You've photographed a commercial client, they select several images, but want all the unedited versions for a symbolic price. Obviously, you did a good job at shooting, but what about the negotiations in that case?
Client's Point of View
From the client's perspective, you have a bunch of files on your hard drive that stay unedited. You probably edit them with a single click of a special button and thus overcharge for every image that is chosen. The client decides to purchase some of the images for the campaign or the project, but likes all of them and tells you that they won't be used officially. Knowing there are Instagram filters, they think they can manage the unedited versions somehow, so their faces and body look "acceptable." Some of the unofficial images will be published on the social networks, others will be printed for friends and relatives.
Event Photographer's Point of View
If you are a photographer who covers a lot of events, you know that detailed retouching of all of the images is not something you would normally do. Sometimes, you might retouch several selected files for a negotiated price, but that will be it. As you are covering an event, you are usually giving all images that look good for a package price. If that is the case, it's fine to give away the "unretouched" images (although the images will have basic color correction applied), but probably not at a price different than your regular one.
Commercial Portrait Photographer's Point of View
During those photoshoots, everything is directed and scripted. The delivered portraits are expected to have a polished commercial look. In such projects, you end up with sets of tens or hundreds of images. From these sets, there are many images that are similar, and the goal is to select a small number of them that will be used for business purposes such as headshots for a website or a business card, portraits for posters or magazines, and others. Unless there is a multi-page spread in a magazine, the images that are often put to use number just one or two.
Price
In the commercial portraits world, files are treated like physical objects. The more places you see that object, the more the usage rights or licensing will cost. If the image is going to be seen by a large audience, this means a more expensive licensing fee. It's almost imperative that your files are attached to a usage fee. Speaking of that, retouching fee should be separate from the usage rights. Imagine you work with an agency who has a team of image editors. If your files cost only your retouching fee, you should be giving them for free to the agency. However, when usage rights are involved, your files, retouched or not, should cost an amount as well.
Quality Control
In the case with the agency that wants the unedited versions of your images, you know that they are probably "in good hands." It is not always the best outcome, but in theory, your images will end up polished at their final destination. If a client wants them for their personal archive, this is where your brand's image may be affected. When you work on a commercial portraits project, you are not photographing for a family album, but for business use. The client doesn't think much of your brand when they start editing the images by themselves. At the end, they will show them to their friends, family, and followers in the social networks. How many times have you thought it's only the retoucher's fault when you see a badly retouched image? More often than not, the perception is that the first person to blame is the photographer. It is almost for sure that your photography skills will be judged by the quality of retouching presented on that image. You understand how quality control will be totally lost and you will have hurt your brand name when you have decided to give multiple unretouched files for cheap. In the long run, this may be worse for your business than giving only the files that are going to be used officially.
What would be your reaction in such a case? Would you stick to your guns or would you have a price in mind?
Of course they made prints and cards. What did you think they were going to do with the images?
Missionaries don't need high quality photos and they have very little money to work with, so demanding any type of payment will certainly prevent future work. They have cell phones now.
You should see the homes some of these "missionaries" live in.
After careful consideration you are telling me that the fact that they are missionaries, they have the right to steal.
I think EVERYONE in this thread agrees that the answer is no. Some are saying, “everything is negotiable,” or, “everything has its price.” Some are saying, “It can be ammended in the contract for the normal fee.” They are all also saying, “my talent has value.” Therefore, they are saying, “NO,” to the premise.
The premise is that the client is asking for something not previously negotiated, for a SMALL price, since —in their minds— it has no value to the photographer. Everyone in this thread seems to be rejecting the idea that it is okay to get something for nothing, (or just a small token).
I agree with all y'all. Pay me right, you might get it, (if you still want it after being schooled), with appropriate licensing. Devalue my work, and the answer is no.
Well when you have people like this giving away a TON of unedited photos after every shoot and charges super cheap then everyone expects the same thing: https://hughesfioretti.com/entertainment-headshots/
I'd rather have a life.
My policy is to never release an unedited photo. But at the end of the day, it's all about the money.
I'd give them icon-sized images - pay peanuts get monkeys.
Sorry to be the odd one out but what happened to making the photo as much as possible "in camera"? We're losing to smartphone shooters because the turnaround is too long.
Adapt to the strategy that customers want photos instantly, even if not super edited.
We are not speaking about saving photos that were taken badly. See the photos in the lead image: normal studio quality that can be achieved easily in camera, but imperfections on the skin are yet there. Make-up can't hide them all. As these photos are close-ups of people, some want to get their imperfections toned down. This is made when carefully executing the post processing job, not applying a blur filter and saving the result. This takes time and there can't be a discount for buying more images, because the time for one and 100 images is proportional.
This whole idea of SooC being good enough is a new construct. Sure, for photojournalists getting the scoop, and publishing it a low-res newspaper, it was more than necessary, but for everyone else, developing the negatives was always only the beginning, out of necessity.
Culling, color correction, contrast correction, cropping, …and that's just the ‘C’s! No event, product, fashion, landscape, still life, abstract, street, architectural, or model portfolio photographer ever presented an image SooC in the days of film, (slide Photography notwithstanding).
Yes, getting it right in camera, in as far as possible, ought to be the target, but it is not the goal. The goal is capturing as much detail, DR, colour accuracy, sharpness, etc., so as to reduce processing/post processing margins.
