Do you guy let customers have the .RAW image?

[eMikey]

I am having a hard time finding a photographer that will let us have the .RAW images. Is it normal for someone to ask for the .RAW images?

[picturecrazy]

no.

I would never give out RAW images to a wedding client.

Hire a wedding pro for his/her skill and vision and just trust in their abilities.

If someone really really wanted them, I would probably charge about $15,000 extra to get the RAW files. Seriously. It's just not something we do.

[eMikey]

But why? I usderstand the whole "vision" and "abilities" thing, but then why give .jpgs out? To someone who doesn't know much, it almost seems like these people are unsure, or embaressed by their skills.

[shannyD]

jpgs are like copies.. the raw is the negative, and thats the photographers rights to keep his/hers RAW files.

i would not give RAWS out either. only JPG.

[bubbawillums]

I'd never give my RAW files to anyone.. nooo way!

[joedlh]

In the film world, this is tantamount to asking for the negatives. Most photographers would be extremely reluctant to do that unless it's part of the job (e.g., NY Times staff photographer).

If anybody wanted the raw images from me on a one-on-one contract, I would walk away from the deal or expect them to pay big bucks.

If it ever comes to a dispute about ownership, possession of the raw image is your main proof, from a technical point of view, that it's your image. Everything else can be shown to derive from it. It, however, is "derived" from the actual scene photographed.

[form]

In the strictest sense, isn't the camera data also encoded in the RAW images, and doesn't one have proof of purchase of their camera?

I don't usually give away the RAW files, but there are rare occasions when the client has a special request - no processing for me, just give them the RAW files and they do their own processing...saves me lots of time. I just had a job like that last week where the couple wanted to edit their own photos and I gave them the RAWs so they would have the most flexibility.

Do I care about ownership? Well, if I have to I can show proof by showing proof of purchasing the camera they came from...and I can show copy dates, and a release form stating that I conducted a photography session at said time and have rights to reproduce for portfolio...but somehow I don't feel like I have to be concerned with things like that.

Most photographers do some good and bad work, and I often provide plenty of both in each shoot. It's up to the customer to take what they like and do what they want with the rest. In fact, they may even prefer the shots I thought were no good - so why deprive them of the option to choose?

RAW files are obviously sensitive for most photographers, and if the client wants me to do processing AND provide the RAW files, I might charge extra. But it's just easier for me if they just want the RAW files alone and no processing.

[londonblue007]

My wedding photographer and I had a serious discussion about this and he allowed me to have the RAW files from my wedding, and I didn't get charged extra. Maybe this was because we knew each other, or maybe because he knew I was a photographer as well. I dunno. But regardless, I have the RAW files.

Was it "reckless" of him to do so. With me, No, I don't think so. I'd never pass his work off as my own, 1) because I am in the shots, and 2) because I respect him as an artist and photographer and a friend.

I do understand that it is not the norm, and that 99% of photographers wouldn't do that. I do not give the RAW files to my clients. I give them high rez Tiff and Jpeg only. I have been asked to provide RAW, but will not do it.

[joedlh]

The camera is encoded in the raw files as well as the jpegs. However, it is possible to edit the EXIF data with a program designed to do so. There are scores of pimply-faced geeks who think that writing such a program would be totally cool -- if they haven't done so already. I work in programming. I know of what I speak. So your camera of origin EXIF data can not be proven to be authentic. If you have the only raw file, then there can be no dispute.

[Subimatt]

No raw files, I dont see the need. JPGs are much easier for the client to deal with, especially the less computer savy. Ive never been asked for them and probably wouldnt give them out if I was asked.

[DDCSD]

The main reason for not giving out RAW files isn't really ownership questions of the images, but usually that a photographer does not want someone editing away at their images. A wedding photographer lives and dies by their reputation, and having a bunch of crap looking files floating around with their name on it may cost them clients.

Also, as Lloyd said, you hire a wedding photographer for their vision and skill. They also wouldn't want to have even well-processed images floating around with their name on it that end up looking nothing like what they normally shoot.

[BeccaJ]

raw? heck no. im not even asking my own wedding photographer the raw files. i love her work and that's why i hired her. she can edit to her liking and give me what represents her work, that i love.

[symes]

When I get married I do want to find a photographer who will allow me to have them but I don't generally give them away with my business...

The real dilemma is, if you don't like the way they edit the photos and you get credited for that! :) you only want your best work out there!

Cheers,

[Gatorboy]

I am having a hard time finding a photographer that will let us have the .RAW images. Is it normal for someone to ask for the .RAW images?

Look for a photographer that shoots film, and ask them if they'll give you the negatives -- I expect you'll have just as hard of a time.

[Anthony J Howe]

I have never been asked for the RAW image files by any wedding client. And I have never offered them either.
It would be quite unusual for wedding clients to ask for the raw images it's not normally done.
Gatorboy illustrated the point well.

