Client editing their own images?

[j_g21]

<p>I have received a request for a price on a wedding where they only want the raw photos, and to edit their own images. I feel a little uncomfortable about this idea, because editing is really what my passion is and I feel like it is a part of my work. I sort of feel like I would be taking a risk in giving them the images to edit and do what they want with... A DVD of all edited high res images is inclued with every collection I offer, however it would feel completely different to just give them the untouched SOOC photos. Does anybody have experience in this or any advice or direction they can give me in answering their inquiry? I am not decided either way and really would appreciate some input. </p>

<p>Thank you~!</p>

<p> </p>

[Ray House]

<p>I have had the experience and I said NO. With that said, if the client has good editing skills and can do a good job I might say yes. My client just wanted to save money and had little to no editing skills.</p>

[alexacatalin]

<p>Same here!<br>

I also said No.</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>I don't offer unprocessed photos. Occasionally I am asked for them, but I just say no.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>If you give them jpegs, can't they just edit them anyway? RAW would be useful for easy color balance or under/overexposure, but they can still take the jpegs and tweedle with them and do things like sepia/whatever. I don't see that RAW is where the real editing is. <br>

My day job is a professional violinist. I wouldn't give out studio takes and let people edit my performances as they see fit. </p>

[rt_jones]

<p>I think most couples would be surprised to see our before and after versions. Personally, I'd prefer they didn't see a lot of my "before" pics. Other than the formals, just about everything I take needs some kind of PP beyond fixing white balance.</p>

<p>My feeling is they booked you based on viewing your non-RAW portfolio so that's what you're selling. I'm not a training ground for aspiring photoshoppers looking for material to practice on.</p>

<p>Tell them you can't have 2 different versions of your work floating around - everything you do is unique and "one of a kind".</p>

[booray]

<p>Then there's the other side of the argument that asks the question, "How much are you willing to pay for "artistic integrity." Basically, you're paying whatever you would have made from that wedding so that someone else doesn't edit images you took<em> for their own use.</em> I guess the argument can be made that you might not get a referral from un-retouched images but I <em>guarantee </em>you won't get a referral if you don't shoot the wedding.<br>

So, the choice is to swallow your pride, make $2000 (or whatever) and have a happy client who might refer you.... or.... stand your ground, lose $2000 (unless you can book the date with someone else) and any chance of a referral.<br>

For the record, I would probably say "no" if the wedding was a year out. But inside 6 months, I'd say "yes" and bank the coin. You'll never get more business by sitting at home on Saturday.<br>

I wouldn't discount my price.</p>

[katrin_d.]

<p>My answer is always no. My name will be associated with the final product and I don't know what they're going to turn it into and who is going to see it and assume it was me who edited the files. Booray makes a valid point as well but I think we all draw the line of what we will and will not do somewhere and that's the one I have drawn for myself - no unedited files leave the house and if I shouldn't be able to book that date, I'll be enjoying that one rare Saturday off.<br>

Just out of curiosity: have you asked them why they want the unedited files? To save money, to put their own creative touch on them or have somebody else do it?</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I don't have a problem selling the RAW image, if I know the client knows what to do with them. I've photographed weddings for other photographers or graphic artists, who do know what to do with them. Accordingly I don't have strong feelings about seeing images I shot turned into something I personally wouldn't do.</p>

<p>You might do some searches, because this question has been asked several times before. You will get a variety of answers, most of them being on the 'no' end. This is up to you, basically. Doesn't matter what others do.</p>

[jc5066]

<blockquote>

<p><em>editing is really what my passion is and I feel like it is a part of my work"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems you've already answered this.<br>

Just as a client has the right to chose you, you have the right to chose, or not, the client.</p>

[j_g21]

