RAW files are like original CAD drawings for architects. We can give clients PDF and hardcopy prints, but the CAD remains at our office. A RAW file is the base info and that should be retained by the photographer. The JPEG is the final client material.
I give my CAD files to clients. It is for further updates in case if I won't be involved in it. They can't work properly with STEP files and PDF drawings. They only can use it but not develop. But I agree with Jamie. If I would earn money with photography, I wouldn't give incomplete product to the client.
Fully agree with you! I also get asked whether they can have all of the photos even if they’re bad and I’m like no.... only the best photos will be provided from my end I do not want any bad photos roaming around damaging my brand.
After one wedding i photography...i deliver to client 300 edited photos as we had sign on contract. Few days later tha bride contacts me and ask me if that... '' You shoot only 300 photos at our wedding''? I said no,i shoot a lot more but i reject the missfire or light problems or closed eyes....whatever anyway doesn't match my work quality standards, guess the next question i have form the bride! ''Oh i see, yeah ok great, hhhmmm can you give us ALL the photos that you shoot on our wedding ,i will give them to another photographer maybe he can FIX them'' FIX WHAT?? Your closed eyes? The out of focus? As someone says,i can give you the RAW from what the delivered jpg came from, but i won't give in any format any of the rejected photos. One awkward situation is when client wants to edit the RAWs because of their reasons.Maybe for fun,maybe for learn how to,or maybe because they think they can do one better. No problem with that,BUT if that photos go online there is a problem. You upload a photo that is not finished,raw is not finished ,is half work done,so i prefer to call me say ''Hey i want some of the colour photos in b&w can you edit them for me'' and i will do it for FREE or even better lets have a coffe and give your thoughts. Contract before every work will solve anything and protect the good relation between photographer-client. Even in commercial that clients want to archive the photographed product for future editorials or sales or other uses they ask for their design department only the mirror RAWs of the final delivered JPGs and never a reject one. But in contract you they have written permision to use the RAWs as they want.
I agree with not giving RAW files. I have similar experience in another profession, but it's the same attitude of so called clients who think they know better. Why some troll you when they can find someone to give them what they want is beyond me. This is your livelihood, how you make your money. Your art. If they don't understand that they can get Uncle Bob and do the "work." More power to them. As a photographer, RAW files are yours and you have a right to protect yourself, your reputation, and yes, your brand. I'm interested in photography, but have no intention of getting into wedding photography. It is still good to hear these videos as this info can apply to other areas of photography. And other careers as well.
You don't pay a cook to give you raw ingredients; you pay for a finished meal. You don't pay a programmer to give you design drafts, post it notes and half finished version of the source code, you pay for a piece of software. And you don't pay a photographer to just give you the RAW files or negatives, you pay for a finished photography. (Of course in a specialized setting you could of course pay for those things in addition to the finished product, but that would be a way more expensive contract, since it's basically buying full ownership and control of the product, like a copyright assignment contract.)
If I'm paying someone to photograph my event, what makes you think I want a finished product? If you're not giving me what I want, I'm not paying. It's that simple. And if someone else is offering the service I'll go straight to them the moment you refuse to give me what I want.
@@brin57 Don't worry. There is zero chance I'll be your customer and send a cent your way. I was never in the door in the first place. Don't be too upset when people refuse to hire you because you refuse to provide what they want.
Never. A guy posted on facebook today, and told him that he needed photographer for a wedding shoot, and he wanted to know what kind of gear the photographer was gonna use, and that he wanted all the RAW-files. Completely mad!
Hey, Jamie, if you hired me as a photographer for an event because you were in the event I'm definitely giving the RAW files if you ask. I think it depends who is asking. If it's a client whose reason for asking is "I just want to see all the shots" or "I edit my photos on Instagram, I think I can do better" then no. If it's a colleague/professional photographer whose ability you can trust, then absolutely. But conditions should be discussed beforehand, regardless.
As an older photographer you would never give the negatives away for the same reason, they are incomplete. If more prints are required they can be given the same treatment thus ensuring consistent results, likewise additional jpgs would be the same.
What if Let's say James a professional photographer and it's James wedding. He hires someone because he can't do it himself obviously. And when going through the finials, James asked the person whom took the pictures if he could get certain pictures in raw so that he could edit them to his style? Would that be a good reason?
The photographed groom would have to credit the photographer nevertheless, and, depending what the groom does to the files, that might end in bad rep for the one holding the camera. One could make a contract where the photographer remained anonymous and hands out the raw files, but I would charge extra for that if I wanted to also gain exposure.
As a photographer, if this wasn't discussed and agree upon beforehand, I would feel very uncomfortable with this. Not only for the reasons that Jamie has said in this video but also confidence wise. If another photographer is taking my photograph and editing it in their own way, in my mind, that's them saying they would've done a better job.
I believe that a professional photographer would not choose his own wedding as a special occasion to trash his own profession. Maybe I am wrong but one think I understand from James's talk is that the job of the hired photographer can never be to merely press the shutter at random times, from random perspectives and with erratic attitudes towards the event participants ; what the photograph does during the event (1) is much more structured and interactive (planning, staging, organizing, capturing, building sequences, listening and talking to the participants) and (2) is not contained in the RAW files. While editing, the photographer reveals at last to his audience what he witnessed at the event. It is not merely a question of style, but a question about narrative, personal emotions an ultimately a question of authorship. The idea of the groom asking the RAW files so that he may edit them sounds to me like a freaking autocratic idea.
There was that girl that really wanted the pics on the second thay after shooting. I had so much work and i warned her they would be ready after a week. She went "just send a couple of them as what they are now" And i sen her a couple of 30mb RAWs. -"What is that, i cannot open these" -Exactly...
@@jamiewindsor First of all, many if not most photographers are more like hamburger flippers than chefs. Secondly, the analogy breaks down because while there are 1000 ways to prepare a meal, once it is made and consumed that's the end of it. I can edit the same photo a dozen different ways without destroying the original edit (and I don't even consider myself all that skilled). Which edit is best is often going to be a matter of personal taste. Denying people the ability to play with the files is a complete waste. Also while you can go to the supermarket and buy more ingredients, each photo has a uniqueness that goes beyond the mundane differences in individual specimens of food ingredients. As you well know you can't replace a shot at a wedding. This insistence of clinging to the past and refusing to give people what they want is just another reason that paid photography has gotten much harder. I opted to buy photography gear for me and my wife to take on honeymoon and had our relatives take the photos. And while they won't win any prizes, they were fine. I've been editing various photos from time to time over the last 11 years. I have a photo of me putting the ring on my wife's hand that I like as a black and white with selective colour on the ring. Perhaps you find that tacky. Maybe you'd like it. I honestly don't care what a pro thinks of this shot or any other. I get to edit them any way I like, till I go blind, lose my mind, lose control of my hands or die. You would never have given me that.
syousef Doesn’t sound like my style would have been right for you. If potential clients tell me that they want styles that I don’t do (eg black and white with selective colour), then I advise that they don’t use me, but rather find a photographer that does do that style as they are more likely to share a common creative vision. If we don’t agree on that, it’s likely there will be other areas where I will disappoint the client due to my vision not being aligned with theirs. The same analogy for food still works here. You’re likely to get better sushi from a sushi chef in a sushi restaurant than walking into an Italian restaurant and asking the chef to knock you up some sushi.
@@jamiewindsor I'd happily have you give me your vision. There is a reason you're popular and I do really like some of your work. But I'd want to be able to play with your shots and produce my own takes on them. Sadly as this video demonstrates, that's just not how pro photographers work. FYI: I don't want one single vision. My idea of the perfect edit today wouldn't be the same as my idea of the perfect edit a decade ago. Also the selective colour thing I do use, but very sparingly. I probably have half a dozen photos I've ever taken that I really like selective colour with. I've seen whole wedding albums full of that and it's not my cup of tea either.
