Why Photographers REFUSE To Give Raw Photos
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2024
- Why can't photographers just give our their raw photos? Today I discuss why.
My Photography Presets
www.jessicakobeissi.com/actio...
My Second Channel @jkophoto
Follow Me
+ / jessicakobeissi
+ / jessicakobeissiphoto
+ / jessicakobeissi
+ www.jessicakobeissi.com
Music
+ share.epidemicsound.com/rgwqn
I'm sorry to say, but you were the one who told me about the raw photos Jessica. It was you ; _ ;
Same 😂
Yeah exactly I just heard about these last video and was like "Wait tell me more" xD
The closest I've gotten to raw photos was from my mom's friend who was a retired professional photographer. She did a little photo shoot for my husband and I a few months after our wedding, we had nothing but a Polaroid because we got married in Vegas. Anyway she took loads of pictures then scheduled a day for us to review the raws and pick which ones we wanted her to edit for us. She was doing this all for free and let us choose 50 pictures so I know she spent a lot of time on us and we appreciated it so much! She didn't send us the raws but we saw them and then we saw what we were sent after editing and we were blown away! I definitely understand now lol
I’ve given out raw photos ONCE! My dear friend who is also a photographer requested them of a sunflower field I shot and didn’t really care for. He took them and edited them in his style and shared them with me. Hes someone I trust and is a photographer so he knows how to edit and handle the files. That’s the only time I’ve ever done it in 20 years of photography
that sounds like a fun creative collaboration! :)
In most modern mind "raw" means without "filters". They don't know what raw means
Exactly this 💯
I was one of the people who asked about the raws, so I really appreciate the explanation, and from an outsider's perspective I want you to know that the answer was not obvious to me - I really learned something.
I think it would be interesting if you did a video showing the entire process (for a limited number of photos). As an example, you can show 10 photos from a specific moment in a shoot and how you discarded 3 automatically because the model had her eyes closed, for example. Then show the raw photos, pointing out the details you mentioned like over/underexposing the photo knowing how you planned on editing it. Then you discard a few more because the poses weren't as strong, which leaves 3 to be edited. Then you can show or skip to the final product of the 3 edited photos. Then a quick side-by-side of what you would have gotten if the photographer had given you the raws - 10 unedited/partially unusable photos with "bad" lighting, some weak poses, and a lot of labor ahead of you - vs. the 3 final cohesive edited products.
Edit: I didn't mention wedding photography because I know you don't do that anymore, but if you had old files/permission to do that, it would more directly relate to the sepia bride story.
this makes sense to me. as a songwriter, this would be the equivalent of some third party demanding I hand over the journaling and trauma dumping and word noodling before I get to the finished song.
I’m saving this so I can just send it when someone asks me for the raws. 😂
Great idea. I'm totally going to do that now. 😁
I liken it to going out for a meal at a restaurant and asking them to just bring the ingredients to you instead of the finished meal from the chef. Nobody would do that. You’re paying them to put the ingredients together
You should check out Korean BBQ, Chinese hotpot, and Japanese shabu shabu. The customers cook the food themselves at the table and it's totally awesome.
@@EugWanker 🤣🤣🤣 I’ve heard good things. Let me check it out
Clever, but flawed analogy. It's more like you go to an expensive and beautiful restaurant and order a meal ....TO GO. Yes, you are forgoing all the wonderful finishing touches, and presentation, and Guido, the old Italian waiter that everyone loves. But you are taking the core product away with you to serve and enjoy how you wish, at home. And maybe get to stir in a bit more bell peppers or whatever you like. Maybe not what the master chef intended, but in the great scheme of things, what's the harm? And the client is happy, which I thought was the end goal.
I asked for the raw files( well i said all the photos) because i knew they will take a lot of photos and only edit few. And i wanted to have all the photos for me as a memory for the future. Had to pay extra fee which wasn't very expensive, and haven't even looked if they are raws or jpeg. I just have them as a memory and don't really care of they are raw or jpeg. You should just talk to the photographer beforehand.
And i know this video was made because of the video where bride wasn't happy with the photographers editing. In that case i think just giving her the raw files was the best option. She didn't have to waste her time editing and didn't had to waste her time suing her. And the couple would have been happy editing the photos the way they liked.
You hit the nail on the head at @5:00 for me - you lose control over your own work. Once the RAWs are handed off, a photographer loses their agency as a photographer and artist.
I've worked with one client where they wanted the RAW files only, no edits (they intended to edit themselves). They understood the premium cost for the RAWs and were willing to pay, and my team understood that we were there only as shooters. In this situation we were hired as mercenaries, not artists, and we were okay with that because we were compensated well for it. This is where handing over the RAWs makes sense.
