Raw Request from a client - How do you handle??

[dave404]

Twenty or thirty years from now someone may try to restore some of old grandpa's wedding pictures but they were shot in the crappy old 8-bit JPG format. We now [2050] have 64-bit color process with 20 inks in a cartridge but are stuck with the crappy JPG.

 

I am right now [2008] in the process of restoring some wedding pictures that were done in 1972 which have all bleached out, the tonality of the yellow is sliver and the bride looks "like an albino", in her words. Worse they went cheap since they did not have a lot of money so they got one wedding portrait thats shot to hell from being exposed to room light and portfolio of small proofs.

 

If I were getting married I think I would want a DNG archive. In the future they will most likely have much better printing than at present and may and actually use all the extra information.

[pclancy]

Unless their angle is to get a lower price, I fail to see the problem here. Just give them your normal edited JPEGs and then give them the RAW files as well. They still get your edited interpretation of the wedding. No risk of abominations hanging on the wall.

[christopher hartt dallas]

Every editorial client I have wants the RAW cards (at the end of the shoot, usually). Experienced clients hire me for my skill with a camera, not my prowess with digital manipulation in Photoshop.

 

About 10% of my clients request that I shoot their wedding and provide the RAW files to them on disk. I gladly comply and give them a 10% discount on my normal rate - a "shoot and scoot" approach, some might say. I have a higher than normal amount of wedding clients who are in graphic arts, advertising etc though; I may not be representative.

[rayt]

I don't think someone printing a bad image is going to be an issue. These people should know what looks good and what does not. I doubt they are going to take an excellent image and convert to a blurry purple tinted tilted image. These same people may take bad pictures with their P&S but they will know a good image and will not want to destroy that image. For this reason I don't think that word of mouth is going to be a problem.

 

I would not deliver the RAW images, but instead the properly balanced JPG images. Images that will print well at Walmart or whatever. Yes, some will be cropped. But the people are not going to crop off heads just so they can see grandma's orthopedic shoes.

 

With the large presence of digital images people today are more aware of what they can do with images. There is no longer the need for darkrooms and chemicals which limited the number of people who could do anything with the image. People paid for that capability. Today almost anyone can manipulate the digital images.

 

So my opinion is to give them the images. Give them a copy release. And then be out of the loop for reprints. Price your services accordingly. Add functions not readily available to others such as a photo book.

 

For those that want to retain control for reprint orders how many reprint orders have you actually received? How much time have you devoted to storing all those images? Is it really worth the effort.

 

If I charge $2K and provide the images, some other fellow charges $2K and does not provide the images who do you think the couple will choose? And I would doubt the other individual really gets a lot of reprint orders.

 

Digital has changed the landscape forever. The business model of holding images hostage has to change.

[kiva]

This is less a matter of right and wrong but rather a defining of your style and process as a business trying to keep up with technology yet not trying so hard that it begins to erode "the art".

 

A. If your style is a traditional capture the day with Lovely Photography and skill and follow that with minor processing to taste and color correction and then your done with the photos then that would lend itself to turning over the RAW files in case the couple and the family want to process to their taste. I totally understand the flaws in this thinking but as the digital age progresses it may become a necessity of you want to live in this traditional area. dunno, just a thought.

 

Z. At the other end of the spectrum might be a more flamboyant style ... not better or worse ... just a different style and process and business model that is defined by a Combination of the art of the camera clicks combined with the art of the processing clicks.

 

~The photographers that tend to live towards the Z end of the spectrum would tend to think of the processing as part of the "art" of capturing the wedding day. If this is their "style" i.e. it defines Who they Are as a wedding photographer then it does them Harm to allow someone else to process their RAW files. It works against their artistic intent.

 

~I've been hired by a few Graphic Designers this year; they want someone who works longer at the processing end of things. They could do the processing but even they don't want to take the time and energy; they understand what's involved.

 

But, there is a slowly growing group who know how to handle RAW files on their own. I've always said "No" up to this point but I'm now considering handing RAW files over to the client.

 

~Here's where it gets weird: do I have to see their skill level before agreeing to let them do it or to I just have to "Get Over It" and be more business-like and just sell the image files for a decent price and move on.

 

~Do I need the "unknown" RAW developer to always give credit to me, as the photographer, while at the same time insisting that the unknown RAW processor clearly state the processing was done by whoever did it (we actually won't know who Really ends up doing the RAW processing!).