<p>I have to say THANK YOU for all of your answers! This is my first time using the forum and it is very nifty, I am so happy with the feedback I will have to ask more questions more often. To point some quick things out, I agree with everything you all have said... I do feel like my business is based on the end result of my photography. What is delivered to the client is the finished JPEG file which was processed as Raw to JPEG, and edited accordingly to my liking. I take pride in my work... which is only improving every day. I am probably going to say no to them, because as somebody pointed out, it is over a year from now, and I probably will be able to book a different client that will be less "tricky". I have no idea if they have experience in editing or anything like that. I feel like they would consider the photos THEIR work and not mine, once they edited them.. and who knows how horrible they could look in the end, even if it was a perfect SOOC shot. In fact, I have not emailed them back yet, they sent it yesterday and I wanted to get input before I responded from others like you. <br>

I would not feel comfortable with my photos out there as a result of somebody else's edits. It just would not feel natural to me and I would sort of feel a little "violated". So I will say no to them. But I do have one more question for you all before I respond. <br>

Does anybody have advice on how to say no, and some good wording on what the reasoning is to allow them to understand a bit more without being completely offended?<br>

Thanks!</p>

[picturesque]

<p>Just be completely honest and explain nicely exactly how you feel--not the part about being 'violated' of course, but everything else. If they are offended, then they may not be the kind of clients you want.</p>

[savagesax]

Never for me. Part of shooting in RAW is the images become part of you as you adjust them to your visual artistic style. Who knows what people will do with your creative wedding images once you hand over the unedited photo's. Wedding couples need to trust you.

[craig_gillette]

<p>Once you deliver files, they will be able to do their own creating. Doesn't matter the type of file nor does it really matter much their ability level. (Nor does it mean that they can't scan and work off prints either.) It's only a fairly short period of time before the pics get boxed or the files cease getting viewed except rarely even for those water-walking pros. I think some people greatly over estimate the impact that someone else printing the files will have on their professional reputation.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that any delivered files will be looked at on a wide variety of monitors that are not even remotely close to calibrated or consistent. If you want substantially more control over prints, make it worth their while to purchase prints from you with an inviting pricing plan.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p> RANT ON</p>

<p>OK; I will hit the Hornets Nest and Put on my flak jacket too in this rant! :</p>

<p>In printing and dealing with the public I can say it is about normal that folks want the full images to play with; crop; change; to print at home or send to a printer.</p>

<p>In a way it is like if they want the negatives back in the pure film era.</p>

<p>Today everybody and his brother prints at home and is an expert; and some of us that started with Photostyler 20 years ago are dolts.</p>

<p>*****You have to weigh the total loss or reprint income and possibly your work will be viewed as poor if you just give them a CD/DVD..</p>

<p>Your client might have other uses for their images; and if you are too rigid too; they often will find a person not stuck in a time warp.</p>

<p>Actually many photographers also think they are instant expert too. It is common to get a CD/DVD were the images are all taged at 72 dpi; and the dumb photographer still has the full bore full pixel versions of the files.</p>

<p>The client has the added sense of what the colors look like of the dresses; thus even if the first pass is wrong they can close the loop around the way they want it.I actually get jobs like this;; to correct the wedding photographers poor prints; ie the dress has the wrong hue; ie basic stuff that ticks off the bride. IF mom of the bride has cataracts; she might want more goosed saturation; since cataracts add yellow; thus I might have to add more blue for grandma's print.</p>

<p>******In a past era some of us NEVER showed a client all out shots; we culled out the duds.</p>

<p>Today in printing the reason YOU are often viewed as a poor photographer has nothing to do with this print control issue. (Folks are MAD that the CD you gave them has (1) a great pose and expression; but it is out of focus.) ie you shoot yourself in the foot by giving clients sub par images; thus they go to others for use to try to fix them; which can be impossible. BUT we do hear the bitching; whining "what the image could be"; if the photographer did not screw up.</p>

<p>Showing poor duds was once considered bad practice in the 1960's/1970's; but today seems to be more common.</p>

<p>I get clients in printing who thinks somehow I have a magical Harry Potter black box top fix these poor images. I ask myself ; these folks must be nuts; you give out to a client a shot that just ticks them off; great pose'; poor image.</p>

<p>Im am not sure if the release of these marginal images is due to being lazy; or a lack of backbone; you let the client push you around. It is a common issue; B&G want the image that should have never been shown to them FIXED.</p>