Under nearly every other circumstance, RAWs are not to be submitted to a client just because they want them. If they really want them that bad, then they'll have to pay a multiplicative premium and the photographer can call it a (very good pay)day.
hey Jessica, on Windows you don't need any special programs to open raw files anymore, it is built in the windows photo viewer. great points tho. if my clients insist for having "all the photos" i just dump everything unedited through lightroom and export as a low resolution jpeg so they can go have at it... but never the RAWs
That's not how it works. I'm sure she was talking about how newer cameras might have different color matrices and base curves, and how new lenses have new correction profiles (for distortion, vignetting, and fringes). Software isn't always up to date with these changes, and everyone uses different software and versions. Windows might show a built-in JPEG preview or perform its own generic processing. That's why previewing RAW files on Windows offers a less satisfactory experience compared to previewing out-of-camera JPEGs. Given their larger size, using RAW files solely for previewing purposes makes no sense. RAW files have very specific technical needs, requiring everything the camera does to a JPEG to be redone from scratch, while also allowing for additional changes and revealing more details (which only makes sense for large prints or crops).
Thank you, I was wondering what I was missing that if it was the fact that I had a simple camera that I have been able to look at my photos for years with windows.
Pro NYC photog here for over 40 years. I have heard all of those reasons for years, and I still think it's utter BS. And really, look at the expression on your face while making these excuses, you know its mostly BS. First off, keeping RAW files is a carry-over from keeping the film, back in the day. Film was at least a one-off. Digital you can keep and share. Not wanting to have "unfinished" images out in the world, yeah, I get it. but this stems from a time when artists and photogs thought they had the right to be all full of themselves. Enough! If a client who paid you a lot of money wants to take the RAWS, why should we care? Your excuses that they "may" not be able to open them or they will clog their computer...more BS. That isn't your call, it's the client's. As to not wanting to send out of focus shots or other mistakes...that EDITING!!!! You do not need to send the mistake shots at all, in RAW or jpg. So, just more BS arguments. BUT, let me side with you on one thing: If it was not pre-agreed, and the client later decides they want the RAWS, they are welcome the BUY them for an additional fee. And I may charge a packaging fee for the time involved. But be fair with those charges. We really need to live down the concept of temperamental and self-indulgent artists.
It's so odd! Also who keeps misfires and bad photos anyway? Just delete and move on.
@@zahzahzee Exactly. Lots of self indulgence. And not enough thought about the clients needs.
I recently had a client who I did sign a copyright agreement for the final edited images they hired me to take (10 photos for an album release), they tried to use that contract to claim ownership of ALL RAW PHOTOS. I gave them a refund, deleted all the images and called it a day.
I don't blame you.
Daaaaannngg. You're a bigger person than me. 😂 i wouldve been petty and used it in my portfolio
I'm with you. The only thing I'll say is that we don't need to give excuses. We don't have to explain. We don't have to justify. The RAW is our intellectual property -- not the client's. I'm cool with saying I don't give out RAWs, nor do I explain why. Great video -- thanks!
I don’t agree if you mean excuses kind of the same as explaining yourself- because an average person like myself with 0 knowledge of photography has no clue what RAWS are or their significance & there’s nothing wrong with communicating so they understand. I had 0 knowledge of this or even the name “raws” until today
I've asked my wedding photographer for the raw photos and we included a clause in our contract agreeing that we will NEVER post them online. I wanted photos of all the small moments from our wedding just for ourselves and I understand that you might be scared to show them to your clients, but it was important for me to see those without any colour correction or anything like that. I'm an amateur video editor and I understand the point about the product not being finished, but I wanted to see those imperfections from our wedding. Btw all my favourite photos from our wedding are raw ones. Even though I loved our photographer's artistic style, I love seeing my natural hair colour and the colour of my husband's eyes when I look at photos from our wedding.
So, if you see that the person you're dealing with understands what raw photos are and it is important to them for the right reasons, just keep an open mind.
I just charge extra for the RAWs that's it. It could be a company who has their editing team and they need more flexibility. I look at it as an upsell
"I don't want you to see when I was distracted...eating chips." This video is gold! I just fell in love with you.
I’ve been in this situation twice where I was asked to give out the RAWS. I absolutely hate it when someone does that. Like probably the average person just heard of them in a random context and must have thought that they are important to own.
This was a good explanation and made sense! But I live in Korea (photoshop capital of the world 😂) and we got to photo studios a lot to get family / baby pictures taken. A lot of them will give out the raw files because they know we want as many photos as possible. But they’ll also have a choose a few to have edited and made into frames, albums, etc. and they do a great job editing. But they can’t possibly edit as many photos as parents would want, so I think it’s a fair trade off. The studio photos are done with good lighting outfit changes, etc. and I don’t ever think, “Oh this photographer is bad because this photo looks weird,” because I was there watching them film it. It’s pretty competitive, so some studios will have surcharge for raws but others will say they are free. We usually pay for “packages” so maternity, newborn, 6 month, one year, family photos, etc. and we can ask for certain photos to be framed or made into an album once we have all of them to look at and choose. Those will be edited and they even edit them really quickly!
Even our driver’s license photos in Korea are photoshopped 😂 which is illegal where I’m from (the US)
But for a photographer doing wedding photos, events, outdoor lighting, etc. I can totally see why they wouldn’t give out raw images.
I understand that photographers don't want to share their unedited work from an artistic standpoint.
