Wedding Couple wants RAW images

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

It's a very interesting case. First I don't know how you come to the situation of shooting a wedding, especially a destination wedding

before being paid in full.

 

In my contract I require a deposit of 30% for the booking and the balance to be paid 3 weeks before the actual wedding day.

As there are more and more people with camera and software, I keep think simple and try to be open minded as much as possible.

I had a groom once who asked for the Raw files, of course it was before the shooting. I told him that I usually give edited hi-res JPEG,

which, as mentioned by most people here, but if he still wants RAW files, they are available for purchase at $950 per file. I'll be happy to

sit with him and slide show the files for him to choose.

 

In regard of proving that the images are mine, I simply set my name, and the studio, in camera so it is embedded in the RAW files. This

is not a really big deal (to prove that I am the owner of the images) as I can prove that I have the RAW files as well, and also that the

serial number of the cameras is also embedded in the RAW files and I have the receipt proving that I own that cameras.

[john fleshin]

Walton, we sometimes make exceptions, which become lessons.

 

I gave prints to a performer, with whom I had a few drinks and conversations, met the wife and kids, and he truly was a great guy. He tragically died young, and I found out a few years ago I have now done an album cover, which does not have my name on it. Am I going to sue his widow or the record company, well, no, I sent them a note asking for credit, but hey, I gave him the print, and the proceeds go to his family.

 

Maybe his manager forgot my name.

 

I chose not to fight this battle, but I understand why people put their name on everything.

 

Rodney Dangerfield would have appreciated the situation.

 

I hear there are planned new laws further eroding copyright ownership, but with the ease of newer scanning technology, am not sure you are going to easily hold many copyright cards in event photography, that can be played.

 

Printers should, I believe, technically, refuse to print files from a wedding without a copyright release?

Have no idea why a major record label would use a photograph with no release.

 

I have briefly looked at the data on RAW files, but have no idea if you can program your camera to add a copyright notice to the data, being the old guy on the block. Only digital wedding I did was scanned Tiff files from the negatives at processing.

 

That may change when I hear what is available in newest equipment this fall, but I do not think I want to shoot a wedding with an M8, it took me a long time to let go of MF for wedding photography. ;-)

 

Regards, John

[fotografz]

It is interesting to see the amount of folks who would willingly give up the RAW files despite a contract to the contrary.

 

It's just bad business done for the sake of convenience.

 

It's also just another indicator of photographers rights being eroded ... and the slope being made slipperier by laziness and apathy.

 

"It's no big deal" ... "give it up and get over it." "Who cares, it's just photography."

 

The work becomes more and more of a commodity when even the people who do the work don't seem to care, and think little of what they

produce.

 

The less special it becomes, the less valuable it becomes.

[chris_werner]

I got worn out reading responses, so forgive me if this was said, but I would tell them that you are not in principle opposed to providing them, but that that is a discussion that can only take place once the contracted transaction has been completed. You have performed per the contract, and now it's their turn to perform per the contract, i.e., pay up.

 

If you're ok giving the RAWs for free, then commit to doing so once they have paid the contract amount. I'd even put it in writing. If you're not, try to find some examples of pricing that they can independently verify (and maybe even point them to the information) and stipulate you will provide them at that price, and haggle over payment terms (e.g., 50% up front if you still don't trust them).

 

If they hold fast and say they won't pay until they actually have the files, then that just shows you'll never see the money either way. If you worry about damage reputation from people who violate your contract, you'll spend your whole life worrying. People that behave like that end up not being associated with or being listened to people by people who behave properly, so you won't really end up losing anything even if they try to trash you.

 

Good luck.

[keith_anderson7]

Louis, the "scam" part doesn't implicate photographers who shoot weddings (not lock stock and barrel anyway), so for the record I'd like to restate that there are some who appear to take advantage of the clients by promising a low fee with a terrible print package bundled in, but then overcharge for reprints or enlargements (or whatever else they ask for) that seems extremely unfair. My sister had such a photographer shoot her wedding and a $3000 bill turned into them requesting another $1500 for a few more prints than their package included, which was really really overpriced. The pros who shot my wedding charged a lot but the package included a very reasonable set of images printed, and then negatives delivered at the same time.

 

It sounds like you're not one of the people who rip off clients so its not directed at you. But there are lots who aren't as fair as others and for them I stand by my statement that it's a scam.

[William Michael]

And my view on the philosophy of it, with respect to Wedding Photography:

 

I do not sell negatives from a Wedding.

