I've been once asked to give my memory card with my raw pictures at the end of the wedding like, right after it, so they can give it to a professional "photoshoper". Like... Whaaaaaat?!
+skatertwig26 yea ungraded video pretty much the same lines as a raw file like no contrast and saturation kinda thing and they expect it to look beautiful and movie like. its just like Pshh please. let me work my magic first
***** Yeah they don't understand. Some people wanted me to shoot video and give them the files to edit. When the don't know the first thing about editing haha
I'm struggling with this right now. I take pictures for my fiance's band, and I always give them at least 40 something beautiful pictures that took me literally a whole day or two (working non stop) to edit. However if I manage to not catch a jump shot (I have gotten some but i didn't like how they turned out so i dont publish them) the lead singer will complain about that. And then he goes and puts a filter or edits my edits to post online. It irritates me, because I always do it for free because i love my fiance and support their band. But their lead singer drives me CRAZY sometimes and doesn't seem to appreciate what I do.
I had a wedding client that started asking me to send them RAW photos I didn't include in the final selection. I explained to them that if the photo wasn't included it was for a reason. They argued that they didn't care if they looked bad or had a weird angle or face, or if the photo was blurry. They just wanted them and that was it. They didn't understand that is MY work and if they showed that photos to someone else they would ruin my reputation as a photographer. This is very difficult to explain to clients.
The analogies I've read regarding this topic are absolute rubbish. It's not like asking for an unfinished painting, it's not like asking for a pre-edited version of a song, it's not like going to a restaurant and asking the chef for the ingredients. If the reason is you're worried it could misrepresent your work, or it's the time/cost to convert and transfer the raw files etc. then justify this and make it clear with the client before agreeing to the work. Otherwise just list it as additional extra. This is their day and not yours, if they want every unedited snap/moment/memory from the day then they should have them...
This is because the general public don't understand that a raw file is a flat image, No contrast no color saturation no sharpness no anything it has nothing... most people think a raw image is just another name for a JPEG.... So I agree .. The raw images are just the clay that a photographer will use to mould into a final artwork simple as that raw is clay
I've been shooting since the 80s so of course it used to be "can I have the negatives?" I agree with you 100% and you set it out very well and stated it clearly and logically. Your channel is great, keep up the good work!! Dave
While I do agree on everything in the video, I don't see this as a big problem. From 2007-2015 I ran my own studio with customers almost daily; only once was I asked for the RAW-files, and I just said "sorry, I only deliver finished photos" and it was fine. I have seen many of these rants on this topic and I think many photographers are a bit whiny about this. Just make it clear what you do and what you don't offer. All businesses have customers asking for loads of unreasonable things, it's a simple as saying no.
+Dieter Schneider Photography Yes you have a point too! That is why my contract clearly states that no unedited photos are given out. Of course some people are confused as to why this is, so I just thought I would make a video clearing it up :)
+Dieter Schneider Photography We aren't being whiny. I have had this issue with so many people. They want "all the images" from their wedding but don't want to pay me to edit extra images. The problem is people don't understand the time that goes into editing them.
+Jessica Kobeissi This! I would say this video isn't for Dieter but more for people (like myself) because it provides me with a heads up to a situation I, and many others, haven't run across. This video gives inexperienced photographers a concept to think about and better prepare themselves when a client does ask for raws. Great vid Jessica.
I do agree with the points you make here. But I think this raw-image topic is a bit exaggerated. Do photographers really think that if they leak an unedited photo some day to someone, that they will not ever get hired again. Can someone tell me that has it ever happened that some photograph-taking-person has ever had any disvantages to ones business over giving away a raw image? And they are talking like the customer is allways a full novice and wet behind the ears when it comes to post-production. What happens when a photographer want's to get married? He/She cannot be taking the photos himself cause he/she has to be walking down the aisle and kissing, he will need another mobile camera stand that has a basic graphic sense and the knowlege to use the camera - aka a photographer. If that is you, will you still not give even the best raw images unedited so the photographer can edit his own wedding photos? What if a company needed for you to take some promo and feeling shots of their shop and staff, and need you to hand over like the 100 best images in raw files, so that the web developer team that the company has hired can adjust and edit the images to fit the web layout they have created. Will you still not hand them over. C'mon people. they're just images after all... not unfinished Salvador Dali paintings..... I understand that If you are making wedding photos for complete strangers, you might not want to. But damn there are so many situations where the photographer is hired just because he has the access to the hardware, the skills to operate it, and the ability to move to a certain location and press the shutter release a few hundred times and show the employer like the better half of the pictures just as they are. Not all photography is artistic super art that needs just your vision to make it the concentration of all the artistic capacity in you, the essence of art itself.....
My friends were not happy at all with the photos they got from their wedding photographer. They were high key, but just looked burned out. They contacted the photographer several times, but he was too busy and kept them waiting. In the end they gave up and I offered them to correct that. RAW files would have been really helpful, but I had to work on tiny JPGs.. (They were also not full size for whatever reason.) Anyway, they were still happy with my results. Furthermore you can add filters etc. to any format, so in my opinion that's not a good reason. However I do understand that you want to show your finished product and not something in the process. And usually that's fine, because most people don't use Lightroom or want to change anything. But customers, who ask for them, should get them in my opinion. But only as an addition. I also watched another photographer on TH-cam. He said they can do with the pictures whatever they want, but if they change the photo in any way, they are not his photos anymore. So they are not allowed to say or write that he made them. Actually I prefer that. That's fair for everyone.
This is just my opinion, but I think it's your friend's fault for not doing their research properly. They should have looked into the photographer's work from previous photo shoots, and determined whether or not they like his photos/ editing style. (Not just the stuff he showed them at their consultation) Esp for something as important as their wedding.
I know what you mean. I said more or less the same after I heard about their troubles. But the problem is, that a lot of non photographers just dont think about those things. They thought that a professional photographer should be able to do the job and that's it. Nevertheless its no excuse for the photographer to not reply at all. And if he has no time to redo the images, he could have offered the raw files. I mean, if you have a customer, it should be your goal to make them happy and not to do "just another job your way".
I usually shoot a little overexposed. I shoot manual everything, so i have a consistent look to my images.....I usually import into lightroom and create a preset that looks great on most pics from the shoot and apply them to all the pics, and then readjust any wild ones. I found this is better for me in the long run........ Jessica Kobeissi....you're amazing! You're great to follow on here!
I am starting out in photography(Almost a year since I've been really working on being more professional, but have been taking photos for a few years) and I hate when people ask me for unedited photos! The only time I will give out unedited photos, is if I am close friends with the person asking.
Actually the RAW files are your digital 'undeveloped' filmstrip so your only one product what could be used as proof in any hairy situation. Giving RAWs to anyone almost equal with giving up copyrights. You can sell it but you need a really good contact to cover every angle and in that case you need ask the right price like photographers did in the analogue era when somebody bought the negatives or wanted to have unique, signed copies. If you are outsourcing the post production, use TIFF or Adobe DNG and keep you CR2, NEF, etc somewhere safe ;)
If they paid for my services and wanted the raw files I'd provide them. As far as I am concerned they are the client's images at that point -- not mine. As for the client seeing raw images I wouldn't be worried because I believe on getting it right in camera.
I mean it all depends on the client and the photographer. Like Jessica said, you don't want someone with no knowledge of your style ruining your image with other potential clients.
renynzea. I don't know which part of the world you are in, but I live and work in Canada. We, photographers and artists, are hired for our final product. The client DOES NOT become the owner of the images. We still hold ownership and we give a finished copy of the images. So nope. These are NOT the client's images. These are ours. Of course we get it right in camera, but no camera will deliver the same look as the processed one. Simple technical imperfection needs to be corrected, colors boosted, or whatever one's style is. You wouldn't walk into a chef's kitchen and ask for the raw ingredients instead of the cooked meal. Would you? Would you also ask a writer to give you their draft rather than the completed piece?
renynzyea, Thank you. 100% with you. Good to know that not all photographers are condescending pricks thinking nobody else knows how to use Lightroom or Shop.
Captain Bozo so true.. her original unedited pics were way better than her poor editing. the points she covered were really good. but examples were real bad.