However, me as a Brand Identity designer that perfectly knows how to edit RAW pictures and has the tools for it; and also has to be able to edit them in the brand identity style of the client's brand... it's easier with the RAW file than an already edited image. Finding the right photographer that has the right style might not always be in the budget of the client or project. I even went as far as taking the pictures myself, I have the gear and skills... my talent and style could use some improvement, it's semi-professional at best.
That said though, if you fully rely on post editing to create your style, I would hone those photography skills. Your camera has some neat settings you can tweak to minimize the post-editing. Basically you can create amazing RAW images as well. Sure they won't be as vibrant given their large color range, still changing the time of day you're shooting can help a lot with that when outside, or introducing some extra (colored) lights when indoors.
My photography teacher once told me "photography is an art performed behind and around your camera!" and I couldn't agree more.
Dude I’m a designer and you’re not convincing me. Either commission and brief the photographer, collaborate on the edit or bodge it with stock.
It’s like a client playing with your .ai files. You OWE it to your client to refuse … to save them from themselves 😂
@@mynewcolour I am a graphic designer and I think not giving the client an ai file is bad for everyone. then a client comes to you and asks you to do something with their logo, and it's only in PNG, it's just a nightmare. perhaps when it comes to working for private clients, raw files are not so necessary, but if this is a professional environment and working with companies, it is important for me as a designer to have access to raw files. this simplifies the work for me and other designers who may be involved in working on the brand in the future.
@@user-ms4vp3rr1m EPS files go in the brand folder for their in house designers, along with guidelines. There is no way I want Gavin from marketing playing with the brand marque on his lunch break which is why I don’t generally provide unflattened .ai files. This is practice throughout branding from my experience.
@@mynewcolour well "dude," I'm one of those designers that actually see the benefit in sharing .ai, .eps, .psd, .raw, .svg, .png. .jpeg, .indd, etc. files. For one it's an extra back-up in case something goes wrong with my hardware. Second, 95% of my clients BUY my copyrights, thus I'm inclined to give them access to the original files and get paid for it while also getting a tax reduction on that extra income (in my country). 🤯
Bonus, selling my copyrights make it easier for those businesses to register their brand's logo & name as a trade mark; without the need to contact me if it's "allowed" because it's my work, since they own the copyrights now.
Also I don't get attached to my work; I design to help businesses create consistent (visual) communication with their audience to increase their sales & revenue; it's that simple.
So yes, I ask and love to get the RAW images to get more freedom in editing and creating that consistent visual communication for my clients.
Why?
Because those images might be used for several years in different campaigns and designs each with their editing required within the brand style guidelines. Imagine, me having to ask that photographer EACH time I need an image edited to do so... they wouldn't be doing anything else at some point. Thus it's easier (and cheaper) to do that editing in house. Don't worry though, I will gladly let my client pay for those RAW's, the photographer doesn't need to give them for free. 😉😇
Yesss thank you! I'm an amateur photographer, and I could never put it into words why I won't send unedited photos. This video nails it!
People always say to me, "oh you don't have to edit them, I'll edit them myself." Like sweetie no 😂
I did a wedding, and the brother of groom wanted the raw files. I refused he huff and puffed. I left and left it alone.
Kinda sounds like photographers need to start having people sign contracts before working with them, even if they're small contracts
Yup!
was it raw as in cr2 files or did they mean raw as in not edited?
i had to make that distinction one time
I've given RAW photos only to certain clients. I've only done it twice. The photos given were Portrait sessions with flash, so they were good to ok anyways. ( lol, some were under or overexposed. ). This was years ago. I no longer give RAW photos.
I had a guy ask me to hand over my memory card at the end of the shoot because he didn’t understand how it all worked😂.
When you put it that way, it makes sense. I think it's fair to compare it to other artistic works, like dancing for example. I would never go dance with an unfinished choreography (if im not doing impro or smth) it will just look awful especially with the kind of dance I do that includes a lot of props and other preparations that are needed.
I think the entire discussion is contextual. There is certainly room in the industry for sharing raws or not. It is at the disctetion of the photographer.
To use another analogy however, a builder wont rufuse to turn over the keys to your house because he hasnt completed the interrior design yet.
What im trying to say is the best photographer isnt necessarily the best editor, and the best editor isnt always the best photographer. For some people spending time doing what they are best at is a better use of time.
Photography is also highly subjective, i would rather produce a stunning raw that can be used to make the most pleasing image for the client than produce my interpretation and have it fall flat.
Omg see I send my clients the raws in a google drive so they can select the ones they like (after I’ve chosen the ones I liked of course). Only because I don’t have an application that’ll watermark all the photos, if anyone here knows one please send it!
You can watermark in Lightroom. During the export process, there is an option to add a watermark and you can choose where on the photo to place it. If you selected all of the photos during the export, it will watermark all of them.
@@mikedionr thank you kind sir!
This video is conflating two different situations, which is probably because the question was asked by someone who didn't realize what they were asking. There are
* Before culling. All the images, which could be exported/extracted jpegs.
* Before post-processing. The raw files (CR2, NEF, AWR, etc), possibly of selected images.
