There could be cases for delivering RAW files to a client, an example is for large commercial shoots where clients have in-house editors. I've also had clients ask for the RAW files and I have decided to only give RAW files on 3 conditions: 1st they have to prove to me they know how to edit, 2nd they sign a contract removing any link to myself or my business and 3rd they have to pay extra per photo due to the loss in business ( I don't supply full size images to clients normally) from prints ( I control the printing of the images where possible)
True. The devil is in the legal detail, especially in the US with its FEL system. Let's define Intellectual property (IPr) as something that includes the creation title, publication right, and copyright (and lets not forget the potential IPr of people and things recorded in our photographs). In my country, IPr is with the creator, unless. Unless: in a commercial setting where a client asks a photographer to take their portrait, IPr is with the client by default, not matter if they are private persons or legal entities. And you can shoot anything visible from a public road/place and publish that, under your creator/owner name. Except you cannot publish when you could assume that a reasonable (personal) interest would be harmed by that. When you are hired as employee-photographer with the mission to take photos for your employer, the employer owns the IPr, however you still have a title to have your name published with each publication of the shots you took, next to the business's name that holds the publication/copy rights. Now to commercial shoots. It is clear, based on the above, how the relative roles are. Likely, an art director looks over your shoulder during your shoot, or they have given you tight artistic constraints. Many details in your shots are subject to somebody else's IPr: make-up (MUA), hair (dresser), styling (stylist), composition (art director), etc. In this commercial shoot setting, you work under a contract that outlines all these details, likely settles transfer of all IPr to the client and likely explicitly forbids you to publish in any way the shots you took under this contract. And why would you, for repetitive catalog work? This may all change however when you have become so good that Magnum invites you to become a member, National Geographic hires you or Vanity Fair wants you to shoot their cover - they will be proud to put your name next to your shots and pay you correspondingly to your part in their business model. So in the film days, clients received your negatives or slides and today they receive your raw files. And because you loose artistic freedom and IPr, you get paid a lot more. [FEL: Full Employment for Lawyers.] [I live in Europe and have a European nationality.]
I would say - see my legal comment - you have a two options that are simple and transparent: a) you retain full IPr so you never hand over raw files (nor negatives or original slides), b) you work under a contract that causes those who hire you to have full IPr so there is no point in trying to keep the raw files, or c) in between variants that complicate matters and require detailed contracts.
On the content level of your raw conditions (fun intended, but seriously). (1) Forget about the first condition or put it last. (2) They may sign a contract removing your details from the setting, but what if they already have photos that you authorized and released under your name? Don't do it. Also, what if they commercially use your shot in a way that would have generated serious revenue to you? Assuming that you have full IPr to all aspects in the shots. Prevent having to go to court later, for situations that make you feel sorry for not having made explicit agreements. (3) The reasoning about losing business in prints is valid but less relevant today. People are more likely to buy a monitor picture frame that shows their photos electronically or put up their proud pictures on a large thin TV instead of a print. Just ask money for the raw shots and make sure the client understands they have to pay significant money for them, when they want or need them. And make sure you have made explicit if they can order a couple or have to buy all of them from the shoot. -4) If you worry about future debates who shot the shot, consider not handing over the straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) raw shots, but 16-bit TIFFs. Here I would always apply a bit of crop and set resolution to a nice number that is smaller than SOOC. This way you can also apply some dehazing or sharpening (or the other way around) and still have the original that they do not have. That way any debate about who shot the shot when they go rogue is lost for them. BTW, under US law, you need to deposit your photographs with the copyright bureaus or else you will never win a court case. In this process, you can also decide what meta data that would be present in your raw SOOC shots to copy into the TIFF, or not, and what to put in the TIFF as replacement of your own meta data. -5) a complication in IPr is that a raw SOOC shot has so much bandwidth, and detail, that you can make several different artworks from one raw file: different crops, different contrasts and sharpenings, different color/monochrome palettes. The poster image for this video above touches on that. So, prevent a debate about artistic intent when you have to go to court about copyright!
@@jpdj2715 I currently work in a country which doesn't have the development of first world countries. Selling prints is still a valid business model. As for making those terms, it is more to discourage people than to start giving away RAW images. I should of mentioned than the price I put to each RAW image is $30, that is a lot for the local population and I haven't had one person agree to it
Very well said. I never actually looked at things this way. Keep in mind, I am not a pro photographer by any means. But this is great, usable info for the future. 💪🏾
I would give them away, BUT only in addition to a full editing job and a finished product. I don't see a point in keeping them away from my customers. Maybe they are very enthusiastic about photography and like to have a go at some of the images themselves. And as long as you deliver a good final product as well, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't harm my business. But I would never deliver only the RAW files. I see it that way: They pay me to do their photography, so all pictures I take, are made under contract for my customer and hence all of the data is their property.
Agree with you totally. I am just starting out. A popular fashion blogger around where I live asked for a photoshoot in return for free social media share through their account. Initially I thought it would be good exposure for me but she insisted on giving her the raw files. She ended up posting my photos after her edit even though I sent her processed photos. And her edit was so bad that I regretted wasting my time. And I had no return from that shoot, no new followers or clients. I had to learn the hard way.
Ive had a few clients ask for raw files cos they have a friend who's also a photographer and he told them to ask for it. A client even asked me if I shot with canon 5D MK3. I asked why that specific camera and they replied that it's the best professional camera (i shoot with the D750). I didn't book them.
Very interesting video Will. This is a great teaching video for people who are looking to turn pro and wouldn’t think about things like this. Someone might think they are offering their client a good service, not realizing they are hurting themselves and their business. Thanks again Will for this excellent video!
Underexpose. The Nikon Z has a parameter you can set to help you out here. It is called "Highlight-weighted Metering". Here the camera tracks down the brightest photovoltaic cell in the sensor (sort of) and makes sure that the exposure is set to a value that retains detail around that. This makes you photos look a bit dark, but you never have an overexposed white wedding dress. Regular automatic exposure assumes the average of the entire picture (frame) must be grey. This causes a high-key image to get underexposed, which also happens with highlight weighted metering but in the proper way, or low key images get too light. I have shot everything with the Z 7 with this metering so far and am very happy with it. When I have to shoot in a difficult (in lighting) location, say indoors with windows on two sides, I will find the brightest that I want detailed and set my exposure for that (I still have a Sekonic 758 for that, but the Z makes it almost superfluous - spot metering can help here to find the brightest and darkest we need detailed. The Sekonic is calibrated with the camera and knows the camera's dynamic range, so it is able to indicate the optimal exposure, when necessary.)
I don't like to look through the viewfinder of the camera very long. Walking around, I see (visualize the shot in my brain) the shot and walk to the point that gives the perspective/angle and in walking there I may swap lenses to have the proper lens angle ready. When you shoot an event with more or less spontaneous, or journalistic shots, looking through the black device breaks the interaction with the subject-people. If I need a subject to have the idea I am not investigating them, I likely am in my studio and with flash, there, everything is different. Tethered and 15" touchscreen. Preset exposure, touch the screen, bang, done. Yes, you can verify exposure in the viewfinder and that is definitely "progress" - but I try to avoid it for reasons mentioned.
Good video as always. Giving someone RAW files would be like giving someone a first draft of an article or blog post. It is impossible for them to really to know what you were trying to say in that photo any more than they can say what you might be saying in an article. Pictures tell stories too...
@@qubitrev I would not want to do that. I would prefer to simply provide the JPEG files. But that is up to you. For me, it would be a problem because it would allow them to mess with my part of the photo - the creative part. But that is me.
@@qubitrev Not really. They are stuck with your starting point. They can modify the jpeg, but they cannot go back to the raw data that came out of the camera. But there are not any rules on this. If you want to give them the RAW files you just have to know that they have full artistic access to the photo, that is all. If you are comfortable with that it is fine, I simply offered my opinion. You need to do what you think is best.
