9 ms·

Ask HN: Tips getting RAWs from wedding photographers?

• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• wmf 13y ago
  Get a quote from another photographer and use it to negotiate or just find a different photographer.
• YoAdrian 13y ago
  Try here (no affiliation): http://www.mywedding.com/seattle/photographers http://www.mywedding.com/seattle/photographers Also found this discussion amongst photographers: http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/72157629437099072/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/7215762943... Most don't want to give away RAW files as they aren't the "finished product" or they aren't a format most people can view. Many just want more money for them.
  • yajoe 13y ago
    thanks, these help
• dylz 13y ago
  Tell him if he doesn't give the raws, you use another photographer. He's trying to scam you - simple.
  • stevekemp 13y ago
    As a photographer giving away RAWs is just not something I'd ever do. No scam involved. Sure it sounds like this particular photographer is trying to get more money for prints, but that's been "standard" in the wedding business for decades, even before digital photography.
    • dylz 13y ago
      As a developer, not giving away RAWs would be like giving them the site but not giving them the source code
      • powatom 13y ago
        Which is a perfectly reasonable business model and one which the vast majority of developers follow... If the customer wants the source code, then by all means include it as part of your package, but along with that comes the complexities of copyright, support (do you still support code that your customer hired somebody else to mangle?), and other such concerns. These things come at a price. Of course, how you do business is entirely up to you - but handing over the source code as part of the standard deal opens up a ton of questions which you should make sure you have covered.
• donniefitz2 13y ago
  As a part time photographer myself, I find it very strange that your photographer will only give you 2.5mp files. That is not standard practice. Typically, you would get full-rez, processed .jpeg files. I would never give a client the RAW files, neither do most photographers. RAW is incomplete and they require processing, which is part of the service offered. It's like asking a film photographer to provide the negatives. But you should expect to get the full-rez processed .jpeg files with personal use rights.
  • seremoney 13y ago
    Rather than the negatives, I think it's closer to asking the photographer for just the film--before any development is done. With a negative, you've already done some processing with regards to the timing of the film development (push/pull) that you can arguably accomplish in Lightroom/Aperture/etc. when processing the RAW file.
• acomjean 13y ago
  I shot a number of Weddings in the past decade (usually 2 per year, not how I make a living, but I apprenticed so...). I wouldn't worry about getting "Raw" files. While I always shot Raw I always delivered jpgs, I think at 8 megapixel equivalent (My Canon 5d is only 13 megapixels.). This will be Fine for most size prints. 2.5 megapixel is clearly is web only. I processed the images in lightroom to give them the look I wanted and delivered a large set of high quality jpegs. The post processing / sorting of files takes a lot of time, so not having to do that would lower the price. Digital wedding photographers take a lot of photographs so sorting them can be onerous. Play that the fact that you'll sort and post process yourself. Plus some photographers don't want to give you all the photos as invariably some are Out of Focus or not great. Your on the right path negotiating before hand. Expect to pay extra for the rights and images. If you find a photographer that will give those to you, expect the cost to be baked into the price. Its Still better than having to go back to the photographer for every print.
  • yajoe 13y ago
    I appreciate the value in acquiring rights and have accepted that while unfair in general, it is the accepted practice for photography. However, I just don't understand why copying files from a hard drive (whether the finished lightroom product or originals from DS card) is so hard. I just wondered if there was something else I was missing.
• adyus 13y ago
  I'll jump in here as I recently started a side business shooting weddings. You're dealing with an old school photographer who expects to cover his costs (salary, rent, equipment, etc.) from print and album sales, rather than scare you away with a large initial cost. It's true that photographers prefer to withhold RAWs because they're unprocessed and in bulk, but that's not your photographer's issue. I also mention upfront that I only provide web-quality images for the quoted cost, as I believe I can offer my expertise to provide better quality prints when requested, or any other image processing needs (slideshows, albums, collages, etc.). This also provides me with another much needed revenue stream, albeit it's often perceived as greed. I should note, however, that I charge much much less than $4k, as I am in a different market. What do you intend to do with the RAW files if you get them?
  • yajoe 13y ago
    I'm a pack rat and I will archive these photos along with all of the other photos I've taken during my life. I currently have a terrabyte (not that much, but still enough to cause headaches) of such photos that are backed up in 3 locations, yada, yada, yada. On principle, if I am going to get pictures then I want the highest quality since one lesson I've learned is that the quality from 10 years is 1/10 the quality available today. Might as well record and store the maximum quality today since over the course of the marriage (10s of years, I hope) today's quality will be just 'average.' My suspicion is that he plans to make profit on the prints, and he's afraid I've found a way to bypass him. I just don't understand why he doesn't price his time and skill and use the prints as add-ons.
