Wedding Couple wants RAW images

[William Michael]

On matters peripheral to the main question:

 

I would like to reiterate and add to the comments of David S and John H (I had similar thoughts):

 

1. Be Careful:

 

I`d require payment at exchange or beforehand, and I am not too keen on a cheque.

 

2. I think you need to revisit your payment structure:

 

I, like you, have (mostly always) employed a final payment upon completion and delivery of all goods and services. That is not the issue IMO.

 

What is in debate is how much is left owing. At present, our structure, has the last payment being only 10% of the total, i.e. 90% is paid BEFORE the Wedding Date: (that might be in 2 or 3 stages).

 

WW

[link]

David,

 

Your troublesome client is doing you a favor. He hasn't paid in full yet, but has all the photographs in high res jpeg. Now that he wants the

RAW files, you can just explain that it's a very unusual request, but that you'd be happy to provide them so that he can fully enjoy his

wedding photographs in his own way. Explain that you'll burn a disc for him this week and mail it out upon receipt of the full payment that

he's contracted for. When the check clears, mail the dvd and I nice note wishing the bride and groom many years of happiness.

 

At least you'll have your money, and maybe a happy client.

[dave_shilling__sacramento_]

Maybe you should give them camera too if they ask for it... after all, you used it to make the photos, and your contract doesnt clearly state you dont provide the camera when you're done. I'm being snarky, but do we really have to say what is NOT included? a RAW file is a tool used to create a finished image, its not the finished product itself. So I would lump it together with all other tools needed to create a final product. You dont get my camera, computer, copies of my software, or RAW files. You get the end product. American consumers are somthin else.

 

Personally, I like the answer "I shoot in JPEG, sorry"

[Lou_Meluso]

"It's a good racket for them, but IMHO I think it's a scam".

That "racket" consists of a very large consortium of hard working professionals that make their living from the sale of their photographic work. Most are extremely creative individuals with astute business skills. If you think getting paid well for your creative efforts is a "scam" that is fine and you are free to hire any of the mass of hacks, novices, and duffers who would be more than happy to blast several thousand digital images for you and turn over the whole mess to you for a few hundred dollars. They would jump at the chance. Incidentally, there were plenty of them around in the "old" days as well.

[dave_holland]

1. Never underestimate the value of a happy client. <br>

2. There's a reason for the uncomplicated business principle that the client is always right, even if he isn't.<br>

3. He already has the high rez jpg files, so if he is indeed skilled at photoshop then those RAW files are not so

important to him. I'm not sure if he knows that, and I suspect he may not be so skilled. If he isn't, he will admire you

even more for what you were able to get out of the unmodified images. <br>

4. There's a pretty good chance that he doesn't even have the dng converting software to open your RAW files. So,

you are effectively giving him something he doesn't need and won't necessarily be able to use.<br>

5. Those RAW files are not very useful for you, but they evidently mean a lot to him, more than they are worth. If you

don't give them to him, his wedding photos will be a longlasting symbol of an angry conflict he once had with a

photographer. You will look so much better if this is worked out to your client's satisfaction.<br><br>

 

With the above points in mind, I agree with those above who say, be sure you are paid before you give up anything

more, let him know you are doing something more for him than you would a normal client. Do it with a friendly smile

and thank him for the business. He will pay you back in spades, in the most important arena, behind your

back.Winners have a way of turning conflicts into winning resolutions.

[david_garcia10]

I agree with William W on the payment. Give some time for the check to clear. Require to get the payment a week or days before you hand your photos in that way they can't cancel the check after they received it.

 

Since you mentioned that you agreed to give them the raw files, then I think you should.

[peter_lawrence]

Folks,

 

Unless David Myles has omitted some key facts, this is a simple case of EXTORTION! According to David, he was

only obligated to furnish to his clients high resolution jpegs which he said that he did. Therefore he had lived up to his

end of the contract. Now the couple needs to live up to theirs and PAY HIM IN FULL.

 

David, don't let that couple walk over you. Remind them politely that the contract specified ONLY high resolution JPEG

files and that you expect them to fulfill their end of the contract by giving you the final payment.

