"Can you give me the RAW files?"

We have a new supervisor at work who overall is great and doing a great job.

 

He's also a bit of a shutterbug, which overall isn't a bad thing since he's doing a lot to improve the departments website and social media.

 

In a conversation with him, however, I mentioned that I had ~9 years of photos from events and just day-to-day happenings.

 

I've shared a lot over the years-in many cases after an event or such I have put my(edited) JPEGs on Google Drive and sent the link around by email. The last time we had a competent webmaster, I would even send photos to them to be posted to a gallery on the department website(that apparently has vanished).

 

I'm not averse to shooting film either, and there are wet prints hanging on the walls at work that I printed, although of course I have JPEG scans of those too.

 

With all of that said, though, I'm having a bit of a stand-off over the photos. For one thing, as a general rule I don't share RAW files(the exception is when for help or instructional purposes when talking to another photographer, or occasionally to tech/IT guys who have heard of them but never handled one). I treat them like the digital negatives that they are, and don't want anyone to see them until I've processed them into JPEGs(which I've always regarded as akin to a digital print). Depending on the intended purpose, my final JPEGs for distribution are anywhere from 800 to 2000 pixels(and of course I will supply higher resolution if needed/requested depending on why they're needed). I do this for fun and not with any kind of profit motivation, although at the same time I want any photo that's in any way connected to me to meet my personal standards for quality.

 

With all of that out of the way, when talking to my supervisor he requested that if I sent him photos, that I give him the RAW files. I'm a bit uncomfortable with this for several reasons.

 

First of all, even though they're photos "from" work, they're unquestionably mine. The ones he is interested were taken at off-the-clock social events and the like(or in some cases back when I was a graduate student, so there was no real on/off clock distinction, but none the less taken separate from my job). They were taken with equipment that I own and PPed on my own computer/software, and in the case of the film photos I bought the film and paid for the processing(whether at home or at a lab).

 

Also, there are logistical issues with turning over the RAWs. I can dig up the finished JPEG "albums" pretty easily, but for photos more than a few years old I'd have to dig out externals where I have them stashed. After doing a pretty serious equipment upgrade the past few years, my more recent RAWs are a bit more accessible but also significantly larger-in many cases 60-80mb each.

 

So, with all of this said, what would you do? It's amazing how much a friendly offer can send you down a path of a lot of work...I'm tempted to drop it, but I have a feeling I'll get asked about it again after offering, even though I gave my standard "I don't give out RAWs" reply. He claimed that he "needed" them because he uses several different platform-it seems to me that the department website/Facebook/Twitter/whatever else would be easiest with a good quality JPEG.

If he paid for the photos, yes, give him the RAW files (the final edit only) alongside the JPEGs. When someone pays me for a job, whether it's a product shoot or a portrait session, or a (very rare) wedding, they can have whatever they want, except for the photos that don't work (I delete those). Nobody has asked me for RAW files yet, except for one occasion where only two were needed for print publication.

 

I only worry because people might put my photos through a retouching process that I have no control over. I don't want my name on a photo that has been 'enhanced'. Even b&w shots are susceptible to being 'enhanced' with retouching software (like this: Old craftsmanship and everyday situations with the Leica M 240 - Leica Rumors). But, like I said, if you pay for them, they're yours.

 

In you case I would not give them over. If push comes to shove: "Oops, the hard drive is corrrupted." If he asks for the HD to fix, give it to him, after you stuff it with hundreds of dummy files that will never open.

Good quality JPEGs are good enough for all digital platforms. In principle, I wouldn't hand over RAW files either unless there's some good reason to (a media company as a client, for example). A lot of people at social events don't even shoot in RAW but in JPEG.

 

"Using several different platforms" is a pretty vague argument for wanting your RAW files with no PP. JPG is the most interchangeable digital format. So the question is what's the underlying motivation/argument/assumption for his request? This is maybe something to ask if he brings up "RAW" again. Possibly, ...

- wanting to archive photos for "posterity" at the highest resolution and without compression?

- thinking he can do a better job at PP or setting JPG quality?

- just wanting to 'play around' (as a hobby) with your RAW photos?

- thinking of making high quality prints using something like an eps file format?

 

I'm not suggesting these are valid reasons for delivering RAW files. But the more you know about the background, the easier it will be to deliver a suitable format (JPEG, flattened TIFF/PSD) other than RAW. You could also turn it around and ask "what it it that makes JPEG unsuitable?"

For lots of reasons I wouldn't hand over raw files to anyone unless I had a prior arrangement with a client. Especially since you weren't paid for the work in question your supervisor has no right to ask for them. It sounds as though you have been very generous with sharing your files so I would hold firm if I were you. The request is a lot like asking a writer for a first draft rather than a finished manuscript, something that any writer wouldn't want to do.

I don't understand why he would want them (much less "need" them) for any other reason than processing them himself - and my answer to that would be a simple "No" - my images, my processing. Like Mike above, I am wondering what exactly his argument for getting the RAW files is - "uses several different platforms" is rather vague and may point to a misunderstanding of his what RAW files actually are. As Mike suggested, when the issue comes up again, find out more about his "needing them" - there may be a teaching opportunity there. FWIW, I keep my processed full-size JPEGs unsharpened so that I can easily adapt them for any output size that's being requested.