Haha you're right. With the first example I was like: Ok, the background is slightly overexposed but she can correct that.....post-processed image: bumped up the background to make it even more overexposed xD
I give the raw files with the XML (and converted to dng), as well as the jpeg's. The RAW files is given in the case they wish a different editing later on - however, I have done a few weddings, but I have a regular job so I am not a professional. When I do weddings I do documentation not manipulation, so I won't clone or anything in photoshop, I will however adjust the RAW files as needed (hence the XML files). They own the files, it's their wedding, I do however delete the many bad pictures so they only get the once used for jpeg's.
I've been at this photography thing for 30+ years, and no, Raw files are not given to clients, much like negatives were not given out back in the days when film was king. Good video on the subject Jessica.
I always watch your videos twice, the first time for information, and the second time for pure entertainment. Your style is so natural and refreshing. Keep it up.
If I get hired to do a job, it is because someone has seen my work and liked it enough for them to hire me. My work consists of the composition and style of the image, which includes the post processing.
Jessica, lots of photographers with way more experience than you are nowhere near as self aware and confident as you. This is going to serve you well. I'm an old guy who's been doing sales for decades, so this kind of stuff is second nature and obvious to me. But you are instructing your beginner students in a very important aspect of the business here. And make no mistake folks, it is a business.
A client asking for original digital raw images now is like asking a photographer from the days of film to hand over undeveloped rolls of film. I would never allow my raw work to be handed straight to a client - the process is simply not finished! This has so many issues tied to it as a concept and a business practice, that it makes me shake my head! We need to qualify this throughout our contracts and right through our marketing material.
the problem is you think you're a great artist when you're just a picture taker. get over yourself, if youre great at framing then stick to that. if you can't edit to save your life then let someone else do it. you're not an artist like da vinci
Coming from a photographer’s perspective I get it, from a retoucher’s side - I require the raws, why? When I open up an ‘edited’ photo I usually get a soft out of focus image, highlights have been blown out, barrel distortion or chromatic aberration hasn’t been sorted white balance not set, histogram hasn’t been looked at. Editing, duplications of textures right next to each other from using the stamp tool, mottled skin textures from using a soft brush and the healing tool, conveying this this to a photographer is sometimes tricky but once we’ve established that the goal is to get the utmost quality out of their image and we’re wanting the same thing, it’s all ok.
Copyright aside, it would be like a writer having the first draft of a book published. They could be the best writer in the world but that doesn't mean that there aren't things in the story that need to be tweaked and same goes for photos. I'm just starting out, but I wouldn't give the RAW files to a client because like Jessica said, that is the unfinished product. Yes the client may very well know exactly how to photoshop the pictures but what you are paying the photographer for is capturing your moments and making sure they are beautiful, especially a wedding. If someone really wants to edit their own puctures then have someone you know that can take decent pictures and have at it but if you are paying a professional to take your photos then let them do what you are paying them to do.
The most important thing of all is that having the RAW file is proof that you are the photographer that took this photo, it's a way to ensure your copyright. If you give it to someone else then someone can end up claiming it's their picture and their proof would be the RAW file they've got.
If people knew what RAW files are, the images as are seen by the camera's sensor, probably they will understand. That's without the needed/right contrast, colors, probably white balance and sometimes exposure (by choice or error), and much much more. And the analogy to a house is somehow wrong, I think an unfinished, not painted, decorated house. Because it's more than bricks and the wood. It's still a house (picture), but not the final cozy home (the final photo). And yes, even the most amazing photos out there are edited a lot, and if people would see that unedited, dull and unimpressive sunset, they would be disappointed. The editing takes photos to another level. Sometimes it is needed because of an error - and you'll still be able to have a nice photo, or because of a choice - the artistic side. And for those who don't know, even back in the days, people stayed hours in a lab with chemicals to alter (edit) the photos, even if they were shot on film. It's the same thing. Good light and impressive results to everybody!
I'm a makeup artist, doing some photography on the side.. When I do beauty shoots with a photographer I request raw files because I intend to retouch them to my liking.. I want my makeup to appear the way I made it (which most times a photographer don't really capture, or even botch it with unnatural retouching) Another reason why I prefer to do my own retouch, natural beauty retouching is very time consuming, most photographers don't have time for that. Some photographers understand that and comply to my request. It's a matter of preference and understanding.
Great video. I completely agree with you. I get asked this all the time by my friends, not the raw file cause they don't know it even exists, but the unedited jpeg to upload it to facebook as fast as they can, probably using some crappy filter. The unfinished painting or script analogy is what I think about all the time.
This eventually happened to me recently, I told that the photos are to be edited but then the client refused and stand firmly want the photo given right away after the shoot. Then another day when he opens back he is not happy with it. -.-
I’d make sure that I could get all, if not then most, of the photos before hiring them. I wouldn’t be rude about it like some people but I’d keep looking until I find someone. >.< If they don’t want me posting the ones that they’ve given me then I won’t. I’ll sign a contract if I have to. So long as I have my photos. :3
I agree with you Jess, I will never give out raw files. I do find it hard to explain to that one client who feels they not only deserve all files raw or otherwise, but my memory card too. uhhh...
This makes lots of sense, and we do have 150 beautifully edited photos from our photographer and FYI our photographer was not you, so please don't think this is an attack on you. It's not. But what do you do as a customer if they are not the pictures you wanted? You like the quality but sadly the family who came from abroad don't feature at all? Or your bridesmaids aren't captured walking down an aisle? The only answer we came up with was to offer more money to get the rest of our photos... But this was denied. We appreciate it's an art, but it's also someone's memories and the photographer is literally picking which ones they are allowed to have and which ones they aren't. It seems unfair from the other side.
Back in the days of film cameras, no professional sold the negatives to a client, whether it was a wedding, modeling, whatever. They received prints only, for all the reasons you mentioned. A RAW file is the digital equivalent of the negative. Photographers need them like film negatives to develop prints ("JPEG's"). It's a policy that's been around forever.
I never ever ever give out unedited photos. You're absolutely right, it's sending out a piece of work that is unfinished, and I find it unprofessional. The only possible exception would be if I'm doing images that will later be used for posters/flyers/advertising, but even then I would likely still do some touchups.
I agree. just happened to me a few weeks ago. I was out shooting with my friend (I don't own a dslr) and I was waiting for him to pass me my RAWs because I had adjusted my settings so that I can touch up to get the effect I want. When he finally shared MY photos they were all edited. In his style. And miraculously all the RAW files were gone. That wasn't a pleasant experience for me considering that's the first and last time I'm going shooting with him again. Don't ever mess with a photographer's RAW files. We took the picture with the final product in mind, and never edit the photos we took without permission. I still grieve over my lost photos ;-;
What’s stopping a client from editing or manipulating your JPG/JPEG images? RAW processors are always evolving and improving; it’s conceivable that in the future, a client may want to get their photos remastered. Thanks for your video!
I have a videography business and we ALWAYS get "oh can I have all the clips and we can edit the video ourselves." UMM NO BITCH.This is the most relevant video ever my god.
When I'm in the field with my clients, I will show my clients the raw files (because they know what they want and how they want to look and may sometimes want the picture in a different style) but I never give them the raw photos, all of my clients (so far) have always understood why I don't give them raw.
I would never give out my raw files. Not only bc of all the things you mentioned but in a legal twist if someone stole my pictures or used them in a way I haven't consented with I will still have the original RAW file as a proof that I'm the owner and creator. I don't think you'd just lend your negatives to any client as a photographer using analog cameras. You give your negatives to developers if you can't develope yourself. Wich is basically some photographers who pay for retouch and stuff. I had a girl asking me to take pictures of her and her dog and wanted to know my price so I said my price and the amount of images and she was like "no but I want all the images myself I know how to use Photoshop". Girl no. Then get someone else do your photos.
Because I learned to shoot with film and had to be sure I had composition and exposure correct before I clicked the shutter I see the raw file as the negative and the work in post as creating the print. Adjustments to color, contrast, cropping the shot if composition was a bit off, burning, dodging, to create what you imagined the shot to be when you took it. Sometimes the excitement of the moment can make you think the shot is better than it actually is. With digital cameras I've found it is much easier to work the shot till you get it right and other times it just happens in a split second. I never gave anyone my negatives to address the topic of this video, I have every negative I ever made since 1980, and all my digital files backed up.