 

As to other Wedding Photographers choosing to give away or sell the RAW files: when I started, there were those

who shot a Wedding for $99 and that included all the negatives. Now I am NOT implying that anyone who supplies

RAW files is a bargain basement photographer . . . this conversation has moved way beyond the original question:

 

I am commenting upon the general practice of selling / giving the (digital) negatives, and also commenting, it is my

opinion that many of the Bargain Basement and / or Rip and Burn Photographers have this practice . . . and I am

saying that there were those who did that way back . . . and predominately they were also in the bargain basement

businesses.

 

In business, there is Reality and there is the Perception of Reality. And mostly the potential client categorises,

(rightly or wrongly) when they are choosing product or service.

 

Let`s look at this another way: Judging from many of the posts on this website, there are those who refer to

themselves as ``Wedding Photographers`` and, from the work posted and the questions asked, they do not know

how to flash fill or what DoF is, and how an aperture change might affect both.

 

So moving out to the bigger fish bowl of Potential Clients (the General Public), we will always have the Advanced

Amateur Groom, (or Bride), who has a wiz-bang 68microwatt camera and is has an A++ rating in Picasa. He (or she)

will know heaps more than the Pro, and basically initially resents the fact that money has to be paid to a pro, in the

first place.

 

So to placate that, he wants that ``little bit more than everyone else gets``, so she can get that ``something for

nothing`` . . . in the case of Wedding Photography, it might be the negs to print as many prints as he likes, for next

to nothing in cost or, it might be just to stroke the ego and to play for hours on the computer.

 

Is there harm in that? IMO: No.

 

Am I in the business of having that type of customer? No.

 

IMO, if it is in the Business`s Strategy to be: Particular, Elite and Special, and to command prices (not necessarily

higher) and to attract a certain TYPE of client, because (some of) the differentiators are: Quality; Identity and

Uniqueness, then it will really be a more difficult battle, firstly even win the client in the first instance; and secondly to

command any higher prices, or to wear the mantle of elite, or artwork, if the ``negatives`` are part of the deal. I am not

saying it is impossible, I am just

saying IMO it is very much more difficult.

 

Did the practice of selling all the negs for $99 erode Photographer`s rights 30 years ago? I do not think so.

 

But, do I agree with the philosophy of Marc Williams when he wrote: if the work becomes less special and more of a

commodity the work becomes less valuable: and, by inference the less that can be charged for it, and also it is

perceived to be the ``norm`` for sale.

 

And I also agree with his implication, (I assume), that some of that ``devaluation`` latches onto the whole profession.

 

But I still think that there are many, many clients who realize, or are open enough to be shown, that devaluation and

norm shifts might be peculiar to specific sectors or types of businesses, and that those businesses might not be the

most suitable to Photograph their Wedding: even if that is only a perception and not reality, many prospects still

make decisions upon initial categorizations / impressions.

 

The bottom line is, IMO: The more Businesses which cluster or are identified with the norm and any subsequent

devaluation in the norm, the easier it is in depressed times to make a living, if one`s business is not in those sectors.

 

WW

[welshboy1974]

I don't see what you have to lose to be honest, the price of a blank dvd and a little time to copy the files over. I would not find this to be an issue. Anything for an easy life.

 

LJ

[neilambrose]

<p><em> don't see what you have to lose to be honest, the price of a blank dvd and a little time to copy the files over. I

would not find this to be an issue. Anything for an easy life.</em></p>

 

<P>And that is a perfect way to sum up what's wrong with wedding photography today. Plenty of people have cameras.

Few know how to use them. Fewer still have have any inherent respect for themselves and their clients.</p>

[daverhaas]

I keep hearing that by giving away or selling RAW Images you're in effect parting with the digital "negative".

 

IMO - Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Why?

 

1. For the uninitiated to film (yes, there are some) the negative was a one of a kind, unique piece of celluloid. Yes, I could have a copy of it made, but chances are, unless I had a pro lab setup at home (and not many of us did) it would be an expensive process to have a lab make copies of our negatives. Digital Raw: It takes me no more or less time relatively speaking to burn a raw file to cd then it does a high quality JPEG.

 

2. A good PhotoShop user can do as much damage or good to a high res jpeg file as they can to a raw file. For the uninformed in CS3 / Elements 6.0 you can do an "Open As" on a JPEG and get the same window as if you had opened a raw image. What do you lose in the translation? A few bits of data, perhaps some range, and exposure lattatude, but for most it's really not going to matter.

 

3. What about those who don't shoot in "RAW" in the first place? Yes, I know, I'm borderline hearsay here, but there are quite a few shooters, who for whatever reason shoot everything in JPEG (even in JPEG Normal - GASP!). So, what about them? Are they giving up their "Digital Negative" since the only file they have is a JPEG?