@@qubitrev do you deliver raw? The final product it’s what’s matter, do matter nikon canon Sony? Do matter 24 or 50 megapixel? Nope unless you print billboards... do clients print raw? Jpg is the final product, do you ask for cement sample when you buy a house? Nope, jpg is the final product
@@elwelkin I do provide digital negatives on request, and I charge extra for them. So far, I haven't come across any compelling reasons not to. Respectfully, the "final product" is not the only thing that matters-building rapport, making your clients comfortable, communicating, and being honest with your clients' matter as much as the "final product." I'm not sure why you're comparing photography to cement samples and construction. These are two very different things. Digital negatives have nothing to do with cement samples 😂
Well if you don’t want to make money for your family giving away negatives or raw files that’s you, but if a client a year or two latter they want new prints I personally will make more money because it’s a business not PBS donations
Ansel Adams said, "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print is to the performance." We charge the big bucks for OUR performance, not the score!
Hi @The Monochrome Memoirs , I will attempt to give you feedback on this delicate issue. Out of the 5 arguments I find that you should put forward only the one about marketing, because the others may be seen as an excuse of not giving the Raws away. If I request the raws, then I may be a client who can do post-editing, or I may have a friend specialized in editing. Editors can be better than photographers in editing whilst being bad at photography. Solutions ? 1) Insist that you have a marketing issue with that, full stop. In this case you could propose an extra paid-service "a day in lab" where the couple would come to your office/home where you/they could edit stuff and leave with jpegs or tiffs. You would need a sort of non-disclosure agreement. 2) Give them away upon request, at least a selection of them. I would choose this option because I can speak about my job (software and physics) where it is common (nowadays) to open source your work and you have different ways of licensing your work. Opening up is hard at first, because of this sense that you are not in control of your work and hence reputation, but it can be valuable and has proven to be in those fields. Take Microsoft and Apple as an example, after many years of proprietary software, microsoft decided to open source a lot of its code base, and while they had a very bad reputation in the past they now gained a lot of respect from developers because of this stand. It actually boosted their marketing because people where talking about their openness. Google took similar steps. Compare this with apple, still closed source, old school. I understand that I am talking about big companies not entirely comparable to your case, but still. So perhaps think it over and find a balance in between 1 and 2. To me your not a raw file producer, your job includes a lot of other things during a wedding/family event, this includes bringing in professional equipment (not anyone can afford it and indeed I am still waiting to have enough cash to be able to buy the Z6 :) ), event management (as you probably keep in line with what is going on to shoot a specific moment, then do group photos etc), and you have the professionalism of how the photo is taken. Do not underestimate all what you and your wife bring. I think people will appreciate you more and would recommend you more, even if you explain why you need them to sign a paper on copyright protection, licensing or the like (how to do this is another topic). "Thanks to the Photography Memoirs for having provided the raw files". And also think about the fact that people won't publish their pictures if they do not look good, and if they do but people like them, then you win anyway. If the edited photos receive thumbs-down, then both of you loose, but this is an unlikely event in my opinion because you are typically more critical of your photos than people are. Take care
I've had clients put the worlds worst IG filters on my finished images. It drives me nuts. Then they tag me in it. I would just reply with the original as I delivered with a "I loved that one too" a sneaky way of saying that's not mine, this one is.
Spot on. I would go as far to say that a RAW image is nothing but a collection of data... it’s not even an actual rendered image yet (correct me if I’m wrong). My wife had a client just yesterday who took a snapshot of an unedited photo from the computer screen and said “I’ll just post this to the website”. Shut that client down real quick. I think one of the problems is, everyone who has a friggin snapseed app on their phone thinks they are a professional photo editor. I think you’re spot on with this, Will. You have to protect your brand. Period. Great video.
Totally agree with you to only release the final image, they are your best advertising, which RAW files are not. To be given a RAW file is the equivalent of going into a restaurant, wanting steak and chips, but being served a slice of raw steak and a raw unpeeled potato! Carry that thought in your mind in any discussion on the subject.
I don’t shoot professionally but I always thought it would be good idea to give clients raw files, a bit like during the film days photographers used to give film negatives. Well, I watched your video and I totally changed my mind. Couldn’t agree more. Very well done, these are very important issues that no other photographers is really talking about on youtube!
I still think it’s a good idea to give RAW files to clients if requested. Photography is more accessible today than ever before. Why not offer the flexibility to your clients?
They do modify jpegs also and then post them online. And modifying jpegs is generally easier than developing raw files (open instagram, autocrop image and apply filter to it, done). There is no way to prevent them from doing that unless one wants to threat them with law suit. There is actually good way to deal with this topic. Just charge more for delivering RAW. I mean, much more. They will give up probably. If they still insist, good for you, you get double paid.
My mentor had a well renowned wedding business in the 1960`s, 5 guys worked for him. All did the same thing by training. 6 rolls of 36 is what they did per wedding. Sunday evening was film developing, 8 roll tanks moving reels tank to tank with lift rod and Monday AM the neighbor ladies came to print samples. Now you think you need 4000 pics.
Totally off topic but thought I’d put my comment on your latest video. Just done my first wedding with a Z6 today. Used it next to a D810 and it blew it away in just about every way! I had a Tamron G2 24-70 f2.8 on the D810 and used the 24-70 f4s, 50mm and 85mm on the Z6. The images from the D810 were more than OK but the Z6 files are sharper and just straight up better and frankly, I’m amazed! Focus was much faster with the Z6, even in low light, used eye focus a fair bit but need to work with it more to get a better grip on how it works. Used single point for low light first dance and it was spot on. I even used the rear screen a couple of times, something I never thought I’d do! lol D810 going on sale tomorrow along with some glass to fund another Z6 and more lenses. Keeping the D500 for wildlife and sport as that can’t be beat by mirrorless just yet. Oh and you are spot on with this video mate :)
The Monochrome Memoirs Yeah, you said I’d switch when I’d given it a good try! lol One question, when I’ve clearly got a face in the shot but the af isn’t picking it up, is there a way to get it to rescan the frame or move the af point? I had a few occasions where I’d got a face in frame but in a complex scene and the only way I could get it to lock on with eye/face detection was to switch af modes briefly and back again to eye af.
Well said. Couldn't agree more. I had experience of clients butchering my work after delivering my final product by doing their "post" on them. I guess whether you give them the raw file or not, there's always a risk.
That is a great description of RAWs as being a tool, and which you use to produce the JPEGs by the way you and your skill deploy that tool. just made me think there is little difference between them asking for the RAWs and asking for your actual camera
I typically don't deliver RAW photos either. This year I've got one bride asking for RAW photos and I'm doing so. They have a photographer that they typically use, but is due with her baby at the time of their wedding. So they have asked if that photographer can edit the photos. Normally I wouldn't do that, but thought about it and A LOT of photographers send their work out for outside editing. This is pretty much the same way. I decided I'm okay with that in this case. But typically I wouldn't deliver RAW photos.
Bottom line is that this is a business and if a customer wants "Raw Files" they need to pay more for them aside from the overall job. Especially if you are selling any kind of prints at all. It's usage and licensing to print as large as you want, re-edit (is time and time/skill is money that you should charge for in reference to your business), or reformat as the customer needs. Overall don't do it unless a contract and payment is definitely involved.
Completely agree and love those 5 rules. I also don't understand those type of Photographers that say Photographers should not edit their Photos. That they should get it right in Camera and leave it alone. Every Photo in my opinion can be improved in some way, even if it's nothing but a little sharpening.
Usually I don't give client RAW images unless there is a special request, which is part of the initial consultation. When it happens, I give them all selected RAW's and edited files and I delete everything according to the contract. It happens only if the client don't want any pictures to be posted or used for anything ever. These clients usually has strong and valid reasons to do that. Most of the time they Law enforcement employee's or some other agencies where the secrecy is vital. It happens I would say 2-3 x a Year.
Thank you for these videos! I look forward to every video notification. All my colleagues give out raw files and un-edited images. That have never made sense to me. I am glad to feel I am not alone in wanting to deliver only high quality.