I'd personally explain it to people like this: asking a photographer for raw files is like asking for an uncooked dinner in a restaurant. You're only ordering ingredients, and trust me you won't be happy!
Truth be told. Photographers don't give raw files often because it's our job to take the stress away of you going through each photo and editing them. Most of the time they don't what they're doing and then your name is on it so it's not so much of photographers being romantic about their work, it's more giving you a finished product. If you really want it, you can pay additional for copyrights which is usually $300 +. Any real photographer know it's more than just pushing a button.
great video. i personally never give out the raw files. i don't like to even show the pics with the soft edits, but i do, so they can pick the best pics for there package. i let them pic the top 10 they like and edit those. the nice thing with doing that, sometimes i can get them to pay for more edited pictures because they like more photos then the package they bought.
another reason would be.. you can sell the extras that are not included in their contract. So by you including all the extra images and selling them for a good price then you can add a decent edit to all of them on lightroom. It's just another way to sell extra in the postevent process for each of your clients.
I had 3 customers so far. I asked them what the added value was for them, and all 3 couldn't give me a real answer to that, and didn't realize that the raw files couldn't even be read on a standard laptop mostly. So useless for them, unless they want to re-edit them themselves, and, in that case, they will only see how much afford and work there really was in the product you delivered. Good video, good point.
How I explain it to clients is that RAW files are comparable to film negatives. The reason a photographer should NEVER EVER give clients the RAW files is because you essentially are giving them the negative. Whoever who has the negatives owns the copyright to the photos. By giving away the RAW files, you are throwing away your rights to the original photos. They now own the rights to them and you can't use them for promotional purposes.
i needed this, two days ago i had a client that demanded me to release them the raw files, I said no because i'm being protective of my raw files. This particular client wants the raw files so they can edit them to their liking even though I offered to retouch the edits they weren't happy with for no additional cost.
Best thing to put in your contract is what you WILL provide, not what you will not. I always say that I deliver X amount of images in .jpg format. That way they can't ask for any other type of file as the file type was already specified before the shots were even took :)
I really like your reasons, though I actually loved the unedited photos you showed in this video. One thing I liked about them is they felt more detailed (especially the bride photo), and softer. But I can see how a super dark photo (like the first one you showed) would not be very appealing to a client. If I were a client I'd probably ask for the RAWs alongside the finished product, as I enjoy seeing both. But I think people who aren't artists (or at least haven't done any serious visual artwork), might definitely have a harder time recognizing that the work is 1) not necessarily shot to be beautiful as it is, but to be easy to edit to be beautiful, and 2) may not be able to appreciate the photo unedited (even if it is beautiful as it is, due to the prevalence of edited images in media).
If exposed correctly and white balance isn't totally off an unedited raw photo should look good. If you are having to edit your photos to death you are loosing image quality as raw is not totally raw. Many modern cameras are chasing specs so much that they forgot about color fidelity and skin tones. My recommendation is to treat a camera body as film stock and find one that produces raw photos that have the look your going for.
Once I got mad when people kept asking me about giving them ALL the RAW files straight out the camera (like about 300 files) and I did it. They didn't know how to open it anyway, and they never asked for RAWs again. And I'm sometimes showing uneditet straight out the camera photos in my before&after posts on my blog, so people never asking for unedited photos after seeing that.
Good points. I'd rather not give out RAW files, but if they're adamant and willing to pay for it - fine, whatever. I usually give clients my Ts & Cs upfront so they know what they're paying for, which are finished, graded/edited HQ Jpgs or TIFF files if requested.
I shooted with a friend and she asked me for the Raw's. It was a really odd feeling to give them out. Won't do that again. Also she couldn't look at them, didn't have a program that could open the RAW's and she was bugging me how she could open them. AND she was actually shocked when she finally saw the RAW's because she had skin problems and I had a lot to do, fixing that. o.O
I just went through this with a really nice client who simply didn't understand. I've actually shared your video to help them understand, as it can be touchy when explaining to a paying client why they don't actually own the photos and why you won't release your RAW files. Once I explained it to them they sort of got it, but I'm thinking your video will help. Thanks.
Like you said it was the viewpoint from a photographer. I as a customer was really frustrated once that we had a photographer taking really quite cool photos but the edits didn't really match what we needed for the website and our other marketing material. Sure, they were edited with her style, it just wasn't quite what we needed. I asked for the raw files but never got them, so we payed (not a huge amount) and then couldn't really use them as we wanted. Why not give the JPEGS to your client and if they ask you for the RAW files then you give them to them but explain that they are not the finished product but the JPEGS are?
seeing this today july 17 2017, i knew i made the wrong decision to give a client their raw files from a sweet 16 shoot (5/2017). i thought all the same things mentioned here. and... i didn't even charge extra... but i have since learned that i will not give out raw files and will mention it during the consultation process. this was the first time someone asked for the raw files and since i made them so happy i didn't want to kill the customer satisfaction experience. but i thought the same thing, i edited 175 of the 240 pictures, and people see the good in anything and can assume the ones i didn't edit were just as good and may get them edited from someone else or just post them. so now its the decision to even include the entire shoot in my portfolio...or just take an "L" ( loss ) and take / give no recognition for the job... thanks for the video, ive been following you, although i dont shoot your genre, because im learning all aspects ( still considering myself intermediate ) until i discover my unique style.
In the context of wedding photography i'd definitely never give a client the RAW files but In rare instances I give raw files to clients. This when I work with Special Effects companies and they are using the pictures to drop CGI elements into them. They need raw files so that get there CGI elements to match my photo. They understand editing tools so it's fine. Also with some clients that I have long term relationship with I will send a low res versions of all images from a shot so the can make a selection, images are water marked with "unedited, not for pubic use".
As a model if I am working with a photographer TF or I am paying them I only ask for raw photos if their editing sucks (too soft, not blended,ect) or if they choose to edit unflattering photos of me(in this case I typically ask for proofs.) I only post my reworked photos with photographers permission.
An excellent argument that unfortunately won't hold much longer because times are changing and people are starting to expect the digital "negatives" more and more. Photographers need to think about this and adapt, perhaps becoming more creative on how they advertise their real strengths as artists.
AAAAH I LOVE YOU SOOO MUUUCH! I can't even imagine how hurtful this is. Some people don't really get it. It's really important to keep unedited files for us to work with because we would like to enhance the value of our pictures to be delivered as a message. urgh, i can just rly want to share and show this video to clients and leave them watching your videos
before watching, i thought the same thing: just give away the raws whats the big deal? But after hearing your explanation, it makes sense. As artists we want the best representation of our work out there. and the clients wouldnt want the unedited version after they see it anyway!
I totally agree on all being said! It`s crucial for a photographer to make up pictures into art work. I always say people that they don`t but a design of a T-Shirt, they but a T-Shirt.
Raw files can be opened in Windows photo viewers... The JPEG embedded in all RAW files will be displayed. Usually pleasing, but you're right, not finished.
I have a hypothetical question: Let's say I would like to hire a photography team (this includes a photographer and a retoucher) and I do not want you to edit my photos so I could send them to a retoucher. Would you still not give me the shots?
I would have to imagine that is a deal worked out prior to the shoot. I would also have to imagine if they know upfront what the deal is then it isn't going to be an issue. However, if you surprise your photographer by hiring them to do their shoot, and then after inform them you have your own retouch artist, then that is going to be a problem, especially if you already signed their contract for their service. Without knowing what that retoucher wants, then the photographer is probably going to give them something that they can't use, or will require more work than was needed.
My grandparents got their negative film from their photographers. Isn't that the same? What's the difference now? Edited or not if your photography sucks it really sucks. There are clients out there that will never be satisfied.
It´s a good subject! I get this question sometimes these days. It´s a tough one. On one hand you want to support the client and give him all possibilities but on the other hand it makes you look bad if you hand out the data so that the client get somebody else (probably cheaper to edit them) and then you see a bad edited photo or video with your name on it! I think if we all don ´t hand out raws clients will stop asking for them! I think Jessica´s arguments really hit the point!