    • 5555624 13y ago
      > I just don't understand why he doesn't price his time and skill and use the prints as add-ons. Is wedding photography his primary source of income? If so, it's his business model and the "standard" business model for wedding photographers for years. Find a photographer who does something else, but does weddings on the side. Elsewhere in this thread, I mentioned getting a print of each picture and all of the negatives from the photographer at my wedding -- he was a crime scene photographer and did weddings on the side. He did not want the hassle of dealing with prints, different sizes, packages, etc.
• Jedd 13y ago
  I think your question is actually 'Tips on finding a wedding photographer who'll provide RAWs', rather than trying to encourage this particular photographer to sell you what you want to buy. The flickr thread linked to in another response ( http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/72157629437099072/ http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/7215762943... ) seems to be full of photographers explaining why customers are just plain wrong to want raws, and encouraging each other to never provide a customer with raws (lest it set off a trend, perhaps). This presents a fantastic opportunity for any halfway decent photographer who isn't precious about the 'magic' involved in their work. Haughty self-comparisons to painters being told to provide incomplete work, and film photographers handing over 'unprocessed film' do them no service - these are fatally flawed analogies. I can think of several compelling reasons for wanting original (raw) as well as maximum resolution touched up jpegs. None of the reasons anyone has offered for withholding raw files is compelling.
• helen842000 13y ago
  As a wedding photographer I can completely understand his reluctance to provide raw files. We would never do it, not for any amount of money. First of all, he has no control how the raw files will be processed, so if your post processing is poor then someone else asks who shot your wedding, you'll reply with his name. Don't forget you've got the ability to change the end result of his work with raw files and with that goes his reputation. Additionally the raw files aren't always great straight out of the camera, great pictures emerge after cropping, straightening and balancing the entire image. His perceived skill will be greatly reduced when you see unedited images that are in need of work. You are paying for his all-round skills to deliver great images not for someone to press the shutter & deliver raw files. It's the equivalent of asking an artist for his practise sketches & tubes of paint or asking a chef for the raw ingredients, cooking whatever you want with them and the chef still having his name attached to the quality of dish that you create. He may have intended to create a soufflé but you may end up creating scrambled eggs and there's nothing he can do about it. Personally we find that images at 300dpi are optimised for prints (12x8) we scale our print files around 3600 x 2400 pixels. This is around 8 to 9 megapixels. We also provide low-res files too for sharing on Facebook, e-mailing etc. Perhaps there's some misunderstanding between file size (2.5 megabytes) and 2.5 megapixels - that's more of a sensor size e.g iPhone equivalent. If you do get raw files, then please prepare them for print correctly, image labs won't accept them at that size. Instead of asking for raw files, just ask for a larger size jpg and specify 3600 x 2400 pixels for your high res files, that should make it clear what you want and it protects his work too.
  • Jedd 13y ago
    > First of all, he has no control how the raw files will be processed ... This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg. > Don't forget you've got the ability to change the end result of his work with raw files and with that goes his reputation. This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg. > Additionally the raw files aren't always great straight out of the camera, great pictures emerge after cropping, straightening and balancing the entire image. His perceived skill will be greatly reduced when you see unedited images that are in need of work. This is either a non-existent problem (the customer's perception can be based on the pp'd jpeg), or an education problem (the photographer can explain that often a lot of work is done in post to get just the right look). > You are paying for his all-round skills to deliver great images not for someone to press the shutter & deliver raw files. No one has suggested the customer doesn't pay for, and get, skilfully post-processed jpegs, or that that's not the thing the customer wants most. The OP is seeking these quality, finished products in addition to raws. > It's the equivalent of asking an artist for his practise sketches & tubes of paint or asking a chef for the raw ingredients, cooking whatever you want with them and the chef still having his name attached to the quality of dish that you create. No, it really is not. If I make a regrettably tasteless meal from a recipe in a cook book, I don't present it to my dinner guests and blame Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall. > He may have intended to create a soufflé but you may end up creating scrambled eggs and there's nothing he can do about it. This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg. > Personally we find that images at 300dpi are optimised for prints (12x8) we scale our print files around 3600 x 2400 pixels. This is around 8 to 9 megapixels. We also provide low-res files too for sharing on Facebook, e-mailing etc. This doesn't materially impact the desire of the OP for raws. > Instead of asking for raw files, just ask for a larger size jpg and specify 3600 x 2400 pixels for your high res files, that should make it clear what you want and it protects his work too. Again the customer is being told that what they want is wrong, and they are wrong for wanting it.