Wow some spirited and divergent opinions on this one! I am not a pro although I have done a couple of shoots for friends and there is no way I would hand over RAW files for all the reasons you list Jamie. My reputation may not have financial implications (perhaps "yet") but it is still my reputation! For those on both sides of the argument I would think the resolution is simple. Make sure nothing needs to be "resolved" after the event and be clear up front. As the photographer, just make your position clear at the outset (preferably in your contract). As a client, make sure access to RAW files is part of the contract. If either is unwilling to accept the terms, walk away and look for another client or photographer. Only discovered your vids today Jamie and am in the middle of a serious binge. Loving your work and your ethos seems very on par with mine. Cheers.
everytime i shoot i run into this. I have had clients say they never want to work with me again because of it. It is a really hard thing to covey and people simply dont understand, especially in the age of iphones. Im struggling to have a response that educates and informs in a pleasant way. that is also clear.
I think the wish to have the raw files is quite understandable. Just give them files that kind of look unedited and have them pay extra. Tell them, the raw files arent closer to reality and just give him edits that you can like with even if they arent your "brand". There are quite some photographers who edit quite heavily (ie. thinking they are fucking Renoir), and for a few pics people might just want something that looks unedited.
In my experience when a clients asks for "RAW" files they normally mean unedited jpegs. But sometimes they actually do mean "Raw" files. Sometimes I think my RAW files already look perfect based on my personal preference especially when I take my time getting the shot perfect in camera (including lighting).
I've given unedited the unedited catalogue before as jpgs. I'm probably gonna stop just because of file transfer storage issues but I've never had any really issues come out of it
Well, would it be okay to see the pictures with the photographer and tell them which pictures you liked the most so they would have in consideration for the final product?
Read the law in your country. where I live, the person who presses the shutter is the owner when in public domain. Regardless of who owns the camera, film, memory card etc. The client owns all rights, including any materials generated through the course of employment. This would include RAW files. However, licensing is a different subject. By agreement, the photographer still retains creator rights. The client may receive ownership of the RAW files, but not have right to change, alter or otherwise distributed materials (RAW) outside of the agreed finalised product. (The finished jpegs.) The client may request at a future date to employ the photographer again to edit existing files that remained from their previous employment at an agreed sum. However, truth be told..he has it kinda bang on. Trouble can, and will form when you give the RAW files away. As the creator of the RAW files, you can't prevent them from using them, all you can do is ask that if any RAW files are used and/or manipulated, they do not include any reference to the photographer. This kinda creates an odd situation where technically you can bar them from editing any RAW they possess, as the most photographers will have their name in the exif metadata. If I am an employee, and my employer asks for the RAW files, I can't decline, I can only restate that the usable images are only the licensed and authorized ones in the agreed format, as agreed by both parties before the images are used publicly or otherwise. I completely with the reasoning why not to...but it ultimately comes down to the law in the region you are working in.
Correct you are however, that should be made clear and I mean CLEAR in the agreement/contract. Leave so much as a single loose thread and someone will come along and pull on it, unraveling God knows what. As meticulous as you are when taking photos so to in you contract development.
What if I ask because I am familiar with editing software like Photoshop/Lightroom and fully understand what a RAW file is, and the reason I’m asking for the RAW files is because the photographer we paid a couple thousand to shoot our daughter’s wedding did a really horrible job of editing their images. In fact, I would swear the images were not edited.
Bill Barron Well, that’s a different issue really. The issue there would be booking a bad photographer rather than taking RAWs from a competent one. This list presupposes that the photographer is competent and there are no other extenuating circumstances (like the police request them to help identify a murder suspect etc) Basically - what you do as a photographer as normal practise.
Why did they hire a photographer that produces photos they don't like? If they failed to undertake basic due diligence in choosing their wedding photographer, they have nobody to blame but themselves. If they chose the photographer because they like that style of photography, then you'd be wise to keep your own negative opinions of the photos of their special day to yourself!
Bill Barron you'll never get a sensible answer from a photographer. Just a lot of fear insecurity and deflection. Photographers are the only people I know who believe no one in the world can be amazing with a camera but have awful editing skills. A photographer might edit decently, but if you know Photoshop and Lightroom better than your photographer but he takes better pictures than you, what's the issue of handing over the raw? Oh I know...their insecurities LOL Because only they can edit their photos better than anyone apparently.
Hi Jamie. I completely agree with you on not showing the client RAW files. But what if he/she asks you they want to see them so they can select the photos they want you to edit?
A digital camera doesn't produce a final image, we do. A film photographer would also never give away his negatives (except if that's the contract and those who receive them know what to do with them), because the final product is the print (or a shareable/printable digital image file). That being said, you can hand out TIF files of the final edit if the clients want huge files, but that would be ridiculous.
It depends on the client. I have shot photos for a photographer at an event because they were part of the event. I turned over all RAW files to them with no problem. And your #4 reason makes no sense, people can edit JPEG files and put filter on them easier then they can RAW files, why are you not worried about them uploading those and "ruining your reputation" by creating you, those probably even have your watermark on them.
Jamie big fan ! Can you guide me to/ or do you have a video tutorial for editing high iso 6400 shot on canon 5d mark 3 from wedding serviice as worried about the noise i see even though sharp for a4 prints ! Thanks in advance ROb
I'm just learning but first thing I learnt was shoot in raw I'm just learning what to do with them shot a friend's wedding other day but only as a guest got some great shots some look better in raw than jpeg as taken others not so but got back and me mouse is nowhere to be found when setting pc up so not touched them yet But thanks for the heads up on not giving out raw files Also how do you copyright your images so they can be proven to be yours? Is it just having originals meta data? With all social media etc sure it's getting a concern
Because they did not pass my quality control threshold and therefore it damages my reputation. In the same way a restaurant that burnt a dish would not want that going out to potential customers as an example of the food it serves.
Rewind twenty five years and ask yourself: would you give them the negatives? I completely agree with your stance. PS: Your ring-light illumination is clearly visible in your eyeballs and is mildly distracting.
On another note with filters anyone can take a nice pro photo which great editing and make it look rubbish using filters etc I had a client who did that to my work
Maybe because you didn't produce the work they expected. I've been in that client's shoes, for that same reason 😝 Didn't tag the photographer though, she seemed concerned about that.
Of course, if the client asks for any of the RAW or camera files then they should be included with any of the finished files or prints that are ordered. *The photo session service was paid for which includes any camera files. The only labor involved for that would be to move the mouse-arrow and click "Select all" and "copy to" to usb key. Some photographers don't include the RAW files with the paid photo session because they hope to "milk" the client for orders of more edited files or prints. What should the labor fee be for inserting the SD card and USB key into the computer and clicking on "select all - copy to?"
Jakethemase I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t intend to ‘milk’ anyone. That’s not the agenda. Not everyone is out to con people. Some people just care about the quality of the job they do. The agenda is protecting your work against poor-quality edits being shared under the banner of your work and damaging your reputation. A filmmaker would not release raw footage reels to be edited by their client. A restaurateur would not release the raw ingredients for the client to cook themselves. A musician would not release the unmixed stems for a client to mix themselves. Photography is no different.
Just need to say that as client this is VERY irritating. I get it if this is your own artistic work that you have created and funded obviously, but if you were hired to perform a service for your client, Why do you care if they have the RAW’s of THEIR image or not? For context, sometimes I need to alter an image to better suit a website or graphic design project. Seems like if you are holding onto these images for your own use or creative control, you aren’t really working on behalf of your client. Also edits are very subjective, and your client actually might be better at editing and knowing how to get what they want or god forbid have better taste. I am a musician. When I am hired to do studio sessions, I don’t keep the original files, stipulate what my parts can be used for or how they can be mixed. I am paid to perform a service and I then relinquish the results to the client who paid me to use as they wish. This is an industry standard bourne out of insecurity and needs to change. Obviously charge appropriately for your time and the hassle of transferring large files or whatever, but please stop the patronising and insecurity.
Always weird when someone comments on a video from over half a decade ago. Firstly, I think you may have missed the part where I said that you should give raw files to professional clients. If you're editing a website or graphic design project, you will more than likely have the raw files. Secondly, this is not insecurity, it's what I've learnt from years of working professionally in the industry. The client pays for the rights to use the final product. If I start letting them in on the process, where do I stop? Do I let them take the photo? Do I just lend them my equipment? As jobs like weddings work almost exclusively through word-of-mouth, it's important that when someone hires me, they know what they are going to get. If someone has taken my raw files and pushed the white balance so much that they all look like they belong in The Matrix, when someone else hires me and gets warmer-looking shots, they won't be happy. I used to give out raw files, but I've had so much of my work had shoddy retouching work done to it and then sent out to all the guests, I had to put my foot down and start saying no.