I´m a hobby photomodel and I´m also learning how to edit photo (still not quite getting there ) . Many photograpfers gave me their raws for my learning but i would never ever ever try to put them anywhere without permission or without description that it was my edit and their photos :) It´s all about respect and comunication.
I have a question! I'm just getting started and I was just wondering how you give them your photos to your clients? like how large of the file? do you recommend a CD or a USB??
Thank you for the video! I actually just sent this link to a client of mine who's been constantly calling me and emailing me about this.. So thank you!
This is a silly argument I hear many photographers wine about. OK, I may be going against the grain here, but consider this: if someone buys a photo off you (i.e. you are selling on spec), there is no reason for them to get the RAW files. On the other hand if you are contracted to cover a photo-shoot for a client and they ask for the RAW files, why on earth should you not deliver them? The client has paid for the shoot and they own the product. What on earth would you do with the files of wedding X anyway? It's their private moment and if several years later they want to come back to the files and do something with them, they have paid the bucks for the privilege to do so (or they should have paid, if you are good enough to make a proper deal with them). I cannot imagine a photographer contracted by a magazine to do a shoot not delivering their RAW files if requested, unless they are a top-of-their-game artist that can dictate their terms -- and even so. I get the art argument and such, but let's face it, most of us are not doing top-level art on a marriage shoot. And regarding the feeble argument about an "unedited" photo making it on the net, what if they take the jpeg and alter it in some way? What I do agree with, however, is that the artist --ahem-- photographer has the right to throw away certain files that do not make the cut, e.g. photos that are rejected because of some defect.
+Alyce Bloxham Then why are those people even hiring you! Those aren't clients that respect you, they should go to a different photographer and stop wasting everybody's time and money.
I agree with that Se L, I hate people who are cheap with their pictures when it the images that we provide for them are going to be the lasting memories for rest of their lives. Your goal is make long term relationship with your client.
As an experienced hobby photographer, couldn't their just be some lines written up in the contract to protect your image and body of work should the customer want the raw (make it as ridiculously protective as you want)? I'm sure the vast majority of customers will not be like me, and understand the points in this video, but I feel like having absolutely no option for getting the raw is kind of a bummer. I might want to play around with some of the shots, while keeping the professionally edited ones in the album.
I would like to have every picture and if not then at least the photos that the photographer really likes. My friend is a photographer and I’d make sure that I could have them all and just find some kind of agreement where I don’t post the photos that he didn’t edit and just keep the rest for myself. I’d like to meet in the middle. As long as I get all of them then I’m happy. :)
Thank you for this video. I'm a new photographer. I had been struggling with this issue but after watching this video I feel much better about protecting my raw files.
What about photos that were poorly edited and the person is not happy and the photographer is not giid with Photoshop. Then they contact someone like me who is able to edit photos in Photoshop. Now usually, I deal with businesses who sign to own the copyright on all materials because they are a business and all that. But if an individual wants me to adjust their photos, who needs to contact the photographer for permission. Me or them? I think it should be them and then they provide me with the proof. But since I want to open up my services to individuals as well, what is the standard procedure for this sort of thing?
Hey Jessica I'm a new photographer starting a business with my mom. I want to just say thank you for doing these videos. Your always very help and I love watching your show. Some day I hope to be a great photographer like you. Your awesome I love you!
so how do you personally send the photos to clients? do you send then via email or prints, if you do send them through email what type of file do you use to prevent anyone from manipulating them?
To add, this is the reason why we limit the number of selections. Retouching all 2000 shots (for example) from a wedding, while not impossible, will be too expensive for the client (unless they're willing to pay for the time to work on all of them). Some clients don't understand this. They think they should get all of them, retouched or not.
I understand the argument from both sides. Example my wedding photos were taken on film (yes I'm from that generation) 10 years latter we wanted reprints guess what the photographer had moved on and couldn't be traced so we had to try to get prints off prints, not the best, like trying to recover a bad jpeg. I accept the original (raw) belong to the photographer but who knows where they end up, there has been a lot of old photos show up on the internet that can be embarrassing today. A reputable photographer would never do that but these photos are stored on media of some description and unless these are demagnetized when discarded, data can be recovered. Extreme case but still possible. I'm just an amateur but even I have collected many photos that I have (want to) store. May be an association for wedding/personal photographers to protect copyright and where all the files can be kept even after the photographer has left the industry. I think in many cases people want these files so they can't be used/viewed in ways without their permission. It's certainly a vexing question but don't put people down because they don't agree with you 100%. It would be interesting to see how many "pro" photographers are still available for reprints from 10-15 years ago. How many still see themselves in the industry in 10-15 years from now. You know some marriages do last that long and what about reprints for a silver anniversary. Photos are stored on a media that does not deteriorate like the old negatives did. All I'm trying to do is balance the argument. It is always possible to give the files as watermarked .dng files maybe that would satisfy some people but the idea of someone having pictures of you when you may be at your most vulnerable and can be used and edited anyway they like does scare some people.
Um.... I think you're supposed to slightly overexpose images in raw that way you can extract more detail from the dark areas. If you underexpose images you're basically reducing the amount of data recorded to the file and when you increase brightness in post you're going to have more noise present in those dark areas.
Well said, great video. I get this a lot as well from some clients and have to explain why I won't send them. Another huge peeve is when I send the finals and a client takes it upon themselves to re-edit and make it look horrible then tag me as the photographer.
As a professional photographer I have ALWAYS given my clients the raw and edited images. They paid for them, they own them. Aside from water marking them I have a signed legal binding contract that states altering or editing the original images is not allowed. Besides, I did my job and was compensated for it. Why be so dramatic about Who, what, where, when.
Fellow Michgiangander here! So proud to see a successful woman doing such beautiful work. Keep it up! (And I agree with all of your points in this video.)
I've been once asked to give my memory card with my raw pictures at the end of the wedding like, right after it, so they can give it to a professional "photoshoper". Like... Whaaaaaat?!
Darine B. That is crazy!
I know right?
Darine B. Oh my gosh that is a nightmare
I would have flipped out and done something petty like put a secret penis in every picture 😂😂😂😂
Kevin Valenzuela lol 100% opacity like 😈😈😈😈🍆🍌🌽🥕🍍🌶
Even if i give the raw files to them, they wouldnt even know how to open them. Lol
90% of them to be exact...
+Doda Haha
+Shlomo Levi no one knows all the professions, and i have windows and it doesnt open them if you dont have photoshop or any program that opens them.
+Doda You can open raw files with windows picture viewer it's just a mater of downloading the right codec - not hard
trevor kelly ok thank you, honestly i didnt knew that you could open raw files without photoshop or lightroom.
People do the same thing with video. If they saw unedited s-log they would probably just explode haha
+skatertwig26 yea ungraded video pretty much the same lines as a raw file like no contrast and saturation kinda thing and they expect it to look beautiful and movie like. its just like Pshh please. let me work my magic first
***** Yeah they don't understand. Some people wanted me to shoot video and give them the files to edit. When the don't know the first thing about editing haha
I mean shit i know nothing about editing other than i cant do it xD
***** Haha It is defiantly a learning curve. Special effects takes very long. I don't do it much haha
Lmaoooooo so true lollllll
Have you ever had an issue with people EDITING your final edits or throw a filter on your beautiful photo? This beyond drives me crazy.
Yes. It irks me.
I'm struggling with this right now. I take pictures for my fiance's band, and I always give them at least 40 something beautiful pictures that took me literally a whole day or two (working non stop) to edit. However if I manage to not catch a jump shot (I have gotten some but i didn't like how they turned out so i dont publish them) the lead singer will complain about that. And then he goes and puts a filter or edits my edits to post online. It irritates me, because I always do it for free because i love my fiance and support their band. But their lead singer drives me CRAZY sometimes and doesn't seem to appreciate what I do.