 

Now, if you don't have a problem with sending them your RAW files after receiving the final payment for the wedding, you

can inform them that AFTER you received the last payment for the wedding that you would be willing to send them the

RAW files for a nominal charge. But first, they must fulfill the terms of the original contract.

 

A deal is a deal and if the couple cannot be trusted to fulfill the terms of the first one, don't expect them to fulfill the terms of

any subsequent contracts.

 

If they still refuse to pay, do what's necessary to collect the debt that they owe you.

[pankaj purohit]

David, Earlier when film was only the medium for shooting, photographers used to give all the negatives of the wedding or other occassion shoots to clients so whats wrong here. So the same should be here, even without asked by the clients, If we think through client's point of view.

 

Can you guarantee to keep safe those RAWs for lifetime...? You can feel free by giving all the RAWs to your clients, which require so much storage.

[fotografz]

Film was completely different. People didn't have a full color lab in their house ... it had to go to someone that knew what

they were doing to process and print the images.

 

RAW files can be viewed and processed by anyone with a computer and cheap printer ... whether they are skilled at it or

not.

 

Bad processing by an amateur can impact the perception of the original photographer's work. Processing is a part of the

creative process exercised by the photographer and a key aspect of their vision.

[bryan_lardizabal]

Really, how much harm against you or monetary gain will they get from those files?

 

Just hand them the files and get over it ;)

[finimage]

David there are a few aspects here.

 

Firstly your client and yourself have a legally binding agreement to provide a service. You need to tactfully remind them of that fact. Should they fail to pay (check with a Lawyer, I'm not up on US civil/contract law) you are entitiled to persue them for the money due plus costs. A letter from a lawyer stating this may bring them to thier senses should the matter become protracted. The RAW's can be used as a Carrot but certainly do not hand them over until you have your cash!

 

The RAW files, given they are not mentioned in your contract (right??) they do not form part of the bargain you made, ergo these can be included as an amendment to the contract, it is up to you if you wish to do this and if you wish to charge.

 

Personally and I think this echos several respondants to your thread, you need to retain control of your artistic output. Were I in the position of building up a business with Wedding photos as a part of the workflow, I would be looking to limit any chances of the business earning a negative reputation. That said the client could still with even the most basic of editing software make a complete hash out of the Hi res Jpegs so is there an issue in giving over the RAW files too.

 

To protect yourself in the future ensure you establish a price for the RAW's in advance or Limit thier availability in the contract, i.e. RAW files and copyright of all images remain the property of 'David Myles' also ensure a model release forms part of the contract.

If you can any output should always be prints only, they have to come to you for more, unless you establish a price for compressed file formats on top. You may want to look at your pricing structure to stimulate repeat business from your clients, it is a very fine balancing act.

 

Wedding images have a finite life so it's down to you if you can be bothered with trying to get (limited) repeat business or focus on turn over of Big days!

 

Payment, the majority of Photographers I have encountered here, take a booking fee (10-25% non-refundable) depending on the package to be delivered with final payment due the week before the wedding. Most also offer a satisfaction guarantee though personally I think this leaves you open to abuse...if you have the confidence in your work go for it...but you'll get the odd chancer who trys it on.

 

Hope it works out Bud and good luck with your future shoots!

 

Personally I try and avoid commercial work, done some and it bugged my happyness no end, it kept me in film and beer through college but it would have been heaven without the clients!

 

To close, I'm currently looking for a photographer for my Fiance and my own weddingnext summer, knowing several photographers I'm stuck between keeping friends happy and getting the best images we can aford without other photographers feeling put down...can here it now...why did you not ask me..are my images not good enough? And as an amature I'd never dream of asking a Pro/Career Photog for RAWs so I could play...I have enough images of my own to keep me busy!

 

If you client is wanting to play I suggest you give him a very select few RAW's and run (once you have the balance owing...)he has too much time on his hands...

[kelhaw]

Has anyone ever used Genuine Fractals software? (I have not) If the groom's main reason for wanting RAW files is to make

enlargements not possible with JPEGs, this might be a solution. He would be able to enlarge the JPEGs and you would be

able to keep the RAW files.

