Handing over raw files or a full shoot seems to be a real taboo online. However, it is common practice within the commercial ranks for many reasons, some of which I will discuss here.
When I first started out in photography, I was incredibly protective of my work, and I would never have dreamed of handing over a raw file. I even went as far as putting nasty watermarks in the corners of my images. Over the years, I moved away from portrait work and toward a commercial career, shooting with ad agencies rather than the general public, although I stand by my original stance of not handing over raw files to anyone. There are a lot of times and reasons when and why you should with specific clients.
In this video, I talk about the times in which I will hand over final images in raw form as well as the times I shoot directly to a client's drive for them to walk away with the images at the end of the day. It is worth noting that I am based in the UK and that I don't have to claim the copyright on any of my images. We are awarded that at the point we hit the trigger, and handing over the raw files won't change this in any way, likewise when it comes to re-licensing images for either a time extension or a change of purpose. If the client wants to do this, even if they have the files and re-edit them, they still have to pay me, and clients here are very upfront about this and generally contact you first before doing so.
What is your stance on the matter and do you have any protocols in place to protect yourself?
I like your videos: Short and straight forward to the point! Thank you.
I never got into the position to be asked if I could provide the RAW files. I select and edit and then the client gets the final photographs. I was asked though whether I could provide all other shots which I did not select nor edit. I decline this request generally but had made a few exceptions to this. Still, in the end, the client did not choose any other photo that I suggested.
Thanks for mentioning the short length. I never watch videos because they drone on and on, so instead I look at the text and comments to get what I need. But thanks to your comment I watched this and it was good.
In the USA this is dead on arrival. It's not about being protective it's about handing over your masters. Companies love taking work from one person and then paying someone else a lot less to edit it down or remix it. Let them do that with a Tiff or jpeg.... Raw? Nope.
If I knew the creative person very well, may be in some cases, but that person may expect this service with each shoot afterward.
For test/TFP shoots, nope. Oh, hell, no.
From time to time, I second shoot for a wedding photographer friend for pay. I give him the RAWs. He does all the editing so can match them to his style and rest of the photos. I wouldn't mind more jobs like this.
I saw this scenario on one of the other forums a while back where an event organizer offered the photographer $500 for 2 hours, but, he had to turn in his cards. I would have said yes, but, charge extra for the cards. They ain't cheap, especially since I shoot with two bodies.
early on I did a project where a special waterproof sheetrock (for basements) company wanted the RAW files -no editing on my end. The final images looked like typical, bargain India editing (you know the look after you have seen enough of them). I asked the marketing person not to credit me. Lesson learned.
Typically, no. Depends on the client, but most times I've encountered this request is after everything else is done and the contract has been fulfilled. In almost all cases like that, no. I honestly can't think of one case where it was written into the contract.
Why not?
The pictures and video we shoot are our brand.
We control it.
Nobody else.
We are hired because of our brand.
We don't risk our brand by letting just anybody manipulate it.
What you do with your brand is totally your decision.
The only times I have had that request is when my image is part of a larger project. Like a car catalog where I shot a IP or Shifter for something else and they wanted it for the catalog or an ad, and it had to fit the look of the rest of the photos or layout. These are done by high end agencies with great in house retouching staff, like Scott says it is not my vision, it's theirs.
I don't see anything particularly controversial here. Back in the film days, we delivered our original transparencies to commercial clients...and and had no other copies of those particular images. If we wanted a copy for ourselves, we shot a second on the scene. The client (that is, the advertising agency) art department that would mesh the images into whatever ad campaign they were producing.
For retail photography (direct sales to end users), then, no, we kept originals and did all the necessary processing.
The "client's art department" was the critical difference between commercial photography and retail photography.