7 ms·

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

by 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.
- helen842000 13y ago
  As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was being offered. Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't the best end result for OP. That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws ready for printing. Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS wrong. What they should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or 9 mp, perfect for prints & the low res too which are great for web use. Going all the way back to the raw file just results in them getting a totally unedited picture. You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true. If you receive a nicely cropped jpg image you can't go back to the original full image with it's rough edges. With jpgs the photographer gets to set the crop, white balance, sharpening & saturation he is happy with. It sounds like the photographer wants OP to go back to him for prints. With a bit of negotiation they can arrange to have the print quality jpgs on a disc. No need to go back to the start of the creative process and get completely unedited raws.
  - Jedd 13y ago
    > As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was being offered. The OP stated: "I asked to include the raw files and [original] jpgs ..." > Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't the best end result for OP. Do you mean it won't be the best because the OP is wrong to want these raw files in addition? Or it's not the best because it's proving difficult to acquire the files from this recalcitrant photographer? > That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws ready for printing. Really, no one is arguing against this point. It's both true and non-relevant. > Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS wrong. What they should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or 9 mp, perfect for prints & the low res too which are great for web use. You're not big on embracing 'the customer is always right', are you? I think the customer here is asking for finished higher quality / higher resolution jpg's and the original raws. > You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true. Incorrect. I said that your stated concern that someone performing poor pp on a photo, and then being asked who shot them -- exposes the same risk to the photographer regardless of whether the other person worked on raws or jpegs. I mean, the answer to the question would be the same. Arguably low-quality (and 2.5MB jpegs are going to become very poor quality once you modify them) images would exacerbate this problem. But this isn't the point. As I say, there's been no compelling reasons offered to explain why raws should be withheld from a customer that wants to buy them. Yes, there's a negotiation to be conducted on what price is appropriate, but the market will sort that out soon enough. But saying the customer is wrong, stupid or just misunderstands, or that they may misuse them, or that processed jpegs look better .. all that is just offensive or irrelevant (or both). On the other hand, here are three compelling reasons I just came up with for why you would want to acquire the raw images of your wedding, where you'd employed someone to take pictures for you. First, photographers die and/or go out of business, at which point your chance of recovering these files is massively reduced. Asking your photographer what arrangements they have in place for such scenarios would be amusing. Second, photographers are at best as good as everyone else at running backups and maintaining archives. By which I mean they are likely dreadful. My photo archive is stored on 4 physical machines, two of which are on RAID arrays, with one machine in a different country, and I keep two external drives in sync also. I have mechanisms to ensure file system and media corruption is noticed and rectified. Quite simply I have profound doubts that a photographer will care quite so much about my photos as I do, let alone have a sufficiently comforting level of tech savvy. Again, it'd be enlightening to ask your wedding photographer what systems and processes they have in place to protect these files that are so precious you're not allowed to buy from them. Third, technology changes rapidly. Photography forums are full of professional photographers talking about how much better their old (5-10y) digital images can look when they revisit them with slightly more modern versions of pp software. Again, I doubt that the average photographer will be doing this for you periodically over the 40+ years of your marriage - whereas that's the precise set of photos you're most likely going to want to revisit.
ameister14 13y ago
If I was commissioned to do a portrait, I would sell the person my practice sketches and paint if they wanted them, I would just charge more. (Paint is expensive) If I was building a collection for a show, I wouldn't. But personally commissioned work is different; you have to understand what your customer wants and accept that they're paying you for your skill, not your artistic sensibility. All that said, I know plenty of people that wouldn't sell these things. My advice to OP is to find a different photographer.
- helen842000 13y ago
  I agree, it's better to find a different photographer than to push the current one into providing something they are unhappy with.

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.

helen842000 13y ago
As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was being offered. Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't the best end result for OP. That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws ready for printing. Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS wrong. What they should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or 9 mp, perfect for prints & the low res too which are great for web use. Going all the way back to the raw file just results in them getting a totally unedited picture. You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true. If you receive a nicely cropped jpg image you can't go back to the original full image with it's rough edges. With jpgs the photographer gets to set the crop, white balance, sharpening & saturation he is happy with. It sounds like the photographer wants OP to go back to him for prints. With a bit of negotiation they can arrange to have the print quality jpgs on a disc. No need to go back to the start of the creative process and get completely unedited raws.
- Jedd 13y ago
  > As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was being offered. The OP stated: "I asked to include the raw files and [original] jpgs ..." > Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't the best end result for OP. Do you mean it won't be the best because the OP is wrong to want these raw files in addition? Or it's not the best because it's proving difficult to acquire the files from this recalcitrant photographer? > That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws ready for printing. Really, no one is arguing against this point. It's both true and non-relevant. > Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS wrong. What they should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or 9 mp, perfect for prints & the low res too which are great for web use. You're not big on embracing 'the customer is always right', are you? I think the customer here is asking for finished higher quality / higher resolution jpg's and the original raws. > You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true. Incorrect. I said that your stated concern that someone performing poor pp on a photo, and then being asked who shot them -- exposes the same risk to the photographer regardless of whether the other person worked on raws or jpegs. I mean, the answer to the question would be the same. Arguably low-quality (and 2.5MB jpegs are going to become very poor quality once you modify them) images would exacerbate this problem. But this isn't the point. As I say, there's been no compelling reasons offered to explain why raws should be withheld from a customer that wants to buy them. Yes, there's a negotiation to be conducted on what price is appropriate, but the market will sort that out soon enough. But saying the customer is wrong, stupid or just misunderstands, or that they may misuse them, or that processed jpegs look better .. all that is just offensive or irrelevant (or both). On the other hand, here are three compelling reasons I just came up with for why you would want to acquire the raw images of your wedding, where you'd employed someone to take pictures for you. First, photographers die and/or go out of business, at which point your chance of recovering these files is massively reduced. Asking your photographer what arrangements they have in place for such scenarios would be amusing. Second, photographers are at best as good as everyone else at running backups and maintaining archives. By which I mean they are likely dreadful. My photo archive is stored on 4 physical machines, two of which are on RAID arrays, with one machine in a different country, and I keep two external drives in sync also. I have mechanisms to ensure file system and media corruption is noticed and rectified. Quite simply I have profound doubts that a photographer will care quite so much about my photos as I do, let alone have a sufficiently comforting level of tech savvy. Again, it'd be enlightening to ask your wedding photographer what systems and processes they have in place to protect these files that are so precious you're not allowed to buy from them. Third, technology changes rapidly. Photography forums are full of professional photographers talking about how much better their old (5-10y) digital images can look when they revisit them with slightly more modern versions of pp software. Again, I doubt that the average photographer will be doing this for you periodically over the 40+ years of your marriage - whereas that's the precise set of photos you're most likely going to want to revisit.

ameister14 13y ago

If I was commissioned to do a portrait, I would sell the person my practice sketches and paint if they wanted them, I would just charge more. (Paint is expensive) If I was building a collection for a show, I wouldn't. But personally commissioned work is different; you have to understand what your customer wants and accept that they're paying you for your skill, not your artistic sensibility. All that said, I know plenty of people that wouldn't sell these things. My advice to OP is to find a different photographer.

helen842000 13y ago
I agree, it's better to find a different photographer than to push the current one into providing something they are unhappy with.