How very true. I always try to avoid giving clients the raws for the reasons you stated here. Btw, the background music is a way too loud and I almost couldn´t hear what you´re saying :)
Hi, I just gave them a less retouched version when they asked for "less filtered" it was a corporate headshot of a 65 year old woman. I thought it was rude to ask for an unretouched headshot of a senior, I likened it to asking an older woman her age. I especially love it when the photo is not going to be larger than 2 inches on a website LOL. It wasn't enough to get someone who called me a week before Christmas, I got them in on Friday and delivered it to them by Monday. Oh that wasn't enough. Most people are not even in the office right now. I wish I had set an away message on my email.
ruyveng I’m talking about when you send clients unedited RAW files and stimulate that they can have them as long as they don’t publish them online as they are not finished works. And the client agrees to this and then thinks I won’t check if they put them up on Facebook or Flickr or wherever. With wedding photography, new business is generated mostly by word of mouth, so it’s important that your work looks good and accurately represents your abilities. But there may be shots that were taking in non-optimal lighting conditions that I would rescue in some way in post, or maybe I didn’t have a long enough lens from where I was standing but planned to crop later, or maybe there was a load of horrible distracting colours in the background that I was going to desaturate or shift their hue etc. This is all part of the process of creating photography, but most people won’t know this and will simply think “that’s not a very good shot”.
Ok, now that's perfectly understandable. I wasn't sure if you meant RAW files or any photographs you give them, which would be strange ;) Thank you for the clarification. Love your work btw., thank you for all the knowledge and insight :)
Is the same old story, once upon a time photographers didn't want to give you the negatives for the same "they are incomplete... it's MY vision... MY style... MY work... MY reputation...". Sorry, I never believed that excuses, it's just that you want to be sure that I HAVE to come back to you for more editing and more prints, it always was a way to be sure to get more money from the same client in the future. The fact is that it is MY wedding, MY face, MY wife, MY guests. You don't want me to print them by myself? Put that in the contract then give me my RAW files/negatives. If upselling/returning client is your aim just remember, one day you will retire or close your activity while me and my family will want to remember the wedding for the rest of our lives. RAW files/negatives are both "family history" from my perspective. When they where real negatives a family could have preserved it for the next generations wile I'm quite sure that all the negatives that were kept from photographers went destroyed/lost. "Can I have toe RAW files?" will be one of my firsts questions to any photographer I will contact for my wedding and anybody answering "NO" will not be hired. So keep that in mind: if you're a wedding photographer, being willing to give your clients the RAW files when they ask for them is a sound marketing practice. If you're concerned about the misuse just explain that to the client and/or put that in the contract.
I share my raw files but I don't have a brand to protect. I live in a very poor neighborhood in dallas my carreer is basically getting invited to birthday parties quinceaneras baptisms first Communions. I give them both in a thumb drive they can print what they like and I also send them to fiver.
Carlos, put up a website so you're not dependent on serving only poor people or DIY people. Serving poor people is a good way to not have a successful business. I don't feel bad about this because poor people can have their friend take photos with their phone lol. High quality photography is a luxury. Mercedes isn't discounting their cars because of poor people.
@jamilgotcher365 i actually like my arrangement it pays well enough to stay at it. Its something i can do allongside my job. I do think it's funny that you think Mercedes Benz is a luxury brand. I live in oak cliff Texas with the poor people as you like to say. I can take you to at least three dozen 2024 Mercedes out here in the poor side. Good luck to you.
A No on principle makes the photographer look like he never even listened to the client and does not care for the wishes of his client. I would not hire that photographer again. There is a reason why I asked for the RAW files. As I see it taking a good shot, selecting the best shot and being able to post-process them are very different skills. As a client I hired the photographer to take the best shot and then I would like to keep my options open of selecting the best shot and the ability to postprocess the image. A finished image is always postprocessed in some way - but it does not have to be done by the same person. The vision of the image can be formed by multiple people. If a client is already asking for RAW do not assume that he has no idea what he is asking for. Confirm that he is an idiot before treating him like one that will not be able to open the files. If he has the technical ability to process RAW and he wants to process them on his own - why not let him?. Try to work something out with your client.
Neal Burger I found it pretty clear he was talking about clients that just want to see all the potential pictures you took but aren't exactly experienced photographers. It tends to be clear when someone is experienced or not. And the biggest issue is just with sharing unfinished work as something the photographer gave as a final product when it's not.
Yeah dont ever give out raw files. Always get contract signed before. did this once and never again. I dont care who it is, who they think they are dont do it. I sorely regret my decision.
As a client I don't want RAW files but I want JPEGs and I always ask the photographer beforehand. I don't credit them, but I like to edit photos myself for Instagram because I've had a bad experience with a photographer who had a huge fancy camera and a pretty portfolio but then ended up sending me a bunch of super grainy photos (it was Golden Hour so no reason for that) and all the colors were edited to be desaturated and sepia-toned which wasn't a good look for a summer picnic shoot that I expected to be more colourful. And then she just stopped replying even though she agreed to give me the unedited files in the beginning. Anyway I'm an amateur photographer now and I shoot in JPEG myself unless the lighting is bad, and I'm down to give all the unedited files along with the edits. I've worked with other photographers who do that and their clients always appreciate it. Happy clients = more business through word of mouth. But I totally understand why fancy photographers like you don't give out original files, that's why I personally wouldn't hire a fancy photographer 😅
I think people don't like good photography because they can't take credit it for it, so they like to do their own little amateur edit so they can somehow take credit for the image in their own head LOL
@jamilgotcher365 Good photography is subjective. What you like isn't what someone else might like, and for people who aren't trying to make money from photography or editing, the end goal is achieving the result they like even if it's different from the photographer's vision. As a paying client, you should be absolutely entitled to manipulate photos of yourself however you like. Ideally, your photographer's creative vision aligns with yours, but that's not always the case.
Valid points, but on the other hand, if I was a client and I ask for them politely, I wouldn't like it if not been given to me...don't know, confused on this one...
1. What would you need them for? 2. That would probably need to be written into the contract and personaly I'd charge you more. 3. You'd better specify that BEFORE signing the contract, so that the photographer can choose whether he wants to tak eon the assignment. It's really bad if you pull this kind of thing after everything has been done and edited.
I don't know why, but for me that's kind of a violation. I would never ask for RAW files, although I was tempted to do so a few times... I feel it's going too far. It's like asking a DJ to provide all the music he gathered through years or so. Or walking into the kitchen to see what the chef and rest of the crew are doing there. It's not polite to peek behind the courtain ;)
I feel like if you've asked for it beforehand, and you both agreed on it, it should be fine. But I haven't been working commercially for so long so I don't know. I've been on both side of the question a couple of times, and I was always doubting what was the right way to deal with the situation. But if I would request the RAW files from a person, I would be dissapointed if there was no way I could get them, - deciding this up front I mean.
I wouldn't hire anyone who doesn't give raw files. It's for preservation purposes. Most photographers go out of business eventually and you can't go through them for edits.
3rd vid of yours I have watched .. I like your thoughts so far even if your led circle lighting makes you look freaky : ). I can see your point .. BUT. DSLR's are not uncommon anymore. A real lot of us amateurs are out there. Personally, I would want everything you shoot in raw + your finished product. I see myself hiring you for your creative PLUS a service as I cannot be on the other side of the camera at the time .. I would say millions of us understand raw files and dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator won't work for me and millions like me. I still get your point.. I send images to my family in jpeg and they don't care to hear long boring explanations of how many images it took to make ... they will point out my crap dark room pic I made to expose outside the window properly. There has to be some medium ground ...
John Rasmussen clients should not have RAW files. Its not about hiding your bad photos or making yourself look better. It's about your brand and your art. If you're an amateur photographer than practice, watch videos, read, research and you'll get there. Other photographers RAW files are not a place to be practicing. I have never given out a RAW file and never will.
I totally get where you are coming from, it just wouldn't work for me and anyone like me. As I said above I would be hiring someone because I like their art .. AND for a service. If you only provide half the requirement then that is fine. I'd cry inside but I would cry harder not having everything. You would be taking a lot of pics, some might even be crap or a little blurred .. but they capture a moment that has meaning to me, and only I can be the judge of that. Your Art would not be relevant. We are all different .. and I really do see your point.