I think your boss or anyone else has every right to ask for the RAW files and you have every right to decline the request, unless you’ve agreed otherwise, which you haven’t. Probably best not to go into it with the assumption that your boss is doing something wrong. It’s simply a request which you’re more than entitled to deny. My advice would be to drop it until/unless he asks again. If he asks again, explain it to him as you explained it to us. Be respectful but definitive. Don’t give any wiggle room in your answer. While I understand there may be curiosity about his reasons and he may not even fully understand what he’s asking for, asking his reasons opens the discussion up for debate, which I wouldn’t want with a boss. I’d rather be pleasant, firm and crisp about it. Make it sound like it’s a strict policy of yours and tie it to your being a photographer. If he’s too persistent, use some version of “no means no” on him. Any boss ought to understand that these days. Edited February 4, 2019 by The Shadow

Shoot JPEG only, problem solved.

Is there a company policy regarding ownership of images taken in the workplace or at company functions? If so, a close examination of that policy is warranted, as it may define ownership differently that you do. A variety of options on your part are pretty well covered above.

You were not paid for the job. You are the exclusive owner of your pictures. You are totally free to decide.

 

People that are not familiar with photography don't even know the word RAW. So if someone, your boss or who ever is asking for RAW photographs and not JPEGs, there must be a good reason.

 

I like what our friends above mention and I agree fully.

I'd try not to get too stand-offish right away (especially not with a supervisor ;)). Try to see why the supervisor wants the raw photos - it could be he's thinking of reprocessing everything using the same style which would make a website look more professional, but does not want to bother you with it. You could offer to do yourself since these are your photos, or try to explain that the style is part of your artistic expression and you don't want the style changed.

FWIW, I keep my processed full-size JPEGs unsharpened so that I can easily adapt them for any output size that's being requested.

Very smart. I don't sharpen JPEG exports anyway, but this is a good reason not to.

 

Shoot JPEG only, problem solved.

A good compromise would be shooting JPEGs with a log profile. Not all cameras can do this but some Sony models can for sure.

IMO, it is about power & the job. How desirable / important / essential is the job? At one point, fairly close to retirement, I had a new supervisor "require" my personal cell phone number. The Company was not paying for it, I did not expense it, nor had it been issued by them, so no right at all - they had my "landline". I stalled, but finally gave the number, after that, nearly always forgot it, ran out of battery charge, had it in my briefcase or shut off in "airplane" mode. Of course, I was a short timer. Possibly with many of the older photos, deleted after you edited them, or after X years?

Thanks for the thoughts and comments everyone.

 

I was busy at work today, but did skim through what's called the "Red Book" which is the official manual of policies and procedures and didn't see/find anything. I have a couple of acquaintances-mostly known just from chatting to them walking in to work-with university relations who works as photographers, so I'll ask them and see if they know of any policies. Of course, it's different for them since that IS part of their job(and it's not part of mine) but they would also be the ones who would know.

 

If it comes up again, I'll see if I can dig a bit more. In his time in this position, I have given him photos, but always as JPEGs, and it hasn't previously been a problem.

 

I'll also mention that we had a bit of a "discussion" where I turned over photos I took at our Christmas party(which might have been a bit more of a gray area, since it was middle of the day, on the clock). At the time, the supervisor had been working in the department for ~3 weeks. I showed him a less-than-flattering photo I'd taken of a faculty member, and he virtually begged me for it-I wouldn't turn that one over for a wide variety of reasons, and fortunately the department secretary(who's been in the department for nearly 30 years) backed me up on it being a bad idea. The department chair(aka my boss's boss, and whose office is tucked into the same corner of the building) got in on the discussion and said "absolutely not-we can't publish that photo."

 

If it becomes TOO much of an issue, I'll just quit taking photos at work-I do it for my enjoyment anyway and in many cases I've fallen into where it's "expected" of me(I missed one event last year and everyone was lamenting the fact that there was no one there with anything more than a cell phone) but if it's causing friction and other issues I just won't do it.

 

I'll mention too that we have one long-time faculty member(probably close to 40 years in the department, if not more-whatever the case longer than I've been alive) who has been a serious amateur photographer for longer than he's worked there. A lot of his prints grace the walls in our building. He has also been department chair several times, so he carries a bit of clout. I'm sure he'd back me up on this too.

If it was ME, I would stop talking about photography with him and stop doing photography at work events off the clock. I agree with that part of your decision.

 

That takes the whole issue off the table.

 

A possible argument could be made that the Images taken at work and at work events might be considered as work-for-hire, thereby conveying copyrights to the company.

 

Amateurs have it rough when it comes to copyright for the very reason you are describing. They just try to be nice, generous people and give stuff away but then people come along and do stuff with the images that were not the original intent and then there's problems.

 

Copyright isn't just about money. Copyright is also about controlling the distribution and use of the images. So many times and so many people feel like if they have the images, they own the images and can do what they want with the images - especially if it's the subject who has the images. There are musicians I've photographed who feel they have a right to do whatever they want with photographs I've taken because THEY ARE THE SUBJECT. This is NOT true. Unless they have paid for specific usage rights to use the images, they cannot use the images any way they want. There are also copyright rules about what I can do with the images.

 

Mostly, photographers really should control the use of their images if for no other reason than to protect themselves the subjects from misuse by other parties.

 

What would you do if one of your photographs given to the supervisor was used to defame, discipline or ridicule one of the photo subjects? What would be your liability? What would be your recourse?

 

I don't mind a photo subject having a snappy-snap (non-professional) that I've taken - but giving photos to a supervisor not knowing what he was going to use them for - NO.