<p>Try culling out more of the duds before burning a CD/DVD to a client; there will be less talking behind you back.</p>

<p>RANT OFF</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>There really is no end to the goofy stuff your clients will do with that CD/DVD of images.</p>

<p>Some will go and print out a mess of 4x6 prints; then glue stick them on foam core; add macaroni border; paint the border gold; glue on Gulf War medals; glue on bus tickets; winning hIgh school football articles; etc.</p>

<p>Then they bring in to be this 30x40" "memory board" that they want a copy of for their relatives. B&G's parents might spend 3 months on this wedding memory board; that even has vertical tiny flags. It is so thick it will not go through a scanner; to make a copy I have to use my 35 or 50 megapixel phase one back on a 4x5" camera; then make a giant inkjet copy; or smaller 11x17's; or a PDF.</p>

<p>Folks want images on T shirts; mouse pads; hats; coffee cups; reduced size images for the web.</p>

<p>There is even a market to make readable CD's; that drag and drop CD you made with VISTA cannot be read on a 2006 Imac or Win2000; or half the XP boxes on the planet</p>

<p>. All of these things ticks of receivers of theses CD's; disc cannot be read; cannot open raw; images are too big ( no smaller versions); your CD/DVD wants to install some autorun software/manure and it crashed/ruined their grandparents computer; or B&G's computer.</p>

<p>Thus If I get a CD ytaht is dragged and dropped with VISTA; teh B&G's Imac duo from 2006 with Tiger cannot read it. Thus we take the disc and copy it over with a make a user friendly CD; and often remove the autorun stuff, adaware.</p>

<p>It ticks folks off to get a CD/DVD that cannot be read; if you go into denial mode; they justt go to a place that makes a more user friendly CD; one openable with XP; Tiger; the grandparents old Win2000 box. The whole world does not like farting around with futzing.</p>

<p>Some client only really want some dumb proofs to send to the grandparents; you make a contact sheet of say 20 images and print them on my 11x17 machine for nothing. B&G send grandparents the many 11x17 sheets; since the photographer only gave out a disc; and the grandparents really want some easyn to llok at to choose the enlargements stuff.</p>

[j_g21]

<p>It seems to me that the conversation is veering a little off topic... I am beginning to get a little confused by the latest responses... I don't ever deliver poor images. And I do give a DVD of their finished images with each collection. But that includes the final touches, and I am not willing to give a "discount" to someone who wants to edit their own photos just to save a buck.<br>

So that was my original question, have you gotten asked this before, what did you say if you were, and how should I say no without insulting them?<br>

Thanks again for your input</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>You can just tell them you don't deliver all of the RAW files. You work to deliver product that meets a certain level of quality and that requires a certain level of time and effort. There are others who may choose to deliver the out of the camera shots but that doesn't allow you to ensure your desired level of quality. That effort and the quality results are reflected in your pricing. Thank them for their interest.</p>

<p>Don't tell them that you won't compromise your quality to save them a buck. Keep in mind that no matter what you deliver, files or prints, ultimately the viewing and the fiddling are out of your control.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Giving them straight camera raw files is like giving them undeveloped film. Is that what you want? Or, will you at least "develop" your 'film' and give them properly exposed and color calibrated & corrected raw files with only the Keepers?</p>

[ed_te_pas]

<p>I won't even give them jpg's either. Prints and albums is my business.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Jessica -- Your last post is exactly what you should tell your potential clients, perhaps slightly rephrased....like this:<br>

I produce and deliver a DVD of images with every package I sell. I do not deliver the RAW image of every shot I take at the wedding. I only deliver finished jpegs that meet the quality standards I have set forth in my portfolio. The images I deliver are, at a minimum, color corrected to produce optimum results on the majority of photo printers and monitors out there. My base package is $xxxx, and that includes ... ... ... and a DVD of images... ... ... </p>

<p>You can feel free to word your response in any way you would like. Don't give up on the sale yet, just explain what they will get and why they will get it that way. Some people consider RAW IMAGES just full sized, corrected jpegs. You never know until you explain what you do and they explain their expctations.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p> </p>