John Rasmussen I agree that those moments might mean a lot to someone. But, I have had people edit my work, work that I spent hours on, and it is an awful feeling. It also does not represent my work at all, so it should not be shown to anyone as it could damage my reputation. I get what you're saying, but when it comes right down to it, Photography is also a business. Therefore, you do what's best for the business. And what's best for the business is to only release the finished product. Otherwise you could lose potential clients and lose money. We all need money to do what we love and stay in business.
you will never stop people using those hideous filters and "slider-abusing" your work .. it will happen anyway even if it is the couples kids or proud grandma etc. I'd suggest photographers understand human nature and come up with a better solution. Surely changing contractual agreements would benefit both parties needs. I'm fine as I would just move onto another photographer. I also understand a lot of people exactly match the stereotype pro-photographers are worried about. But you guys should stop pretending your art is all you were hired for. Its 2018 .. Time to see the world for how it is and not how you want it to be. The preciousness of your Art is not a complete solution in my mind and I imagine many more people's minds as we progress into the future where even mobile phones will be able to take raw images. Best to get ahead of the curve and manage it, this is a smarter way to my mind. I'm not trying to be adversarial, its just my opinion and possibly the opinion of the uncounted millions of Ps knowledgeable users out here. Probably similar to the Instagram fans too ... (god that platform makes me shiver : ) Nothing is perfect, and the choice is totally the photographers to make. I respect this
And 99% of the time, they never ask for the raw files when hiring you. It's always after you delivered work that looks exactly what is in your portfolio on your website "btw...could we get the "unfiltered" files?" And I'm thinking, tell me you're a wannabe photo editor without telling me you're a wannabe photo editor. Using the word "unfiltered". Not unretouched files but "unfiltered".
Asking me for RAW files is a bit like asking for my photographic soul, and that's not on offer. As an amateur, I'm theorizing of course: I've never been asked for RAWs, and I do get the exception about super-professional clients who may want to do their own retouching for specific printing/publication needs. But otherwise, no. Most of the people in my personal environment wouldn't know what to meaningfully do with my DNGs anyway - which is not meant as a diss but a mere statement of fact - and I'm glad they don't ask. However, if I was to hire a professional wedding photographer, and they were reluctant to provide RAW files, which is perfectly understandable, I would expect them to deliver full-res JPEGs that show some degree of skilled editing where necessary. When friends of ours booked a so-called professional, they ended up with some pretty crummy, partly overexposed out-of-camera JPEGs, and lots of missed shots for that matter, and paid dearly for it. Not trying to suggest this is typical in any way, but do look closely who you hand your money and what kind of photographer they are.
Keith Swindell This is problem with TH-cam videos. If you do or say something that people don’t like, you end up frozen in time constantly hearing the same criticism over and over. Even though this video was from half a year ago and I have since ditched the ring light, there’s no way to stop getting these comments other than actually take down the videos.
Totally agreed. And please stop using the ring light. it's totally distracting to your what you're trying to tell me. your eyes are mesmerizing!!! LOL. I hate ring flash.
absolutely wrong nowadays clients with google world they can find good answer good knowledge big file no matter how big u can copy it and tell your clients they will provide u a hdd enough ? remember clients are most smart u never know.
i dont agree with you at all, and why sue them? and why not letting them upload their own images who payed thousands for it? wtf is this absolutely wrong mentality.
Alex Xomon Sued? Nobody’s getting sued. Hence the bit where I said “I’m not going to sue anyone”. I’m not stopping them uploading any of their images. The rejected RAW files are not their images. The reason they shouldn’t upload them is that weddings are a word-of-mouth business and while they may have an emotional connection with a particular photo, it’s entirely subjective and other people will not have the same reaction to the image. Rejected images are rejected for a reason. To have someone publish those images as examples of your work is both non-consensual and potentially damaging for your reputation. It could lose you work.
Imagine this analogy with food: say you are a chef and you’re looking to get hired for other catering jobs. You are in the kitchens cooking up several meals. You accidentally knock a pan of custard into the carbonara. You remove it from the hob as this dish is not going out. You will cook another carbonara and serve it as it was meant to be served. But then you look around, and the person who hired you is dishing up “carbonara con custard” to all your guests and telling them that it’s your dish that you cooked. I doubt I’d get many recommendations from that gig.
i agree with the rejected pictures and its completely fine that you shot a blured image or misfired a shot, but your edited photos in JPEG i should be able to havethem also in the RAW part of them. let me ask you a question, why should i give you my money for you to ruin my 1 time event of my life so i can just talk bad words about you on facebook?it makes no sense, i just pay you cause i believe in you, also why should i pay you so much money so i just have to redo your work in hundrends of photos? it makes no sense, i just want the ability in the future that if i want to retouch 1-2 images i could do it propertly. why is this such a taboo among all photographers? i got married before 2 weeks and my photographer gave me all the raw and he also told me about the photographer taboo but he got my point and im glad he was such a good person. im extremely happy with hes work and not even mad that he missed 2-3 jpegs with some green noise, i can easily fix it so i can have good pictures of my wedding.
Alex Xomon I do take your point, and I do give RAW files to commercial clients who have a need for them (as I mentioned in the video). In my experience, when non-commercial clients ask you for RAW files, it’s because they know you’ve only given them about 10% of the shots you took and they want to see what they’re missing. But then they do upload them. It’s happened to me. The bride maybe had a weird thing about her face at a certain angle and then uploads a load of shots where she’s in a pose she prefers, but the lighting is poor and framing is off. I would happily give DNGs with my edits applied (although sometimes you comp two or more photos together), but that’s not what people want when they request the RAW files in my experience.
thank you for your reply, i do understand now that you meant all photos, i had in mind the selected pics from you in jpeg and raw format (nef or whatever) and im happy with this mid ground. you have 1 more sub and i really like your work, have fun in your life :)
If a client asks you for RAW files, send them this video.
The best advice on the internet regarding this topic.
RAW files are like original CAD drawings for architects. We can give clients PDF and hardcopy prints, but the CAD remains at our office. A RAW file is the base info and that should be retained by the photographer. The JPEG is the final client material.
I give my CAD files to clients. It is for further updates in case if I won't be involved in it. They can't work properly with STEP files and PDF drawings. They only can use it but not develop.
But I agree with Jamie. If I would earn money with photography, I wouldn't give incomplete product to the client.
It‘s also a matter of copyrights. The one who has the RAW can proof he is the copyright owner.
Agreed. Equally, a film photographer wouldn't dream of parting with negatives!
Fully agree with you! I also get asked whether they can have all of the photos even if they’re bad and I’m like no.... only the best photos will be provided from my end I do not want any bad photos roaming around damaging my brand.
After one wedding i photography...i deliver to client 300 edited photos as we had sign on contract. Few days later tha bride contacts me and ask me if that... '' You shoot only 300 photos at our wedding''? I said no,i shoot a lot more but i reject the missfire or light problems or closed eyes....whatever anyway doesn't match my work quality standards, guess the next question i have form the bride! ''Oh i see, yeah ok great, hhhmmm can you give us ALL the photos that you shoot on our wedding ,i will give them to another photographer maybe he can FIX them'' FIX WHAT?? Your closed eyes? The out of focus? As someone says,i can give you the RAW from what the delivered jpg came from, but i won't give in any format any of the rejected photos.
One awkward situation is when client wants to edit the RAWs because of their reasons.Maybe for fun,maybe for learn how to,or maybe because they think they can do one better. No problem with that,BUT if that photos go online there is a problem. You upload a photo that is not finished,raw is not finished ,is half work done,so i prefer to call me say ''Hey i want some of the colour photos in b&w can you edit them for me'' and i will do it for FREE or even better lets have a coffe and give your thoughts.
Contract before every work will solve anything and protect the good relation between photographer-client.
Even in commercial that clients want to archive the photographed product for future editorials or sales or other uses they ask for their design department only the mirror RAWs of the final delivered JPGs and never a reject one. But in contract you they have written permision to use the RAWs as they want.
I agree with not giving RAW files. I have similar experience in another profession, but it's the same attitude of so called clients who think they know better. Why some troll you when they can find someone to give them what they want is beyond me. This is your livelihood, how you make your money. Your art. If they don't understand that they can get Uncle Bob and do the "work." More power to them. As a photographer, RAW files are yours and you have a right to protect yourself, your reputation, and yes, your brand.