 

4. Everyone here is making an assumption that RAW means "unprocessed", as is out of the camera. Last time I checked, I could open a RAW image in PS and edit it to my little heart's content, and then save it as a "RAW". What's to stop someone from doing this? By giving RAW in this case, are they still giving up their digital negatives?

 

5. Somehow by giving up the RAW file as opposed to a high quality JPEG you're making photography a commodity and cheapening it? Please, folks.... Giving up or selling any image in any format other than print would put you into this category for reasons 1-4. There have been many threads here about the practice of selling or including digital image files of weddings at all. Bottom line is that when you give over ANY digital file, in any format, you lose all control over it.

 

The bottom line is that giving up digital files is a business decision. Some customers want the digital images, some could care less about them. Some want prints, others want digital to be able to share quickly, easily and economically with their families and friends.

 

Personally - I include a copy of the JPEG (hi-res) in my wedding package. As stated earlier in this thread, if a couple asks I will give them TIF. (the word JPEG is in my contract). I haven't yet had a couple ask for RAW. I also inform couples upfront why a print from me costs what it does. It costs more than going to the neighborhood store, since I color correct, crop, edit, etc... each print. The extra cost to them is time that they would have to spend doing this, if they wanted pro-quality prints.

 

Dave

[damian_tinsley]

Never mind all the contractual stuff - I think people get way too tied up in what 'the contract' says. At the end of the

day, if I engage an electrician or plumber to come and do some work for me, and they turn up a day late, they've

technically voided the contract. Am I going to terminate the thing just because I can? Almost certainly not.

 

There's been a lot of advice about going aggressive, or going passive - either way you're reacting to this guy who is

being difficult. My 2 pence worth is to decide what you would have done if he had asked for the RAW files as part of

the original contract. If you would have said 'yes' then hand them over with a smile, and reap the benefits from the

goodwill & publicity saying "...I don't normally do this, but as I want you to remember your special day with nothing

but great memories, yadda yadda yadda...". Perhaps he is being an a-hole right now, but the chances are the guy

doesn't see it like this himself. If you would have said 'no' to a request like this in the first place, then decide if you're

willing to do it anyway. If yes, then see solution one. If no then tell him/her to get stuffed and to pay up as they are

obliged to.

 

I haven't ever been in your exact position, but in any conflict situation, I generlly try to work out what's the best

outcome for me, and I really try to keep any views on the behaviour of another individual out of that decision. When I

forget to do this the result is nearly always worse (for me) - short-lived satisfaction has more than once meant a

longer time reflecting that the smart thing to have done would have been to go the other way. This has applied

equally to times when I gave in and felt I shouldn't have, as to times I was a hardball and regretted it later.

 

Try to imagine dispassionately how you'll feel looking back on your actions in a year's time, and go with whatever

makes you feel good. Remember you hold the whip hand here - you have made good on your contract, the B&G are

seeking to change it post the event. It's YOUR choice, that ought to make you feel good if nothing else does!

 

Take care and I hope it works out for the best

 

Damian

[DickArnold]

Look, my friend, I have done a lot of weddings. I most always gave in in disagreements like this. No skin off my nose in the long run. However, just as I did recently, maybe it would be smart to withhold the commercial use rights to the pictures and specifically, and in writing, state that under current law you retain the copyright and release them for his personal use only and any other use had to be approved in writing by you. I had a busy season each year and did not want to get bogged down in disputes with the customer. I came from a tough military background and had to leave my macho behind when I started doing weddings. Aggravation is not good for the soul particularly when the worst case analysis shows little ultimate harm in giving in. Good luck to you.

[john_h.1]

>>>many here that feels as if a client can demand this request and see it as being perfectly fine... ...in doing so, you are not in control of your business and.. ...your ability to grow a succesful buisness will be time limited... ...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.

 

It is interesting to see the amount of folks who would willingly give up the RAW files despite a contract to the contrary. It's just bad business done for the sake of convenience. It's also just another indicator of photographers rights being eroded ... and the slope being made slipperier by laziness and apathy. "It's no big deal" ... "give it up and get over it." "Who cares, it's just photography."<<<

 

Those who suggest letting the client obtain the raw files here are not generally recommending poor business practices or causing the erosion of the photography business. This is an isolated situation where standing firm on "principle" may not be worthwhile in this particular instance where most of the fee has been paid. Indeed, strict unwavering adherence to rights and principles can, at times, be bad business practice. A decision one way or another in this instance is a matter of practicality, not the ability to control a business overall.

