Sister wants me to help pick out a wedding photog

tats wrote in post #13639973
So we have spoken with a few photographers and one thing that has come up a few times is the delivery of RAW files. What do you guys think about asking for the RAW's?

I can see both sides since a SOOC camera shot, is in most cases not the photo I intended to take/show (meaning that if I was to give someone my RAWs I would not feel they were an accurate portrayal of my work) but as a customer buying a service I feel like there is an argument to be made that I while I am paying for a your creativity in part, I am also paying for the taking of the photo not just the final vesion.

Any thoughts?

Why do you need the raws? Dont trust the photographer? The photographer should get the images really close to perfect, and if there are a few off, you will be able to tweak them easy enough in jpg.

I am having a friend shoot my brother's wedding and he is handing me the raws because I am going to do all of the editing. You dont need the raws if you hire a competent photographer who is going to edit. (Notice, my friend is not going to edit, but is a very competent photographer).

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #13640020
Why do you need the raws? Dont trust the photographer? The photographer should get the images really close to perfect, and if there are a few off, you will be able to tweak them easy enough in jpg.

I am having a friend shoot my brother's wedding and he is handing me the raws because I am going to do all of the editing. You dont need the raws if you hire a competent photographer who is going to edit. (Notice, my friend is not going to edit, but is a very competent photographer).

I don't think I (actually she) NEEDS them, but I find the pushback we are getting after asking a bit suprising. If the option is between getting a CD with "hi-res" jpegs or a copy with RAWs as well I would easily take the one with both. I think there could be a time in the future where she would ask me (or someone else) to re-edit a picture and in that case I would much rather work with a RAW file.

I was just wondering what anyone's experience was around this topic.

Raw files are a lot harder to give, take up a lot more space, and if not given the xmp's, you would have to start from scratch. If you are worried about the photographer using wacky editing, choose one who does more of a clean edit (which is how I describe my editing style) and if you want wacky edits you can do that. You cant much go the other way with it though.

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #13640119
Raw files are a lot harder to give, take up a lot more space, and if not given the xmp's, you would have to start from scratch. If you are worried about the photographer using wacky editing, choose one who does more of a clean edit (which is how I describe my editing style) and if you want wacky edits you can do that. You cant much go the other way with it though.

True, to be honest it was more of a question she asked at the onset - will you provide RAW files along with jpegs or just jpegs.

Most of the ones we have looked at, she is going for beased on liking their style of both shooting and editing, so it is not so much a concern about their style but more along the lines of what are we getting for the cost.

Red Tie - have you been asked for RAWs? What would you say?

I would ask why they need them, and based on their answer, my answer would still probably be no. Most people dont know what to do with them, or dont have a need for them. You seem to be intent on getting them, but I still dont understand why.

IMHO, giving away RAW files isn't common practice. Usually, you get high resolution JPEG files on a DVD/CD and that ought to be good enough, especially if you picked the photographer for his/her style. You just have to trust that he/she will deliver. Some will give away RAW files for a price...a very high price.

Good luck in your search!

Red Tie Photography wrote in post #13640244
I would ask why they need them, and based on their answer, my answer would still probably be no. Most people dont know what to do with them, or dont have a need for them. You seem to be intent on getting them, but I still dont understand why.

To be honest, it came up in another thread I was reading and I wondered what wedding photogs on here thought about it.

At this point I am more curious than intent on getting them, from a customer perspective I feel like a portion of the fee is going towards the actual taking of the photos and the RAW's are the most basic form of that.

As for my reasons why (I haven't really thought it through) but just sitting here at work it seems to me that there are likely going to lots of "maybe" type photos, where they arent the ones that would make it into an album but are good enough to show to friends or for her to post on facebook, etc.

Perhaps I am viewing the process differently but I assume that of the tons of pictures that are taken, not all get edited, etc (unless someone uses a batch processing for WB, etc) so having the ability to fix those things or edit the "non-keepers" or fringe pics would be useful.

I really would not have any problem delivering raw files. Especially to another photographer. In fact, if someone wanted to hire me to simply shoot, turn over the raw files and not deliver edited jpgs I would do that as well. I've had magazine editors hire me just to shoot. It's not a big deal.