I'm interested in photography, but have no intention of getting into wedding photography. It is still good to hear these videos as this info can apply to other areas of photography. And other careers as well.
You don't pay a cook to give you raw ingredients; you pay for a finished meal.
You don't pay a programmer to give you design drafts, post it notes and half finished version of the source code, you pay for a piece of software.
And you don't pay a photographer to just give you the RAW files or negatives, you pay for a finished photography.
(Of course in a specialized setting you could of course pay for those things in addition to the finished product, but that would be a way more expensive contract, since it's basically buying full ownership and control of the product, like a copyright assignment contract.)
If I'm paying someone to photograph my event, what makes you think I want a finished product? If you're not giving me what I want, I'm not paying. It's that simple. And if someone else is offering the service I'll go straight to them the moment you refuse to give me what I want.
@@sammyfromsydney The customer is not always right you know!! Mind the door.
@@brin57 Don't worry. There is zero chance I'll be your customer and send a cent your way. I was never in the door in the first place. Don't be too upset when people refuse to hire you because you refuse to provide what they want.
@@sammyfromsydney Pretty certain I wouldn't want you as a client, so we're on the same page. good luck in life with your arrogance.
@@brin57 Funny. How dare I not want whatever rubbish you choose to dish up! The arrogance! Humph! #irony #hypocrisy
Never. A guy posted on facebook today, and told him that he needed photographer for a wedding shoot, and he wanted to know what kind of gear the photographer was gonna use, and that he wanted all the RAW-files. Completely mad!
At least he's open about it.
I respect that he's open about it 💯 but hell no I ain't doing that
Truly excellent advice, Jamie. I will definitely remember that if I ever reach the level of selling my photos. Love your channel!
Hey, Jamie, if you hired me as a photographer for an event because you were in the event I'm definitely giving the RAW files if you ask. I think it depends who is asking. If it's a client whose reason for asking is "I just want to see all the shots" or "I edit my photos on Instagram, I think I can do better" then no. If it's a colleague/professional photographer whose ability you can trust, then absolutely. But conditions should be discussed beforehand, regardless.
Agreed. For me it also depends on who's asking. For a normal person no. For the personal who understands it yes!
As an older photographer you would never give the negatives away for the same reason, they are incomplete. If more prints are required they can be given the same treatment thus ensuring consistent results, likewise additional jpgs would be the same.
I love this guy, his voice is cool and smooth are his videos are concise
Agreed! For another super relaxing photography channel check out Chris Boland.
@@rick-deckard I find Peter McKinnon's channel to be relaxing.
What if
Let's say James a professional photographer and it's James wedding. He hires someone because he can't do it himself obviously. And when going through the finials, James asked the person whom took the pictures if he could get certain pictures in raw so that he could edit them to his style?
Would that be a good reason?
I think, that particular case would be discussed before the wedding.
The photographed groom would have to credit the photographer nevertheless, and, depending what the groom does to the files, that might end in bad rep for the one holding the camera. One could make a contract where the photographer remained anonymous and hands out the raw files, but I would charge extra for that if I wanted to also gain exposure.
As a photographer, if this wasn't discussed and agree upon beforehand, I would feel very uncomfortable with this.
Not only for the reasons that Jamie has said in this video but also confidence wise. If another photographer is taking my photograph and editing it in their own way, in my mind, that's them saying they would've done a better job.
@@TheMrMKultra in that instance of crediting he would have to credit the photographer and say that he edited the photo himself
I believe that a professional photographer would not choose his own wedding as a special occasion to trash his own profession. Maybe I am wrong but one think I understand from James's talk is that the job of the hired photographer can never be to merely press the shutter at random times, from random perspectives and with erratic attitudes towards the event participants ; what the photograph does during the event (1) is much more structured and interactive (planning, staging, organizing, capturing, building sequences, listening and talking to the participants) and (2) is not contained in the RAW files. While editing, the photographer reveals at last to his audience what he witnessed at the event. It is not merely a question of style, but a question about narrative, personal emotions an ultimately a question of authorship. The idea of the groom asking the RAW files so that he may edit them sounds to me like a freaking autocratic idea.
No No No .... We never gave negatives when using film at weddings.
I watched a few of your vlogs - they are so good, a pleasure to watch!
There was that girl that really wanted the pics on the second thay after shooting. I had so much work and i warned her they would be ready after a week. She went "just send a couple of them as what they are now"
And i sen her a couple of 30mb RAWs.
-"What is that, i cannot open these"
-Exactly...
Giving someone a RAW file would be like giving someone a partially cooked meal.
You mean like people buy at a supermarket, every single day?
@@sammyfromsydney But in this scenario, you're the chef.
@@jamiewindsor First of all, many if not most photographers are more like hamburger flippers than chefs. Secondly, the analogy breaks down because while there are 1000 ways to prepare a meal, once it is made and consumed that's the end of it. I can edit the same photo a dozen different ways without destroying the original edit (and I don't even consider myself all that skilled). Which edit is best is often going to be a matter of personal taste. Denying people the ability to play with the files is a complete waste. Also while you can go to the supermarket and buy more ingredients, each photo has a uniqueness that goes beyond the mundane differences in individual specimens of food ingredients. As you well know you can't replace a shot at a wedding.
This insistence of clinging to the past and refusing to give people what they want is just another reason that paid photography has gotten much harder. I opted to buy photography gear for me and my wife to take on honeymoon and had our relatives take the photos. And while they won't win any prizes, they were fine. I've been editing various photos from time to time over the last 11 years. I have a photo of me putting the ring on my wife's hand that I like as a black and white with selective colour on the ring. Perhaps you find that tacky. Maybe you'd like it. I honestly don't care what a pro thinks of this shot or any other. I get to edit them any way I like, till I go blind, lose my mind, lose control of my hands or die. You would never have given me that.
syousef Doesn’t sound like my style would have been right for you. If potential clients tell me that they want styles that I don’t do (eg black and white with selective colour), then I advise that they don’t use me, but rather find a photographer that does do that style as they are more likely to share a common creative vision. If we don’t agree on that, it’s likely there will be other areas where I will disappoint the client due to my vision not being aligned with theirs.
The same analogy for food still works here. You’re likely to get better sushi from a sushi chef in a sushi restaurant than walking into an Italian restaurant and asking the chef to knock you up some sushi.
@@jamiewindsor I'd happily have you give me your vision. There is a reason you're popular and I do really like some of your work. But I'd want to be able to play with your shots and produce my own takes on them. Sadly as this video demonstrates, that's just not how pro photographers work. FYI: I don't want one single vision. My idea of the perfect edit today wouldn't be the same as my idea of the perfect edit a decade ago. Also the selective colour thing I do use, but very sparingly. I probably have half a dozen photos I've ever taken that I really like selective colour with. I've seen whole wedding albums full of that and it's not my cup of tea either.
Wow some spirited and divergent opinions on this one! I am not a pro although I have done a couple of shoots for friends and there is no way I would hand over RAW files for all the reasons you list Jamie. My reputation may not have financial implications (perhaps "yet") but it is still my reputation! For those on both sides of the argument I would think the resolution is simple. Make sure nothing needs to be "resolved" after the event and be clear up front. As the photographer, just make your position clear at the outset (preferably in your contract). As a client, make sure access to RAW files is part of the contract. If either is unwilling to accept the terms, walk away and look for another client or photographer. Only discovered your vids today Jamie and am in the middle of a serious binge. Loving your work and your ethos seems very on par with mine. Cheers.
everytime i shoot i run into this. I have had clients say they never want to work with me again because of it. It is a really hard thing to covey and people simply dont understand, especially in the age of iphones. Im struggling to have a response that educates and informs in a pleasant way. that is also clear.
Ask chatgpt. Chatgpt comes in clutch for how to compose a friendly and professional email or website copy.
I think the wish to have the raw files is quite understandable. Just give them files that kind of look unedited and have them pay extra. Tell them, the raw files arent closer to reality and just give him edits that you can like with even if they arent your "brand". There are quite some photographers who edit quite heavily (ie. thinking they are fucking Renoir), and for a few pics people might just want something that looks unedited.