As for DSC SooC JPEG JFIF, it is not without processing. That is why the camera has so many controls for JPEG output. It is pre-setting your post-process. The problem with that is that if one does not know what the normal process will produce, one does not know what post-process to pre-apply.
EXACTLY!!!
And what if the person that gets the images processes them poorly and then tells the world that you took the photos? Maybe a bit of a stretch, but it wouldn't be fun trying to clean up the mess.
That's the point of the whole article.
If youre losing business to smart phone shooters, the problem isnt turnaround time
Sorry you are going to have to look for a different photographer.
https://i.imgur.com/sMQoX48.gif
I'm with Ivan: no! The raw file is the negative; the processed image is the print. And with that, to quote Ansel Adams, "the negative is the score; the print is the performance." If a potential client asks for unedited photos, I move on.
I would charge full price - and ask not to be credited.
What is full price? Is it your creative fee, licensing fee for 3-5 years or a buyout? How many Commercial jobs have ever been credited? Editorial, yes but very rarely have I seen a Commercial job with a photo credit.
As I said earlier, I have clients that want all RAW files, they have capable Art Dept and understand that I am compensated for the additional content those files provide. As a matter of fact, I received a request for such a project on Friday and the Ad Agency didn’t bat an eye when they read my estimates.
Full price as in what you normally charge per image / licensing fee etc. Depending on what it is sometimes there are small credits. They want all raw files, they pay for them in full according to what you charge per specific project. They don't want to pay, then they don't get the rest.
ah a trigger post. you say no, photographers are paid for the creative results. unedited images look bad and may reflect bad on the photograhper.
"Commercial Portrait Photographer's Point of View"- You signed the contract, pay me.
You need to ditch these clowns.
I knew a photographer who got so fed up with all the negotiations / rewriting contracts / covering all of the possibilities / changes the day of shooting / etc. / etc. that he would tell folks who wanted to use his service that he was there to take the photographs and assure that they were of the highest quality possible. Period. He didn't care what use the client had in mind. He billed for his time solely based on an in-studio hourly rate or an out-of-studio hourly rate. And he stuck to those rates regardless of who he was shooting for or what he was shooting. Within 72 hours of the end of the assignment, he gave them two flash drives containing all of the images - the good, the bad, the indifferent - in both raw and high-quality jpeg formats. If they wanted him to process the images, fine. That was a separate rate and charged as a separate job. If they wanted to process the images, fine. Prints were a separate charge as well and handled separately. His only requirement was he could use any of the images for self-promotion. His philosophy was the customer owned the photographs, not him. And by-the-way he was pretty successful.
I always tell my client
A restaurant chef doesn't sell raw meat or uncook food
Same as photographer that doesn't sell raw images or unedited images.
Gatta educate your clients !!
nice analogy
Does a book publisher go through a writers trash can?
No, but they often do require early drafts, as well as updated drafts as the book comes together. So yes, publishers do see unedited books, they just don't publish them.
Export them the largest TIFF files possible and send them in separate emails haha.
Although I have a lot of clients who walk away with a hard drive i'm shooting to from a shoot. Not uncommon in commercial photography.
I've had ones too and they paid appropriately and were given the images, because they would give them a professional care (e.g. will give them to a professional retouching studio). In the case of this article, the payment the client wanted to pay was rather un-appropriate.
I don't edit my photos. Never do what you can do in post processing when you can do it right the first time, in camera. A photographer's skill is how they use the camera. Photo editing is something else entirely and a modern invention. It is a tool, and just because a tool exists doesn't mean you have to use it. I also give people all the photos from the shoot. It makes no sense to give them just a few.
I also find it astonishingly ridiculous and never understand how much portrait photographers charge for a simple headshot (I mean literally a point and shoot onsite, no fancy backgrounds, naturally available Light) then charge through the roof to "edit" and "per photo", not printed. This is why I don't pay people to take photos of me. You've already spent the time shooting, it's a photo of someone else, and you're paid for your time, skills and equipment so why shouldn't you give them all the photos you shot? If I were the customer I'd absolutely demand all the photos taken, because I am paying you for you to press a button (normally I'm the last person to say this about photography but for non-studio portraits, it's the case), I never edit my photos unless absolutely necessary, and if I do, I can do it myself.
Raw and film are different. I'd never give people film, but I don't mind giving them raw files. Film can be used to make unlimited reprints, just like jpegs, but ordinary clients won't know how to use raw files and even if they find someone that does, I am the photographer, not the editor: the same photo will look different when edited different ways by different people, taking the cake analogy: the baker makes the cake, it can be good or bad and burnt, and it can be edited or decorated 10 different ways by 10 different decorators. Not my problem or job in or responsibility. You can't prevent people from reprinting jpegs, like the missionary example, not giving them raw won't prevent this if the shoot was in digital.
"Photo editing is something else entirely and a modern invention." Ummmm.....so you consider what's done in a dark room not editing? Ansel Adams didn't spend hours there just to enjoy the serenity.
Hypothetical: You give a client the RAW files from a shoot and he/she decides to process them. And then, they come out looking like they were dragged behind a bus. Then, this person posts to IG or FB that you took the pictures. Oops! You'll probably get it straightened out at some point, but how much time have you spent fixing something that shouldn't have to be fixed?
I'm obviously nowhere near your skill level since I process my keepers....all of them. RAW files look lousy and I don't shoot jpeg, so....
This has to be a troll post...I don't even know where to start lol.