 

Full and clear "credit" as if the photography and the processing are two separate skill sets with separate and different tool-bags worked on by two separate "artists".

 

Full disclosure might be a good thing but it's so out of our control once the files have moved on.

 

Actually sounds sweet to creatively capture good photos and move on.

 

Can I then insist on being paid for the image files for the "risk" I take in allowing someone else to process them or do I just concern myself with the camera click and let the rest go?

 

Are there two distinct professions about to bloom? This could be rather far off but it may be morphing that way before our eyes.

 

Click.

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

If someone edits a RAW file and enjoys their editing so much that they make a large print and hangs it on the wall, then they will surely brag about the fact that THEY did the post for so-and-so's picture when "showing off" the picture. Thus eliminating any direct slander. Nobody ahs explored the option of them being BETTER at the post than the photog, thus directing more business to the photog. Honestly, if your business model crumbles because you give the 1 or 2 couples a year the RAW files, it may be time to revamp the business model...

[jo_dinning]

I have been faced with this myself and said no. One of the points of being a professional photographer is that your reputation is always only as good as your last wedding, and that you have the right to make income from guests by way of prints. By handing over your files you run the risk of not having either of these options intact from this event and the couple are likely to try and make money from the prints themselves - so if you do agree charge what you think you will lose in print orders and future clients...

[johnmottershaw]

Somebody asked what the problem was with letting RAW files go. Here's the answer:

 

A RAW file is sub-standard. It's unfinished. The RAW file (or camera jpeg if you insist on

doing it that way) is sub-standard until it's finished off in PP.

 

You don't let sub standard work go out if you have pride in your craft. No craftsman lets work

go out until it's been finished to the highest possible standard.

[marlboro_smith]

Just say no.

 

Its your work. Would you just give them a bunch of negatives? Of course not.

 

What kind of referrals could you get from that. You never give up your negatives, they belong to you.

 

NO, NO, NO.....

[William Michael]

We indeed hired a professional photographer to shoot our Wedding: he worked (as many did then) on a modest fee and made his main money on the profits from the print sales, he did not even think to sell any negatives, such was a big `no no`: quite UNprofessional!

 

But I negotiated a deal whereby the three main points were:

 

1. He shot ALL the formals on medium format 6 x 7 (outside his normal procedure)

 

2. He shot a selection of candids on fast B&W Film, without flash. (outside his normal procedure)

 

3. We bought all the negatives, a set of about 40 5 x 4 prints and 3 enlargements from the 6 x 7 work, for the price of the average of his last 10 print sales plus 10%.

 

4. We paid 10% more than his normal fee, for using 6 x where he would normally use 645 and 135 formats.

 

The point is I had (in his view) a legitimate reason; I had the skill to know what labs were good, and I would not `destroy` his work; we were prepared to pay a premium for a special service and for the purchase of goods outside his normal offer.

 

 

Later, when I was more established in our own business, if we could not handle a job I would send the customer to him, with a referral like: `well I am busy that day, but I can recommend XXXX, he took our Wedding Photos . . . ` that referral kinda lands the job before they even meet, doesn`t it?

 

The point is it is business.

 

Whilst in 30 years I have never sold the negs to any B&G, I have given two sets away as gifts: and I know that they were both a most valued possession and that any prints from them would be of the highest quality . . . then again of the few B&G who asked to buy the negs from me, none had a valid (imo) reason as to why I should sell them.

 

Given my experiences, you have not given enough detail to answer the question professionally, it is not as simple as `yes` or `no`.

 

Indeed in these days of misinformation within cyberspace advice and gossip columns the client might not even know what RAW is!

 

They might be asking for all the RAW files because some on line advice group for Brides and Grooms has told them that if the Photographer does not hand over the RAW files he has something to hide or is screwing with them.

 

On the other hand as a `revamped business model` I shoot a few Weddings for the owners of my old studio: I hand over all the cards (and all copyright) and collect the cheque on Monday: a very nice business model thank you very much.

 

Learn Chaos Theory, if you do not wish to do that: at the very least identify the exact motives for the client`s request and act on those and not on passionate `yes` or `no` answers here, which seem (with respect for my colleagues and an understanding of their reasons, as I scribe) predicated on personal biases, whilst attempting to answer a question set at best, mere vagaries and generalities.

 

WW