In my experience when a clients asks for "RAW" files they normally mean unedited jpegs. But sometimes they actually do mean "Raw" files. Sometimes I think my RAW files already look perfect based on my personal preference especially when I take my time getting the shot perfect in camera (including lighting).
Spreading wise knowledge! thanks dood.
Your lighting makes you look possessed! Like your videos though. 👍🏻
Yes. Ring lights are an awful invention. They just make the eyes look wrong!!
I have not encountered this; but, if I do I now have reasons not to give out a raw file.
Many years ago we had a photographer shoot our wedding. We could have received them for a fee but would have to wait 5 years after the shoot.
100% agree, I've had the same experiences. Never give them!
I've given unedited the unedited catalogue before as jpgs. I'm probably gonna stop just because of file transfer storage issues but I've never had any really issues come out of it
Well, would it be okay to see the pictures with the photographer and tell them which pictures you liked the most so they would have in consideration for the final product?
Could give them an online folder with your watermark all over the photos and have them send you back the ones the want edited
Read the law in your country.
where I live, the person who presses the shutter is the owner when in public domain. Regardless of who owns the camera, film, memory card etc.
The client owns all rights, including any materials generated through the course of employment. This would include RAW files. However, licensing is a different subject.
By agreement, the photographer still retains creator rights. The client may receive ownership of the RAW files, but not have right to change, alter or otherwise distributed materials (RAW) outside of the agreed finalised product. (The finished jpegs.) The client may request at a future date to employ the photographer again to edit existing files that remained from their previous employment at an agreed sum.
However, truth be told..he has it kinda bang on. Trouble can, and will form when you give the RAW files away. As the creator of the RAW files, you can't prevent them from using them, all you can do is ask that if any RAW files are used and/or manipulated, they do not include any reference to the photographer. This kinda creates an odd situation where technically you can bar them from editing any RAW they possess, as the most photographers will have their name in the exif metadata.
If I am an employee, and my employer asks for the RAW files, I can't decline, I can only restate that the usable images are only the licensed and authorized ones in the agreed format, as agreed by both parties before the images are used publicly or otherwise.
I completely with the reasoning why not to...but it ultimately comes down to the law in the region you are working in.
Nope, never :)
Correct you are however, that should be made clear and I mean CLEAR in the agreement/contract. Leave so much as a single loose thread and someone will come along and pull on it, unraveling God knows what. As meticulous as you are when taking photos so to in you contract development.
What if I ask because I am familiar with editing software like Photoshop/Lightroom and fully understand what a RAW file is, and the reason I’m asking for the RAW files is because the photographer we paid a couple thousand to shoot our daughter’s wedding did a really horrible job of editing their images. In fact, I would swear the images were not edited.
Bill Barron Well, that’s a different issue really. The issue there would be booking a bad photographer rather than taking RAWs from a competent one. This list presupposes that the photographer is competent and there are no other extenuating circumstances (like the police request them to help identify a murder suspect etc)
Basically - what you do as a photographer as normal practise.
Bill Barron Is this hypothetical or something that actually happened to you?
Why did they hire a photographer that produces photos they don't like? If they failed to undertake basic due diligence in choosing their wedding photographer, they have nobody to blame but themselves.
If they chose the photographer because they like that style of photography, then you'd be wise to keep your own negative opinions of the photos of their special day to yourself!
Bill Barron you'll never get a sensible answer from a photographer. Just a lot of fear insecurity and deflection. Photographers are the only people I know who believe no one in the world can be amazing with a camera but have awful editing skills.
A photographer might edit decently, but if you know Photoshop and Lightroom better than your photographer but he takes better pictures than you, what's the issue of handing over the raw? Oh I know...their insecurities LOL Because only they can edit their photos better than anyone apparently.
How about explaining this to the photographer that you did not like the edit? Come to a solution.
Hi Jamie. I completely agree with you on not showing the client RAW files. But what if he/she asks you they want to see them so they can select the photos they want you to edit?
Let them make an appointment to view the files on your computer. Still no need for the RAW files to be given away.
A digital camera doesn't produce a final image, we do. A film photographer would also never give away his negatives (except if that's the contract and those who receive them know what to do with them), because the final product is the print (or a shareable/printable digital image file). That being said, you can hand out TIF files of the final edit if the clients want huge files, but that would be ridiculous.
Imagine RAW file size from Fujifilm GFX 100.
It depends on the client. I have shot photos for a photographer at an event because they were part of the event. I turned over all RAW files to them with no problem. And your #4 reason makes no sense, people can edit JPEG files and put filter on them easier then they can RAW files, why are you not worried about them uploading those and "ruining your reputation" by creating you, those probably even have your watermark on them.
Well said. Not giving raw or converted raw doesn't save your reputation in any way.
Gladly there's the GDPR that handles this kind of problems.
Fully agree :-)
Jamie big fan ! Can you guide me to/ or do you have a video tutorial for editing high iso 6400 shot on canon 5d mark 3 from wedding serviice as worried about the noise i see even though sharp for a4 prints ! Thanks in advance ROb
Can I have some raw files?
I'm just learning but first thing I learnt was shoot in raw
I'm just learning what to do with them shot a friend's wedding other day but only as a guest got some great shots some look better in raw than jpeg as taken others not so but got back and me mouse is nowhere to be found when setting pc up so not touched them yet
But thanks for the heads up on not giving out raw files
Also how do you copyright your images so they can be proven to be yours?
Is it just having originals meta data?
With all social media etc sure it's getting a concern
Great video, deserves any more views
why you ask them not to publish those photos on social media ?
Because they did not pass my quality control threshold and therefore it damages my reputation. In the same way a restaurant that burnt a dish would not want that going out to potential customers as an example of the food it serves.
I understood, thank you Jamie :D
On point 💪
As a translator, this would be akin to a client asking for my first draft... NOPE!!!
Rewind twenty five years and ask yourself: would you give them the negatives?
I completely agree with your stance.
PS: Your ring-light illumination is clearly visible in your eyeballs and is mildly distracting.
You can't duplicate negatives w/o i.q. loss.
I'm thinking tiff file or PNG file....
Off topic, but what lighting are you using? I dig the circular reflection on the eyes.
amazing POW. Niiice , Thanks!
On another note with filters anyone can take a nice pro photo which great editing and make it look rubbish using filters etc I had a client who did that to my work
Maybe because you didn't produce the work they expected. I've been in that client's shoes, for that same reason 😝 Didn't tag the photographer though, she seemed concerned about that.
If you ever shoot for Gordon Ramsay, never give him RAW files!
No, NEVER. The RAW files belong to the photographer and only the photographer. Anything else yeah sure, give it 😋
Well in your contract, write that they mustn't credit you for your photos...
Like giving them every shot you've taken before you edit. Just no.
Of course, if the client asks for any of the RAW or camera files then they should be included with any of the finished files or prints that are ordered. *The photo session service was paid for which includes any camera files. The only labor involved for that would be to move the mouse-arrow and click "Select all" and "copy to" to usb key. Some photographers don't include the RAW files with the paid photo session because they hope to "milk" the client for orders of more edited files or prints. What should the labor fee be for inserting the SD card and USB key into the computer and clicking on "select all - copy to?"
Jakethemase I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t intend to ‘milk’ anyone. That’s not the agenda. Not everyone is out to con people. Some people just care about the quality of the job they do.
The agenda is protecting your work against poor-quality edits being shared under the banner of your work and damaging your reputation.
A filmmaker would not release raw footage reels to be edited by their client. A restaurateur would not release the raw ingredients for the client to cook themselves. A musician would not release the unmixed stems for a client to mix themselves. Photography is no different.
If it were 25 years ago, would you give them the negatives?
Just need to say that as client this is VERY irritating. I get it if this is your own artistic work that you have created and funded obviously, but if you were hired to perform a service for your client, Why do you care if they have the RAW’s of THEIR image or not? For context, sometimes I need to alter an image to better suit a website or graphic design project. Seems like if you are holding onto these images for your own use or creative control, you aren’t really working on behalf of your client. Also edits are very subjective, and your client actually might be better at editing and knowing how to get what they want or god forbid have better taste. I am a musician. When I am hired to do studio sessions, I don’t keep the original files, stipulate what my parts can be used for or how they can be mixed. I am paid to perform a service and I then relinquish the results to the client who paid me to use as they wish. This is an industry standard bourne out of insecurity and needs to change. Obviously charge appropriately for your time and the hassle of transferring large files or whatever, but please stop the patronising and insecurity.