• jakobe 13y ago
  I'd see this as a red flag and look for a different photographer. Some time ago I've had similar issues with a designer I hired: He wouldn't give me vector files, only flat PNGs. He said it had to do something with his reputation. Obviously, these people want you to come back rather than hire someone else if you need any changes, or additional prints later on. That's why they only want to give you low res files. But for the customer, that's a bit troubling. What if it turns out the photographer makes lousy prints? What if the photographer closes up shop? It doesn't matter if this is "standard business practice". This attitude is typical for people who don't take their customers' demands seriously. Luckily it turns out there are plenty of professionals who care more about their customers than about their reputation. In my case, I found a different designer, who understood my point of view and worked with me, rather than say "can't be done". Unfortunately, he was way more expensive, but in the end it was worth it.
• UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  Our wedding photographer was great; she gave us an unlimited licence to the photos (she also retained her rights), and also gave us a DVD of the RAW files in addition to her mastered JPGs. The whole thing didn't seem like a big deal to her. In fact her web-site lists what you'll get, and while we did ask about the RAWs it wasn't a big negotiation point (we did pay for the DVD at a small markup like you'd expect). I don't think RAWs should be a "normal" part of the deal as 99% of people wouldn't know what to do with them. But I do consider a liberal licence to be par for the course (in particular as that photographer might go out of business, and you might need to print your photos again years or decades from the original event). So to the OP: Find a different photographer. The licence thing is unacceptable. The RAW thing is understandable but I bet you can find someone who is more amenable to that. PS - If you get the RAW files, don't try to print them 1:1. They exist to be mastered, not to be used as-is.
  • yajoe 13y ago
    thanks. Is there a specific referral you could pass on?
    • UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
      If you're in the city of Salt Lake (Utah) I could.
• 5555624 13y ago
  If you think the price is unreasonable (and I think it is), either go elsewhere or negotiate. Either way, you need to go out and get some other quotes. If you're going to negotiate, you really need some other quotes as examples (for leverage). It was a non-issue when I got married. The photographer printed a 4x6 of each picture and put it in an album. We got the album and all the negatives. (Yes, the wedding and the wife were a long time ago.)
• bossfo 13y ago
  Some of the responses in this thread remind me of our experience finding a wedding photographer willing to provide RAW images. The prospective photographers just didn't seem to understand that we were hiring them to provide a service to our specifications, and that we had no interest in justifying any of our choices to them. It was a very strange and sometimes frustrating experience. Ultimately, we posted a detailed ad on Craigslist and (in-between hate mail and being flagged several times) were contacted by several interested photographers. The woman we hired did exactly what we wanted, for a fair price, and did a phenomenal job. We could not have been happier. My advice is to post an ad on Craigslist detailing specifically what you're looking for. Prepare yourself for many prickly responses, and prepare to re-post after it gets flagged. You'll eventually find someone. As an aside, we also required that the photographer assign copyright in the images to us, though we did allow her to use any images not containing people or names for her own promotional purposes. Best of luck!
• callmeed 13y ago
  I work with tons of wedding photographers at my company and most don't give raw files. I'd almost argue that ones who do give them probably aren't the ones you want shooting your wedding. You should definitely get the high res jpegs of course.
• gesman 13y ago
  Dump the guy and make him feel that he deserves to be dumped. Wear the shit boot and make sure to leave a footprint on his ass for entertaining story to tell others. There are plenty of young and talented photographers around with an excellent equipment. I'd personally pick the one with Canon 1D* body and L-class lenses. RAW files and full copyright ownership is mandatory and no negotiable. Make sure to pay flat, all inclusive decent fee for everything. Pay 25% upfront + 25% upon wedding end, 50% upon inspection of finals. Make sure he carries external lights and knows how to use them.
• ronyeh 13y ago
  You need to find another wedding photographer. This is YOUR wedding day, and you need to have it your way, not HIS way. Do a broader search for wedding photographers, and ask them to give you quotes that include: * >= 12 MP JPEGs from their digital SLR, processed via Lightroom or whatever process they use. * RAW files for those JPEGs. * The right to use your photos in ANY WAY you please. This includes printing physical albums and books for your family. This includes the right to post photos to Facebook without the photographer's watermark. (Still, it would be nice for you to post a link to their website from your wedding gallery.) That's it! If a photographer cannot agree to these three requests, they do not need your business. This is a matter of good customer service. If they provide you this great level of service, you'll definitely recommend them to other people looking for wedding photographers. I don't understand the other photographers on this thread saying they'd NEVER give away their RAWs. It would be like a contract web developer only handing over JPEG screenshots of their final product, instead of the source code.
