Giving away RAW files...

Right then... always a contentious issue this one, but I have been asked to shoot a wedding in May this year for a couple on a shoestring budget (I do actually believe they are pretty skint, as opposed to simply trying it on), whereby I would simply turn up, and shoot the entire day then hand over the RAW files for them to process themselves.
They're treating it as a relaxed arrangement but I'm always wary of relaxing too much and like to keep everything contract based, no matter how informal it may seem , just in case things turn sour...

Anyway, my problems are;
1) how much to charge if I take the booking if a normal days shoot and a disk of processed jpegs would be £500-£700?
2) What clauses should I not forget to add; e.g. Would I get credit for the images afterwards, ownership of images, usage etc...
and 3) Is it just wrong to be even contemplating this?

Any thoughts welcomed.

I can only speak to #3, but the few wedding photogs I know are more than happy to part with the RAW files (unedited of course) at the end of the wedding. There's an additional cost associated with it (normally they would turn over jpgs), but if that's what people want it's fine.

It sounds like they want a discount (or just lower cost) because you are not PP'ing the images. That's a tough call...while you aren't PP'ing them they are instead getting the original files with full rights to whatever they want (once they have the files your ability to limit their actions with them is null).

Personally I'd charge them the same as a regular shoot (or maybe more) and keep a clause in there stating you retain rights to use the shots in a promotional sense. But bear in mind I'm a nature photographer not a wedding photographer.

Those are your images you are letting them have full control over, if they turn out looking like crap, it will reflect poorly on you. I would never (unless they were paying me some INSANE amount of money) turn over the RAW files. This is your rep. on the line, so if you are out of their price range, i would direct them towards someone else.

If you are set on helping them out though, the best thing I can think of is to shoot it in .jpg, cull the utter failures, and hand them the rest with zero post. They can do B&W conversions or whatever on their own from there.

did they specifically ask for RAW files? or did they just ask for the images straight from camera? if they know enough about cameras to be asking for the .crw or .cr2 files then they are being pretty cheeky to expect that to cost LESS, IMO because they know what that means regarding control...

if they just meant that you should give them the pictures as shot (to cut costs) then why not just give them exported jpgs with a little work quick processing to bring them up to scratch?

personally i'd basically never let unedited RAWs go out of my possession, goodness knows WHAT they might end up with, and its YOUR name on them

somethingsimple wrote in post #7068883
did they specifically ask for RAW files? or did they just ask for the images straight from camera? if they know enough about cameras to be asking for the .crw or .cr2 files then they are being pretty cheeky IMO because they know what that means regarding control...

if they just meant that you should give them the pictures as shot (to cut costs) then why not just give them exported jpgs with a little work quick processing to bring them up to scratch?

personally i'd basically never let unedited RAWs go out of my possession, goodness knows WHAT they might end up with, and its YOUR name on them

Very good point, I had been assuming they asked specifically for RAW files.

I personally couldn't do it. I like full control over the final image. Maybe suggest a smaller package/coverage. Or maybe swing a cheapy from the goodness of your heart? That's proberly what I would do, and supply a CD for them to print from when and as they can afford...

Botanist wrote in post #7068900
Very good point, I had been assuming they asked specifically for RAW files.

ah - then it is likely they wouldnt have the software or skill to actually work with RAW files at all?

It was RAW files specifically that they mentioned but despite all the problems with rights etc, I just feel like I would rather process the stuff myself to give it the look and feel that prompted them to ask me in the first place.
Ah well, looks like I may well do what some of you suggest and create a 'custom package' for a days shoot and a stack of disks.
Oh... to work for an agency!

3. Don't hand over RAW files, they'll come back and tell you they have problems, or in a few years when the RAW format can't be read any more you'll be called or sued to get their files. Plus if they stuff it up it's your work.

Insist on giving them processed JPG files, if they can't afford it, pass on the work. Make sure it's a standard contract, you retain copyright, they've given rights for personal printing or to make their own book. Make sure you specifically exclude letting them use a commercial design service to create an album for them, that's commercial use, and they should have to come to you for any albums.

tim wrote in post #7069235
Make sure you specifically exclude letting them use a commercial design service to create an album for them, that's commercial use, and they should have to come to you for any albums.

That's the kind of thing I'd forget - thanks

I couldn't do it. You could shoot raw, minimally process the files and export them a CD of high res jpgs, I suppose. I probably wouldn't even do that, but that would be the MOST I would do.

I don't see where money is a factor here. This is about the final use of your images...

or....you could shoot JPEG - just be extra careful with your settings and give them only the best. Less work involved and you can still play around with JPEGs...just not as much and certainly less PP.

NO freaking way would I let my RAW images out! I'm serious about my photography and if you want my work then you need to trust my vision. This is about my artistic integrity and my craft. Give them JPEG's, and the best of the lot. Otherwise it's your rep that will be smudged. Just my opinion.

My fiance and I have a wedding planned for June, and I was considering finding a wedding photographer and asking for the same thing (RAW files only, no PP).

The reason was simply because I don't want a disc of processed JPGs. I've seen enough wedding photographers that tend to over process the shots to make me wary. I'd hate to have a naturally beautiful shot ruined by over processing.

I'm capable of the PP myself, I just want a talented photographer to capture the moment.

I've found a few willing to do this so far, but after reading this I'm wondering how many will be opposed to this idea...

charliec wrote in post #7104476
My fiance and I have a wedding planned for June, and I was considering finding a wedding photographer and asking for the same thing (RAW files only, no PP).

The reason was simply because I don't want a disc of processed JPGs. I've seen enough wedding photographers that tend to over process the shots to make me wary. I'd hate to have a naturally beautiful shot ruined by over processing.

I'm capable of the PP myself, I just want a talented photographer to capture the moment.

I've found a few willing to do this so far, but after reading this I'm wondering how many will be opposed to this idea...

I personally would be peeved if a fellow photographer asked me for my RAW files - if my works not good enough then find someone's who's is! You need to find a photographer who's style you like and not insult them by asking for RAW only.

Before digital you would be hard pressed to find a photographer who shot your wedding then handed over the rolls of film without proofing their images first! Same thing. I am the creator, the artist - I NEED to see the final result. I NEED to see the image from start to finish. That's my take on it anyway.