 

http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=2

[pankaj purohit]

Marc Williams, David has already given the processed JPEGs, and now those are more easy to print with a

computer-printer setup than RAWs, and you also say : "<i>Bad processing by an amateur can impact the

perception of the original photographer's work. Processing is a part of the creative process exercised by the

photographer and a key aspect of their vision.</i>", than RAWs are also behaving somwhat films and not easy for

everyone to process.

[mindforge]

1. If the RAW files are not in the contract do not give them up.

 

2. You are probably at the point now where they would not refer their friends to you anyway. If you do give them the RAW files, then their friends that a referred to you might expect the same treatment. Stand firm.

 

3. If you provided them the files they needed and they refuse to pay I would begin the legal process of getting your money. Usually, they have to pay all fees. RAW files are not the end product.

 

Example: If you went down and bought a painting from a good artist, you could not demand the initial sketches and process sketches of the painting and refuse to finish paying for the painting because of it. You might do this because "Hey, I know how to paint too. Maybe if I had his sketches I could repaint it exactly like he did.

 

Don't lower your profession or yourself. You do not have to give them the RAW files and you will win in court (they get to pay your fees too if you win) unless the RAW files are in the contract. As long as you provided the standard in digital images (the .jpgs) that should be all you do. Do not give up the RAW files.

 

I would begin by just saying that you will not give them the RAW files. Also, I would send an additional written letter stating that they must cease the use of your wedding pictures and destroy them unless you receive your money. You own the copyrights to your images and if they default on the contract, it is illegal for them to display them, print them or anything. Or, you can just go after the money. You might want to look at the process on this. You might not need a lawyer to start the process.

 

Okay. I don't want to sound like a bad guy because I have only had to resort to beginning this process once for only $100. Since that time, I expect to be paid in full before my shutter even opens. I have never done a wedding, but I do events, portraits and sports (for little league and stuff). I have had trouble with them but when you state that the copyright to those images is yours and that they legally cannot display them or even have copies of them (unless they paid you). I don't even like to give digital files and it is in my contract that digital files are 72dpi screen resolution images.

 

Sorry if I come off like a prude or an a$@hole but we have a profession and an art to protect and contracts protect them. So, kindly refuse to give them the RAW images. Explain why. Then if they refuse to pay, politely ask them to no longer use the images because they did not fulfill their end of the contract. I don't know if they can display them on the mantle but they can no longer display them online and it is pretty easy to shut their site down for displaying copyrighted materials. This is about a wedding, a wonderful time and it is sad that sometimes it comes to you saying no, you cannot have my product for free.

 

Now, you can give them the RAW files after the initial contract has been settled by drafting a new contract for the RAW files.

[BrettPrucha]

Haven't read the entire thread but agree with those that say settle the contract first then negotiate the RAW files.

 

I simply don't understand the argument that somehow giving the RAW files will result in bad publicity if the editing doesn't turn out good. They already have the high res JPG's. If they wanted to mangle your photographs, not having the RAW files isn't going to stop them from doing so. Since the groom is a photographer himself, if anything he will be able to get a better final result for what he wants from the RAW than with the JPG's (which is why he want's the RAW files). So if anything the end result will most likely be worse looking photographs if he doesn't have the RAW files.

[fotografz]

Well, the assumption is that the jpgs have been processed the way the photographer wants his images to look ... which are not necessarily what the RAW files

look like.

 

So, the question is ... does the photographer want the client to see how the sauage is made? That depends on one's approach to their work. IMO,

editing/processing is 50% of the creative task ... cropping, straightening, contrast/levels, saturation. B&W conversions, application of actions, and so on ... is all

part of the magic. It's easy to see that many shooters work this way ... I seriously doubt many of the top wedding shooters work looks like it does straight out of

the camera.

 

Yes, the client could well work on the jpgs and do all sorts of things to them ... so that point is well taken ... but at least it isn't the RAW, unvarnished shots.

[w_t1]

Didn't read all the responses, but I like Robert Wheater's recommendations. A contract is a contract - in my line of work if you start doing out of scope items you're working for free. Lesson learned, be wary if shooting another wedding if bride or groom are photographer.