Bruh
Ysabel Burciaga Then DONT do it anymore. If you dont speak up no one will hear you
so what? its just a picture you took for them, let them do what they want. it's not your baby
I had a wedding client that started asking me to send them RAW photos I didn't include in the final selection. I explained to them that if the photo wasn't included it was for a reason. They argued that they didn't care if they looked bad or had a weird angle or face, or if the photo was blurry. They just wanted them and that was it. They didn't understand that is MY work and if they showed that photos to someone else they would ruin my reputation as a photographer. This is very difficult to explain to clients.
The analogies I've read regarding this topic are absolute rubbish. It's not like asking for an unfinished painting, it's not like asking for a pre-edited version of a song, it's not like going to a restaurant and asking the chef for the ingredients.
If the reason is you're worried it could misrepresent your work, or it's the time/cost to convert and transfer the raw files etc. then justify this and make it clear with the client before agreeing to the work. Otherwise just list it as additional extra.
This is their day and not yours, if they want every unedited snap/moment/memory from the day then they should have them...
This is because the general public don't understand that a raw file is a flat image, No contrast no color saturation no sharpness no anything it has nothing... most people think a raw image is just another name for a JPEG.... So I agree .. The raw images are just the clay that a photographer will use to mould into a final artwork simple as that raw is clay
+Kel Simmons I mean hence the term RAW file like shit what do they expect. even with film the negative isnt the finished product
Shlomo Levi
good thing im not in it for the money
Shlomo Levi
and yet i dont care for your opinion and i care for hers funny that
im young and I masturbate im confused where the insult is
I've been shooting since the 80s so of course it used to be "can I have the negatives?"
I agree with you 100% and you set it out very well and stated it clearly and logically. Your channel is great, keep up the good work!!
Dave
+MisterBigDave Thank you so much Dave! Appreciate it :)
You putting it that way made complete sense!
The first unretouched photo actually looks better than the retouched image with blown out highlights.
Wade Massie I liked the 2nd one two. Hate that pink shadows.
I had a ”photographer” ruin an entire day worth of shots with blowing out the images, because she was too proud to admit retouching was not her forté
While I do agree on everything in the video, I don't see this as a big problem. From 2007-2015 I ran my own studio with customers almost daily; only once was I asked for the RAW-files, and I just said "sorry, I only deliver finished photos" and it was fine. I have seen many of these rants on this topic and I think many photographers are a bit whiny about this. Just make it clear what you do and what you don't offer. All businesses have customers asking for loads of unreasonable things, it's a simple as saying no.
+Dieter Schneider Photography Yes you have a point too! That is why my contract clearly states that no unedited photos are given out. Of course some people are confused as to why this is, so I just thought I would make a video clearing it up :)
+Dieter Schneider Photography We aren't being whiny. I have had this issue with so many people. They want "all the images" from their wedding but don't want to pay me to edit extra images. The problem is people don't understand the time that goes into editing them.
You know why your clients don't ask you for raw files? Because you have your own studio. If you wouldn't, they would ask you :)
Bingo! ^^^
+Jessica Kobeissi This! I would say this video isn't for Dieter but more for people (like myself) because it provides me with a heads up to a situation I, and many others, haven't run across. This video gives inexperienced photographers a concept to think about and better prepare themselves when a client does ask for raws. Great vid Jessica.
I do agree with the points you make here. But I think this raw-image topic is a bit exaggerated. Do photographers really think that if they leak an unedited photo some day to someone, that they will not ever get hired again. Can someone tell me that has it ever happened that some photograph-taking-person has ever had any disvantages to ones business over giving away a raw image? And they are talking like the customer is allways a full novice and wet behind the ears when it comes to post-production. What happens when a photographer want's to get married? He/She cannot be taking the photos himself cause he/she has to be walking down the aisle and kissing, he will need another mobile camera stand that has a basic graphic sense and the knowlege to use the camera - aka a photographer. If that is you, will you still not give even the best raw images unedited so the photographer can edit his own wedding photos? What if a company needed for you to take some promo and feeling shots of their shop and staff, and need you to hand over like the 100 best images in raw files, so that the web developer team that the company has hired can adjust and edit the images to fit the web layout they have created. Will you still not hand them over. C'mon people. they're just images after all... not unfinished Salvador Dali paintings..... I understand that If you are making wedding photos for complete strangers, you might not want to. But damn there are so many situations where the photographer is hired just because he has the access to the hardware, the skills to operate it, and the ability to move to a certain location and press the shutter release a few hundred times and show the employer like the better half of the pictures just as they are. Not all photography is artistic super art that needs just your vision to make it the concentration of all the artistic capacity in you, the essence of art itself.....
My friends were not happy at all with the photos they got from their wedding photographer. They were high key, but just looked burned out. They contacted the photographer several times, but he was too busy and kept them waiting. In the end they gave up and I offered them to correct that. RAW files would have been really helpful, but I had to work on tiny JPGs.. (They were also not full size for whatever reason.) Anyway, they were still happy with my results.
Furthermore you can add filters etc. to any format, so in my opinion that's not a good reason. However I do understand that you want to show your finished product and not something in the process. And usually that's fine, because most people don't use Lightroom or want to change anything. But customers, who ask for them, should get them in my opinion. But only as an addition.
I also watched another photographer on TH-cam. He said they can do with the pictures whatever they want, but if they change the photo in any way, they are not his photos anymore. So they are not allowed to say or write that he made them. Actually I prefer that. That's fair for everyone.
This is just my opinion, but I think it's your friend's fault for not doing their research properly. They should have looked into the photographer's work from previous photo shoots, and determined whether or not they like his photos/ editing style. (Not just the stuff he showed them at their consultation) Esp for something as important as their wedding.
I know what you mean. I said more or less the same after I heard about their troubles. But the problem is, that a lot of non photographers just dont think about those things. They thought that a professional photographer should be able to do the job and that's it.
Nevertheless its no excuse for the photographer to not reply at all. And if he has no time to redo the images, he could have offered the raw files. I mean, if you have a customer, it should be your goal to make them happy and not to do "just another job your way".
@@Elythia pay in peanuts you recieve peanuts.
I usually shoot a little overexposed. I shoot manual everything, so i have a consistent look to my images.....I usually import into lightroom and create a preset that looks great on most pics from the shoot and apply them to all the pics, and then readjust any wild ones. I found this is better for me in the long run........ Jessica Kobeissi....you're amazing! You're great to follow on here!
Same here man, I have presets for bright and airy shots and presets for low key shots. I just apply and fix the rest, dial in a few and get them out.
I am starting out in photography(Almost a year since I've been really working on being more professional, but have been taking photos for a few years) and I hate when people ask me for unedited photos! The only time I will give out unedited photos, is if I am close friends with the person asking.
Actually the RAW files are your digital 'undeveloped' filmstrip so your only one product what could be used as proof in any hairy situation. Giving RAWs to anyone almost equal with giving up copyrights. You can sell it but you need a really good contact to cover every angle and in that case you need ask the right price like photographers did in the analogue era when somebody bought the negatives or wanted to have unique, signed copies.
If you are outsourcing the post production, use TIFF or Adobe DNG and keep you CR2, NEF, etc somewhere safe ;)
If they paid for my services and wanted the raw files I'd provide them. As far as I am concerned they are the client's images at that point -- not mine. As for the client seeing raw images I wouldn't be worried because I believe on getting it right in camera.
I mean it all depends on the client and the photographer. Like Jessica said, you don't want someone with no knowledge of your style ruining your image with other potential clients.
renynzea. I don't know which part of the world you are in, but I live and work in Canada. We, photographers and artists, are hired for our final product. The client DOES NOT become the owner of the images. We still hold ownership and we give a finished copy of the images. So nope. These are NOT the client's images. These are ours.
Of course we get it right in camera, but no camera will deliver the same look as the processed one. Simple technical imperfection needs to be corrected, colors boosted, or whatever one's style is.
You wouldn't walk into a chef's kitchen and ask for the raw ingredients instead of the cooked meal. Would you? Would you also ask a writer to give you their draft rather than the completed piece?
renynzyea, Thank you. 100% with you. Good to know that not all photographers are condescending pricks thinking nobody else knows how to use Lightroom or Shop.
Aghhh you are my favorite photographer/TH-camr. I would cry if this channel disappeared.
+ilovedagreenday don't cry I won't ever leave :D !!! thank you so much for your comment!
