Wedding photography - why can't I have the RAW's?

[Djarum]

I'm glad this got brought back up. My sister has just gotten engadged, and while the wedding is a long while off, she asked me about what to look for in a wedding photographer.

pdh,

In regards to that video blog, my thoughts are that since the "lawyer" sent a threatening letter to the photographer, that the photographer could easily counter sue. If the photos are good, the guy can probably win his case.


As far as RAW files go, I'm really on the fence. I think the lay person looking at a RAW file, if they knew how, would be disgusted. Sometimes they are noisy, not very sharp..etc. Photographers don't want their photos seen in that light. On the otherhand, sone who knows what they are doing with them could archive them, and possibly produce better results down the road when better software is available. Thats also problematic because in many cases, how the RAW file is handled is just as much an artistic expression as taking the photograph. Then the client would end up questioning the photographers skill if the client ould produce results they liked better with the RAW file.

If I were a photographer, I think I'd get a lawyer to see if there is a way to make a contract in such a way that if RAW files are given to the client, that the photographer is free from lawsuit or slander by the client.

 

[JJJPhoto]

As someone who has paid the bills as either a full-time or part-time photographer for the last decade, I can understand the "artistic reasons" for refusing to provide RAW files. Back when everyone shot film there were photographers who NEVER surrendered negatives and a RAW file is essentially a digital negative. Part of reason people hire a photographer is they want that photographer to use his/her artistic vision to craft great images. Part of crafting a great image involves final processing to the finished digital file or the print.

I've only given one commercial client RAW files over the last decade (an ad agency that needed to post-process portraits that I took in front of a green screen so they could insert the same models in front of a variety of locations photographed by other photographers). I probably wouldn't take another job like that unless I was desperate for the money. I totally understand not wanting to give clients "unfinished" work. Once an image leaves your hands there is no telling what will happen to it.

If I give my "average wedding client" RAW files they would probably butcher the processing (assuming they even have the software to process the RAW files) and then just post them on their personal web gallery or Facebook page. I'm not concerned about them stealing credit for my images at that point ... I'm concerned about my "ruined" images being put on display for other people and then losing potential customers because they see the poorly processed images and assume it was my fault.

I'm not saying you would personally do a bad job processing the RAW files ... I'm just saying I understand the photographer's artistic concerns.

If you found a photographer you like and you genuinely like her work then trust her to deliver great final images. If you don't feel like you can trust her to deliver then you need to find another photographer.

Even if she was willing to provide RAW files, the simple fact that you feel like you can do a better job processing the RAW files suggests that you need to find another photographer.

 

[JJJPhoto]

I'm relighting this thread because I tripped over this link at APUG ... Wedding Photographer Who Did a Great Job Threatened with $300k Jury Lawsuit! «

now, whatever the ins and outs of this particular story (which is being told of course at 3rd hand), one interesting point is that it seems the photog supplied the (un)happy couple with all the (digital) output from his shoot.

The first thing that caught my ear in that video is that the photographer in question did NOT have the client sign a contract and the photographer gave over ALL the images including outtakes like the horrible test shots every photographer takes to check exposure, flash, etc.. Even without knowing more about that situation part of doing business as a photographer is knowing the legal side of business. I usually don't agree with Gary Fong, but he's right that it's stupid to jump into photography as a "business" without understanding the legal issues associated with doing business.

 

[Landshark]

From the professional end I see this, I think a little differently. Even though one could argue that there are many different kinds of Professional photographers, not counting staff jobs, it has usually always broken down to two types, Wedding/Event/Portrait and Commercial/Advertising/Editorial etc, based on different business models.

The wedding type tends to bill a package, including their time, and a certain number of images or albums, they make a good amount of their living by controlling the original high res files or negs and making prints as needed, they rarely give up any rights. So they are by nature not prone to give up raws, regardless of how they will be processed.

The other photographer's tend to charge a day rate and or creative fee plus expenses, the day rate relates the usage, example if the image is for a local trade publication the photog will charge X, while still retain the rights to the image, same image for a national ad the rate will rise and if the client wants a a buyout the rate will at least double or quadruple from the original rate. It is very common for the latter style photographer to give up all of their raw files with a buyout.
The main reasons for the two type of billing structure has a lot to do with the type of client. The first type of photog is usually hired by a lay client, and most have a hard time just paying for the photographers time and expense and prefer buying a package deal. The second type is usually hired by a business client who like to know all of the costs and rights usage fees.

So in conclusion I think most wedding type shooter as less concerned with how one will process out their raw files than they have a hard time giving away potential income.

 

[Landshark]

I'm relighting this thread because I tripped over this link at APUG ... Wedding Photographer Who Did a Great Job Threatened with $300k Jury Lawsuit! «

now, whatever the ins and outs of this particular story (which is being told of course at 3rd hand), one interesting point is that it seems the photog supplied the (un)happy couple with all the (digital) output from his shoot.

These are one of the main reasons I will never shoot weddings, lay clients can be the hardest

 

[Grant]

Did people used to get their negatives when film was the only medium?
I just can't remember ...

Well, I never gave away my negatives and I was asked to from time to time about it. I made it clear before the shoot that I would not do it as I wanted to have full artistic control over my work. If they didn't agree then I am sure they could find someone else that would do their work. My reputation was dependant on my final prints and my reputation was more important that any single job and I had as much work as I could handle. It really wasn't about making money on reprints because very few jobs ever required reprints to be made. Generally I sold packages that included albums for the couple, both sets of parents, and a number loose images for who ever they wanted to give them to.

If I was doing weddings today I would take a similar approach with the addition of some digital images but the digital image would only be suitable for digital projection 1024 x 768. I suspect if you find a photographer who will give you full size digital image in any format they either don't care about the quality of their finished product or are too chicken shit to say no, fearing they will loose a job.