[john fleshin]

Keith, and OP, the negative archival thing had several areas.

 

First, almost no one would ever place an order after the first order, but I used to have a schedule of prices for

packages, and I would very often book a wedding for a modest package, and being so wonderful as I am, my work

would more than likely encourage them to upgrade to higher packages, plus prints ordered with the original package

were discounted, well, anything making me look through negatives, drive to the lab, etc. was significantly higher. If I

gave up the negatives, I would have had to restructure my prices and possibly lose business.

 

Weddings in general were much lower cost when I was shooting MF at a wedding, today it seems $25K is a budget

affair, so $3K is in the ball park for photos. Last MF film wedding package was a gift to a friend in Paris, without

hotel and gas, (service was in the Loire), my cost was $600, ($1 was higher than a Euro) plus incidentals.

 

Second, after getting burned, I always collected the full original package price, ASAP. Normally with delivery of

previews. I would think today the bill would be due at the very latest with delivery of any photos or disk.

 

Third, I shot MF and processing was done by a pro lab, with hand retouching when needed, not CVS, and I did not

want prints that were poorly processed representing my work.

 

Fourth, Times have changed, and people can scan anything, and do almost anything to your work.

 

Fifth, People generally pay almost nothing to a GWC who downloads his images and burns a disk at the reception,

or a lot of money for wedding photos, easily running in to thousands of dollars. Many photos will be distributed and

only viewed on a screen.

 

And Probably most important today,

 

While this is a lively discussion,

 

Choose your battles, this one is not worth fighting, as the money was not collected with delivery of the work, there is

really no winning strategy other than giving them what they want. I would include a copyright notice burned on the

disk.

 

And in future either fix the contract, or tell them you have the right to edit anything you shoot or do not tell them, and

look for warning flags -----if they ask if you shoot raw, explore the real situation and concerns. I would delete shots

that caught people looking bad, have any wardrobe malfunctions, or are technically poor. On a good day, it should

not be too many, but over the years I remember the camera somehow making some poor images, especially the

service person in the back ground bending over ladies falling out ------ waste basket time. (I know, now you can fix it,

but do you want the original file displayed?)

 

If you have objections to what they want, have your reasons ready.

 

You are not going to have the total control of your work without a great deal of effort, which is at least one reason

why you charge more these days, and word of mouth is everything.

 

Regards, John

[jmichaelc]

It amazes me how some do business.

 

The conflict here is a client not paying and demanding things contrary to the contract. There are many here that feels as if a client can demand this request and see it as being perfectly fine. Ok, fine with me for you to feel that way. However, in doing so, you are not in control of your business and i would say that your ability to grow a succesful buisness will be time limited. Your choice.

 

On the other hand, you have the option of being in control of your work, reptutation, business, and you will be able in substain your buisness growth through good principles and a little common sense. Letting clients tell you what to do through demands contrary to a legal contract is a very fragile buisness foundation. I see photographers in this industry with awsome talent but lacking business sense. They will never be able to break through by gaining enough pride and self respect to stand firm in situations like this.

 

Bottom line is.....are you running your business or are you letting clients run it for you? Which one of these two do you think will grow your business to the next financial level?

[david_amberson1]

Wow! Always a huge topic with huge responses. I cant say or offer anything other than whats been said. I do learn

everytime I read these though. I always learn what "Not" to do and hwo to handle these situations and what "Could"

happen. Its helped me alot in the past.

 

I learned something else today. I always thought I was an odd one for never wanting anyone to see my RAW

images. I thought I was the only one who felt this way and it was because I was a sh$*#y photographer. Now I see

that its all Pro's. I always felt like post production in PS was different from photography and that if I was any kind of

photog, I could get it right in camera and it wouldnt matter if someone viewed my RAW's.