Have experienced point 4 of yours. The guy who shot my best friend's wedding had sent jpeg converted samples for all the images he took so that in house my friend's family could do their selection for album. My friend's father, uncle was so upset saying majority of the photos are bad, why am i paying all all such stuff. Found it really hard to explain that this is normal protocol, he had tried to capture all the moments, these photos would go through editing and would look drastically different, currently we just need to send our preferred list for the album
Not a pro but if I become one this is food for thought. I try to see the glass half full and think some brides don’t understand the photography process but I doubt they would want someone to micro manage their wedding without their input . Maybe not the best example but that’s the best i can do right now.
Very interesting subject and proof this channel is great; others are hung up on camera specs, here your addressing nuanced subjects about the industry. Hats off to you. So let me say...as a brand developer and designer of 23 years, clients pay for the finished product. Everything that happens up until you present a rough concept, a finalized concept, or deliver a finalized piece (a brochure let’s say) is your intellectual property. It’s your magic sauce. Otherwise they would have done it themselves. Your creative fee already has this built in inherently. When you go to KFC, you’re not given their securely guarded, secret recipe along with your cooked, ready-to-eat chicken. No, you get the final product. This is a tough subject and this in no way means there’s no room for flexibility, but from a photography standpoint-I’m just a beginner-I would be very leery of any prospective client who requested RAW files. First, it doesn’t feel right. Doing business is about understanding and respect for the artist’s craft. It starts the relationship on a bad foot. Secondly, if you’re shooting hundreds and thousands of photos on your way to the select few, imagine what that means you’re working for...pennies...because every photo is work you gave up. It devalues your fee. All of a sudden instead of 25, 50, or 75 hero shots they’re buying, you’re now taking your total fee and having to divide it be the thousands of photos you took. It’s a race to the bottom. It sucks the life out of you. It devalues your profession. It positions you to appease the next client. It positions you to do mediocre work because you’ll attract lower creative work, and unrealistic, not-quality clients. Then you stop investing in yourself because morale is low and you no longer invest monetarily into the business (not to mention the fact you may not be able to afford to). I know this has been long-winded but as a marketing veteran, it’s coming from experience.
Totally agree. Funny story: I got married in ‘98 and demanded we receive the negs because back then getting print copies was much more expensive. And we didn’t really know how many prints of whatever we might want. The photog didn’t object, but then again she wasn’t in the business of selling prints per se. Nor was she a professional. Paid $600 for her plus a second shooter. (So maybe she WAS a “professional” ... ) Joke was on us, as nearly every single image from the photog was horrible. She shot some kinda Kodak pro or cine film (something from the 5000 series) on an SLR. Colors and exposures were OK but I don’t recall any actually being in focus. WTF. Certainly none were sharp. Her 2nd shooter handled most of the reception, using a Hasselblad with B&W. Those negs look fine and will outlast us.
The way I see it, we are artists of some sort. Now, imagine a painter giving out a picture they made without his signature. The costumer could just go and slap their signature under it. So no, even if only some minor tweaks are done on a photograph, it will be like your painting of a picture. Personally I had someone saying they didnt like my editing and if they could have the RAW files. I said no, but was offering to redo some photos. Turned out they just wanted the photos to look like they took them. Oh well.
Here's another reason. Clients PAY you the photographer to document their special day. It makes no sense to give them creative control of the final image when they are paying you based on your expertise. I've never heard a bride ask a videographer to deliver the uncut footage of their wedding for editing. Stay in your lane.
Good pints made here especially for peoplee starting in weddings so they can havr the conversation. Some people find it hard to say no but with knowledge comes the ability to have that chat.
I don’t and I’ve never have thought of that, but I wouldn’t anyways!! I give digital files but only high resolution, with my watermark at the bottom right or left corner only to my highest paying customers
All great points, I especially identified with the "leaving photos slightly underexposed intentionally" although for me, it's more so I can have a faster shutter speed like when photographing dancers although I didn't realize one time when I was doing a photoshoot during sun set, that all of the pictures were pretty dark, thankfully none of them were ruined (my amateur butt a year ago would have been sad since I never shot any photos in RAW until I got my D750). I watched this out of curiosity since I sympathized with a family who wish I took their family portraits because the company they contracted refused to give the RAW files (stated in the contract) which they wanted because the editing of the photos was pretty bad, they were basically over sharpened with too much contrast, not to say I would give RAW files, I don't either but of course I maintain contact with my client during the post processing to ensure that they love the final product.
Ok here’s a question I’ve been mulling over a while. As wedding photographers, do we need a 24-70 2.8? The range is good (although I’d prefer 24-105) but I’m wondering about needing f2.8. Pretty much the only time I use 2.8 is in dark churches but the big problem with 2.8 is getting more than one person in focus, f4 is much better for that. Also, if the light is that bad I’ve got a bag full of f1.8 primes lenses I could use and get better IQ and a proper shallow depth of field. With the high ISO performance of the Z6, I’m more than happy shooting 2000iso and over if needed so f4 is fine and gives my that greater DOF. You might have guessed I’m trying to decide if I should get the Z 2.8 over the f4 i’ve already got. There might be some IQ improvements and maybe better AF but I can’t imagine it’s a huge difference as the f4 is very good! I know you’ve got the 2.8 but be interested in what you think.
Great points, especially the one about control over your materials for marketing. If something has a zero value (like giving away RAW files), expect your overall perceived value to be the same. Why should it be different?
How do you maintain control over material delivered in JPG/JPEG format? What is the difference? Value is subjective. As a photographer, I would certainly ask for copies of the digital negatives. Someone else may want the to be able to get their photos remastered in the future.
@@qubitrev Charge what you feel comfortable. I've shot weddings since 1980, no one ever had interest after months later. When I moved south in the late 80's, we had a 'clearance sale' of all negatives not retained for my portfolio examples. No one bought anything out of almost a decade of clientele contacted with a great deal. Zero value of past customers to one of the top billers of that metro. Value seems to be immediately after the shoot, mileage and value may vary. Sell and charge what works for you.
@@TheMonochromeMemoirs I can't stand that when I am giving a great edited photos to a client and next day I see the same photo being posted on their ig with a terrible preset. That can drive me crazy.
@@zsozsousa1 that's the worst. I once did a maternity shoot (never again) and spent a considerable amount of time to edit those images and I see really over the top filters on the images post online.
I don't give out raws because I want to be paid for my style. Why pay me to take your photo if you don't want me to make my image as I visioned it to become. I have a style that I like and I want to sell that style.
I have had this asked on several occasions, usually buy inexperienced clients keen to have a go at editing. You are right and just in saying it detracts from your individualism and skill set if you give them the Raw files. They are supposedly hiring you for your style and talent not for there's. So if pushed I will insist they receive my finished edited pictures and may provide them also with a minimally edited jpeg for them to play with but they will be instructed to state they edited the files they edited so as not to reflect negatively on my style or reputation.
Hey Joe! Yes I always shoot auto I find that the Z6 A WB is great. Never really shoot auto ISO but it more of a preference as the high ISO output looks fantastic on the Z6,
When I'm asked to send the RAW files I always say NO. I sell my JPEG, not my RAWs. When someone hires me, hires my knowledge, my unique personal view. I don't want people to mess with my files.
I would never give the RAW files to a client. An analogy I like is that why would anyone go to a fine dining restaurant that has a top chef, spend a load of money based on the skill and reputation of that establishment, then just ask the chef for the ingredients of their chosen dish so they could cook it themselves?
I don't give out RAWs but I would like to get the RAWs when I have my wedding. It is a little cheeky, but I think its because i would like to play around with my wedding pics afterwards. Maybe its because im a photographer myself so its second nature for me to want to play around with them. Anyways cheers mate! Edit: i would pay for the edit, to and get the finished product. But i would like to get the RAWs for my self too
Great to hear from you man! I’d say this is probably because you’re a photographer though, most people wouldn’t even be capable of opening a raw file to work on it
@@qubitrev Many reasons! One of them is RAW files are unfinished products. Just as uncooked food doesn’t taste good, likely, a RAW file wouldn’t look good. As a photographer you might sometimes need to under or overexpose a photo as your creative choice; a photographer can have a vision that a RAW file cannot express. Clients will take RAW photos for bad photos as they do not understand what you can do to it; they do not understand the extent you can go with the RAW files to achieve your vision. RAW photos can thus give an impression to the clients that you are a bad photographer, and you do not want them to think so.