Some parts of the answers in the video are about delivering all images, other answers are about delivering raw files, and some are about delivering all the raw files.
she never said anything about Jpeg it was always about the raw files
@@yunnapr6917 Yes, but she should have said something about the jpegs. Not every client understands the difference between "raw" and "all" files.
This reminds me of the old days where most western photographers would refuse to provide the original negatives and would only ever provide prints. In contrast, depending upon the job, Asian photographers would provide both. These days it's RAW and post-processed photos. Western photographers will provide only the post-processed photos whereas some Asian photographers will provide both. It could be argued that it is in part a cultural thing.
Yes. But there are also many photogs today that won't do the post work and simply hand off the SD card and walk away. Nothing wrong with any of these options, as long as the client is made reasonably happy, and whatever is done is agreed to in advance. Trying to compare RAW files which are digital and easily copied, with film that is a one of a kind product, is a common rational, but has no basis in the real world. I've never met a photog that was harmed by giving out their RAW files. They just act like they are.
I think people see how their photos look on their phone: point click - finished product.
They don't see that even a phone photo has been processed ( in my experience often horribly over saturated/over sharpened, with strange artifacts from stitching between the multiple lenses etc).
To see someone's raw would be quite a shock.
There's a massive amount of skill in seeing how to edit a photo. I think people underestimate that when they see ads for light room presets. People that aren't photographers think you just slap it on and get professional results instantly.
That wedding photographer where the lady requested the RAWS - I'm not sure why they didn't customise the greens - that preset was for teal-gold contrast and there was no teal in the wedding images.
Cancling Adobe - what a spicy topic 😅
This makes total sense! I loved the quote about asking the artist for their sketch so you can paint over it XD it's such a good example.
People sometimes think that having more photos is better. When I'm on vacation, I take zillions of photos, even little things or place-markers. That's too much detail for somebody else to handle. Or there are times when I take multiple photos that are slightly different, yet all might have value to me. But does a customer want three versions of the same shot? I would guess they want a book they can pull out to show people, not 20 volumes of a wedding encyclopedia.
There are weird situations. I had a client who I think wanted to say she had x number of photos of a certain category (related to sponsorship) so yeah, she wanted all bracketed shots, even the ones where the flash didn’t fire 😂⚡️
❤❤❤🎉❤❤❤ Thank you for your thoughts on RAWs or sending unedited originals to our customers. Once I brought up my refusal of sending unedited pics to the client in my photographer's online forum, and the forum kind of shitstormed me. 😢😢😢
Based on experience, a lot of clients don't actually know what RAW files are. Some think it's basically all the photos you took. A lot of times this would actually mean that they are not happy with the way that they look and are trying to see other photos where they look better - the rest of the content and composition of the photo be damned. I do understand this because I myself will 100% pick a badly composed photo where I look good over a perfectly composed photo where I don't look as good. lol. And then some think it's just all the photos you delivered but with no filter and could be in jpeg. Many have no idea that actual RAW files are huge and can't even be opened without software.
For the same reason restaurants don't hand out raw food, same why grocery stores don't stock until it's processed. Hell same reason why apple trees won't give you apples until it's ripe! Because it's not processed and done by any means!
Hi Jessica, when you get married will you ask your photographer for the raws?
my question exactly, what if the client is also a photographer and wants to edit those photos himself?
@@davidcvetko Or herself...
@@davidcvetko true. As a photog, I know that even if my photog does a great job editing, some day I'll want to do something extra with the pics and wish I had the raws.
This is an interesting question - I feel that no matter how good someone's editing is, they can never do it to your 100% liking. Unless you do it yourself.
@@brianosaur8265 Sometimes we, as photographers, need to let go of the fixation of "to your 100% liking".
None of the reasons mentioned are these incredible insurmountable obstacles for sending out the raw files in my opinion. But good to know this is something to agree on beforehand.
A lot of news organizations want to see the RAW files to make sure the images were not edited to alter the image content. National Geographic requires the RAW files to assure the images comply with their strict editing policies. The only problem is that, if you are clever enough, you can alter/edit a raw file and save the altered file as a raw file and alter the embedded meta data so that the alteration is undetectable. Intel agencies do it all the time.
Every publication and modeling agency requires all the raw files from a shoot as well. They have in-house editors who do everything, but if your work sucks and you need editing software to bail you out, you won't last long. Try telling them you dont give out your raw photos or deliver poor quality photos and they will show you the door. RUclips photographers dont understand this though because they have never done real work.
@michaelbell75 I've never had issues with in house editors because I'm being hired for my style/editing. If they want my RAW files for their in-house editors, they really want a teenager with an IPhone for minimum wage. If someone wants your RAW file, there is a 99% chance you will get your copyright jumped with rare exceptions. Again, I've never run into anyone who wants or tries to weedle my RAW files out of me and if they try, I'm out of there because they are up to no good.
@@dangilmore9724 You are losing money then, unless you are also being paid for the hours and hours you probably spend editing. Most photographers are only paid for the photography part. I know several photographers who do high end campaigns for major brands, they dont spend one minute editing, they dont have the time for that. They either have a professional editor who culls the thousands of photos, finds the best ones and does all the editing for them or the companies who hire them have in-house editors. It's like music. Most artists do not record, mix, master, engineer and produce their own music. There are other professionals who do that. Their job is to perform, not all the backend stuff.
