the client wants what?!

my wife just did a shoot for a family. the guy is some kind of amateur and said to her...just give me the disc of raw images. i want to do my own editing. well the arrangement was for a 30 min session and disc of jpgs. he is insisting on the raws and i dont think that is right. advice from others please? thanks all.

Give him what was agreed upon. If it was a disc of jpg's that's what he gets. Does he know she shot RAW?

Was she supposed to edit the jpegs in the agreement, or were they to be SOOC?

Personally I don't find anything wrong with giving him the raws if he wants to edit them himself. He will probably spend more time making them "perfect" than the photographer would who just wants to get them done. If the jpegs were going to be full resolution it would almost be the same thing anyways. From a business perspective would there be any disadvantages to giving him the raws?

Just tell him the agreement was for a disc of JPEG files, which is what you told him, and you both agreed to. Advise him he is asking for more than he paid for, which seems unusual to ask and pay for X, then expect X, Y, and Z to be delivered. Let him know your standard charge is x times the standard fee when the RAW files are to be delivered, and many photographers won't even release the RAW files. If he really wants them, you will be happy to provide them at your standard rates.

Personally, I don't see any issue with giving clients RAW images, any more than giving them JPEG's on disk. Once you give them a file of sufficient size to reproduce, whether it be RAW or JPEG, you have already given them the farm so to speak. So whether its RAW or JPEG, if you release the digital images just make sure you get a reasonable fee to cover your loss of re-prints.

For commercial clients, I deliver DNG files as my RAW images since I can embed the RAW file as well as a correct JPEG proof. I also ask those clients to sign a waiver releasing me or any quality related issues. If they mess up the file and blow their $30K print job, I'm not responsible since I have no control over the quality. I don't do much retail work, so take this with a grain of salt. Two different worlds when it comes to pricing, workflow, delivery, and procedures.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, I'd give him the RAWs.
a) You have to do no processing at all, so less time wasted
b) He'll probably not process them correctly, in which case he'll come back to you for processing and you can charge him more.

qtfsniper wrote in post #5681293
Personally I don't find anything wrong with giving him the raws if he wants to edit them himself. He will probably spend more time making them "perfect" than the photographer would who just wants to get them done. If the jpegs were going to be full resolution it would almost be the same thing anyways. From a business perspective would there be any disadvantages to giving him the raws?

yes. when other prospective clients see them and they are edited poorly that will reflect on her. i do most of her processing and dont just edit to get it done. take our work very seriously. thanks.

wernersl wrote in post #5680637
the arrangement was for a 30 min session and disc of jpgs.

If the agreement was for high resolution JPEGs then you aren't losing anything by delivering RAW files instead. Sure, he could mess them up terribly and produce crappy prints, but he could do that with JPEGs too.

You should, however, point out that not all software can handle RAW files from all cameras, and you'll take no responsibility for whether the client's software can read your files. If you have one of the newer camera models and he's got a three-year-old version of ACR, he'll come back to you complaining, and you'll be back to square one.

I don't think photographers that do give away RAW files take their work any less seriously. In fact, if a photographer feels his work was captured perfectly in camera that they can give away the RAW without editing, that shows a lot of confidence in their work IMO.

I also believe that if the client does edit the images themselves, when someone else sees those images, the client is going to mention how they edited it themselves. I doubt they will say photographer X shot it, and not bring up the fact they edited it. They are going to take that opportunity to brag a little about how they edited it themselves, and that leaves the photographer off the hook.

If they don't talk about it, non one will be the wiser on who shot it since I don't think the client would put the photographers logo on it either. In the end, I think any damage risk to the photographers reputation is slight at best, and not worth loosing sleep or additional revenue over.

Curtis jumped in while I was typing with a very good point. He would edit the JPEGs just as he would the RAW files anyway. In fact, you don't have the same leeway with the JPEGs as you do the RAW, so the changes of odd colors and such are higher with the JPEGs. So I agree with Curtis, withholding the RAW files isn't solving the issue, and could even make it worse.

Give him TIFFs.

Let him sign a new contract for the RAW instead of JPEG, and then throw in ONE free jpg file to show what you would do with them. Then if he doesn't think his work is as good as yours you can charge for editing. As it is I think he is paying more for less product, and that shouldn't bother you too much.

sfaust wrote in post #5681940
I also believe that if the client does edit the images themselves, when someone else sees those images, the client is going to mention how they edited it themselves. I doubt they will say photographer X shot it, and not bring up the fact they edited it. They are going to take that opportunity to brag a little about how they edited it themselves, and that leaves the photographer off the hook.

Yes, that could happen. But, so could the opposite if the final prints or jpegs they make look like crap.

Overall, do you think people today take full, personal responsibility for their actions and mistakes? Or, do they blame anyone and everyone other than themselves?

Call me cynical, but I feel pretty certain that if the images come out great the buyer will take full credit, but if they come out poor, the photographer will be the one blamed.

tim wrote in post #5682004
Give him TIFFs.

that is what they ended up agreeing on.

amfoto1 wrote in post #5684127
Yes, that could happen. But, so could the opposite if the final prints or jpegs they make look like crap.

Overall, do you think people today take full, personal responsibility for their actions and mistakes? Or, do they blame anyone and everyone other than themselves?

Call me cynical, but I feel pretty certain that if the images come out great the buyer will take full credit, but if they come out poor, the photographer will be the one blamed.

agreed. we agreed on tiffs. turns out he just didnt want jpgs for quality reasons. he wants to give his wife a tummy tuck. too cheap to pay my wife to do it so they agreed to give tiffs and let him play with it. in the end i expect he will jack it up and come back and ask her to do it anyway. thanks for all your input.