@@joelesosa7981 Why not give your clients both? That way, they can appreciate your work and also have a copy of the originals. I don't understand the connection you're drawing between uncooked food and unedited files. Photos are supposed to be viewed, not ingested. These are two very separate things. Thanks for your reply! I think it's a meaningful conversation to have.
What’s stopping a client from editing or manipulating your JPG/JPEG images? RAW processors are always evolving and improving; it’s conceivable that in the future, a client may want to get their photos remastered. Thanks for your video!
You’re attempting to compare one thing to another that is really not related-context matters. There is a significant difference between providing clients with digital negatives and serving cooked or uncooked food at a restaurant. I would avoid this analogy altogether and not conflate the two ideas. After all, photos should be viewed, not ingested.
If someone asks me why I don't send them RAWs I might start linking them to this video from now on. I need to get better at explaining to customers what RAW images even are. I don't think the casual person understands the difference between a JPEG from a phone or point and shoot and the raw image from a DSLR or ML
One of my photography mentors at work once joked with me, "You may shoot 1000 pics at a shoot. Its your job to pick the top 250". LOL. I did a shoot and the client was like..."Send me all of them. How much more do I need to pay..." I was like Uhh yea.....cant do that. You get ## many that I'll retouch. Its like Roster Cuts.
How come vloggers don't set their video camera to manual focus? If you set the dof, the camera won't try to hunt. Idk just one of those things that bugs me now since I watch a lot of content on RUclips and just about everyone sets there camera to af continuous instead of just zone focusing and never worrying about being out of focus b/c you know you have 1ft to 3ft to play with.
I don’t know how things work for you but when you sell wedding photos, aren’t you just selling them a license to use your photos? The copyright stays with the photographer. Them having your raw files means you would have to sell them your rights to the pictures?
I ask for raw files from photographers I have take pictures of me or for me. I've been doing post processing and digital manipulation for 2 decades now, and I know the end result I want concerning colors, tonality, and contrast. If I'm hiring a photographer, I want them for composition and to click the shutter when I cant be behind the camera due to being in the picture. Most of the photographers I see online in my area are horrible at post processing. Overly red/yellow skin tones, severely muted shadows, and low contrast. They all say it's to get a 'vintage' look. I dont want that. I want rich, true colors with good gradation between highlights and shadows. Since they cant deliver that, I ask for the raw files so I can. That being said, no I do not give raws to my clients. I'll do one retouch if they are unhappy the initial processing.
I don't deliver RAW files. I just had one customer asking for all the RAW files after the shoot. I turned her down stating some of the same reasons you had in this video. I see no benefits in doing so.
This video has changed my mind. I am not pro photographer but do some paid event shooting jobs recently. I have been shooting six events for the same client. I would select the jpeg files and edit them and give to my client each time. Each jpeg has been resized to 3000 pixels on the long side as they would post them on their fb and ig. They are very satisfied with the photos each time. No prints from me. They can have their own prints. Last week they asked for all the photos for next shooting regardless the photos are bad, out of focus, tilted, over or under exposed etc. The reason from them - The photos that I think are bad not fit for posting may look good for them! At first I diagreed but minutes later I agreed after much persuasion from them. Luckily, I cancelled the shooting three days in advance because of the latest novel coronavirus situation in my country Malaysia. I rather be safe than sorry. After watching this video, I absolutely agree with you. I will tell them to stick to the old agreement. Thanks.
Totally agree. A raw file is not ready yet and only the photographer knows what he/she wanted to do with it in PP. Even the name says it... raw. Would they go to the chef’s kitchen and ask for the ingredients of the menu?
I'd never ever considered giving people raw files, just as I would never give negatives to clients back in the day. To me, it's just a big fat 'ol DUH.
Larry Silverman - I agree completely with that. When I was shooting weddings I was pissed enough that some clients demanded .jpg files instead of prints. But NEF files? Out of the question. This all must be agreed to by signed contracts before the wedding. It was so much easier during the film days when all they saw was a proof sheet they could select from.
I agree with you and not giving the bride and groom raw photos. Plus after they go through them most likely they will not know how to process the files...therefore they will again reach out to you and ask for me. Which is annoying. ...I do however in my line of photography work give my clients the raw images. I shoot in the commercial side of the sports-fishing industry. My clients receive my edited selects, then on a hard drive they receive all my raws. I do this because my work is going to all different types of mediums. In store installations, cabelas, bass pro shop. They need to blow images up or sometimes want to crop differently. Most of the companies have in house teams who can deal with my files as well. So there is a time and place to give clients your raw images.
TOTALLY agree here. If it’s for commercial purposes then it can be totally warranted, even required sometimes. But yeah giving any raws to retail clients is totally opening up a can of worms. Always good to hear from you Jess, you on IG? Would love to see some of your work!
Asking for raw files is like you go to a restaurant, instead of ordering cooked food, you were asking for an alive chicken and do the rest by yourself, funny :))
Hey guys here's a video I thought might be really helpful to anyone dealing with clients asking for raw files. Hope this helps! - Will
There could be cases for delivering RAW files to a client, an example is for large commercial shoots where clients have in-house editors.
I've also had clients ask for the RAW files and I have decided to only give RAW files on 3 conditions: 1st they have to prove to me they know how to edit, 2nd they sign a contract removing any link to myself or my business and 3rd they have to pay extra per photo due to the loss in business ( I don't supply full size images to clients normally) from prints ( I control the printing of the images where possible)
Definitely for large commercial shoots!
True. The devil is in the legal detail, especially in the US with its FEL system. Let's define Intellectual property (IPr) as something that includes the creation title, publication right, and copyright (and lets not forget the potential IPr of people and things recorded in our photographs).
In my country, IPr is with the creator, unless. Unless: in a commercial setting where a client asks a photographer to take their portrait, IPr is with the client by default, not matter if they are private persons or legal entities. And you can shoot anything visible from a public road/place and publish that, under your creator/owner name. Except you cannot publish when you could assume that a reasonable (personal) interest would be harmed by that.
When you are hired as employee-photographer with the mission to take photos for your employer, the employer owns the IPr, however you still have a title to have your name published with each publication of the shots you took, next to the business's name that holds the publication/copy rights.
Now to commercial shoots. It is clear, based on the above, how the relative roles are. Likely, an art director looks over your shoulder during your shoot, or they have given you tight artistic constraints. Many details in your shots are subject to somebody else's IPr: make-up (MUA), hair (dresser), styling (stylist), composition (art director), etc.
In this commercial shoot setting, you work under a contract that outlines all these details, likely settles transfer of all IPr to the client and likely explicitly forbids you to publish in any way the shots you took under this contract. And why would you, for repetitive catalog work? This may all change however when you have become so good that Magnum invites you to become a member, National Geographic hires you or Vanity Fair wants you to shoot their cover - they will be proud to put your name next to your shots and pay you correspondingly to your part in their business model.
So in the film days, clients received your negatives or slides and today they receive your raw files.
And because you loose artistic freedom and IPr, you get paid a lot more.
[FEL: Full Employment for Lawyers.] [I live in Europe and have a European nationality.]
I would say - see my legal comment - you have a two options that are simple and transparent: a) you retain full IPr so you never hand over raw files (nor negatives or original slides), b) you work under a contract that causes those who hire you to have full IPr so there is no point in trying to keep the raw files, or c) in between variants that complicate matters and require detailed contracts.