@@michaelbell75 No one gets my RAW files without paying for them and signing a copyright agreement as per usage. If they want RAW files, it's tens of thousands for the raw file and more for copyright usage. But, unless it's someone like National Geographic or the NYT who has strict editing rules, no one even gets to see the RAW files except in very rare situations and only if I am in the mood.
@@michaelbell75 Not when I have a $50,000-$150,000 budget for a commercial shoot.
Thank you Jessica. My simple point is, would they ask a writer for his notes, or do they just read the finished book?
You can do both if you are willing to pay for it.
@@000CloudStrife Some writers may not have a price to sell their notes.
Yeah
@@UnconventionalReasoning agreed
It's normally not the photographer who does editing in campaigns/ advertising. Sometimes you need to be flexible depending on the project.
The solution is to first determine what your specific policy is. Do you give out raws? Yes or no. Let's assume it's no. Now you communicate that to your client beforehand. Hey my policy is I don't give out raw files, I only deliver final product. After I take the photo I go and spend a lot of time editing and retouching and finishing the photo. Do you agree to this?
Then if they ask later for raws, you refer to your policy/contract/agreement. To help them understand you can use an analogy of when studios shoot a movie they don't just put out the raw video, they have to spend hours editing it all together to create the final movie and make it look awesome.
There are several types of photography where giving raw photos is fine and even expected, like if you're being hired to just take the photos for the client to do in-house processing. Or if you're an employee and the company owns any photos you take while employed. But if you're doing more artistic photography where you have a certain look and are known for that, then probably you would not want to give out raw files.
I've done both, and have both given raw files to clients I've worked for in shooting content for their brand, and I've also not given raws out when I've taken creative photography for myself and wanted to make it a certain look without my model or client being allowed to modify it.
So it's pretty simple. What kind of photography do you do, what do the clients in your particular photography field expect and what's your policy, and just make that clear upfront with your clients.
I was so interested in this after your last video. I thought you explained it really well and also the ending cracked me up.
Raw photos can be “finished”. For me it’s more about clients taking your files to another editor and the raw photos would give them full control of the image. Now if they want to buy the rights outright then you can have the full raw file.
As a painter we have a similar attitude to paintings when we put on a exhibit, if you dont want to part with the painting you shoot the price hiiiiigh up
Every single point you make is spot on correct!
-from my experience, when someone who isn't even a photographer asks about RAW photos they don't even know what a RAW file even is. In the modern age of Instagram, and the fact that the acronym RAW sounds like the word "raw", makes people think that a RAW photo is simply a photo that hasn't had an Instagram filter put over it. They have no idea that it is a larger file. Can't be opened by a regular photo gallery program. That photographers might under or overexpose knowing that the final edit will be more like the vision they had before they pressed the shutter button. Not to mention colors and layers and twenty other things.
I understand the reasoning and I won't argue against it. I just want to say, with special occasions I think it's a bit of a more nuanced situation. First of, this is a very special moment for the client. It's very personal and for many, very private, too. These photos are also memories. All of them, not only the perfect, edited ones. Because not all photos make for great wedding album pictures.
Which is to say, I hope special occasion photographers are empathetic and understanding of this.
Spot on! Plus, you simply do not build a good business by thinking about yourself so much. Make the client happy. I don't get why that is so hard for so many people. Plus, with a nice camera in everyone's pocket today, and software that does the most amazing things, most photogs should be happy they got hired. It's not 1975 with famous photographers like Scavullo, Avedon, etc. (both whom I was lucky to have known). Photography, especially something like event work, is a commodity. So put the client's needs first.
I've listened to Fashion Photographers who've said they get hired by companies like magazines etc where the policy is to hand over all the raws to them and they use their own editors to post process and the photographer is only hired to take the pics but the ownership of them is transferred and then belong to the company that hired the photographer.
It depends on the client I think. In my experienced editorial photography, the actual raw or EIP tends to belong to the photographers. The budget for storage or taping belongs to the photographer's responsibility. Sometimes the photographer would send out their EIP to Post House and those images are being worked on. As for advertising, the stake is higher and it depends on the contract. Most want all your EIPS since the client works on it on set or on location with the photographer. They are in charge of making copies for taping (archive), backup copy, Post copy, and photographer copy. Trust me you don't want to pay for storage when you are doing a big job. Especially with motion involved. As for images, it depends on your contract and agreement. Some clients would own all images and they can do whatever they want with it. Of course, depending on your status as a photographer you have some say in color and retouching comments. The other part is where your agent makes a deal with the client where the images used need to be license-based. Even though the client has all EIPS or RAWS, each image cannot be touched or retouched without the photographer's permission. As for other jobs, like weddings, portraits, and events. Most of these clients won't know what to do with RAWS. I agree photographer shouldn't give any raws to them.