 

Quite comforting actually. Looking at it entirley different now. The RAWS are great untouched, but I am slightly

tweaking to perfection. As I remember back in 98 when I got back my prints from my wedding(from film). I remember

looking through them and going, "Oh thats good, thats good, thats good, ooh not so good, washed out, too dark,

awesome shot, thats the best one yet etc. He basically unloaded his memory cards, clicked print and thats what I

got. With these RAWS, we are making every image an "Awesome Shot". All of the customers prints are perfect

leaving him feeling he got his money worth. Not bad photography, optimized business. BMW 3 series vs Chevy

Cobalt. Both do the job, but one optimized for flawlessness. Is that a word? :-)

 

I feel great now. I'm glad I read this. I've now answered a question I've always had. Am I the only one who does this.

Now that I think of it, it may be what he wants to do. Look at RAWS to compare his work. Maybe see how much

post you did. I still wouldnt give them up. TIFFS are just as good and the Jpegs will print no different at larger sizes.

Except 99% of printers wont read RAW.

 

I once printed a shot of an Eagle 16x20. I realized it was a compressed

version of a JPEG that I had done on accident and never deleted. It was 1.1MB and I paniced and reprinted the

16x20 with the 52MB TIFF I originally intented to use. They came out and none of us could tell which was the TIFF.

The printer had to look at his job number and look at the back to see which was which. As long as the Res. is the

same, it doesnt matter. At least none of us could tell without a magnifying glass.

 

I got home, pulled both up on monitor at 100% and switched quickly between them. You couldnt even tell I was

changing the files. I mean nothing. And I use a 24" HD monitor set to 1920x1200. The TIFFS to me are only usefull

while editing. Otherwise, finished JPEGS are just as good.

[alexdi]

In the past, wedding photographers made money by charging for prints. No one gave out the original film. If

you've already given him the full-resolution JPEG files, you've forfeited the ability to stop him from making his

own high-quality prints. If that's the case, there's no good reason to deprive him of the RAW files. If he wants

to control the sharpening parameters for larger prints, let him. An amateur is perfectly

capable of adjusting the sliders in ACR, and if he screws it up, that's his business. He could make a JPEG file

look just as bad.

 

By holding back, you look petty, and you'll look even more petty if you try to tack on charges that extend

farther than the cost of burning a disk. Give up the RAW files as an act of good faith. If you want to charge for

them with future clients, add a contract provision to that effect.

[jstarks]

I wouldn't give them the RAW files if the contract clearly states hi-res JPEGs. Hi-res JPEGs can be printed in

large format and I know having a RAW image may not help him much. It's a lose-lose for you since he's could run

your name in the mud because your holding the files and even if you give them up he could still bad mouth you.

To get him off your back I'd give him he files, wipe my hands clean of him and add a "No RAW images." clause to

your contract.

 

I hope this works out for you,

Jesse

[jesseplummer]

This mostly depends on the terms in the contract. If you use standard contracts, then you are the owner of the images. You are not required to provide the RAW images. As a matter of fact, he would be in violation of the copyright law to make additional copies or edit your work without your explicit permission. By him hiring you, you agreed to provide a certain amount of images but even then, he is not allowed to make additional copies or edit the ones he paid for. If he wants an enlargement or to make edits, he needs to come to you and tell you what he wants and you perform the work for a fee and provide him a print. Giving him the RAW images could negate your copyright claims in the future. The old edict, "He that owns the negatives, owns the copyright." can be modified to say, "He that owns the RAW images, owns the copyright." Do not give them up. You are surrendering more that you realize.

[waltonwhittaker]

Never. Never. Never give away your negatives. No photographer worth his salt would do such a thing. I have refused to do shoots for clients demanding the negatives. My work. Not theirs. RAW files are digital negatives.

 

Put it in writing but do not give your work away unless you are going to do it for everyone and you can then expect everyone to want it for free.

[richs]

My 2 cents (and sorry if this was already mentioned) but I always consider the RAW files as the equivalent of negatives in that they prove that the photos are mine. I know that Raw files come with embeded info but I am sure that there are programs to change that. So, unless they contracted for and paid for FULL OWNERSHIP of the photos I never give out the RAW files. As far as having a happy customer, I would never consider a @#% that would not honor a contract as some one that I want to keep happy. I like the idea of sending a CD COD and just have tif files in it and tell him that he got more than he contracted for.