On the content level of your raw conditions (fun intended, but seriously). (1) Forget about the first condition or put it last. (2) They may sign a contract removing your details from the setting, but what if they already have photos that you authorized and released under your name? Don't do it. Also, what if they commercially use your shot in a way that would have generated serious revenue to you? Assuming that you have full IPr to all aspects in the shots. Prevent having to go to court later, for situations that make you feel sorry for not having made explicit agreements. (3) The reasoning about losing business in prints is valid but less relevant today. People are more likely to buy a monitor picture frame that shows their photos electronically or put up their proud pictures on a large thin TV instead of a print. Just ask money for the raw shots and make sure the client understands they have to pay significant money for them, when they want or need them. And make sure you have made explicit if they can order a couple or have to buy all of them from the shoot.
-4) If you worry about future debates who shot the shot, consider not handing over the straight-out-of-camera (SOOC) raw shots, but 16-bit TIFFs. Here I would always apply a bit of crop and set resolution to a nice number that is smaller than SOOC. This way you can also apply some dehazing or sharpening (or the other way around) and still have the original that they do not have. That way any debate about who shot the shot when they go rogue is lost for them. BTW, under US law, you need to deposit your photographs with the copyright bureaus or else you will never win a court case. In this process, you can also decide what meta data that would be present in your raw SOOC shots to copy into the TIFF, or not, and what to put in the TIFF as replacement of your own meta data.
-5) a complication in IPr is that a raw SOOC shot has so much bandwidth, and detail, that you can make several different artworks from one raw file: different crops, different contrasts and sharpenings, different color/monochrome palettes. The poster image for this video above touches on that. So, prevent a debate about artistic intent when you have to go to court about copyright!
@@jpdj2715 I currently work in a country which doesn't have the development of first world countries. Selling prints is still a valid business model. As for making those terms, it is more to discourage people than to start giving away RAW images. I should of mentioned than the price I put to each RAW image is $30, that is a lot for the local population and I haven't had one person agree to it
Very well said. I never actually looked at things this way. Keep in mind, I am not a pro photographer by any means. But this is great, usable info for the future. 💪🏾
Glad this helped my friend!
Only people in the know are gonna ask for raws. What if they like your composition but have another editor?
I would give them away, BUT only in addition to a full editing job and a finished product. I don't see a point in keeping them away from my customers. Maybe they are very enthusiastic about photography and like to have a go at some of the images themselves. And as long as you deliver a good final product as well, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't harm my business. But I would never deliver only the RAW files. I see it that way: They pay me to do their photography, so all pictures I take, are made under contract for my customer and hence all of the data is their property.
Similar to the film days, when customers weren’t given the negatives.
True that
Agree. If you buy a painting, you don't ask for the artist's brushes and paints.
Agree with you totally. I am just starting out. A popular fashion blogger around where I live asked for a photoshoot in return for free social media share through their account. Initially I thought it would be good exposure for me but she insisted on giving her the raw files. She ended up posting my photos after her edit even though I sent her processed photos. And her edit was so bad that I regretted wasting my time. And I had no return from that shoot, no new followers or clients. I had to learn the hard way.
Ive had a few clients ask for raw files cos they have a friend who's also a photographer and he told them to ask for it. A client even asked me if I shot with canon 5D MK3. I asked why that specific camera and they replied that it's the best professional camera (i shoot with the D750). I didn't book them.
Very interesting video Will. This is a great teaching video for people who are looking to turn pro and wouldn’t think about things like this. Someone might think they are offering their client a good service, not realizing they are hurting themselves and their business.
Thanks again Will for this excellent video!
You the man brother!!
Do these people also ask the caterer to deliver raw chicken or fish?
This ☝🏻
If they’re having a BBQ, why not?
Underexpose. The Nikon Z has a parameter you can set to help you out here. It is called "Highlight-weighted Metering". Here the camera tracks down the brightest photovoltaic cell in the sensor (sort of) and makes sure that the exposure is set to a value that retains detail around that. This makes you photos look a bit dark, but you never have an overexposed white wedding dress.
Regular automatic exposure assumes the average of the entire picture (frame) must be grey. This causes a high-key image to get underexposed, which also happens with highlight weighted metering but in the proper way, or low key images get too light. I have shot everything with the Z 7 with this metering so far and am very happy with it. When I have to shoot in a difficult (in lighting) location, say indoors with windows on two sides, I will find the brightest that I want detailed and set my exposure for that (I still have a Sekonic 758 for that, but the Z makes it almost superfluous - spot metering can help here to find the brightest and darkest we need detailed. The Sekonic is calibrated with the camera and knows the camera's dynamic range, so it is able to indicate the optimal exposure, when necessary.)
Used to use this a lot on my DSLRs! Fortunately with mirrorless I just disregard the meter now and look at the screen, I find the the Z6 accurate!
JP dj - something new for me. Thanks for sharing.
Best function ever. Especially in harsh sunlight/shadow situations.
I don't like to look through the viewfinder of the camera very long. Walking around, I see (visualize the shot in my brain) the shot and walk to the point that gives the perspective/angle and in walking there I may swap lenses to have the proper lens angle ready. When you shoot an event with more or less spontaneous, or journalistic shots, looking through the black device breaks the interaction with the subject-people. If I need a subject to have the idea I am not investigating them, I likely am in my studio and with flash, there, everything is different. Tethered and 15" touchscreen. Preset exposure, touch the screen, bang, done.
Yes, you can verify exposure in the viewfinder and that is definitely "progress" - but I try to avoid it for reasons mentioned.
Good video as always. Giving someone RAW files would be like giving someone a first draft of an article or blog post. It is impossible for them to really to know what you were trying to say in that photo any more than they can say what you might be saying in an article. Pictures tell stories too...
What if you give them both?
@@qubitrev I would not want to do that. I would prefer to simply provide the JPEG files. But that is up to you. For me, it would be a problem because it would allow them to mess with my part of the photo - the creative part. But that is me.
@@ddunnum I respect your choice. But couldn’t they do the same by editing the JPEG files you give them?
@@qubitrev Not really. They are stuck with your starting point. They can modify the jpeg, but they cannot go back to the raw data that came out of the camera. But there are not any rules on this. If you want to give them the RAW files you just have to know that they have full artistic access to the photo, that is all. If you are comfortable with that it is fine, I simply offered my opinion. You need to do what you think is best.
To those who ask for RAW just tell them that you shoot jpef
😂😂😂
Why would you lie to your clients and risk losing future business?
@@qubitrev do you deliver raw? The final product it’s what’s matter, do matter nikon canon Sony? Do matter 24 or 50 megapixel? Nope unless you print billboards... do clients print raw? Jpg is the final product, do you ask for cement sample when you buy a house? Nope, jpg is the final product
@@elwelkin I do provide digital negatives on request, and I charge extra for them. So far, I haven't come across any compelling reasons not to. Respectfully, the "final product" is not the only thing that matters-building rapport, making your clients comfortable, communicating, and being honest with your clients' matter as much as the "final product."
I'm not sure why you're comparing photography to cement samples and construction. These are two very different things. Digital negatives have nothing to do with cement samples 😂
Well if you don’t want to make money for your family giving away negatives or raw files that’s you, but if a client a year or two latter they want new prints I personally will make more money because it’s a business not PBS donations
Ansel Adams said, "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print is to the performance." We charge the big bucks for OUR performance, not the score!
Why not charge big bucks for both?
@@qubitrev I do! 😎😉
Very well said my friend. You nailed it!
Thanks for watching sir!
GREAT video. I had a few clients ask for rates and I didn’t really know what to say. Thanks will!
Glad this helped Karen!
Why turn down the opportunity to make some extra money and keep your clients happy?
Hi @The Monochrome Memoirs , I will attempt to give you feedback on this delicate issue. Out of the 5 arguments I find that you should put forward only the one about marketing, because the others may be seen as an excuse of not giving the Raws away. If I request the raws, then I may be a client who can do post-editing, or I may have a friend specialized in editing. Editors can be better than photographers in editing whilst being bad at photography.
Solutions ?