Thank youuu, I asked about this in your last video and I don't know if you saw my comment but regardless, thank you for explaining! ❤
This is very good to know, I had no idea about all this! 🌼
I will never give out my unfinished work either !!! ..
it’s just not happening lol
.,
great vid Jess 🥰 I love you content ,, thankyou for keeping in real , been watching a long time xx
Warm regards from a fellow photographer in Tasmania Australia 🇦🇺
I just laughed at a client requesting raw files from Fujifilm GFX100. After 1 year, they still struggling to use the files.
Haha! Love this!
I'm saving this for the future if someone is asking for raws 😂 thanks! Very well explained.
I am happy to give my clients their raws. I believe that in 20 years editing software will be able to do some sort of magic with raws that we cant even imagine now. I will want them to have the option to do whatever is possible then. Sounds far fetched but thats what i believe.
❤ I love this
This is not far fetched. Liquify and content aware did not exist 20 years ago. Noise reduction is better than it was.
You are on the right track. I wrote this elsewhere...
---
Here is a crazy thought...in the not-so-distant-future...Bride books the photog and selects the ''Premium Deluxe Platinum Rose Gold Top-O-The-Line' package which includes the new "A-dopey: Presets for Posers - Change Your Mind As Often As You Like'' premium Ai cloud service. Think $$$. Okay?
Here is how it works...The photog uploads the raws to the A-dopey cloud service. Half an hour later, the bride selects HER new favorite preset 'Golden Glow'. 10 minutes later she is sharing them with all her friends who gush and all is well with the world. Two weeks later she gets back from the honeymoon, and now she hates 'Golden Glow' and she changes it to 'My Tru-est-est Colours' and Bam! There they go. Each time she changes it, A-dopey and the photog get a cut. Problem solved - user pays. Thank you Ai. And A-dopey! Lol.
---
This is an interesting point. What if we gave clients the raw files - they are their photos, after all.. however we asked them not to credit us if using them.
Back before I started shooting RAW (I had just made the switch from film to digital and hadn't yet figured out the best way to do things) I did a photoshoot for a friend. She wanted a few nice pictures of herself in her elf (LotR style) costume. I saw it as a way to get used to my new format for shooting (I'd already been editing digitally for a while so it was just learning the camera) Anyway, we went to a local public garden, I got some good pics of her, we hung out a bit, grabbed food, and went our separate ways. Then she messaged me asking for the photos. I had only just gotten home. No way I had the time to already have them edited, and I told her to give me a few days since it WAS a free shoot and I WAS a busy college student. She pressured me, saying she "just wanted to see them". I stupidly gave in and sent them to her unedited. She tossed them up on social media right away. No color corrections, no light and shadow balancing, absolutely nothing to take them up a notch and make them more eye-catching and pleasing to look at and over all representative of my work/style. Even worse, since I had sent them through Facebook chat the quality had been stripped away making them look like they had all of 10pixels. (exaggeration but you know how it is). I asked her to take them down. She refused. That was my lesson not to send ANYONE the unedited (and RAW) pics. Even if they are family/friend.
In the days of film, pictures that were blurry, under or over exposed were edited out before the client got to see the prints. They never got the negatives unless it was negotiated in the fee.
My tutor in sixth form college taught me about RAW - but with Fujifilm cameras like I've been using I only use RAWs as backups in case I make a mistake for decide to shoot in black and white but decide I want it in colour instead. As people say the JPEGs with these are usually so good you don't need RAW
I've had models tag me on Instagram in pictures that I took of them and edited and that they have further edited (usually with FaceApp or similar). I ask them to remove the image or at least remove my name as it's no longer the image I made. I always ask models to tell me if they are unhappy with an image to let me know, but please don't edit it with a crappy phone app!
Unrelated.. but your hair looks so pretty! 😍
Oh thank you so much!!
I am really enjoying this photography rabbit hole. 😆
This needs to be created as a reel for IG. haha
Client does not need to know if I even shoot RAW at all or if I did any additional editing or pictures are straight out of camera all made in Auto mode, that's not his business. Or maybe I even shoot film then scanned it. I know some clients could ask for some crazy things like "give me 2400x600 DPI tiffs" and they don't even understand what that is. To prevent such things from happening you should just put it clearly into the agreement, like:
The photographer will provide digital files exclusively in JPEG format. The resolution of these files will vary based on the chosen price package, with a maximum resolution of up to 3600x2400 or 2400x3600 pixels. Please note that not all files will be available in the maximum resolution due to technical and artistic considerations. File compression settings will be determined by the photographer at their discretion.
The following details are part of the photographer's independent artistic and professional choices and will not be disclosed or discussed at any time, starting immediately and continuing indefinitely:
- Camera settings such as file formats, sizes, quality settings, various camera features, picture profiles
- Shooting parameters such as ISO, exposure, aperture, shutter speed
- Any information about any photographer's equipment and processes used before, during and after shooting
- File transfer and storage methods, places and planned duration of file storage
- Software used or not used for any step
- Whether any edits were made at any step
- Export options or preparations
As part of the service, watermarked preview images will be provided at a resolution of up to 960x1440 pixels in JPEG format, with 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and up to 85% compression quality, free of charge. For print resolution options, you may either order a print directly or for additional price receive a JPEG file prepared for printing at the desired size.
