a deposit? What does the contract include as deliverables? are all more important IMO than you engaging in a futile desire to retain creative control of images that could in all probability be replicated by countless other photographers just like you.</p>

<p>John H is absolutely right: If you disagree (and, even more, if you add additional stipulations for use) you are only going to damage your reputation, quite possibly a lot more than ANY damaging edit from her will. After all, if your images are nicely composed, correctly lit and so on and so forth, HOW badly can she damage them? After all, they are images of HER and she wants them to look good. PLUS, she'll kinda owe you one...;-)</p>

<p>I would be happy to turn over my RAW files to National Geo or someone who I knew would do a good job in the editing and post production tweaks. In contrast, for exactly the reason you stated, I would be more hesitant to turn over my RAW files to someone or an organization whose skills in this area are questionable.</p>

<p>My hesitancy to turn over my RAW files increases if I know that a lot of creative photoshopping is needed on the images. My hesitancy also increases if I know that the images will be credited to me. OTOH, if, for example, its product shots, my name isn't going to be on the images, hardly any photoshopping is needed, I've been paid appropriately, and I have no further use for the image, I have absolutely no problem to saying goodbye to my RAW files.</p>

<p>As wisely pointed out in the preceding posts, the exact terms of any existing contract, and issues about changing ground rules trump all of the above.</p>

<p>Just my $0.02,</p>

<p>Tom M</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It' completely insulting.</p>

<p>why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even if it were, which is silly, so what? The images are made for a client, not the photographer.</p>

<p>My images are well lit and nicely composed, I should have stated I was uncomfortable with her editing them because she's not really a graphic designer even though she considers herself one. She is a fairly immature, albeit nice, 19 year old college student (studying an unrelated field to graphic design). I was hired by her parents.<br>

My contract states images are to remain unaltered though I don't care if she tweaks them for her personal use, her altered images will not be printed in the newspaper though.<br>

Your responses have given me a lot to think about and insight on how other people work. In this instance, I'm going to politely stick to my guns. We've spoken and she's on board. We didn't start out on the right foot- she was upset with mom and dad when we first met and let me know the only reason they went with me is because her parents wouldn't pay for her choice of photographer (wedding packages began at 5k- engagement sessions were almost times what I charge. Really lovely work).<br>

Thanks for the responses, I'm rethinking how I feel about altered images.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I work with a lot of advertising agencies - I do my own RAW processing and supply 16 bit TIFF files in Adobe RGB which they then have the right to use and retouch as they see fit. This has been the case for decades - I would supply transparencies (8x10 down to 6x7) and the agencies would then mark them up for retouching (by their people) once they decided on the final image. I am not sure where the insult is - this is business and standard business practice.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nope, I wouldn't hand over RAW files. Even to someone who thought they knew what they were doing.</p>

 

<p>Nope. Won't do it unless I really really really trust the person. I would hand over raw files to Patrick L (who is on here frequently), but that's all. Tell her that if she wanted them, that should have been discussed prior to the session. Also remind her that you have the contract with her parents and you will be delivering what was agreed upon prior to the session.</p>

I don't had over raw files…ever. On the other hand, it generally doesn't take me one to two weeks to

turn around a shoot unless it's huge.

 

My reasoning is that there is a minimum level of quality which I like to keep fairly high on any work that

leaves my possession. I can't guarantee this with a raw file, which by its nature is unfinished—has no

color temperature set, no white/black point set, etc.. This is especially important if you are using

techniques like exposing to the right where the original impression upon opening a raw file might create

misunderstandings.

 

I will hand them minimally retouched 16-bit tif files that they can do what they like with, but that's as

close as I'll go. If they screw it up after that point there's not much you can do, but at least you gave

them a good starting point. I feel this is pretty close to the old days when you would hand over slides or

drum scans. A slide was a more finished product than a raw file.

<p>Why not pick one image, send her a jpeg of the RAW Image and a version that you've edited. If your editing work is really transformative and makes the image, she'll see that. Then I'd ask if she's sure she wants to do the editing herself. If she still says yes, then I'd have her sign a waiver that she's accepting the images in an "AS IS - unedited" state, and that she waive any complaints or recourse regarding the quality of the shoot. My fear is that a client would see the RAW images and go "blah!, This isn't what I paid for. I want my money back."</p>

<p>If the client wants to edit the originals - the contention seemingly centered not on editing the images but the post work on the RAW files- let them. Take the money, take your name off the job and move on. Don't dwell.</p>

<p><em>You may wish to review your screening procedures/ orientation syllabus for new clients... which currently are not serving you very well.</em></p>

<p>Don't do it (unless you are going to charge more and not be associated with the end product).<br>

Those saying it is normal or nothing out of the ordinary must only be talking about commercial work.<br>

It is pretty normal in the commercial/ad. world because the image is more than likely going to be part of a layout and the agency/client will be employing a team of people. Images will go through a load of different incarnations before the final product is complete.<br>

Even in those instances it is not unusual for the photographer to, if not have the final say, have a lot of input into the "shopping" which goes on.</p>

<p>In the wedding and portrait world the photographer is going to live and die on the quality of THEIR completed product.<br>

Letting some 19 year old college student (or anyone else for that matter) loose on the unprocessed images is going to be potentially disastrous.</p>

<p>If I employed a professional wedding or portrait photographer to do my images then I would expect them to produce the whole thing from snapping through to any "enhancements". I as the customer would expect a finished product and I would be employing on the basis of their previous FINISHED work.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Because i come from a film background I shoot off the camera and my images generally need very little editing. So, I would have no problem giving up the RAW imgaes to allow for the best possible editing. I don't even do all my own editing anymore anyway, I now outsource a fair amount of it. If the client chooses to edit their own images great, less work for me. I am not in this for the fame I am in this for the money so I could caree less who edits as long as the client is happy and I get paid. If you are doing this for the Art go create your own photoshoot in which you pick the subjects and control the whole shoot. don't use someone else wedding to create your personal Art.</p>

<p>While it's likely too late now (the clock won't stop ticking while this gets kicked around on forums, etc.), both of you seem to have approached this with different expectations and are backing into something neither of you agreed to before starting work. She wants a quick turn. If that was important, that should have been one of the up front issues. As to whether you should or shouldn't be comfortable with her editing, that's really dependent on the job, the use, etc. She apparently has other pros she works with (but didn't this time?) and as you can see from responses, there isn't a set position on this. One of the things that should be covered in the contracts is a schedule of events, delivery times, etc., just so these kinds of things don't pop up. </p>