Wedding Couple wants RAW images

[ncarrasco]

If they want the RAW files, you should give them to them. However, since they are getting images that have not been edited, you should make it clear to them that they are not allowed to selectively use any of your images to make negative publicity against your photography business.

 

My wedding photographer kindly gave me all the RAW files even though it was not in the contract. JPEG files are worthless to serious amateur photographers. Information is lost every time you edit or save them.

[ncarrasco]

Even better for you, give them the DNG file version of the images. In that way you can give them the files that you have already edited and that mostly represent your work.

[victoria_harris1]

I do not think you should give them the RAW files. Yes it was not specifically clear in your contract that the RAW files are not available, however it was clear that you would give them the JPEG files. If they are so adamant about printing larger, then tell them you will adjust them so that they can do so. I would never give anyone RAW files, its my image and personally I don't really want people messing around with the unedited file, actually I never really show images unless I have done some adjustments to them first. Also I would assume that there are a lot of people who unless they have photography experience don't really know the importance that RAW files offer to a photographer, let alone actually know what RAW means. Therefore I too would assume he is wanting to play with the images in which case I would not be very happy because in my opinion he is then creating his own "art" off of your work.

[ted_springer]

Hi David,

 

It seems that you have plenty of advice on this already, but I'll still add my two cents:

 

I have been in your position before. It's not fun. It is important to undertsand WHY they want the RAW images so badly.

Maybe they think they can get larger prints from them. If that's not the issue, and then your rep is at stake here and I would

hand them over with a thorough delivery memo (stating the usage).

[daverhaas]

David -

 

I've only had one couple (actually just the groom) ask for a format other than JPG. He wanted tiff due to data loss when saving jpg's. (I didn't mention to him that since the images were on dvd, there'd be no loss anyway, since it's pretty much a Write Once, Read Many storage device.)

 

I put that in my contract and haven't had a question since...

 

Also - for those that think you can't manipulate a JPG file and that by not giving out the raw files, you're somehow protected from people modifying the image...Wrong! The only thing about raw files is that the software you use to edit / read them has to match the format of the raw file. 99% of the print kiosks at Pro-Ex, CostCo, etc... Won't read / recognize raw format, so even if the client has the raw, they won't be able to edit / print (unless they have specific photo editing software)

 

For me the thing that's more important than the file format is that I've gone through the images and gotten rid of the misfires, done the basics - white balance and exposure, perhaps some cropping, then resaved the image... That's what the client gets if they want images.

 

Dave

[phule]

[[My contract states Hi Res JPG's. Raw files will ont be provided to clients.

Do you want someone taking your images screwing with them, printing them and people saying EWwwwww. horrible?

I don't.]]

 

 

I find it difficult to believe that you're not aware people (can) use the JPG files to do the same thing.

[neilambrose]

<p>There is no reason to hand over RAW files unless your contract specifically says that's what you will provide.</p>

 

<p>I've only been asked twice whether I'd be prepared to do this, but both times have refused. I do so on the grounds

that conceptually they're equivalent to the negatives (which in the film days very few photographers would ever part with)

and that they're subject to my copyright. I do not hand over any property rights to the images I supply. My contract offers

the client perpetual rights to reproduce and share the images at no-cost for personal use only. But it's deliberately

constructed as a licensing agreement; there is no concept of the client having ownership.</p>

 

<p>If the stated problem is that the files you supplied are too small then why not negotiate a list of preferred

enlargements, and then supply files to the necessary size? This will demonstrate professionalism and a reasonable

willingness to satisfy on your part.</p>

 

<p>And if that's not acceptable to them then you need to find out why. Not least because your next recourse is to treat

them as a defaulted customer, and you should have evidence that you've taken reasonable measures to understand their

position and explain yours.</p>

 

<p>Bottom line, I wouldn't allow a client to walk away with the RAW images any more than I'd let them walk away with

my camera.</p

[timberwulf]

The statement that you can not work on JPGs is total hogwash. He can take your full-quality JPGs, save them as PSDs, and manipulate them to his heart's content without losing anything that wasn't already lost originally. They can do everything they want with the JPGs, they do not need the RAWs. It was not in the contract, and they can not refuse to pay you over this. Tell them they need to fulfill their part of the contract before you have any further discussions about delivering additional product. DNGs similarly aren't on the table simply because of the extra time it would take to do the exports and get them packaged for transport.