Social Sharing Package Option: For social sharing purposes, the photographer will provide images at a resolution of 1080x1350 pixels or smaller, always in JPEG format, with compression settings determined by the photographer.
During the entire process, including but not limited to before, during, and after shooting, as well as before ordering prints or after receiving prints, clients are prohibited from suggesting edits or any software workflow to the photographs. Also if the photographer provides a black and white photo, clients cannot request a color version.
The photographer retains the sole discretion to select which images are included in the final set provided to the client. Clients may not request specific images or demand a specific number of images from the shoot. The photographer's determination of successful images is final and may result in delivering fewer than expected, including potentially none (zero images), although every effort will be made to deliver at least one satisfactory image.
The photographer assures that photographs taken during the session will not be shared publicly without the explicit consent of the client. This includes but is not limited to social media, portfolio use, or any other public display. Client privacy and confidentiality are of utmost importance, and photographs will only be used for agreed-upon purposes such as private viewing, prints, or other specified uses as outlined in this agreement.
Thanks for clearing this up for us. I know I didn’t understand what the big deal was. 😅
I love your throwaway comment of "with my preset". 🤣With this whole new discovery of "she just slaps on a preset in editing", I love how the general population don't understand that a preset can be as simple as just white balancing a photo to using all the sliders in the world! Presets aren't a bad thing, it's making your workflow more efficient.
Both side’s have sense.
Don’t give up raws - arguments said in this video. Absolutely right! If you shoot on film, you don’t give up your undeveloped film. What if you need to push it, or pull it, or use your special developer, or burn/ dodge some parts of the image in darkroom printing process? Same with raw and editing. Only difference is, anybody can think he can do it 😂
Give them to the client- I am a VFX artist & Colorist working on commercials, music videos, TV series’s and movies. In cinematography relm is norm to give raw footage to Add agency or Production company, or who the client is. They will give it to colorist to do the editing. Lots of times I will host Cinematographer and Director while I am working on the image to have ability to respect theirs vision.
Both approaches work. It probably depends on the type of clients. I wouldn’t give raw video data to the end customer, because editing raw video is even more necessary than in the photography image. Its “default profile” will probably be in logarithmic curve without automatic color management in the video player or editor.
I'm pretty sure we can export copy right info into the raw exif, or did i dream that? That helps negate the proof of copyright issue, right? Or am I wrong?
C2PA is intended to protect against this.
The best is when a client asks for raw files while your main driver is a Hasselblad 500c XD. I know it sounds super silly, but it happened to me once. I had to explain to the woman that it was a film camera XD.
People need to realize that "Raw Photos" aren't like the 10 photos you take of your friend for them to pick 1 and filter and post.
When I got married, my uncle, (who was a retired pro photographer), gifted us free photos. The "preview" photos were absolutely beautiful.
Before he could give us the rest, he died from covid. The family gave me the files, and I learned editing and eventually became a photographer myself.
In the past few years, all of what you're saying are lessons I've learned. Sometimes people look through my camera after a shoot and seem disappointed in the "quality" but it's because it's like the sketch of the painting. Its not done.
Also an another reason on top of the one you already told : People don’t really want the RAW they want the « unedited » pictures in jpeg and since I shoot RAW I have to converted 6000 pictures to jpeg to send, it’s time consuming ! You also have to pay for that in my opinion !
Do photographers that work for a company not give their employers the raw files?
Thank you for explaining! I personally would like to have raw files if I was ever photographed for a wedding or similar event. But that's because I enjoy editing photos and maybe I would want to use the photo for something special. And I just wouldn't want ro edit something that's already been through a lot of editing. But I guess I have now learned that it's better for me to ask a friend to take some phptos or use a tripod instead, so that the files are mine from the beginning. And maybe I should let the professional photographer do their own thing, so I probably shouldn't alter their piece of work that they spent time on.
Btw, I think anyone interested in photography, even as an amateur, knows about raw files.
I once bought a Canon 550D second hand, and the setting was on RAW … yeah. I didn’t have photoshop anymore so I’ve never seen them again. And can’t be bothered..
Even tho photoshop is very easy to get ..as long as you do t click on the icon you are safe😈
The first reasons you list are just wierd. The photos still have the angles you choose, the lighting and everything… it represents your photo capturing talent. You can delete photos that have blinking eyes etc… If you need to edit that much you are actually more than a photographer.. you are a photoeditor. And that’s a whole other job.
When you sell your work there is always a chance the client adjust it anyway 🙂
I would never sign a contract with a photographer that shoot in RAW. I hire a photographer to take photos and not edit.
Why do you have to be so down on “non photographers” that know RAW files exist 😂😂😂 it’s in the quality programing on the menu 😂❤
this is something that is new to me as well and good to know, I do some photography on the side, wouldn't say I'm professional yet, but didn't know about this and it totally makes sense.
is this something that you only need to worry about for professional shoots by the way?
I attend photo meets sometimes and they tend to want us to send the photos to the models immediately after the shoot, so this tends to be raws, but this is more of a "practice/collab experience" kind of situation I guess, so is that fine in that case?