Of course I would naturally keep a copy of the files for myself.

When my wife and I picked one, our first step was meeting with a bunch of guys real quick and looking through their portfolios. We did get price ranges, but it was mainly a good starting point for getting a quick feel for the photographer and their work.

After the initial wave, we had a few that we were satisfied with in terms of images, and we did longer meetings with them, discussing expectations on both sides. Price was a concern, but knowing that each one had packages in our range, it still wasn't number one. My wife ended up with two she felt comfortable with and dumped the guy that seemed a bit snobbish.

Finally, we looked at prices, packages, and everything rolled up. We actually ended up spending a bit more than we wanted, but the one who got it was the guy who really got along great with my wife. He had a second shooter, plenty of backup stuff, and delivered everything we wanted.

Everyone we talked to was against selling their images straight to us. We didn't care, because it was their job to cull and edit. We just made sure that he would be willing to change the edit on a pic if we really wanted. After two years, we ended up getting a call from him with an offer to buy the hi res jpegs, which we did. I think that was an extra $200 after his supposed "50% discount" he was "kind" enough to give us. Excellent sales guy there..... I didn't care. My wife was and is still happy, and throws his name out to anyone getting married in town.

tats wrote in post #13640463
At this point I am more curious than intent on getting them, from a customer perspective I feel like a portion of the fee is going towards the actual taking of the photos and the RAW's are the most basic form of that.

IMHO, you are paying for the talent, what you think/expect the talent can deliver, and the deliverables themselves. The RAW files are just that, RAW, unedited, unfinished, incomplete photos. A RAW file doesn't not accuratenly represent what the photographer typically delivers as a final product. You as a photographer already know this...I think.

tats wrote in post #13640463
As for my reasons why (I haven't really thought it through) but just sitting here at work it seems to me that there are likely going to lots of "maybe" type photos, where they arent the ones that would make it into an album but are good enough to show to friends or for her to post on facebook, etc.
Perhaps I am viewing the process differently but I assume that of the tons of pictures that are taken, not all get edited, etc (unless someone uses a batch processing for WB, etc) so having the ability to fix those things or edit the "non-keepers" or fringe pics would be useful.

There's always a culling process. There are typically lots of photos that get thrown out for various reasons, such as redundancy, blinks, unflattering expressions, etc, etc. Again, I think it's up to the photographer to decide which photos get included. I'm usually liberal when it comes to culling, but I still cull a lot. For instance, when shooting group shots, I'll fire off multiple shots to eliminate blinking, etc. I'll pick the best out of the bunch. There's no need to include 4 or 5 of what essentially amounts to the same shot.

I can certainly understand your point of view.

If you just want all the pixels, why not .TIF?

nicksan wrote in post #13640707
IMHO, you are paying for the talent, what you think/expect the talent can deliver, and the deliverables themselves. The RAW files are just that, RAW, unedited, unfinished, incomplete photos. A RAW file doesn't not accuratenly represent what the photographer typically delivers as a final product. You as a photographer already know this...I think.

.

Completely agree, I do not in anyway think a RAW file accuratley represents what I saw in the shot or what I was trying for. This was more about seeing how left field this idea was.

Thanks guys.

tats wrote in post #13640798
Completely agree, I do not in anyway think a RAW file accuratley represents what I saw in the shot or what I was trying for. This was more about seeing how left field this idea was.

Thanks guys.

I'm on the other side of the coin. My raw files look pretty much like what I am going for in my final edit. I try to nail my shots in camera. The only thing I may do differently is a B/W conversion on some images.

jcolman wrote in post #13640856
I'm on the other side of the coin. My raw files look pretty much like what I am going for in my final edit. I try to nail my shots in camera. The only thing I may do differently is a B/W conversion on some images.

I dont mess with WB in camera and have all my in camera settings on zero now (i think). Lately I have been messing with GND's and my new 10 stop filter for landscapes and long exposures so my sooc shots are usually considerably different than the end result. But I hear what you are saying.

I'm all for nailing things in the camera, but sometimes it takes a little Photoshop TLC. Our cameras can only do so much, especially in harsher conditions.