 

To those saying "just give it to them", would you work an extra 12 hours at a wedding simply because the client wanted you to? Would "give me 12 extra 8x10's or I won't pay you" be an acceptable thing to you?

 

This boils down to one thing. The other party is attempting to breach the contract and not pay you as per your agreement. Stop any and all deliveries of any additional contracted product you may still have until they have fulfilled their end of the bargain. This kind of behavior on the side of the client is simply not acceptable or legal, and pandering to it by giving in and agreeing to their terms is not going to be good for you in the end - you may never be paid. If they're willing to hold your payment hostage for more services and you give in, what's to stop them from demanding something else?

 

This is a no brainer folks.

[think27]

Josh - your contract makes sense. I think anyone giving RAW files should take a look at Josh Laronge's response above.

[bill_keane2]

"You have the right to edit and retouch your work based on hard won knowledge and experience so the client gets the best results. Do you want to turn that, and your reputation, over to a novice? NO!"

 

I tend to agree.

 

Maybe I am way off base, but back in the day, was it common for negatives to be handed over?

 

Also, if the contract does not specifically say that RAW files are to be given to the customer, I don't see how this can be used as leverage against full payment.

 

Does the contract SPECIFICALLY say that the B&G are not entitled to the camera and memory cards? Surely you won't be offering these too?

 

If you supplied what was specifically mentioned in the agreement, then you should be getting FULL payment. If you want to hand over the RAW files, that's your business.

[robert lee]

"Maybe I am way off base, but back in the day, was it common for negatives to be handed over? "

 

Wasn't it? I thought it was fairly standard practice. I received all of my negatives, 60 odd frames of 6x7 and a few 4x5. I'm sure the thinking was that a couple of referrals was worth much more than the remote possibility of a few more print sales.

 

Frankly, what could the average customer do with a handful of MF and LF negatives (or RAW these days) anyways.

[bill_keane2]

"Frankly, what could the average customer do with a handful of MF and LF negatives (or RAW these days) anyways."

 

I couldn't do anything with negatives, but plenty with RAW.

 

Somehow, unless signed over in the contract, doesn't a photographer have a right to retain the definitive "original", giving full size "final product" JPEGs that the photographer feels represent their best?

[savagesax]

Give them Tiff files and charge them - a lot. He's killing your reorders so figure in what the reorders are worth. $1000 seems like the minimun fee to me.

 

The reason for tiff files instead of RAW is he may not be able to open the RAW files. For example, with the 1DS Mark 3 you really need Photoshop CS3. CS2 won't open the RAW files. Actually CS2 will, but you need to open as a digital negative file.

[todd_k.]

This jerk is holding your money hostage hopping to renegotiate the terms of your contract. You have three choices, try to get him to back down and pay you, give him what he wants, or seek a legal remedy. I would remind him that he contracted to buy jpgs. If he wants to "upgrade" to raw files then it will cost him an additional $$$, and that you will mail them once his balance has been paid in full including the additional "raw upgrade" fee. If he declines, seek a legal remedy.

[art_tatum]

I wonder if the client really wants the RAW or needs to wiggle out of paying the balance. Not to rub salt but don't most of us

get payment in full before the wedding. Perhaps a entirely different discussion thread. After reading this I am going to amend my contract.

[david_schilling___chicago_]

You've already got plenty of opinions of what others think so I won't add mine. However, I would suggest though that there might be a potential "trap" in all this.

 

Let's suppose you hand over all the RAW files and wait for the check.....your next reply could be something along the lines of: "Thank you for the RAW files but I'm sure that there are several images missing.....please forward all of the RAW files and I'll send you the balance."