4:54 i think people will add their own filters etc to the jpegs anyway when uploading to socials. Your website is the best reference
Photographers including myself are FILE HOARDERS… it’s been 5 years we still have the raw files somewhere… i already picked the best ones.. i’ll still keep the “No” files just in case i need them for some unlikely reason
Asking for raw photographs is like asking the photograph for pics of their feet. "What, no? Unless you have... 2K"
I understood that a client is paying for work that is finished. Just make it clear from the start. End of "issue" :-)
that's why u sign the contract
Well.. i guess the photographers who gave raw photos to websites for editors to learn how to edit are saint. I learn how to edit photos because there are great and selfless photographers out there who decided to post some raw photos for us to learn how to edit. I'm grateful for their selfless act.
Ohh 🤦♀️you crack me up Jessica 😂😂😂
I live for those imaginary Karen discussions 😂❤
I feel yah, I've been in the photog game for over 11 years and those RAW files be big...Big...BIG. 👀😅
literally took free pics (for my portfolio) of a girl the other week and she asked me for raws under the guise of “yeah i understand [mutual photographer] doesn’t like handing them out but im hoping you would” like HUHHH. i was like no gurl what. first of all this is a free shoot. second it’s unfinished work. that’s like asking an artist u like to paint a painting and ask them for it halfway through their work like. it makes no sense. u don’t want them raws trust me!!! u want the finished product😭
4:48 Not a photographer but giving raws reminds me of someone from the 90s asking a photographer for the negatives.
"Good luck canceling THAT!" LOL!
Hey Jessica, you owe us with another episode of Beckham's book.. :)
I've done a few fashion/beauty shoots with models where I live a few years ago. One of them I remember, specifically asked for the RAWs. Like it is something normal to ask for lol. Me thinking it's normal I just handed them over, never thought of charging for it. I would say we are both kind of ameteur level, so the expectation was TFP. Not sure if TFP shoots imply the model should get the RAWs as well?
That can be a niche for new photographers. Advertise ‘you get the RAW + (edited) jpeg’. Don’t need all the photos. Just the keepers.
My question is can you and a client work together in person or over skype while looking at some of the photos so everyone has more clarity on how much editing and a type of hue they want?
Sometimes it is easier to clarify when everyone has the photos in front of them so they can see what they actually like and/or want.
I think another thing that should be mentioned is that, in my experience, when a non-photographer asks for the 'raw photos', what they are actually asking for is unedited jpg files. Most people don't know what a raw file is, or even that such a thing exists.
In other words, to answer Jessica's question: they DON'T know about raw files
Thank you for making this!!! I'm going to share everywhere so maybe juuuuuust maybe people will understand!
Just like we used to get the negatives back in the day in case we want to print more or make one larger after a few years, you should be more than ok handing unedited photos. Just give me my face without all the added colors please (if I didn't like the end result. This can happen). Edited photos aren't immune to people messing around with them, so what's the difference?
When you get something tailored, the tayler hands you any leftover fabric without whining that "I might use it to ruin their reputation". Because what about me, the subject in all these photos? And all the money that I'm paying?? Why should I pay more for having you NOT do a service? It doesn't cost you anything to put them in a thumb drive. You're gonna delete them anyway.
Yeah that the part I don’t understand. How is the photographer going to stop the client from editing the already edited photos and hanging it up on their wall or their private account online where only their friends and family can see it?
@@IRequiem26 private use isnt an issue. thats why if you want raws, you usually sign an agreement this is only for private use.
as for your ''but i can edit the end result'' - sure? photographer already brought it to in their eyes - perfection - and you then made it uglier. even then, if you share those on social media, artists reputation wont be as ruined because they usually post a few photos from your event online as part of their online portfolio, and thus people can cross reference the work. but you cannot take their end product and turn it back into a raw, thats the difference.
that's why u choose the photographer with the style of final product that you like ! if u want raw - u can pay and have it, otherwise you can just take pictures with your phone - no problem. and what it has to do with the tailor and fabric??? the taylor did NOT make the fabric! this comparison is so off !!
I took a lot of photos of a family member posing with her dogs and sent her through all my best edited ones. But then she asked to see all the photos that didn’t make the cut. 🤦🏼♀️ The dogs were nervous so she didn’t like how they came across in the photos. But she didn’t trust my judgement that I definitely picked the best ones I could. 😅
I do portraits and include a matted 8x10 of my favorite photo. The reason is, if a client tries to go print at CVS thay are going to see a massive difference in print quality.
Even if you don’t give raws they love to take your edited jpgs and re edit them terribly. Do you have anything in your contract about re-editing finished photos?
Adobe catching strays “good luck canceling dat” 😭😭
Asking a photographer for raw files is like asking a manufacturer for an unfinished product.
After Adobe has access to my pictures to train Ai on the I use Affinity.
90 % of my phone storage is thousands of pictures that I need to go through and edit them .
LOL the end made me laugh
My favorite was always, 'where is the rest?'
They only time I have given RAW files away is during TFP shoot with other photographers at the local PPA meetup.