  • ronyeh 13y ago
    For any wedding photographer that reads this: If YOU were getting married tomorrow and needed to hire someone to be YOUR wedding photographer, would you accept 2.5MP JPEGs as the final product? Or would you demand full resolution JPEGs, along with RAWs so that you can have the full sensor data to play around with forever?
• powatom 13y ago
  My girlfriend is a wedding photographer so I have something of an insight into why you might be having this experience. The RAW files are the (as the name suggests) raw, unedited versions of your photographs. Photographers are generally unwilling to provide these files as there is often a huge difference between the RAW image and the final, edited image. There is a 'branding' concern here - if you take the RAW files and start showing them to people, then in the photographer's mind you are showing them an unfinished product. Nobody wants anything but their best work out on display - so if you are intending to do this, then the photographer wants to be reimbursed for the potential damage you may be doing to their brand. Whether you feel that this is justified or not is irrelevant, if that's how the photographer feels, then that's how they feel. Deal with it. Additionally, part of the package you buy is the editing process that the photographer undertakes. The RAW file is the raw material, and the JPG is the end result. Demanding the RAW files suggests that you are unhappy with the final result, and would like to re-edit the photos to suit your liking. This is likely to be perceived as an insult to the photographer's skill. I'm guessing you have at least some level of confidence in the photographer's editing abilities otherwise you wouldn't be going with them in the first place - but you have to understand that there is a significant amount of work involved between the RAW input and the JPG output - the photographer isn't just doing a straight file conversion. Finally - access to the RAW files puts the photographer at risk of you publishing the images with different editing and similar (or higher) quality. The increase in the copyright licence fee is aimed to offset this risk. To summarise: 1: The photographer provides a full-day of foot-work (being at the wedding), and then up to a few weeks of editing the RAW images to make your special day look as fantastic as you remember it being. 2: The photographer needs to protect their brand - surrendering the RAW images means you are free to add lens flare and other shitty editing to their raw materials, and thereby doing damage to their brand. 3: RAW files = copyright risk in general. 4: A personal use licence is the norm unless you're willing to pay a premium. The photographer needs to blog the photos, to use them in promotional materials, and to always have those photos connected with his brand. He doesn't need (or want) you plastering them all over the place and using them for god-knows-what purpose. I would suggest the following: 1: Properly define what exactly both of you mean by 'personal use'. What do you actually want to do with the photographs? If it's anything other than 'make copies for my family', then you're probably asking too much for the licence you're negotiating. It is normal to put things like disaster recovery as part of the deal, so that if you ever need to recover copies of the photographs then you can do so. Don't expect to be able to sell the photographs on, though. 2: Negotiate on the resolution, but not the format. You are buying edited photos, not RAW images. Remember the process. Your RAW images will NOT look the same as the JPG end product, and in fact many photographers feel that the RAW images are bad. Imperfections, poor lighting etc are the whole reason that an editing process exists in the first place. The photographer needs to protect their brand. 3: If you are only concerned about resolution and not the quality (i.e composition, style etc) of the image itself, then re-negotiate your contract to remove the editing work. Your photographer will probably run a mile. > Am I wrong in approaching this as a case where I hire a man for his skill and artistry and expect to keep the work product? Yes, you are - because that's not what you're asking. You're asking to keep the product, the raw materials, and all of the rights to use that product for any purpose whatsoever. In my honest opinion, you're being a little too forward. Some photographers are just very protective of their work (it is their art, remember) - and the whole RAW thing is likely to push a few buttons because you are effectively voiding the hard work that goes into the editing process. YMMV with other photographers, but that's why there's a market: if you like this photographer's work, then stick with him and drop the RAW thing. If not, then find somebody else who'll provide the RAW files. What you need to do is outline what it is you intend to do with the photographs. When this is clear your photographer may be more accommodating. I would fully expect him to charge you more, though. EDIT: Removed the suggestion that the 'customer is not right'. Apologies for including this in the first place, but what I meant to suggest is that your expectation of the service is in conflict with the photographer's perception of the service they provide. Until you can come to some agreement around this, you will have issues. For the photographer, this is a business and their art form. Asking them to put their art in the hands of somebody who may alter it or otherwise 'damage' it is a risky and emotional prospect for them. If you don't care about this, then you're probably best finding another photographer who will give you exactly what you want without questions.