 

BTW, even if you didn't edit and you were to send every single file you took, it's likely that in the customer's mind that he might still accuse of holding back. Be careful, be very careful.

[tim_schultz1]

I agree with David Schilling. Thery may not pay you once they receive the images. Also, I only give hi res JPEGS as I only want my best, edited work out in the public. My clients will NEVER see the images that don't make the cut.

[eric merrill]

David:

 

You've already received quite a few responses to your question. So I'm going to throw in some

unsolicited advice. I would change when I collect payment if I were you. My final payment is due 30

days before the wedding. That still gives me time to collect the final payment if anything unforeseen

happens.

 

At a minimum, I would not turn over any images before payment is received in full. I would probably

insist on a money order at this point. Or waiting a few weeks after the check clears. I would be

hesitant to accept a credit card payment based on your side of the events.

 

 

Eric

[john_h.1]

This is the kind of thing that happens when you let a client have or even see images before they pay the ENTIRE bill. You are in a game of chicken now with someone who has the money AND usable images. You can play your hand in small claims court but it would suck for many reasons even if you win.

 

Plug the holes in the contract for future use. Namely, the payment scheme and what the client will actually be entitled to.

[andrew_gale]

Trade the money for the Raws, it not worth a fight over and your at the disadvantage right now. Which would you rather have, some RAW files of someone else's wedding who will never ever do business with you again, or your money and a good reputation for being a generous person and a good wedding photographer.

[bettina_monique_chavez]

Don't give em your RAW files! You dont know what they are going to do with them.......

[Member69643]

In the "old days" people wanted negatives. The new, inexperienced photographer would give them to the B&G because they'd never land a gig otherwise. The same is true nowadays for the novice pro, with digital files, be they JGP or RAW. In a perfect world there would be no negatives or files handed over. At least not within the reasonable reprint-buying time of say, five years.

 

It really doesn't matter what you do. If you give them the files you add to the demand for giving such files away, and if you don't, you anger this couple and might lose payment. There is a loss here either way.

 

Not that it matters, but I'd tell them (politely) that the contract does not call for RAW files but the RAW files may be purchased once the initial obligation (payment) is met. Make note that the RAW files are not in any way necessary to make large prints, and that the JPG files are of the same resolution.

[john_h.1]

"Don't give em your RAW files! You dont know what they are going to do with them......."

 

As though they can't "do" things with the the files they already have.

[peterlyons]

I haven't read any of this except your initial post, but if it were me, I'd just give the guy his RAW files and collect the check.

Make your client happy, collect your payment....

what's the issue here?

Hey, I've had clients print my RAW files too, without knowing what they're doing. They wind up with these huge 40x60"

prints with dust spots and bad color balance. But they're totally thrilled, and I got paid. Fine by me. Making my clients

happy is the main thing.

[keith_anderson7]

I think the RAW image debate stems from the old days when the photographers would give you prints but not the negatives, so you'd be forced to go back to them for reprints for the rest of your natural life, and in the case of some wedding photographers, they charge thousands for the shoot and then thousands again for reprints. It's a good racket for them, but IMHO I think it's a scam.

 

I also think your client could lighten up a bit since the JPG files aren't any worse in resolution relative to RAW or anything. That said, if it were me and since I can edit the exposure and color balance with more latitude in RAW, I'd probably want them as well.

 

As for your specific problem, if it were me I'd tell them you hadn't intended to include RAW images initially but you'd give them the benefit of the doubt this time. Frankly, this time it was your fault since you never covered it with enough specifics in the contract about format, resolution, etc. In that case, its a good business practice to give the client the benefit of the doubt but also to make sure you don't run in to the problem next time... so fix your contract.

 

If you give him the RAW images and he doesn't pay, you have a ligit legal case against him. If you don't fork them over, he might not be able to force you to give them up, but then you'd have one unhappy camper for a customer with a potentially valid beef with you. Word of mouth means a lot in wedding photography.