1) Insist that you have a marketing issue with that, full stop. In this case you could propose an extra paid-service "a day in lab" where the couple would come to your office/home where you/they could edit stuff and leave with jpegs or tiffs. You would need a sort of non-disclosure agreement.
2) Give them away upon request, at least a selection of them. I would choose this option because I can speak about my job (software and physics) where it is common (nowadays) to open source your work and you have different ways of licensing your work. Opening up is hard at first, because of this sense that you are not in control of your work and hence reputation, but it can be valuable and has proven to be in those fields. Take Microsoft and Apple as an example, after many years of proprietary software, microsoft decided to open source a lot of its code base, and while they had a very bad reputation in the past they now gained a lot of respect from developers because of this stand. It actually boosted their marketing because people where talking about their openness. Google took similar steps. Compare this with apple, still closed source, old school.
I understand that I am talking about big companies not entirely comparable to your case, but still. So perhaps think it over and find a balance in between 1 and 2.
To me your not a raw file producer, your job includes a lot of other things during a wedding/family event, this includes bringing in professional equipment (not anyone can afford it and indeed I am still waiting to have enough cash to be able to buy the Z6 :) ), event management (as you probably keep in line with what is going on to shoot a specific moment, then do group photos etc), and you have the professionalism of how the photo is taken. Do not underestimate all what you and your wife bring. I think people will appreciate you more and would recommend you more, even if you explain why you need them to sign a paper on copyright protection, licensing or the like (how to do this is another topic). "Thanks to the Photography Memoirs for having provided the raw files". And also think about the fact that people won't publish their pictures if they do not look good, and if they do but people like them, then you win anyway. If the edited photos receive thumbs-down, then both of you loose, but this is an unlikely event in my opinion because you are typically more critical of your photos than people are.
Take care
I've had clients put the worlds worst IG filters on my finished images. It drives me nuts. Then they tag me in it. I would just reply with the original as I delivered with a "I loved that one too" a sneaky way of saying that's not mine, this one is.
Use a contract to limit how photos are shared on social media
Spot on. I would go as far to say that a RAW image is nothing but a collection of data... it’s not even an actual rendered image yet (correct me if I’m wrong).
My wife had a client just yesterday who took a snapshot of an unedited photo from the computer screen and said “I’ll just post this to the website”. Shut that client down real quick. I think one of the problems is, everyone who has a friggin snapseed app on their phone thinks they are a professional photo editor.
I think you’re spot on with this, Will. You have to protect your brand. Period. Great video.
THIS!!!!!!
Totally agree with you to only release the final image, they are your best advertising, which RAW files are not.
To be given a RAW file is the equivalent of going into a restaurant, wanting steak and chips, but being served a slice of raw steak and a raw unpeeled potato! Carry that thought in your mind in any discussion on the subject.
Mate … you are on the F%&^$ money … great series of tutorials and opinions … just subscribed ! 🙏☮️
I don’t shoot professionally but I always thought it would be good idea to give clients raw files, a bit like during the film days photographers used to give film negatives. Well, I watched your video and I totally changed my mind. Couldn’t agree more. Very well done, these are very important issues that no other photographers is really talking about on youtube!
I still think it’s a good idea to give RAW files to clients if requested. Photography is more accessible today than ever before. Why not offer the flexibility to your clients?
Customers can make an attempt to sue you when they see the raw photos.
If you do it, your reputation will be on the line.
They do modify jpegs also and then post them online. And modifying jpegs is generally easier than developing raw files (open instagram, autocrop image and apply filter to it, done). There is no way to prevent them from doing that unless one wants to threat them with law suit. There is actually good way to deal with this topic. Just charge more for delivering RAW. I mean, much more. They will give up probably. If they still insist, good for you, you get double paid.
My mentor had a well renowned wedding business in the 1960`s, 5 guys worked for him. All did the same thing by training. 6 rolls of 36 is what they did per wedding. Sunday evening was film developing, 8 roll tanks moving reels tank to tank with lift rod and Monday AM the neighbor ladies came to print samples. Now you think you need 4000 pics.
Thanks for watching!
Totally off topic but thought I’d put my comment on your latest video. Just done my first wedding with a Z6 today. Used it next to a D810 and it blew it away in just about every way! I had a Tamron G2 24-70 f2.8 on the D810 and used the 24-70 f4s, 50mm and 85mm on the Z6. The images from the D810 were more than OK but the Z6 files are sharper and just straight up better and frankly, I’m amazed! Focus was much faster with the Z6, even in low light, used eye focus a fair bit but need to work with it more to get a better grip on how it works. Used single point for low light first dance and it was spot on. I even used the rear screen a couple of times, something I never thought I’d do! lol D810 going on sale tomorrow along with some glass to fund another Z6 and more lenses. Keeping the D500 for wildlife and sport as that can’t be beat by mirrorless just yet. Oh and you are spot on with this video mate :)
You sound exactly like me 1.5 years ago when I bought my first Z6 😂.
The Monochrome Memoirs Yeah, you said I’d switch when I’d given it a good try! lol One question, when I’ve clearly got a face in the shot but the af isn’t picking it up, is there a way to get it to rescan the frame or move the af point? I had a few occasions where I’d got a face in frame but in a complex scene and the only way I could get it to lock on with eye/face detection was to switch af modes briefly and back again to eye af.
Dave Hughes yes. If you hit the zoom out button (with the minus symbol) the yellow box will disappear and you can re scan the scene!
The Monochrome Memoirs Thanks brother! Wonder if it can be put on one of the front function buttons?
Well said. Couldn't agree more. I had experience of clients butchering my work after delivering my final product by doing their "post" on them. I guess whether you give them the raw file or not, there's always a risk.
That is a great description of RAWs as being a tool, and which you use to produce the JPEGs by the way you and your skill deploy that tool. just made me think there is little difference between them asking for the RAWs and asking for your actual camera
I typically don't deliver RAW photos either. This year I've got one bride asking for RAW photos and I'm doing so. They have a photographer that they typically use, but is due with her baby at the time of their wedding. So they have asked if that photographer can edit the photos. Normally I wouldn't do that, but thought about it and A LOT of photographers send their work out for outside editing. This is pretty much the same way. I decided I'm okay with that in this case. But typically I wouldn't deliver RAW photos.
You're right . Absolutely no reason they should have the RAW files . Great points for newer Photographers
Bottom line is that this is a business and if a customer wants "Raw Files" they need to pay more for them aside from the overall job. Especially if you are selling any kind of prints at all. It's usage and licensing to print as large as you want, re-edit (is time and time/skill is money that you should charge for in reference to your business), or reformat as the customer needs. Overall don't do it unless a contract and payment is definitely involved.
Thanks for this! An issue I had myself and always uncomfortable to deal with it.
Completely agree and love those 5 rules. I also don't understand those type of Photographers that say Photographers should not edit their Photos. That they should get it right in Camera and leave it alone. Every Photo in my opinion can be improved in some way, even if it's nothing but a little sharpening.
Usually I don't give client RAW images unless there is a special request, which is part of the initial consultation. When it happens, I give them all selected RAW's and edited files and I delete everything according to the contract. It happens only if the client don't want any pictures to be posted or used for anything ever. These clients usually has strong and valid reasons to do that. Most of the time they Law enforcement employee's or some other agencies where the secrecy is vital. It happens I would say 2-3 x a Year.
Yeah I can definitely see some select circumstances where this might be valid!
Thank you for these videos! I look forward to every video notification. All my colleagues give out raw files and un-edited images. That have never made sense to me. I am glad to feel I am not alone in wanting to deliver only high quality.
What if you deliver both and charge extra for the digital negatives?
Have experienced point 4 of yours. The guy who shot my best friend's wedding had sent jpeg converted samples for all the images he took so that in house my friend's family could do their selection for album. My friend's father, uncle was so upset saying majority of the photos are bad, why am i paying all all such stuff. Found it really hard to explain that this is normal protocol, he had tried to capture all the moments, these photos would go through editing and would look drastically different, currently we just need to send our preferred list for the album
Not a pro but if I become one this is food for thought. I try to see the glass half full and think some brides don’t understand the photography process but I doubt they would want someone to micro manage their wedding without their input . Maybe not the best example but that’s the best i can do right now.