@@JessicaKobeissi still here and going strong ;)
I actually preferred your unedited photos :3
Captain Bozo then you should get yourself a camera and go out to take generic pictures. You'll likely be pleased with your own result.
Captain Bozo so true.. her original unedited pics were way better than her poor editing. the points she covered were really good. but examples were real bad.
i didn't like her editing either, not bad pictures though
I'm glad I wasn't the only one
Haha you're right. With the first example I was like: Ok, the background is slightly overexposed but she can correct that.....post-processed image: bumped up the background to make it even more overexposed xD
I give the raw files with the XML (and converted to dng), as well as the jpeg's. The RAW files is given in the case they wish a different editing later on - however, I have done a few weddings, but I have a regular job so I am not a professional. When I do weddings I do documentation not manipulation, so I won't clone or anything in photoshop, I will however adjust the RAW files as needed (hence the XML files).
They own the files, it's their wedding, I do however delete the many bad pictures so they only get the once used for jpeg's.
I've been at this photography thing for 30+ years, and no, Raw files are not given to clients, much like negatives were not given out back in the days when film was king. Good video on the subject Jessica.
Good analogy
I always watch your videos twice, the first time for information, and the second time for pure entertainment. Your style is so natural and refreshing. Keep it up.
If I get hired to do a job, it is because someone has seen my work and liked it enough for them to hire me. My work consists of the composition and style of the image, which includes the post processing.
Bravo. Best comment on this I've read so far.
Jessica, lots of photographers with way more experience than you are nowhere near as self aware and confident as you. This is going to serve you well. I'm an old guy who's been doing sales for decades, so this kind of stuff is second nature and obvious to me. But you are instructing your
beginner students in a very important aspect of the business here. And make no mistake folks, it is a business.
A client asking for original digital raw images now is like asking a photographer from the days of film to hand over undeveloped rolls of film. I would never allow my raw work to be handed straight to a client - the process is simply not finished! This has so many issues tied to it as a concept and a business practice, that it makes me shake my head! We need to qualify this throughout our contracts and right through our marketing material.
the problem is you think you're a great artist when you're just a picture taker. get over yourself, if youre great at framing then stick to that. if you can't edit to save your life then let someone else do it. you're not an artist like da vinci
Coming from a photographer’s perspective I get it, from a retoucher’s side - I require the raws, why? When I open up an ‘edited’ photo I usually get a soft out of focus image, highlights have been blown out, barrel distortion or chromatic aberration hasn’t been sorted white balance not set, histogram hasn’t been looked at. Editing, duplications of textures right next to each other from using the stamp tool, mottled skin textures from using a soft brush and the healing tool, conveying this this to a photographer is sometimes tricky but once we’ve established that the goal is to get the utmost quality out of their image and we’re wanting the same thing, it’s all ok.
Copyright aside, it would be like a writer having the first draft of a book published. They could be the best writer in the world but that doesn't mean that there aren't things in the story that need to be tweaked and same goes for photos. I'm just starting out, but I wouldn't give the RAW files to a client because like Jessica said, that is the unfinished product. Yes the client may very well know exactly how to photoshop the pictures but what you are paying the photographer for is capturing your moments and making sure they are beautiful, especially a wedding. If someone really wants to edit their own puctures then have someone you know that can take decent pictures and have at it but if you are paying a professional to take your photos then let them do what you are paying them to do.
Jennifer Wheeler this is so true
The most important thing of all is that having the RAW file is proof that you are the photographer that took this photo, it's a way to ensure your copyright. If you give it to someone else then someone can end up claiming it's their picture and their proof would be the RAW file they've got.
I usually send them Dropbox raw so they can choose photos they like. Then they post them and tell me I like them how they are
If people knew what RAW files are, the images as are seen by the camera's sensor, probably they will understand. That's without the needed/right contrast, colors, probably white balance and sometimes exposure (by choice or error), and much much more. And the analogy to a house is somehow wrong, I think an unfinished, not painted, decorated house. Because it's more than bricks and the wood. It's still a house (picture), but not the final cozy home (the final photo).
And yes, even the most amazing photos out there are edited a lot, and if people would see that unedited, dull and unimpressive sunset, they would be disappointed. The editing takes photos to another level. Sometimes it is needed because of an error - and you'll still be able to have a nice photo, or because of a choice - the artistic side. And for those who don't know, even back in the days, people stayed hours in a lab with chemicals to alter (edit) the photos, even if they were shot on film. It's the same thing.
Good light and impressive results to everybody!
I'm a makeup artist, doing some photography on the side..
When I do beauty shoots with a photographer I request raw files because I intend to retouch them to my liking..
I want my makeup to appear the way I made it (which most times a photographer don't really capture, or even botch it with unnatural retouching)
Another reason why I prefer to do my own retouch, natural beauty retouching is very time consuming, most photographers don't have time for that.
Some photographers understand that and comply to my request. It's a matter of preference and understanding.
I agree with this 100% I think it should be talked about ahead of time so the customers that want that option can still have it😊
Great video. I completely agree with you. I get asked this all the time by my friends, not the raw file cause they don't know it even exists, but the unedited jpeg to upload it to facebook as fast as they can, probably using some crappy filter. The unfinished painting or script analogy is what I think about all the time.
This eventually happened to me recently, I told that the photos are to be edited but then the client refused and stand firmly want the photo given right away after the shoot. Then another day when he opens back he is not happy with it. -.-
I’d make sure that I could get all, if not then most, of the photos before hiring them.
I wouldn’t be rude about it like some people but I’d keep looking until I find someone. >.<
If they don’t want me posting the ones that they’ve given me then I won’t. I’ll sign a contract if I have to. So long as I have my photos. :3
I agree with you Jess, I will never give out raw files. I do find it hard to explain to that one client who feels they not only deserve all files raw or otherwise, but my memory card too. uhhh...
This makes lots of sense, and we do have 150 beautifully edited photos from our photographer and FYI our photographer was not you, so please don't think this is an attack on you. It's not.
But what do you do as a customer if they are not the pictures you wanted? You like the quality but sadly the family who came from abroad don't feature at all? Or your bridesmaids aren't captured walking down an aisle? The only answer we came up with was to offer more money to get the rest of our photos... But this was denied. We appreciate it's an art, but it's also someone's memories and the photographer is literally picking which ones they are allowed to have and which ones they aren't. It seems unfair from the other side.
Also, at this point I'm unlikely to recommend my photographer because they refused to give me photos of my own wedding! So it's lose lose.
Back in the days of film cameras, no professional sold the negatives to a client, whether it was a wedding, modeling, whatever. They received prints only, for all the reasons you mentioned. A RAW file is the digital equivalent of the negative. Photographers need them like film negatives to develop prints ("JPEG's"). It's a policy that's been around forever.
I never ever ever give out unedited photos. You're absolutely right, it's sending out a piece of work that is unfinished, and I find it unprofessional. The only possible exception would be if I'm doing images that will later be used for posters/flyers/advertising, but even then I would likely still do some touchups.
I agree. just happened to me a few weeks ago. I was out shooting with my friend (I don't own a dslr) and I was waiting for him to pass me my RAWs because I had adjusted my settings so that I can touch up to get the effect I want. When he finally shared MY photos they were all edited. In his style. And miraculously all the RAW files were gone. That wasn't a pleasant experience for me considering that's the first and last time I'm going shooting with him again.
Don't ever mess with a photographer's RAW files. We took the picture with the final product in mind, and never edit the photos we took without permission. I still grieve over my lost photos ;-;
What’s stopping a client from editing or manipulating your JPG/JPEG images? RAW processors are always evolving and improving; it’s conceivable that in the future, a client may want to get their photos remastered. Thanks for your video!
coming from someone in the industry photographers that don't give out Raw photos or just cringe
I have a videography business and we ALWAYS get "oh can I have all the clips and we can edit the video ourselves." UMM NO BITCH.This is the most relevant video ever my god.
When I'm in the field with my clients, I will show my clients the raw files (because they know what they want and how they want to look and may sometimes want the picture in a different style) but I never give them the raw photos, all of my clients (so far) have always understood why I don't give them raw.