[fuccisphotos]

<ul>

<li>I would mostly say, no, but find out more about the person. First find out if they know what they are even talking about. Do they have the right software to process your RAW files. I find many of the brides are throwing out terms that they've read on forums that they aren't really sure what it means. I had someone write me the other day that they want photojournalism, and formals are the most important thing, that they want lots of posed formals. No joke, exactly that. So when someone is asking for the RAW images, they may mean just hi-res jpegs that they can play with on their own or print out at the local CVS. </li>

<li>Second, once I find out why they want them, then I'd see if it makes sense. While I didn't ask for the RAW images as a bride, I wish I'd at least have had the option to access some of them. For some of my favorite photos from our wedding, unfortunately highlights were blown so there was very little detail showing up in the image of my highly detailed dress. Consequently, to get that detail back I had to do some real photoshop magic, cloning and healing in bits and pieces from other images that weren't as overexposed. My job would have been FAR simpler if they would have released the RAW image for that particular image. </li>

<li>So perhaps if you find out that yes, they have knowledge of this type of issue, and this is why (not cost) they want the RAW images, then maybe be willing to bend a little and say, after you receive the DVD of the images, if there are specific images you are concerned about and would like to have the full 20MB+ RAW file, then you will let them have it at a specific cost. </li>

<li>Also if someone gives you the line of my videographer gives me the raw footage why don't you? Don't fall for it. Editing video is also a talent, but handing over raw uncut video footage is vastly different from handing over your RAW files without them having any processed images to use as well.</li>

</ul>

[juanita_ramirez]

<p>I give a handful of tweaked JPGs, and the other full-resolution JPGs. I also give full resolution, RAW images. Yep. That's because I take images out of the camera that are (surprise surprise) properly exposed, and in focus. If they aren't perfect they never even see the light of day. I'm not afraid to let them keep RAW files for posterity. I don't want to responsibility the come up with their RAW files in 40 years. That's their deal.</p>

<p>It surprises me that people who have been in the industry for a long time use post-production as such a crutch. Anyone who has been shooting weddings for real money for more than 2 years should have very very little to do in terms of color correction. They should have next-to-nothing to do with exposure correction. They should be culling out any out-of-focus images.</p>

<p>You're free to hold back your RAW images, and you should if your RAW images reflect poorly on you, but I honestly think that every photographer should be striving to get to the point where they feel comfortable giving the (sorted out for bad ones, obviously) RAW images to a client with almost no post-production. What people call "art" today (speaking of post production work) people in 20 years will think of as gimmicky at best, and as pure garbage at worst. Now, I recognize that you make your money today, but I am honestly floored to see people who have been in the industry such a long time who seem to think they can't produce a decent image without tweaking the colors and exposure.</p>

<p>I also think that a lot of post-production work makes your photos incredibly dated. If they have the RAW images they can reprint the files again in 10 or 20 years when they realize that vintage backgrounds and yellow skies are really lame. There's a lot of reasons to not give away your RAW images, but I thought I'd give you one why you should.</p>

[fuccisphotos]

<p>Juanita, giving them the RAW images saying they can reprint them in 10-20 years assumes that the profiles for reading those RAW images will still be around. JPEG is at least a standard format. I wouldn't give it to them, likely on a DVD, and say sure in 10-20 years you can change these up. I agree with you on overly gimmicky post-processing though.  Spot color I'm sure will eventually be as dating on photos as headbands (on foreheads) on brides in the 80s are.<br>

So in those cases, give the client both the original color shot and the post processed shot. Black and white and Sepia I feel are fairly timeless though.</p>

[ar_fonseca]

<p>I get asked about this at least monthly, and I tell brides to buy the CD package and do whatever it is you want with the images, (I can't control what they do with files in the privacy of their own home anyways) and the rest of details are in the contract.<br>

I still sell them something that makes me a profit without giving away the business, since they don't get the disc until 90 days after the wedding.</p>