Always weird when someone comments on a video from over half a decade ago. Firstly, I think you may have missed the part where I said that you should give raw files to professional clients. If you're editing a website or graphic design project, you will more than likely have the raw files. Secondly, this is not insecurity, it's what I've learnt from years of working professionally in the industry. The client pays for the rights to use the final product. If I start letting them in on the process, where do I stop? Do I let them take the photo? Do I just lend them my equipment? As jobs like weddings work almost exclusively through word-of-mouth, it's important that when someone hires me, they know what they are going to get. If someone has taken my raw files and pushed the white balance so much that they all look like they belong in The Matrix, when someone else hires me and gets warmer-looking shots, they won't be happy.
I used to give out raw files, but I've had so much of my work had shoddy retouching work done to it and then sent out to all the guests, I had to put my foot down and start saying no.
Facebook page or account I can contact you with?
How very true. I always try to avoid giving clients the raws for the reasons you stated here. Btw, the background music is a way too loud and I almost couldn´t hear what you´re saying :)
Hi, I just gave them a less retouched version when they asked for "less filtered" it was a corporate headshot of a 65 year old woman. I thought it was rude to ask for an unretouched headshot of a senior, I likened it to asking an older woman her age. I especially love it when the photo is not going to be larger than 2 inches on a website LOL. It wasn't enough to get someone who called me a week before Christmas, I got them in on Friday and delivered it to them by Monday. Oh that wasn't enough. Most people are not even in the office right now. I wish I had set an away message on my email.
ha, I'm going to link this video next time someone asks me for "All the photos"
In the age of phones producing RAW files, enjoy going broke.
@@sammyfromsydney You obviously don't have a clue!!
@@brin57 "You don't have a clue." Is not an argument. Try again.
@@sammyfromsydney Who said this was an argument. It's a statement of the obvious.
@@brin57 So you want to abuse people for not wanting to buy what you peddle, and you think I'm the clueless one. Okay. No worries. Time to block you.
Catchlight madness.
Why you don’t want clients to upload your photographs? Or do you mean raw files?
ruyveng I’m talking about when you send clients unedited RAW files and stimulate that they can have them as long as they don’t publish them online as they are not finished works. And the client agrees to this and then thinks I won’t check if they put them up on Facebook or Flickr or wherever.
With wedding photography, new business is generated mostly by word of mouth, so it’s important that your work looks good and accurately represents your abilities. But there may be shots that were taking in non-optimal lighting conditions that I would rescue in some way in post, or maybe I didn’t have a long enough lens from where I was standing but planned to crop later, or maybe there was a load of horrible distracting colours in the background that I was going to desaturate or shift their hue etc. This is all part of the process of creating photography, but most people won’t know this and will simply think “that’s not a very good shot”.
Ok, now that's perfectly understandable. I wasn't sure if you meant RAW files or any photographs you give them, which would be strange ;) Thank you for the clarification. Love your work btw., thank you for all the knowledge and insight :)
@@jamiewindsor oooh la dee daah jamie, you should watch jamie's video here
th-cam.com/video/s34VfNHN4Jw/w-d-xo.html
Is the same old story, once upon a time photographers didn't want to give you the negatives for the same "they are incomplete... it's MY vision... MY style... MY work... MY reputation...".
Sorry, I never believed that excuses, it's just that you want to be sure that I HAVE to come back to you for more editing and more prints, it always was a way to be sure to get more money from the same client in the future. The fact is that it is MY wedding, MY face, MY wife, MY guests. You don't want me to print them by myself? Put that in the contract then give me my RAW files/negatives. If upselling/returning client is your aim just remember, one day you will retire or close your activity while me and my family will want to remember the wedding for the rest of our lives. RAW files/negatives are both "family history" from my perspective. When they where real negatives a family could have preserved it for the next generations wile I'm quite sure that all the negatives that were kept from photographers went destroyed/lost. "Can I have toe RAW files?" will be one of my firsts questions to any photographer I will contact for my wedding and anybody answering "NO" will not be hired. So keep that in mind: if you're a wedding photographer, being willing to give your clients the RAW files when they ask for them is a sound marketing practice. If you're concerned about the misuse just explain that to the client and/or put that in the contract.
Then shot your wedding with your smartphone.
I share my raw files but I don't have a brand to protect. I live in a very poor neighborhood in dallas my carreer is basically getting invited to birthday parties quinceaneras baptisms first Communions. I give them both in a thumb drive they can print what they like and I also send them to fiver.
Carlos, put up a website so you're not dependent on serving only poor people or DIY people. Serving poor people is a good way to not have a successful business. I don't feel bad about this because poor people can have their friend take photos with their phone lol. High quality photography is a luxury. Mercedes isn't discounting their cars because of poor people.
@jamilgotcher365 i actually like my arrangement it pays well enough to stay at it. Its something i can do allongside my job. I do think it's funny that you think Mercedes Benz is a luxury brand. I live in oak cliff Texas with the poor people as you like to say. I can take you to at least three dozen 2024 Mercedes out here in the poor side. Good luck to you.
No
A No on principle makes the photographer look like he never even listened to the client and does not care for the wishes of his client. I would not hire that photographer again. There is a reason why I asked for the RAW files.
As I see it taking a good shot, selecting the best shot and being able to post-process them are very different skills. As a client I hired the photographer to take the best shot and then I would like to keep my options open of selecting the best shot and the ability to postprocess the image.
A finished image is always postprocessed in some way - but it does not have to be done by the same person. The vision of the image can be formed by multiple people.
If a client is already asking for RAW do not assume that he has no idea what he is asking for. Confirm that he is an idiot before treating him like one that will not be able to open the files. If he has the technical ability to process RAW and he wants to process them on his own - why not let him?. Try to work something out with your client.
Neal Burger I found it pretty clear he was talking about clients that just want to see all the potential pictures you took but aren't exactly experienced photographers. It tends to be clear when someone is experienced or not. And the biggest issue is just with sharing unfinished work as something the photographer gave as a final product when it's not.
You missed the point. The RAW file is not the final picture. It is just the start of a photographer’s process to produce the image he envisaged.
Well said.
Never, ever give anyone the raw file
Yeah dont ever give out raw files. Always get contract signed before. did this once and never again. I dont care who it is, who they think they are dont do it. I sorely regret my decision.
As a client I don't want RAW files but I want JPEGs and I always ask the photographer beforehand. I don't credit them, but I like to edit photos myself for Instagram because I've had a bad experience with a photographer who had a huge fancy camera and a pretty portfolio but then ended up sending me a bunch of super grainy photos (it was Golden Hour so no reason for that) and all the colors were edited to be desaturated and sepia-toned which wasn't a good look for a summer picnic shoot that I expected to be more colourful. And then she just stopped replying even though she agreed to give me the unedited files in the beginning. Anyway I'm an amateur photographer now and I shoot in JPEG myself unless the lighting is bad, and I'm down to give all the unedited files along with the edits. I've worked with other photographers who do that and their clients always appreciate it. Happy clients = more business through word of mouth. But I totally understand why fancy photographers like you don't give out original files, that's why I personally wouldn't hire a fancy photographer 😅
I think people don't like good photography because they can't take credit it for it, so they like to do their own little amateur edit so they can somehow take credit for the image in their own head LOL
@jamilgotcher365 Good photography is subjective. What you like isn't what someone else might like, and for people who aren't trying to make money from photography or editing, the end goal is achieving the result they like even if it's different from the photographer's vision. As a paying client, you should be absolutely entitled to manipulate photos of yourself however you like. Ideally, your photographer's creative vision aligns with yours, but that's not always the case.
Valid points, but on the other hand, if I was a client and I ask for them politely, I wouldn't like it if not been given to me...don't know, confused on this one...
What are the chances client doesn't have required software to edit RAW files.
1. What would you need them for? 2. That would probably need to be written into the contract and personaly I'd charge you more. 3. You'd better specify that BEFORE signing the contract, so that the photographer can choose whether he wants to tak eon the assignment. It's really bad if you pull this kind of thing after everything has been done and edited.