 

We can blame the client fully for the situation but there are many industries where the abundance of these at fault clients make it prudent for the provider to get paid fully before the client can get the benefit of fully delivered services. Wedding photography is one of them. Updating contracts and business practices to adress these things is key as well. Figuring out when practicality outweighs asserting rights for the mere sake of asserting rights is another attribute of sound business operation. So often a business owner will expend great wasted time and effort and double or triple the money there are owed because its sooo important that the wrong be made right. A folly when it comes to business. The original poster is in the best position to make a determination as to whether this one event will create or justify that amount of assertion of a particular right.

[fotografz]

David Hass ... there is a huge difference between a RAW file and a processed jpg or tiff.

 

RAW files can be totally restored to the original "as shot" file ... and any post application of the photographer's vision and finesses is gone.

Jpgs and tiffs cannot be reverted to the original, once

closed and saved to a storage medium and provided to a client.

 

I don't know many folks who don't do some post work on RAW files prior to converting to jpgs or tiffs. Some do it more than others, but the

concept is the same ... part of the photographers vision

is applied after the shoot. IMO, if you remove that, you are tampering with the work. Only the photographer has the right to do that unless

they sign over that right to someone else.

 

BTW, saving out a corrected file as a Photoshop RAW isn't the same as the original RAW file from the camera. In reality, it's not much

different than saving as a tiff. Try opening a jpg saved as a PS-RAW file in Adobe Camera RAW.

[daverhaas]

Marc -

 

You are correct in saying that one can't get back to the original once it's saved in Tif or Jpg. But they can sure try and they can also do other things to the images.

 

And by providing the client with images in any format, I'm in effect "signing over that right".

 

In the end, it all comes down to a business model and a business decision. If I want to maintain 100% or as close to it control over my images, I don't provide them to the client in any format. If I assume good intent of the client and give them a copy of the images (in whatever format) then that's a decision (business) one.

 

Dave

[Mark Keefer]

When I got married in 1985 I paid for the photos I wanted, and at the end I was offered the small proof's for an

extra $100 of every shot. Getting the negatives was never an option. Today 23 years later I would love to have

the negatives or even get some larger photos made. I am no longer just starting out in life and I can afford the

cost of a better photo package. If the photographer was still alive and still had the negs I would pay for some

more photos or offer money for the negs. As it is the photographer never made any more off these negs and I will

never have the opportunity to get them or any new prints.

 

My point is if you made your money off the wedding shoot, either give him the raws or sell them to him for a

little extra. I don't know how your contract was written. It can go either way, it is not unreasonable for a

photographer to want to make more money later by selling more photos down the line and if you give up the raws

you are guaranteed to not make any more money so you expect a little extra cash.

 

But you need to set these rules up in the contract before and not after the job. That way the couple knows what

they signed up for.

 

Now your decision is do want to get a reputation of being a really cool photographer to work with or a prick.

 

The raw files mean nothing to you sentimentally, if you keep them you may take them to the grave with you and

never make another cent or you can make your customers really happy and if nothing more, make good karma. This

was one wedding job, not worth having someone bad mouth you for the next 25 years.

 

In making up the rules for next time, consider different priced packages. Prices with several photo packages with

and without raw files or they may buy the raw files at a later date. Make sure the couple is aware of the rules

going into the agreement.

 

Good luck and do the right thing.

[david_f._stein]

"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. "

 

Yes, this is what I find interesting. In the old days, it was my understanding that a wedding, portrait or commercial photographer would NEVER release film negatives to a client. Now, it seems that digital files are released to clients. Once can do a lot even with high res JPEG. It seems contracts must cover all contingencies.

[neilambrose]

<p><em>Today 23 years later I would love to have the negatives or even get some larger photos made. I am no longer

just starting out in life and I can afford the cost of a better photo package. If the photographer was still alive and still had

the negs I would pay for some more photos or offer money for the negs. As it is the photographer never made any more

off these negs and I will never have the opportunity to get them or any new prints.</em></p>

 

<P>It's not the same argument. In the case of film photography you needed the negatives to get larger files made, or to

get prints other than those you purchased. It's an irrelevant consideration in this case. The client already has all the

digital images (in JPG format) at full resolution. Getting the raw files will not add value to the client - they won't have

more pictures and they won't get bigger prints.</p>

 

<p>What they will get, however, is the ability to reverse (not change) the photographer's interpretation of the image. In

other words, to remove the value added by the photographer as a creative instrument, and reduce him to a mechanical

extension of the camera. No more than a mere button presser. And once that happens (and is allowed to happen) then

there won't be any concept of professional photography as a craft.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

If the couple is crafty a "raw" file allows one to make a better print than a jpeg; like when the wedding dress is overexposed and abit blocked up in the highlights.