I would never give out my raw files. Not only bc of all the things you mentioned but in a legal twist if someone stole my pictures or used them in a way I haven't consented with I will still have the original RAW file as a proof that I'm the owner and creator. I don't think you'd just lend your negatives to any client as a photographer using analog cameras. You give your negatives to developers if you can't develope yourself. Wich is basically some photographers who pay for retouch and stuff. I had a girl asking me to take pictures of her and her dog and wanted to know my price so I said my price and the amount of images and she was like "no but I want all the images myself I know how to use Photoshop". Girl no. Then get someone else do your photos.
I don't understand why this can't be both? Why can't you have the raws and they have a copy too?
Because I learned to shoot with film and had to be sure I had composition and exposure correct before I clicked the shutter I see the raw file as the negative and the work in post as creating the print. Adjustments to color, contrast, cropping the shot if composition was a bit off, burning, dodging, to create what you imagined the shot to be when you took it. Sometimes the excitement of the moment can make you think the shot is better than it actually is. With digital cameras I've found it is much easier to work the shot till you get it right and other times it just happens in a split second. I never gave anyone my negatives to address the topic of this video, I have every negative I ever made since 1980, and all my digital files backed up.
There is a Spanish photographer called marcos alberca, he is also a youtuber but he gives people the original and final product
I'd personally explain it to people like this: asking a photographer for raw files is like asking for an uncooked dinner in a restaurant. You're only ordering ingredients, and trust me you won't be happy!
Raw turkey
i often asked about unedited photo in jpg. and they don't understand it considered rude to us photographers.
Truth be told. Photographers don't give raw files often because it's our job to take the stress away of you going through each photo and editing them. Most of the time they don't what they're doing and then your name is on it so it's not so much of photographers being romantic about their work, it's more giving you a finished product. If you really want it, you can pay additional for copyrights which is usually $300 +. Any real photographer know it's more than just pushing a button.
great video. i personally never give out the raw files. i don't like to even show the pics with the soft edits, but i do, so they can pick the best pics for there package. i let them pic the top 10 they like and edit those. the nice thing with doing that, sometimes i can get them to pay for more edited pictures because they like more photos then the package they bought.
another reason would be.. you can sell the extras that are not included in their contract. So by you including all the extra images and selling them for a good price then you can add a decent edit to all of them on lightroom. It's just another way to sell extra in the postevent process for each of your clients.
I had 3 customers so far. I asked them what the added value was for them, and all 3 couldn't give me a real answer to that, and didn't realize that the raw files couldn't even be read on a standard laptop mostly. So useless for them, unless they want to re-edit them themselves, and, in that case, they will only see how much afford and work there really was in the product you delivered. Good video, good point.
this helps a lot with calming... some people just genuinely suck when it comes to understanding some things....
How I explain it to clients is that RAW files are comparable to film negatives. The reason a photographer should NEVER EVER give clients the RAW files is because you essentially are giving them the negative. Whoever who has the negatives owns the copyright to the photos. By giving away the RAW files, you are throwing away your rights to the original photos. They now own the rights to them and you can't use them for promotional purposes.
i needed this, two days ago i had a client that demanded me to release them the raw files, I said no because i'm being protective of my raw files. This particular client wants the raw files so they can edit them to their liking even though I offered to retouch the edits they weren't happy with for no additional cost.
Best thing to put in your contract is what you WILL provide, not what you will not. I always say that I deliver X amount of images in .jpg format. That way they can't ask for any other type of file as the file type was already specified before the shots were even took :)
I really like your reasons, though I actually loved the unedited photos you showed in this video. One thing I liked about them is they felt more detailed (especially the bride photo), and softer. But I can see how a super dark photo (like the first one you showed) would not be very appealing to a client. If I were a client I'd probably ask for the RAWs alongside the finished product, as I enjoy seeing both. But I think people who aren't artists (or at least haven't done any serious visual artwork), might definitely have a harder time recognizing that the work is 1) not necessarily shot to be beautiful as it is, but to be easy to edit to be beautiful, and 2) may not be able to appreciate the photo unedited (even if it is beautiful as it is, due to the prevalence of edited images in media).
If exposed correctly and white balance isn't totally off an unedited raw photo should look good.
If you are having to edit your photos to death you are loosing image quality as raw is not totally raw.
Many modern cameras are chasing specs so much that they forgot about color fidelity and skin tones.
My recommendation is to treat a camera body as film stock and find one that produces raw photos that have the look your going for.
I feel you, girl! Such good words to use being with a client. Thanks so much! Love, Emma
Once I got mad when people kept asking me about giving them ALL the RAW files straight out the camera (like about 300 files) and I did it. They didn't know how to open it anyway, and they never asked for RAWs again. And I'm sometimes showing uneditet straight out the camera photos in my before&after posts on my blog, so people never asking for unedited photos after seeing that.
Good points. I'd rather not give out RAW files, but if they're adamant and willing to pay for it - fine, whatever. I usually give clients my Ts & Cs upfront so they know what they're paying for, which are finished, graded/edited HQ Jpgs or TIFF files if requested.
I shooted with a friend and she asked me for the Raw's. It was a really odd feeling to give them out. Won't do that again. Also she couldn't look at them, didn't have a program that could open the RAW's and she was bugging me how she could open them. AND she was actually shocked when she finally saw the RAW's because she had skin problems and I had a lot to do, fixing that. o.O
I just went through this with a really nice client who simply didn't understand. I've actually shared your video to help them understand, as it can be touchy when explaining to a paying client why they don't actually own the photos and why you won't release your RAW files. Once I explained it to them they sort of got it, but I'm thinking your video will help. Thanks.
Like you said it was the viewpoint from a photographer. I as a customer was really frustrated once that we had a photographer taking really quite cool photos but the edits didn't really match what we needed for the website and our other marketing material. Sure, they were edited with her style, it just wasn't quite what we needed. I asked for the raw files but never got them, so we payed (not a huge amount) and then couldn't really use them as we wanted.
Why not give the JPEGS to your client and if they ask you for the RAW files then you give them to them but explain that they are not the finished product but the JPEGS are?
I'm 100% with you on this, when discussing a shoot some people always ask can they have all the rights to the photos.
seeing this today july 17 2017, i knew i made the wrong decision to give a client their raw files from a sweet 16 shoot (5/2017). i thought all the same things mentioned here. and... i didn't even charge extra... but i have since learned that i will not give out raw files and will mention it during the consultation process. this was the first time someone asked for the raw files and since i made them so happy i didn't want to kill the customer satisfaction experience. but i thought the same thing, i edited 175 of the 240 pictures, and people see the good in anything and can assume the ones i didn't edit were just as good and may get them edited from someone else or just post them. so now its the decision to even include the entire shoot in my portfolio...or just take an "L" ( loss ) and take / give no recognition for the job... thanks for the video, ive been following you, although i dont shoot your genre, because im learning all aspects ( still considering myself intermediate ) until i discover my unique style.
In the context of wedding photography i'd definitely never give a client the RAW files but In rare instances I give raw files to clients. This when I work with Special Effects companies and they are using the pictures to drop CGI elements into them. They need raw files so that get there CGI elements to match my photo. They understand editing tools so it's fine. Also with some clients that I have long term relationship with I will send a low res versions of all images from a shot so the can make a selection, images are water marked with "unedited, not for pubic use".
As a model if I am working with a photographer TF or I am paying them I only ask for raw photos if their editing sucks (too soft, not blended,ect) or if they choose to edit unflattering photos of me(in this case I typically ask for proofs.) I only post my reworked photos with photographers permission.
An excellent argument that unfortunately won't hold much longer because times are changing and people are starting to expect the digital "negatives" more and more.
Photographers need to think about this and adapt, perhaps becoming more creative on how they advertise their real strengths as artists.
AAAAH I LOVE YOU SOOO MUUUCH! I can't even imagine how hurtful this is. Some people don't really get it. It's really important to keep unedited files for us to work with because we would like to enhance the value of our pictures to be delivered as a message.
urgh, i can just rly want to share and show this video to clients and leave them watching your videos
Great points, especially with the house and brick example.