I don't know why, but for me that's kind of a violation. I would never ask for RAW files, although I was tempted to do so a few times... I feel it's going too far. It's like asking a DJ to provide all the music he gathered through years or so. Or walking into the kitchen to see what the chef and rest of the crew are doing there. It's not polite to peek behind the courtain ;)
I feel like if you've asked for it beforehand, and you both agreed on it, it should be fine. But I haven't been working commercially for so long so I don't know. I've been on both side of the question a couple of times, and I was always doubting what was the right way to deal with the situation. But if I would request the RAW files from a person, I would be dissapointed if there was no way I could get them, - deciding this up front I mean.
I wouldn't hire anyone who doesn't give raw files. It's for preservation purposes. Most photographers go out of business eventually and you can't go through them for edits.
Never :)
G(old)
3rd vid of yours I have watched .. I like your thoughts so far even if your led circle lighting makes you look freaky : ).
I can see your point .. BUT.
DSLR's are not uncommon anymore. A real lot of us amateurs are out there. Personally, I would want everything you shoot in raw + your finished product. I see myself hiring you for your creative PLUS a service as I cannot be on the other side of the camera at the time .. I would say millions of us understand raw files and dumbing things down to the lowest common denominator won't work for me and millions like me.
I still get your point.. I send images to my family in jpeg and they don't care to hear long boring explanations of how many images it took to make ... they will point out my crap dark room pic I made to expose outside the window properly.
There has to be some medium ground ...
John Rasmussen clients should not have RAW files. Its not about hiding your bad photos or making yourself look better. It's about your brand and your art. If you're an amateur photographer than practice, watch videos, read, research and you'll get there. Other photographers RAW files are not a place to be practicing. I have never given out a RAW file and never will.
I totally get where you are coming from, it just wouldn't work for me and anyone like me. As I said above I would be hiring someone because I like their art .. AND for a service. If you only provide half the requirement then that is fine. I'd cry inside but I would cry harder not having everything. You would be taking a lot of pics, some might even be crap or a little blurred .. but they capture a moment that has meaning to me, and only I can be the judge of that. Your Art would not be relevant.
We are all different .. and I really do see your point.
John Rasmussen I agree that those moments might mean a lot to someone. But, I have had people edit my work, work that I spent hours on, and it is an awful feeling. It also does not represent my work at all, so it should not be shown to anyone as it could damage my reputation. I get what you're saying, but when it comes right down to it, Photography is also a business. Therefore, you do what's best for the business. And what's best for the business is to only release the finished product. Otherwise you could lose potential clients and lose money. We all need money to do what we love and stay in business.
you will never stop people using those hideous filters and "slider-abusing" your work .. it will happen anyway even if it is the couples kids or proud grandma etc.
I'd suggest photographers understand human nature and come up with a better solution. Surely changing contractual agreements would benefit both parties needs.
I'm fine as I would just move onto another photographer. I also understand a lot of people exactly match the stereotype pro-photographers are worried about. But you guys should stop pretending your art is all you were hired for.
Its 2018 .. Time to see the world for how it is and not how you want it to be. The preciousness of your Art is not a complete solution in my mind and I imagine many more people's minds as we progress into the future where even mobile phones will be able to take raw images.
Best to get ahead of the curve and manage it, this is a smarter way to my mind. I'm not trying to be adversarial, its just my opinion and possibly the opinion of the uncounted millions of Ps knowledgeable users out here. Probably similar to the Instagram fans too ... (god that platform makes me shiver : )
Nothing is perfect, and the choice is totally the photographers to make. I respect this
And 99% of the time, they never ask for the raw files when hiring you. It's always after you delivered work that looks exactly what is in your portfolio on your website "btw...could we get the "unfiltered" files?" And I'm thinking, tell me you're a wannabe photo editor without telling me you're a wannabe photo editor. Using the word "unfiltered". Not unretouched files but "unfiltered".
Asking me for RAW files is a bit like asking for my photographic soul, and that's not on offer. As an amateur, I'm theorizing of course: I've never been asked for RAWs, and I do get the exception about super-professional clients who may want to do their own retouching for specific printing/publication needs. But otherwise, no. Most of the people in my personal environment wouldn't know what to meaningfully do with my DNGs anyway - which is not meant as a diss but a mere statement of fact - and I'm glad they don't ask.
However, if I was to hire a professional wedding photographer, and they were reluctant to provide RAW files, which is perfectly understandable, I would expect them to deliver full-res JPEGs that show some degree of skilled editing where necessary. When friends of ours booked a so-called professional, they ended up with some pretty crummy, partly overexposed out-of-camera JPEGs, and lots of missed shots for that matter, and paid dearly for it. Not trying to suggest this is typical in any way, but do look closely who you hand your money and what kind of photographer they are.
no.
"pop song " ? lol..
Nope
Best explanation for uninitiated:- Raw are like negatives from film cameras.. Undeveloped. That's why you give them out!
Good video, info-wise but ditch the ring light, pleeeeaaasssse! It makes your eyes look ultra creepy.
Keith Swindell This is problem with TH-cam videos. If you do or say something that people don’t like, you end up frozen in time constantly hearing the same criticism over and over. Even though this video was from half a year ago and I have since ditched the ring light, there’s no way to stop getting these comments other than actually take down the videos.
Totally agreed. And please stop using the ring light. it's totally distracting to your what you're trying to tell me. your eyes are mesmerizing!!! LOL. I hate ring flash.
absolutely wrong
nowadays clients with google world they can find good answer good knowledge
big file no matter how big u can copy it and tell your clients they will provide u a hdd enough ?
remember clients are most smart u never know.
you can find anything on Google ;)
Nope sorry it's yours you produced it you own said copyright .
No it's really not.
i dont agree with you at all, and why sue them? and why not letting them upload their own images who payed thousands for it? wtf is this absolutely wrong mentality.
Alex Xomon Sued? Nobody’s getting sued. Hence the bit where I said “I’m not going to sue anyone”. I’m not stopping them uploading any of their images. The rejected RAW files are not their images. The reason they shouldn’t upload them is that weddings are a word-of-mouth business and while they may have an emotional connection with a particular photo, it’s entirely subjective and other people will not have the same reaction to the image. Rejected images are rejected for a reason. To have someone publish those images as examples of your work is both non-consensual and potentially damaging for your reputation. It could lose you work.
Imagine this analogy with food: say you are a chef and you’re looking to get hired for other catering jobs. You are in the kitchens cooking up several meals. You accidentally knock a pan of custard into the carbonara. You remove it from the hob as this dish is not going out. You will cook another carbonara and serve it as it was meant to be served. But then you look around, and the person who hired you is dishing up “carbonara con custard” to all your guests and telling them that it’s your dish that you cooked.
I doubt I’d get many recommendations from that gig.
i agree with the rejected pictures and its completely fine that you shot a blured image or misfired a shot, but your edited photos in JPEG i should be able to havethem also in the RAW part of them.
let me ask you a question,
why should i give you my money for you to ruin my 1 time event of my life so i can just talk bad words about you on facebook?it makes no sense, i just pay you cause i believe in you, also why should i pay you so much money so i just have to redo your work in hundrends of photos? it makes no sense, i just want the ability in the future that if i want to retouch 1-2 images i could do it propertly.
why is this such a taboo among all photographers?
i got married before 2 weeks and my photographer gave me all the raw and he also told me about the photographer taboo but he got my point and im glad he was such a good person.
im extremely happy with hes work and not even mad that he missed 2-3 jpegs with some green noise, i can easily fix it so i can have good pictures of my wedding.
Alex Xomon I do take your point, and I do give RAW files to commercial clients who have a need for them (as I mentioned in the video). In my experience, when non-commercial clients ask you for RAW files, it’s because they know you’ve only given them about 10% of the shots you took and they want to see what they’re missing. But then they do upload them. It’s happened to me. The bride maybe had a weird thing about her face at a certain angle and then uploads a load of shots where she’s in a pose she prefers, but the lighting is poor and framing is off.
I would happily give DNGs with my edits applied (although sometimes you comp two or more photos together), but that’s not what people want when they request the RAW files in my experience.
thank you for your reply, i do understand now that you meant all photos, i had in mind the selected pics from you in jpeg and raw format (nef or whatever) and im happy with this mid ground.
you have 1 more sub and i really like your work, have fun in your life :)