Very interesting subject and proof this channel is great; others are hung up on camera specs, here your addressing nuanced subjects about the industry. Hats off to you. So let me say...as a brand developer and designer of 23 years, clients pay for the finished product. Everything that happens up until you present a rough concept, a finalized concept, or deliver a finalized piece (a brochure let’s say) is your intellectual property. It’s your magic sauce. Otherwise they would have done it themselves. Your creative fee already has this built in inherently. When you go to KFC, you’re not given their securely guarded, secret recipe along with your cooked, ready-to-eat chicken. No, you get the final product. This is a tough subject and this in no way means there’s no room for flexibility, but from a photography standpoint-I’m just a beginner-I would be very leery of any prospective client who requested RAW files. First, it doesn’t feel right. Doing business is about understanding and respect for the artist’s craft. It starts the relationship on a bad foot. Secondly, if you’re shooting hundreds and thousands of photos on your way to the select few, imagine what that means you’re working for...pennies...because every photo is work you gave up. It devalues your fee. All of a sudden instead of 25, 50, or 75 hero shots they’re buying, you’re now taking your total fee and having to divide it be the thousands of photos you took. It’s a race to the bottom. It sucks the life out of you. It devalues your profession. It positions you to appease the next client. It positions you to do mediocre work because you’ll attract lower creative work, and unrealistic, not-quality clients. Then you stop investing in yourself because morale is low and you no longer invest monetarily into the business (not to mention the fact you may not be able to afford to). I know this has been long-winded but as a marketing veteran, it’s coming from experience.
Totally agree. Funny story: I got married in ‘98 and demanded we receive the negs because back then getting print copies was much more expensive. And we didn’t really know how many prints of whatever we might want.
The photog didn’t object, but then again she wasn’t in the business of selling prints per se. Nor was she a professional.
Paid $600 for her plus a second shooter. (So maybe she WAS a “professional” ... ) Joke was on us, as nearly every single image from the photog was horrible. She shot some kinda Kodak pro or cine film (something from the 5000 series) on an SLR. Colors and exposures were OK but I don’t recall any actually being in focus. WTF. Certainly none were sharp.
Her 2nd shooter handled most of the reception, using a Hasselblad with B&W. Those negs look fine and will outlast us.
The way I see it, we are artists of some sort. Now, imagine a painter giving out a picture they made without his signature. The costumer could just go and slap their signature under it. So no, even if only some minor tweaks are done on a photograph, it will be like your painting of a picture. Personally I had someone saying they didnt like my editing and if they could have the RAW files. I said no, but was offering to redo some photos. Turned out they just wanted the photos to look like they took them. Oh well.
Very true Daniel
Here's another reason. Clients PAY you the photographer to document their special day. It makes no sense to give them creative control of the final image when they are paying you based on your expertise. I've never heard a bride ask a videographer to deliver the uncut footage of their wedding for editing. Stay in your lane.
Absolutely agree brother
Good pints made here especially for peoplee starting in weddings so they can havr the conversation. Some people find it hard to say no but with knowledge comes the ability to have that chat.
I don’t and I’ve never have thought of that, but I wouldn’t anyways!! I give digital files but only high resolution, with my watermark at the bottom right or left corner only to my highest paying customers
All great points, I especially identified with the "leaving photos slightly underexposed intentionally" although for me, it's more so I can have a faster shutter speed like when photographing dancers although I didn't realize one time when I was doing a photoshoot during sun set, that all of the pictures were pretty dark, thankfully none of them were ruined (my amateur butt a year ago would have been sad since I never shot any photos in RAW until I got my D750).
I watched this out of curiosity since I sympathized with a family who wish I took their family portraits because the company they contracted refused to give the RAW files (stated in the contract) which they wanted because the editing of the photos was pretty bad, they were basically over sharpened with too much contrast, not to say I would give RAW files, I don't either but of course I maintain contact with my client during the post processing to ensure that they love the final product.
Ok here’s a question I’ve been mulling over a while. As wedding photographers, do we need a 24-70 2.8? The range is good (although I’d prefer 24-105) but I’m wondering about needing f2.8. Pretty much the only time I use 2.8 is in dark churches but the big problem with 2.8 is getting more than one person in focus, f4 is much better for that. Also, if the light is that bad I’ve got a bag full of f1.8 primes lenses I could use and get better IQ and a proper shallow depth of field. With the high ISO performance of the Z6, I’m more than happy shooting 2000iso and over if needed so f4 is fine and gives my that greater DOF. You might have guessed I’m trying to decide if I should get the Z 2.8 over the f4 i’ve already got. There might be some IQ improvements and maybe better AF but I can’t imagine it’s a huge difference as the f4 is very good! I know you’ve got the 2.8 but be interested in what you think.
I never did!
Great points, especially the one about control over your materials for marketing. If something has a zero value (like giving away RAW files), expect your overall perceived value to be the same. Why should it be different?
How do you maintain control over material delivered in JPG/JPEG format? What is the difference? Value is subjective. As a photographer, I would certainly ask for copies of the digital negatives. Someone else may want the to be able to get their photos remastered in the future.
@@qubitrev Charge what you feel comfortable. I've shot weddings since 1980, no one ever had interest after months later. When I moved south in the late 80's, we had a 'clearance sale' of all negatives not retained for my portfolio examples. No one bought anything out of almost a decade of clientele contacted with a great deal. Zero value of past customers to one of the top billers of that metro. Value seems to be immediately after the shoot, mileage and value may vary. Sell and charge what works for you.
@@jrarsenault1937 Thanks for your reply. My only point is that I see no compelling reason not to sell digital negatives to clients when requested.
Had to make my own wedding photographer send me raws because she put weird preset on everything
I am shocked at some of the presets I see out there
@@TheMonochromeMemoirs I can't stand that when I am giving a great edited photos to a client and next day I see the same photo being posted on their ig with a terrible preset.
That can drive me crazy.
@@zsozsousa1 that's the worst. I once did a maternity shoot (never again) and spent a considerable amount of time to edit those images and I see really over the top filters on the images post online.
@@hagarthehorrible1391 Yeah, that's sux, but if the client was happy with your photos then at least you have your success there.
Good reasons.
Thanks for watching Robert!
Most of the time we don't Give Raw photos to Client, we charge extra money for raw photo & video.
I don't give out raws because I want to be paid for my style.
Why pay me to take your photo if you don't want me to make my image as I visioned it to become.
I have a style that I like and I want to sell that style.
I have had this asked on several occasions, usually buy inexperienced clients keen to have a go at editing. You are right and just in saying it detracts from your individualism and skill set if you give them the Raw files. They are supposedly hiring you for your style and talent not for there's. So if pushed I will insist they receive my finished edited pictures and may provide them also with a minimally edited jpeg for them to play with but they will be instructed to state they edited the files they edited so as not to reflect negatively on my style or reputation.
in one of the next video let us know how you fix skin tone and what software you are using, thanks
question Do you shoot you shoot auto white Bal...and fix later in post and are you happy with Z6's auto white performance as well as auto ISO ??
Hey Joe!
Yes I always shoot auto I find that the Z6 A WB is great. Never really shoot auto ISO but it more of a preference as the high ISO output looks fantastic on the Z6,
@@TheMonochromeMemoirs thanks so much for the reply, I agree with you, I limit the iso range on auto so it doesn't hold too high and it works great
When I'm asked to send the RAW files I always say NO. I sell my JPEG, not my RAWs. When someone hires me, hires my knowledge, my unique personal view. I don't want people to mess with my files.
They mess with jpegs too and we can't prevent them...
Good video. Thanks!
Totally agreed. 100%
Thanks for watching my friend!
