Hello All,
So I recently had a customer ask me to obatin all raw image files so that they can edit them themselves. I have gotten this request in the past and turned the customer down informing them that, that is not something our company does. Just wanted to reach out other photographers to see how others handle these types of request.
Thanks,
Jennifer
I have read its a bad practice because if the clients are not good at retouching, there goes your reputation if they didn't do a good job.
I have no problem giving my images to the client, for a price that is negotiated and included in the contract.
When a client purchases the raw images, they do not have the right to use my name or my company's name in any way shape or form or forfeit a fine of $10,000 to me.
I am a professional who does not believe in "FIXING" your images, I capture the shot in camera.
I only use Photoshop to put my name on the images and for minor exposure adjustments...
I also take lots of extra pics of my feet, the floor, the ceiling, etc just to be a pain in the ass!
Get it right in the camera and stop relying on Photoshop!
Agree...bad practice. You're going to take photos with a particular look and style in mind. That may not be relayed in the final images if someone else does the editing. Personally, I wouldn't do it.
Or if you do decide to do it, charge the full price anyway because your name will go along with the photos.
I would never give my RAW's to a wedding client and probably wouldn't take on the job if a client was asking that, why would they be hiring me if they thought they could edit better than me?
You wouldn't ask a bakery to just supply you with a recipe so you could bake your own wedding cake.
In the non-wedding world, if your clients are a company with its own branded look, they might just need someone with the technical ability to light and shoot an image that their artists can edit and use in their marketing. This is standard in stock photography, and i've shot this way for a non-wedding client that had its own art department but wanted stock style imagery with their own staff.
Just for argument sake, isn't it really not much different when you hand over JPGs and the client puts on a stupid filter for upload? With the RAW they may actually do a better job, cause clearly they must know the advantages to having the RAW file.
Or, can you make a deal saying that they will NOT attach/tag/post your name/company along with it?
Thanks for all the feedback! And Tom great point! I ended up turning the client down and told them that if they did not care for my editing style they should look for a photographer that matched their style. My biggest concern was them editing the pictures in a way I did not care for and then tying my name to it. Just wanted to see how others in the industry approached this type of situation. Thanks again!
A lot of photographers and graphic designers tend to do this... at least the ones who I consider the low ballers who has yet to appreciate fellow artists and their own unique style. Some artists though understandably assume everyone is just a service that provides X, Y, and Z instructions by the client, similar to how some artistic services do provide, but not everyone provides. Some like brand/logo designers will design whatever the client says.
Depends on where your focus lays on your company. I know Jared Polin admitted to giving RAW files to a photographer's wedding, and they paid him fairly well, didn't add on additional costs... But Jared relies mostly on his educational and personal brand for his income, not weddings (anymore at least). So where do you get most of your income or where do you want most of your income coming from...weddings or other channels?
If weddings, and depending on how you do this S&B (burn a disc after the editing and done) or IPS (in-person sales, selling prints/products to the clients, or some call it the hybrid of both. Both generally wouldn't ever sell RAW files themselves, so if I were it would be considered a commercial transaction. I'll sell them the cost to produce the wedding photography itself and whatever is included into that, they want RAW files added, its $1,000 each file, and a personal usage license to re-print/edit AND NDA contract signed that I did not provide photography/editing, etc. involved in any way, so if they do crappy edits or edits you don't approve of it will not effect your brand. I'd do that, I won't sell just 1 file at a time of course, more bulk, so easily $20,000+ total for maybe 40-50 files.
I make it a point in my contract what they will,. . . and more importantly, NOT be getting in my deliverables; such as raw files or unused files. I give them the edited images my workflow and artistic process provide. In my opinion, my service is my style and shooting method and that should be protected.
That makes about as much sense as them going to a restaurant and asking for all the ingredients to their meal, cooking it themselves, then telling everyone that they dined at Gordon Ramsay's restaurant but the food was horrible.
Late to the party here, but I've treated it like a service then tried to convince the clients they don't want it. My shpiel has gone somethibg like:
"Essentially, what you're asking to do is buy me out of my negatives. I would be willing to do that for a fee of 2 times your wedding package, and you'll have to sign an NDA that restricts any online publishing of any files that result from your edits.
I believe artists - and we photographers are artists - forget the most powerful word in every language: 'No.' Giving your images to someone else to edit is simply stupid. "You are what you show" and allowing someone with unknown skills to edit your work and dilute - or destroy - your reputuation and your brand is unfathomably dumb. Why not give them your cameras and lenses and have them shoot the wedding themselves, then pass off the work as yours? Ranting over now, your contract should specify image delivery, usage rights and editing ability in advance so the question is answered before it is asked. For every action there is an equal if not greater reaction. If you're not on this same page in response to this question, you should consider another career as the end of your photography business is on the horizon.
It has nothing to do with bad practice, unless your contract with your wedding client included them purchasing the RAW files they are not entitled to them YOU own them and are copyrighted to you.
And you should explain to your client about copyright and your business is based on them. You shoot, edit, the client chooses images, you print them. And in the future you will hopfully get other orders from family and friends.
If they do insist on your giving them images, make sure either your name or the name of your business and your copyright is part of the image.
Anyone remember the Mr Bean movie?????
This informative article explains the whole issue in depth.... And is a pretty compelling end to the discussion, I think! You can certainly try a few of these reasons on your clients, and it helps to know them in order to get the reasons absolutely straight in your mind before the tricky subject even comes up again.
https://fstoppers.com/business/how-explain-why-you-dont-provide-your-raw...
This one may also be of interest
https://fstoppers.com/business/why-photographers-dont-give-away-raw-file...
Best
Zoe
I have absolutely not problem with supplying RAW files, and have a section and price dealing with this in my standard contract. I would much rather have the client use good quality RAW files rather than crappy JPG's or, worse yet, scanned copies of the hardcopy pictures.
The other consideration is the longevity of the photographer (or his company). As a client I don't want to be in the position of finding the photographer is no longer in business when I want additional prints or editing work. I've been through this on several occasions and won't put my clients in this position if they wish a copy of the RAW files. I ran into this problem with my own wedding pictures...