[cdifoto]

But why? I usderstand the whole "vision" and "abilities" thing, but then why give .jpgs out? To someone who doesn't know much, it almost seems like these people are unsure, or embaressed by their skills.
More like us being unsure of YOUR skills.

A photographer isn't just his composition.

Most people don't have the software to decode it and RAWs look like ass anyway. Especially mine, since I use the same white balance the entire day then adjust in post.

I met with a client awhile back who wanted the RAWs and I told her to find another schmuck.

[scotteisenphotography]

never. ever.

[Jonny]

Never give files away.

Lets say you do and they print them out on a crap inkjet and stick them in a cheap album. Would you them be pleased when people ask them who the photog was and they give your name?

Not for me i'm afraid.

[Atiyeh]

I requested the photographer doing my wedding in 3 weeks to give me the raw files, he agreed.

[Nicole Faith]

For most occasions, never ever. It's handing over copyright in a sense and they should have no reason to need the .raw files. For clients, no way. It is liking handing over the negative.

I have lots of artsy friends and if they help me with something I want to add into my portfolio, then I will usually give them a CD with .tif files on them - for them to edit. And I give them the rights to edit and print. But that is a situation with people I know and trust. My wedding photographer is giving me the .raw files only because I am also a photographer and want to do my own editing. He also charged accordingly for that agreement.

In most cases though - NEVER.

[JMHPhotography]

I won't give camera RAW files, but if I'm paid for the files, I'll go ahead and convert them to DNG files with my adjustments. I also shoot the same white balance throughout and shoot calibration reference targets and adjust in post later, so I'd want to make sure all of my adjustments were in place before handing them off. I've not done it yet though.

[potn_momma2]

I have the RAW files from my own wedding, but that is because a)the photog was my husband's cousin and b)i would never ever pass the photos off as my own work.

If I was a prof. wedding photog, I would NEVER give out the RAW files. If the couple wants to edit the pictures themselves, let them try to do it to the jpeg files. If they want to edit them themselvs, they obviously don't have faith in you to do your best.
IMO

[Karizmatik]

If I get paid, and I have the release in writing, signed, etc.

I too do not see the "big deal" -- Although, I have never personally done it. If someone asked, I probably would.... once I had the money in my hand.

Although I would definitely give them 1) The post-processed JPEG's for them to print out and 2) The raw images on disc with expressed interest in them using the latter DVD.

Although I'm pretty easy going and will do back-flips to please my clients.

[Phil.hearing]

just need to find a photographer that you trust enough to do a good enough job

[DigitalSpecialist]

Raw files are like your children. You create them(take the photo), then you nurture them(edit them), then you present them to the world(have them printed). I wouldn't ask you to give away your children, or your rights to them. So why ask me, or other photogs to give up rights to their work?

[LeoChanPhotography]

my wedding photographer gave me the RAW files for our pics. i'm a graphic designer and really into photography. he knew that about me and didn't charge me extra for providing me with the files because he knew i'd enjoy seeing how he shot everything and he knew i'd like to mess around with my own PP. i really appreciated that :)

I am having a hard time finding a photographer that will let us have the .RAW images. Is it normal for someone to ask for the .RAW images?

[Michael_Lambert]

We got the RAW files from our wedding photographer. It was apart of our contract we he shot we got the proofs and a DVD with the RAW files on it. We paid i belieave $1500 for the DVD alone.

[Ed Kanney]

In my limited experience (18 yrs.), clients wanting either negs/raw files are budget minded/have budget weddings. Not my thing.

[cdifoto]

In my limited experience (18 yrs.), clients wanting either negs/raw files are budget minded/have budget weddings. Not my thing.
Eh I won't try to put everyone who wants the RAWs in the same category. There are a lot of reasons for wanting RAWs, and they range from ignorance of what RAW really is all the way to full knowledge of what RAW really is.

Sometimes, however, it's like copyright. I've been asked to give the client copyright and I tell them I don't do that. Once I explain why I don't do that, they're better educated and understand my point of view. They really didn't want copyright in the first place...they just wanted to be sure they were allowed to print from the files. Once they're told that they just need a release, which I do provide, their minds are put at ease. In other words, they knew what they were asking for but simply applied the wrong term to it...ie they had a misunderstanding of what the buzzword they used really means.

[Lunajen]

No. They can pay for them if they want but I will stil rertain copyright on them. But like stated above, you are going to have to really pay for them, starting at about $1500.00 at least.

[ssalulu]

no way

[240dreams]

Is there a real difference to delivering the .raw files and .dng files?

[collierportraits]

Well, in my experience (17 yrs), PHOTOGRAPHERS who give away their negatives/raw files are more of the budget guys/gals who often don't have the experience to know not to do this. Yes, I think it's true if the client is really pressing for them, they are also usually not a client that I want to work with.

If a client is pressing me for something up front, then that's usually a huge red flag that this will be a very difficult client to work with.