I would never give the RAW files to a client. An analogy I like is that why would anyone go to a fine dining restaurant that has a top chef, spend a load of money based on the skill and reputation of that establishment, then just ask the chef for the ingredients of their chosen dish so they could cook it themselves?
it's like the film days golden rule...no negatives to clients, good info for the newbies...obvious to pro photographer
I don't give out RAWs but I would like to get the RAWs when I have my wedding. It is a little cheeky, but I think its because i would like to play around with my wedding pics afterwards. Maybe its because im a photographer myself so its second nature for me to want to play around with them.
Anyways cheers mate!
Edit: i would pay for the edit, to and get the finished product. But i would like to get the RAWs for my self too
Great to hear from you man! I’d say this is probably because you’re a photographer though, most people wouldn’t even be capable of opening a raw file to work on it
Contract.
I agree with you! I had 2 brides that ask about the originals! Now I have an agreement that I will not give away raw files to clients on my contract .
Why not? How does this benefit you?
@@qubitrev Many reasons! One of them is RAW files are unfinished products. Just as uncooked food doesn’t taste good, likely, a RAW file wouldn’t look good. As a photographer you might sometimes need to under or overexpose a photo as your creative choice; a photographer can have a vision that a RAW file cannot express. Clients will take RAW photos for bad photos as they do not understand what you can do to it; they do not understand the extent you can go with the RAW files to achieve your vision. RAW photos can thus give an impression to the clients that you are a bad photographer, and you do not want them to think so.
@@joelesosa7981 Why not give your clients both? That way, they can appreciate your work and also have a copy of the originals. I don't understand the connection you're drawing between uncooked food and unedited files. Photos are supposed to be viewed, not ingested. These are two very separate things.
Thanks for your reply! I think it's a meaningful conversation to have.
Thanks Again...
Thanks for watching George!
hi would you recommend the z6 for sports and is it good for low light indoors? thanks.
What’s stopping a client from editing or manipulating your JPG/JPEG images? RAW processors are always evolving and improving; it’s conceivable that in the future, a client may want to get their photos remastered. Thanks for your video!
you don't give clients your raw files just the same as a restaurant doesn't give you uncooked or unprepared food
@@anandhua.b4589 Korean BBQ?
You’re attempting to compare one thing to another that is really not related-context matters. There is a significant difference between providing clients with digital negatives and serving cooked or uncooked food at a restaurant. I would avoid this analogy altogether and not conflate the two ideas. After all, photos should be viewed, not ingested.
it's like an Uber customer asking the driver for their car.
If someone asks me why I don't send them RAWs I might start linking them to this video from now on. I need to get better at explaining to customers what RAW images even are. I don't think the casual person understands the difference between a JPEG from a phone or point and shoot and the raw image from a DSLR or ML
What if the customer has a preferred retoucher?
Even then I’d probably say we weren’t the photographer for them. I definitely want to retain QC over the images as strictly as I can!
Got even more cute with the white shirt S2.
Great real world real deal channel.
Thanks for watching my friend
It's like adding salt in a dish of a famous cook chief. It's his interpretation of his food, and you choose to taste his touch.
Give this man an Oscar!
One of my photography mentors at work once joked with me, "You may shoot 1000 pics at a shoot. Its your job to pick the top 250". LOL.
I did a shoot and the client was like..."Send me all of them. How much more do I need to pay..." I was like Uhh yea.....cant do that. You get ## many that I'll retouch. Its like Roster Cuts.
Do you then give them the RAW files of the 250 you selected?
How come vloggers don't set their video camera to manual focus? If you set the dof, the camera won't try to hunt. Idk just one of those things that bugs me now since I watch a lot of content on RUclips and just about everyone sets there camera to af continuous instead of just zone focusing and never worrying about being out of focus b/c you know you have 1ft to 3ft to play with.
I do sometimes, usually don’t move around a lot though so AF works just fine
I don’t know how things work for you but when you sell wedding photos, aren’t you just selling them a license to use your photos? The copyright stays with the photographer. Them having your raw files means you would have to sell them your rights to the pictures?
Most of this can be solved by providing dng
I ask for raw files from photographers I have take pictures of me or for me. I've been doing post processing and digital manipulation for 2 decades now, and I know the end result I want concerning colors, tonality, and contrast.
If I'm hiring a photographer, I want them for composition and to click the shutter when I cant be behind the camera due to being in the picture.
Most of the photographers I see online in my area are horrible at post processing. Overly red/yellow skin tones, severely muted shadows, and low contrast. They all say it's to get a 'vintage' look.
I dont want that.
I want rich, true colors with good gradation between highlights and shadows. Since they cant deliver that, I ask for the raw files so I can.
That being said, no I do not give raws to my clients. I'll do one retouch if they are unhappy the initial processing.
This is an excellent comment and totally valid reason for wanting RAWS
I agree with William, not only a valid reason but the only reason with strict copyright conditions in a signed contract.
I charge $2,000 for raw photos. I haven’t sold one haha
Overall good vid
I don't deliver RAW files. I just had one customer asking for all the RAW files after the shoot. I turned her down stating some of the same reasons you had in this video. I see no benefits in doing so.
Great video...reasons were on point, especially your discussion on marketing!
This video has changed my mind. I am not pro photographer but do some paid event shooting jobs recently. I have been shooting six events for the same client. I would select the jpeg files and edit them and give to my client each time. Each jpeg has been resized to 3000 pixels on the long side as they would post them on their fb and ig. They are very satisfied with the photos each time. No prints from me. They can have their own prints. Last week they asked for all the photos for next shooting regardless the photos are bad, out of focus, tilted, over or under exposed etc. The reason from them - The photos that I think are bad not fit for posting may look good for them! At first I diagreed but minutes later I agreed after much persuasion from them. Luckily, I cancelled the shooting three days in advance because of the latest novel coronavirus situation in my country Malaysia. I rather be safe than sorry. After watching this video, I absolutely agree with you. I will tell them to stick to the old agreement. Thanks.
Glad this helped my friend and please stay safe from the virus! Seems like it hasn’t slowed down yet
Totally agree. A raw file is not ready yet and only the photographer knows what he/she wanted to do with it in PP. Even the name says it... raw. Would they go to the chef’s kitchen and ask for the ingredients of the menu?
Perfect analogy Jordan. Thanks for watching!
I'd never ever considered giving people raw files, just as I would never give negatives to clients back in the day. To me, it's just a big fat 'ol DUH.
Same here!
Larry Silverman - I agree completely with that. When I was shooting weddings I was pissed enough that some clients demanded .jpg files instead of prints. But NEF files? Out of the question. This all must be agreed to by signed contracts before the wedding. It was so much easier during the film days when all they saw was a proof sheet they could select from.
I agree with you and not giving the bride and groom raw photos. Plus after they go through them most likely they will not know how to process the files...therefore they will again reach out to you and ask for me. Which is annoying. ...I do however in my line of photography work give my clients the raw images. I shoot in the commercial side of the sports-fishing industry. My clients receive my edited selects, then on a hard drive they receive all my raws. I do this because my work is going to all different types of mediums. In store installations, cabelas, bass pro shop. They need to blow images up or sometimes want to crop differently. Most of the companies have in house teams who can deal with my files as well. So there is a time and place to give clients your raw images.
TOTALLY agree here. If it’s for commercial purposes then it can be totally warranted, even required sometimes. But yeah giving any raws to retail clients is totally opening up a can of worms.
Always good to hear from you Jess, you on IG? Would love to see some of your work!
If the client has body dysmorphia from a 20 year old eating disorder and want ti pick their own photo. #eatingdisorder recoveryadvocate #model
Hello? Yes, I’d like to buy a BMW 5 Series, can I have it without doors please? 🤷🏻♂️
Who is the man?
YOU THE MAN!!
Asking for raw files is like you go to a restaurant, instead of ordering cooked food, you were asking for an alive chicken and do the rest by yourself, funny :))
Never give raw files to client, they are your property, client get's final product only, thanks for video ;)
I send clients a screenshot of their images as thumbnails. Ain’t no one getting meh raws or jpegs.
Similar to the film days, when customers weren’t given the negatives.