Wedding pic resolution

Why should they own them? Like any client they purchase a license to use/print them. Copyright/ownership belongs to the photographer.

If you were a professional photographer you'd understand the many reasons why photographers don't readily give away their raws files. Some will sell them (like me) but at a price.

Seems I've sparked some emotions on this topic and some interesting comments. I've been in the computer industry for almost 40 years. When I wrote software for clients many would request the source. For those accounts were we maintained the code for them we would usually put the source in escrow incase our business went belly up but the code belonged to them. These were one-off programs or program sets, software that would be of little value to other potential customers,it was specifically made for them. I look at photos the same way, they are one-offs, someone's wedding picture should have little value to others, and there is no reason in my viewpoint that the RAWS ("source code") shouldn't be part of the deliverable. I've had no problem with the 2 contracts I helped get for my kids weddings having them agree to releasing the RAWS. They are no less professional then you guys because they are giving the customers more. Who owns the photos is defined by what's put into the contract. I guess in this competitive age some photographers are providing more to the customers to get the contracts. It's a just business decision for the Photographer ...

Your comparison to source code is flawed in that a lot of the skill that makes wedding photos happens post capture. Raw files arent even image files per say until they are processed into .jpegs. an equally compelling argument exists that raw files are work product, simply a step in the process. Choices the photographer makes in post processing, turning the raw files into viewable images are part of the creative process that you are paying for. You don't seem to appreciate why many of us here would think less of a photographer who would provide access to an unfinished version of their work for re-editing by unknown future parties. As someone who has had their work altered by a client (they edited a jpeg) and then had the poorly edited work attributed to me, I can tell you how damaging it can be.

I think the difference is I'm coming at it from the side of a customer/consumer. I wanted contracts where the Photographers processed a set of final photos, the artistic piece you are concerned about. With that contract we requested the digital rights which they gave, Raws and processed JPEG's. My son also purchased prints. As a customer, I would walk if they had given me ANY attitude about the digital rights because I am the customer. But neither of the photographers flinched when I asked. The are both very successful photographers, one in NYC and the other in Western NY. I am truly happy you have enough business that you can walk away from contracts to protect your Artistic legacy, you must be very good. Ant that must be an expensive principle to stand by (although probably only a small percentage even know what RAW's are?) . but from a customer standpoint I would never stand for it. We just disagree.

It is all well and good you saying you would have walked... but personally myself (and several people I know) would have told you to walk before you got the chance to do so when you started trying to dictate what I should or should not sell.

Personally I sell what I choose to sell and if someone wants my photography they can't buy it from anywhere else. So they can take what is on offer for sale or leave. Not everyone is the ideal customer nor the customers some of us want.

fine with me !

gonzogolf wrote in post #17319982
Your comparison to source code is flawed in that a lot of the skill that makes wedding photos happens post capture. Raw files arent even image files per say until they are processed into .jpegs. an equally compelling argument exists that raw files are work product, simply a step in the process. Choices the photographer makes in post processing, turning the raw files into viewable images are part of the creative process that you are paying for. You don't seem to appreciate why many of us here would think less of a photographer who would provide access to an unfinished version of their work for re-editing by unknown future parties. As someone who has had their work altered by a client (they edited a jpeg) and then had the poorly edited work attributed to me, I can tell you how damaging it can be.

Well said!

dba1954 wrote in post #17319946
there is no reason in my viewpoint that the RAWS ("source code") shouldn't be part of the deliverable.

Why ask for perspective different than your own if you're just going to reject it out of hand?

WhyFi wrote in post #17320157
Why ask for perspective different than your own if you're just going to reject it out of hand?

My question was why a photographer would shoot in lower resolution, not to debate RAW ownership where everyone seemed to push the conversation too. This seems to be a very sensitive subject for some ...

The difference between your selling of 'source code' vs the 'raw file' issue is easily understood (I've been in IT a while too)

IF said customer took your source code, and modified it and then either started selling it or representing it as your work, and it was not to your standards, I'm pretty sure there may be an issue with either 1. them making a profit off the source code you created or 2. the alterations of said code were not up to standards of your work and you didn't want them attributed to you.

See, photos (and raw files) can be easily modified and passed around, much more easily than souce code - I've seen adds out on craigslist from start up photographers wanting to buy someone elses raw files to represent as their own. 9 times out of 10 someone wouldn't sell their wedding files to another photographer, and then there is that 1-10 percent that would sell them and not even know there was anything wrong with that - thinking since they 'own' the raw files , that they 'own' the rights to do as they please with them - and copyright is a different animal than photo file 'ownership'.

Again, jmho.

dba1954 wrote in post #17320164
My question was why a photographer would shoot in lower resolution, not to debate RAW ownership where everyone seemed to push the conversation too. This seems to be a very sensitive subject for some ...

Your initial question, sure, but follow-ups by you have directly questioned aspects of RAW ownership and there are yet other suggestions that the lower res RAWs may be directly tied to the same question of control and ownership.

Again, why reject out of hand when you ask for a perspective other than your own?

WhyFi wrote in post #17320183
Your initial question, sure, but follow-ups by you have directly questioned aspects of RAW ownership and there are yet other suggestions that the lower res RAWs may be directly tied to the same question of control and ownership.

Again, why reject out of hand when you ask for a perspective other than your own?

again ... read the tread ... and I just disagree that a photographer can say they own the photos and if they do I'm ok with moving on however didn't have to shop for one that agreed with me ... you guys are jumping on this like flies on .... Free market, you guys can do what you want, I can ask what I want ... wasn't expecting you guys to attack the photographers professionalism because he doesn't run his business like you want them too .... geese

I have read the thread, including the part where you insinuate that withholding RAWs is a moneygrab -

dba1954 wrote in post #17301293
I'm not sure how that related to professionalism, unless you are referring to how to make more money from your clients.

Do you really expect people to let this slip by without defending their position? And then to take it gracefully when you dismiss their absolutely rational reasons?

In any event, I still fail to see how you're incapable of seeing that the discussion is on-topic.

"Why would he do X?"

"Well, the fact that he did Y is kind of a red flag that he might not be the most professional _____ in the world, which might, in turn, explain X."

To the OP: I'm sure your industry hase some formal or informal code of professional behavior or practices.. Your photographer has breached the the code in a couple of wsys, leading us to ask questions. The fact that our industry is under siege by a growing number of people willing to do anything for a buck while delivering a substandard product leads us to probe further.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17320369
To the OP: I'm sure your industry hase some formal or informal code of professional behavior or practices.. Your photographer has breached the the code in a couple of wsys, leading us to ask questions. The fact that our industry is under siege by a growing number of people willing to do anything for a buck while delivering a substandard product leads us to probe further.

But what's the code gonzo? If it's not selling the raws well then Peter (memories of tomorrow) is guilty and he seems to be pretty successful and well respected here. For the record, I don't give out raw files either and I never gave out negatives either.