[neilambrose]

<p><em>f the couple is crafty a "raw" file allows one to make a better print than a jpeg; like when the wedding dress is

overexposed and abit blocked up in the highlights.</em></p>

 

<p>I'd hope that would never happen. It would mean that the photographer was less skilled than the client.</p>

[pclancy]

Mountains out of moe hills. Give them your normal edited JPEGs and then give them the RAWs as well. No risk of

image misinterpretation/misrepresentation and a happy customer. And the fix your contract so there's no balance

hanging out there after you've delivered images...yikes.

[jay_ryser1]

If nothing else, this thread has been very educational. And nothing like making a mistake to learn to do things better from now on.

 

This discussion may be moot, however. If you follow this link you'll discover that professional wedding photography is dead.

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WEDDING-PHOTOGRAPHY-FOR-BEGINNERS-INCLUDES-CAMERA_W0QQitemZ220274291059QQihZ012QQcategoryZ712QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[hassy501]

If giving the RAW images is NOT in your contract, you are under no obligation to GIVE them and your client cannot use that as an excuse NOT to pay you......that's just plain ridiculous.

 

I NEVER give the raw files........i provide edited hi res jpeg files.........never raw.........

 

Do what you are contractually bound to do........and don't let this client pressure you to do what he wants........

 

Saying he won't pay the balance until you provide the RAW files is black mail..............

 

And, in the future, make sure you get fully paid 30 days prior to the event.........that's a standard industry practice, and it will prevent situations like this in the future.

[darrengold]

There are two separate issues here and they should be kept separate.

 

Firstly it would appear that you have fulfilled your part of the contract. You must now get paid in full before any negotiations are made for extra services - unless of course you don't want to get paid for those as well. I would suggest that you write to them (everything from now on should be in writing) explaining that you have fulfilled the service they contracted you for and you must receive full and final payment before you are in a position to consider provision of the RAW files.

 

Providing the RAW files is a business decision only. If you think they are of future financial value to you in the long term, having already provided them with high res jpgs then keep them. If you think that the client intends to work on them to obtain prints by creating new images that you could do for him, but he can do for free for himself then sell them to him. Personally I wouldn't give them away. That is your third option. Those RAW images are the essence of your profession and should not be considered worthless. If they didn't have some value the client wouldn't want them would he? Do not consider your skills and abilities as valueless. As a professional, dollars per hour is now only part of the consideration. So many people underestimate the time, expense and pure unremunerated sweat that went into you being as good as you are now. Now it's payday.

 

I would also think about some of the advice given above regarding payment in full prior to the event. Ask yourself this, if you had got paid in full before the event would you now be giving away the RAW's on request. No of course not!

 

As far as future referrals are concerned most people referred to you will be of a similar ilk to those that recommended you. Birds of a feather......etc. Your best referrals will always come from your best clients. You can and must still stay professional over this issue, and stand firm. There is a difference.

 

Cheers.

[StuartMoxham]

I think it is worth to remember that the groom is a keen amature photographer. You can thank sites like this for educating people about the value of RAW files. Most of the keen amatures on here shoot their holiday snap in RAW . Most would never through away their RAW files and keep only their finnished JPGs because many will say that the quality of RAW converters is improving so the RAW file has the potentional to provide better quality with the next development of RAW converters. Some won't even convert to JPG they convert to 16 bit TIF because JPG is an 8 bit lossy format and they don't want to though away any precious image information. Lastly they print on expensive paper with pigment inks and look at the print with a loupe. They compare everything at 100% zoom in photoshop without ever thinking just how big the print would be to see those minute differences in details. Now when they pay a professional wedding photographer and are given JPG files you could imagine what they think they consider JPGs to be poor quality with lols of information just thrown away. Why would they want that from the most important day of their life when they would not use JPGs for snaps. You only need to look around some of the other forums to see that kind of thinking.

My personal opinion is JPGs are just fine but once you have made the decision to give away image files does it really matter what format they are in. If they have high res JPG files I doubt they would really be ordering any prints.

[William Michael]

I think that Stuart Moxham`s makes good points and his suggested description of the Groom, is at the other end of the spectrum, to my suggested description.

 

I thinks the real ``Groom``, (the one David photographed); and his skill levels; and what he does with the RAW files; will be somewhere between the description Stuart gave, and the description I gave.

 

It would be very interesting to know the Groom`s actual motivation. There has been quite a lot of speculation on that subject. and David Myles has not made any comment in that regard.

 

It is usually much easier to make correct / best decisions, when the ``why`` is known and understood.

 

Why do you think the Groom is asking for the RAW files, David?

 

WW