What about models and portfolio shoots? I don't like to give unedited photos but am always asked for them.
before watching, i thought the same thing: just give away the raws whats the big deal? But after hearing your explanation, it makes sense. As artists we want the best representation of our work out there. and the clients wouldnt want the unedited version after they see it anyway!
I totally agree on all being said!
It`s crucial for a photographer to make up pictures into art work.
I always say people that they don`t but a design of a T-Shirt, they but a T-Shirt.
Raw files can be opened in Windows photo viewers... The JPEG embedded in all RAW files will be displayed. Usually pleasing, but you're right, not finished.
I have a hypothetical question: Let's say I would like to hire a photography team (this includes a photographer and a retoucher) and I do not want you to edit my photos so I could send them to a retoucher. Would you still not give me the shots?
I would have to imagine that is a deal worked out prior to the shoot. I would also have to imagine if they know upfront what the deal is then it isn't going to be an issue. However, if you surprise your photographer by hiring them to do their shoot, and then after inform them you have your own retouch artist, then that is going to be a problem, especially if you already signed their contract for their service. Without knowing what that retoucher wants, then the photographer is probably going to give them something that they can't use, or will require more work than was needed.
My grandparents got their negative film from their photographers. Isn't that the same? What's the difference now? Edited or not if your photography sucks it really sucks. There are clients out there that will never be satisfied.
It´s a good subject! I get this question sometimes these days. It´s a tough one.
On one hand you want to support the client and give him all possibilities but on the other hand it makes you look bad if you hand out the data so that the client get somebody else (probably cheaper to edit them) and then you see a bad edited photo or video with your name on it!
I think if we all don ´t hand out raws clients will stop asking for them!
I think Jessica´s arguments really hit the point!
THANK YOU! This is exactly what I told my last client..
I´m a hobby photomodel and I´m also learning how to edit photo (still not quite getting there ) . Many photograpfers gave me their raws for my learning but i would never ever ever try to put them anywhere without permission or without description that it was my edit and their photos :) It´s all about respect and comunication.
That billybobjr part caught me off guard hahaha! Priceless! Love your work Jessica!
I have a question! I'm just getting started and I was just wondering how you give them your photos to your clients? like how large of the file? do you recommend a CD or a USB??
Thank you for the video! I actually just sent this link to a client of mine who's been constantly calling me and emailing me about this.. So thank you!
This is a silly argument I hear many photographers wine about.
OK, I may be going against the grain here, but consider this: if someone buys a photo off you (i.e. you are selling on spec), there is no reason for them to get the RAW files. On the other hand if you are contracted to cover a photo-shoot for a client and they ask for the RAW files, why on earth should you not deliver them? The client has paid for the shoot and they own the product.
What on earth would you do with the files of wedding X anyway? It's their private moment and if several years later they want to come back to the files and do something with them, they have paid the bucks for the privilege to do so (or they should have paid, if you are good enough to make a proper deal with them).
I cannot imagine a photographer contracted by a magazine to do a shoot not delivering their RAW files if requested, unless they are a top-of-their-game artist that can dictate their terms -- and even so.
I get the art argument and such, but let's face it, most of us are not doing top-level art on a marriage shoot.
And regarding the feeble argument about an "unedited" photo making it on the net, what if they take the jpeg and alter it in some way?
What I do agree with, however, is that the artist --ahem-- photographer has the right to throw away certain files that do not make the cut, e.g. photos that are rejected because of some defect.
Ahh Jessica! I appreciate all your videos! Thank youuu!!
Yes!!!!! The amount of people that say I don't want the pictures edited I just want it on a disc or USB. Nooooooo!
And they want it cheaper too!
+Alyce Bloxham Then why are those people even hiring you! Those aren't clients that respect you, they should go to a different photographer and stop wasting everybody's time and money.
I agree with that Se L, I hate people who are cheap with their pictures when it the images that we provide for them are going to be the lasting memories for rest of their lives. Your goal is make long term relationship with your client.
As an experienced hobby photographer, couldn't their just be some lines written up in the contract to protect your image and body of work should the customer want the raw (make it as ridiculously protective as you want)? I'm sure the vast majority of customers will not be like me, and understand the points in this video, but I feel like having absolutely no option for getting the raw is kind of a bummer. I might want to play around with some of the shots, while keeping the professionally edited ones in the album.
I would like to have every picture and if not then at least the photos that the photographer really likes.
My friend is a photographer and I’d make sure that I could have them all and just find some kind of agreement where I don’t post the photos that he didn’t edit and just keep the rest for myself.
I’d like to meet in the middle. As long as I get all of them then I’m happy. :)
Thank you for this video. I'm a new photographer. I had been struggling with this issue but after watching this video I feel much better about protecting my raw files.
What about photos that were poorly edited and the person is not happy and the photographer is not giid with Photoshop. Then they contact someone like me who is able to edit photos in Photoshop. Now usually, I deal with businesses who sign to own the copyright on all materials because they are a business and all that. But if an individual wants me to adjust their photos, who needs to contact the photographer for permission. Me or them? I think it should be them and then they provide me with the proof. But since I want to open up my services to individuals as well, what is the standard procedure for this sort of thing?
Hey Jessica I'm a new photographer starting a business with my mom. I want to just say thank you for doing these videos. Your always very help and I love watching your show. Some day I hope to be a great photographer like you. Your awesome I love you!
so how do you personally send the photos to clients? do you send then via email or prints, if you do send them through email what type of file do you use to prevent anyone from manipulating them?
pixieset.com is my go-to gallery website :)
Jessica Kobeissi Thanks for the website recommendation- I had never heard of the site before but it looks like an incredibly useful service!
Glad you made this because I don't always know how to answer clients when they ask.
Great video, you NAILED IT Jessica!
All good points to explain things out to clients. Thank you Jessica.
To add, this is the reason why we limit the number of selections. Retouching all 2000 shots (for example) from a wedding, while not impossible, will be too expensive for the client (unless they're willing to pay for the time to work on all of them). Some clients don't understand this. They think they should get all of them, retouched or not.
I understand the argument from both sides. Example my wedding photos were taken on film (yes I'm from that generation) 10 years latter we wanted reprints guess what the photographer had moved on and couldn't be traced so we had to try to get prints off prints, not the best, like trying to recover a bad jpeg. I accept the original (raw) belong to the photographer but who knows where they end up, there has been a lot of old photos show up on the internet that can be embarrassing today. A reputable photographer would never do that but these photos are stored on media of some description and unless these are demagnetized when discarded, data can be recovered. Extreme case but still possible. I'm just an amateur but even I have collected many photos that I have (want to) store. May be an association for wedding/personal photographers to protect copyright and where all the files can be kept even after the photographer has left the industry. I think in many cases people want these files so they can't be used/viewed in ways without their permission. It's certainly a vexing question but don't put people down because they don't agree with you 100%. It would be interesting to see how many "pro" photographers are still available for reprints from 10-15 years ago. How many still see themselves in the industry in 10-15 years from now. You know some marriages do last that long and what about reprints for a silver anniversary. Photos are stored on a media that does not deteriorate like the old negatives did.
All I'm trying to do is balance the argument. It is always possible to give the files as watermarked .dng files maybe that would satisfy some people but the idea of someone having pictures of you when you may be at your most vulnerable and can be used and edited anyway they like does scare some people.
Hi Jessica, could you do a video about using RAW files? I know they're the better file to use but I always have issues opening/editing them.
Um.... I think you're supposed to slightly overexpose images in raw that way you can extract more detail from the dark areas. If you underexpose images you're basically reducing the amount of data recorded to the file and when you increase brightness in post you're going to have more noise present in those dark areas.
Well said, great video. I get this a lot as well from some clients and have to explain why I won't send them. Another huge peeve is when I send the finals and a client takes it upon themselves to re-edit and make it look horrible then tag me as the photographer.
As a professional photographer I have ALWAYS given my clients the raw and edited images. They paid for them, they own them. Aside from water marking them I have a signed legal binding contract that states altering or editing the original images is not allowed. Besides, I did my job and was compensated for it. Why be so dramatic about Who, what, where, when.
Fellow Michgiangander here! So proud to see a successful woman doing such beautiful work. Keep it up! (And I agree with all of your points in this video.)