But to the OP, I would go as far to say (with very little exception) don't hire the guy that will give you the raw images. It probably means he's not that good of a photographer. :confused:

[moeronn]

I'm just going to throw in a comment because of some generalizations that have been made.

If my photographer used digital, I would have wanted the RAWs. Not because I didn't trust him or think the quality of his work was up to par or that I wanted to sell the images/pass them off as my own. I would have asked for the RAWs because there may be some images that I realize later could use a different PP adjustment. Doing this with the JPGs wouldn't work as well.

Getting DNG or TIFF might be fine, as well, but why have the photog go through an extra export that will severely bloat the file sizes?

[Aleksandras Babicius]

I never give the customer raw material. I have refused at least one large order for the reason, that the customer wished to receive the raw digital photos. Photos is an author's product. And processing of photos is a necessary and important part of process as a result of which this product appears. I would not like, that somebody, somewhere unknown to me in the image have processed a photo. And thus my authorship would be meant. No, dismiss. To me my reputation is very expensive, I do not wish to risk it.

[kaitanium]

Well, in my experience (17 yrs), PHOTOGRAPHERS who give away their negatives/raw files are more of the budget guys/gals who often don't have the experience to know not to do this. Yes, I think it's true if the client is really pressing for them, they are also usually not a client that I want to work with.

If a client is pressing me for something up front, then that's usually a huge red flag that this will be a very difficult client to work with.

But to the OP, I would go as far to say (with very little exception) don't hire the guy that will give you the raw images. It probably means he's not that good of a photographer.

sorry bub, ill highly disagree with you even though ive been in the biz for 4 months. and even with 4 months of knowledge i still know, with logic, that what you said is a generalization and not entirely true. I know of worldwide-known $10k wed photogs who give their source files away if paid for. even David Jay gives away his source files if asked for. mmm tell me they suck and ill step off my soapbox. =)

(source files as in jpeg or RAW unedited...straight from camera stuff. i see no difference in RAW or jpeg one just does a better job at recording details but both are source files....just making sure im on the same page)

i give them only if they pay for them and the discs to burn them on...i see no reason why not to. they already hired me for my vision in posing and post processing (otherwise they could just as well look elsewhere as they have the control to do so). they just want everything included in their day/package.

so to the OP, few things are free in this world. as a photog and with 40gb+ of source files to burn each event, it still costs me time to do so. not to mention the handful of errored discs that come from a stack of dvds...gotta reburn those.

[jsalda]

FWIW, my sister-in-law's photog gave her the RAW files from her wedding last year. I told my sis-i-l to ask her upfront if she would give them to us as I might PP a little differently. Now, since then, the most I've done with them is back them up.

This photog was just starting out at the time and has since then probably tripled her business and is now in high demand, so whether she still would hand out the RAW now is the question.

[Claire]

No, wouldn't give the RAW files. I want my stuff fully edited before giving it away.

[collierportraits]

sorry bub, ill highly disagree with you even though ive been in the biz for 4 months. and even with 4 months of knowledge i still know, with logic, that what you said is a generalization and not entirely true. I know of worldwide-known $10k wed photogs who give their source files away if paid for. even David Jay gives away his source files if asked for. mmm tell me they suck and ill step off my soapbox. =)

Ok, I stand by my original statement, which you clearly did not read. Photographers who GIVE AWAY their source files are budget, or don't know what they are doing yet. You don't have much experience yet, and I trust you'll still be doing this 20 years from now. I did NOT say anything about selling your source files. I have sold source files (negatives) before. One pretty famous person was going to print 750,000 greeting cards? Sell the source file? Of course! It wouldn't have made sense otherwise.

But don't give them away. There are quite a lot of guys out there who do JUST THAT! I have a friend who struggles financially, and she told me that she uses this guy to do her kids portraits because he shoots the portraits for something like $75 and then gives them a disk with all of the images. Amazing, but I suppose I'm glad someone is there for them, but this backs up my original statement. No one who knows what they're doing is going to give away their RAW files. ;)

[kaitanium]

eh i still dont get what the big deal is. oh well. if they pay for it, you give it away, if they dont pay for it you give it away. whats the difference except money is involved? they may very well buy them RAW/jpeg source images off of you and edit it to their own liking too but i guess youll have to charge $15k so that maybe they will be not inclined to buy it.

heck just get me referrals and ill be happy...take them source images.

i wouldnt have quoted if i didnt read it. but thanks for pointing that out. and sorry on my part for singling you out.

[samnz]

I wouldn't even give the raws to a second shooter to play with. To me my raw files are like "dna". They contain 'twenty years' of solid research, experimentation and dedication. I'm not giving away my - 'dna' for someone to play with...even if they think they can do a better job. Maybe they can - I don't care, it's my photo - my settings, my ideas.

[ErikM]

I do not give raw files to any clients unless a special request is made. And if that request is made there will always be an additional charge for the set of raw files :)