Can I get the RAW images from a wedding photographer?

I am still a newbie photographer (1.5 years experience) and I will be getting married next year. Since visiting this forum over the last year, I have amassed quite a bit of knowledge about post-processing. I understand the flexibility of having the RAW images and would like to be able to have both the processed and pre-processed images from a photographer.

Over the last few years, I have seen quite a few brides and grooms that weren't entirely satisfied with their pictures and I am a little worried that I may end up falling into that category (partly because I am not willing to spend a fortune on the pictures). If I was able to keep the RAW pictures, I would be able to tweak pictures to my and my bride's desire. Also, if happened to learn a new technique years down the road that I didn't have the photographer perform, I could go back and play around with the pictures. Note: I would be willing to pay extra for the RAW.

How reasonable does this sound? Has anybody else, especially those of you that shoot weddings, specifically asked for the RAW on your own wedding? Quite frankly, this is one of the only areas that I am going to be making all the decisions on for this wedding, and I really want to get it right

Thanks,
Noah

No way, Jose! I would never give a bride the RAW images. Part of the artistic process is the editing of the photos, which is a very personal thing with most professional wedding photographers. I would rather a bride hire me because she likes my style.

I would charge for that luxury but would allow it for another photographer because I know that when I get married, I also want the RAW files on a disc. But.. I might be using a photographer from here who will be shooting for next to nothing but travel expenses so it's a different story. I'll get only the CD with high rez images and have to do all the work myself. In which case, not so bad a deal since someone would be doing it mostly as a favor to me.

Nope, and I'm about to do my second wedding for a fellow photographer (yes, they're harder than regular clients!). While I don't believe for a second that brides & grooms who get a disc aren't going to do **some** PP, I'm not turning over unprocessed files to anyone unless I'm second shooting for them. A lightly processed JPEG is one thing, original, straight out of camera RAW files are another. My name is attached to those images, and if I've done my work well, you should be able to tell I created them because they match my shooting & processing style. That doesn't work if you've post processed them in a way completely different from everything I've done before.

And if you don't like my style, you won't be hiring me anyway!

Truthfully.....if you're serious about having good photos, you need to plan to pay more for a good photographer. Most of those who aren't happy with their pics....myself included!.....aren't happy because the photographer they went with was either inexperienced or just plain cheap. You almost always get what you pay for in this industry.

My attitude is, if you're not willing to rearrange your budget for the only thing you have left when the day is done, then don't try to fool yourself that you're "serious" about good photography. I spent every penny I thought could--more than a third of our total budget--and my priorities still weren't straight. Looking back, I would've been much much happier with the end results if I'd waited an extra six months to get marriend & upped that percentage to half or more. And NO amount of doing PP myself changes the fact that the shots I received aren't that great to begin with.

Good luck though! I'm sure there are people out there who will find your request reasonable.

I am sure you can find a suitable photographer that is willing to provide you with the RAW files. I receive that request about once every two years and providing that the individual has some image processing experience I will provide the files. The last one was an art director with considerable experience, so no problem. If they have little or no experience I try to convince them to allow us to process their images for them. We do provide all the original, processed files as full resolution jpegs to all our clients.

The problems with many clients being unhappy with their wedding photography, to be blunt, is that couples are looking for an inexpensive photographer. Most of those are just starting out and do not have the technical skills necessary to provide good original image files. The old adage "You get what you pay for" does also apply to wedding photography.

I'd also add that diminishing the value of an experienced photographer by presuming you can "save the day" if you have the RAW files is a recipe for disaster. There is only so much that can be done even to RAW files so if the photographer screws up you may be just plain out of luck. I see this all the time in the "Help me!" posts on various wedding/portrait forums.

Rick

Rick,

I can't agree more...

Anything has a price, but I'm not sure you'd be prepared to pay or my RAW images, as the style I process my images is also why I get hired.

My contract explicitly states JPG files are delivered. I would not deliver RAW images without a very, very good reason, and a fairly substantial payment. Even then i'd impose restrictions on their use - which would probably be ignored anyway. I'm not even sure i'd release them at all.

If the photography is that important to you, then pony up and get a good photographer.

I give my commercial clients the RAW files along with the Bibble conversion files (if they can use them) and the converted JPEGS. I would certainly be willing to sell a wedding client the same product for commercial pricing. I doubt many couples would want to pay that rate, but for me personally that's what it would take. (um...on top of a normal wedding charge)

Go ahead and ask. What can the photographer tell you...No? It's not as if you're asking to have your wedding shot for nothing. It's not an unreasonable request, either Just be ready to accept "no" for an answer.

Be prepared to accept 'No'. If you hire a poor photographer because he is cheap you will probably have poor RAW files to work with. There is no way that I'd do it myself.

There's such a misunderstanding about how much PP contributes to an image.

If the photographer can't find a moment, completely screws up the exposure or focus, is completely sloppy with composition or has no 'feel' for the emotion, then NO amount of Photoshop magic will get you a nice album.

And here's the really important fact:- It's all those things that seperate the expensive wedding photographers from those that are 'trying it out' and prepared to hand over their work for peanuts.

There is however a caveat, you might find a brilliant photographer who's inexperienced at weddings, who'll shoot at a bargain price and even might consider it a plus to not have to produce finished images /album for you.

Yeah, that's your problem. You said yourself you are not willing to pay much for a photographer. You will likely get lousy work as a result. There are a few people here who don't charge much but have excellent skills and product... BUT.... these people are in the extreme minority.

You said you are willing to pay extra for RAW files. Why don't you just put that extra money towards a better photographer? Many decent photographers charge $1000 for JPEG files. I would imagine they would charge $3000 for RAW files because they're taking a HUGE risk doing that... IF they would even do that in the first place.

Phil V wrote in post #3590766
There's such a misunderstanding about how much PP contributes to an image.

If the photographer can't find a moment, completely screws up the exposure or focus, is completely sloppy with composition or has no 'feel' for the emotion, then NO amount of Photoshop magic will get you a nice album.

This may be off the topic but I had to say something about the point you just made above. I heard/read this so many times that I began to feel people think this is almost like a rule or commandment carved on stone that everybody recites religiously. When they open their mouths to say something about PPing, this is the first thing that comes out of their mouths so much so that I am beginning to doubt if they actually know what they are thinking. They are, it looks like, conditioned to say this because this is what they have been hearing all along and nobody challanged them so far..

I completely disagree NO amount of photoshopping -NO is always exaggarated by the way- can change a shot and make it look like a decent one althought it was taken with poor skills. Obviously, I am not going to descredit the merits of composing the shots perfectly and getting the exposure right in the first place but and let me exaggarate this BUT, there is so much Photoshop can do for you.

One medicore shot can very easily be turned into almost an art piece by somebody with good pping skills especially if you shoot in RAW. Crop, blur, vignette, exposure compensation, white balance, contrast, saturation, noise reduction, adding noise, straighten, perspective correction, lens correction, lens filters, unsharp mask, skin smoothing, lens distortion corrections, red eye correction.... are just the beginning of the story. Add to these all the Photoshops actions out there that are free to download and you have an immense arsenal in your hands that can change your picture so much that even you yourself may not recognise it in the end.

I do not understand in today's world of Photoshopping how come people can say that there is NO way Photoshop can change a shot for you. Don't start talking how necessary it is to get the shot right with your camera; of course that is the ideal. I am not arguing that. But when something goes wrong or you cannot nail the shot as well as you had hoped for, there is A LOT Photoshop can do for you. Get a How to Wow with Photoshop book and see for yourself.

MALI