3 ms·

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 be

by 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.
- helen842000 13y ago
  I think what the customer 'wants' is always right. What the customer asks for can be an entirely different thing and a lot can be lost in translation. If you take the first ask at face value without delving deeper it can result in a very disappointed customer. It's not offensive to check you are delivering what they 'actually' want. I think the photographer is just checking they know what they're actually getting when they ask for raw files. If OP is prepared for them to be nothing like the finished version then that's great, they're on the same page. I think they'll get more use out of higher res jpegs though. Why pay someone to produce 2.5mp finished images or raws you need to work on yourself when you can just have a high res set. I can't tell you the number of people that ask for raw when what they mean is high resolution. I've heard lots of horror stories where photographers deliver raw files and they get a long furious e-mail back saying "what the hell, these don't even open on my computer, I asked for the best quality images dammit!" With wedding photography 80% of customers have never been married before & it's their first time discussing photography services, a good photographer will check the customer is fully informed. A bad one will do anything to make the sale, pop the card out of the camera, hand it over and say "hey that's what you asked for" As OP has said, they're not interested in prints so asking for a much higher res digital finished image makes a lot of sense, ready for the big screen tv, perhaps a large canvas etc. Prepping the raws ready to share is a big time investment. Also be sure to make your own copies of the disc as optical media degrades over time too. Make as many backups as you can. Photographers take backups more seriously that you think. We're as precious about backups as we are the raw files! They're our livelihood. I think our backup strategy is better than the average user. Dual card slots shooting raw images, transported separately from the venue at the end of the day. One is stored off site in a fire proof box in an anti static pouch. The other is the 'working' card and imported to the working machine with SSD raid. They're also mirrored to an external hard drive & cloud backup while working. Exported final jpgs are burned to DVD for the client along with a box of 6x4 proofs and online gallery access. For our own work archives they are uploaded to our viewing portal which is paid for several years at a time (e.g if we were no longer around, clients can still re-download them within that time frame - good luck doing that with raw file sizes). We also store final jpgs in cloud storage and put an archive of work on both optical media and sd card with the original raw card in the off site fire proof storage along with a copy of the customers details. I think saying photographers are not tech savvy and don't care about their clients images is equally offensive.
yajoe 13y ago
I've spent a little bit more time talking with the photographer, and it absolutely seems related to prints. The problem is, in 5 years there will be 60", high-resolution color e-ink displays that you can hang on your wall and use as printed canvases. What will he do then? He wasn't aware the tech already existed as a prototype. I don't want to print. I want quality shots, and I want to take the burden of archiving them.
- helen842000 13y ago
  Perhaps you make it clear to them you fully understand how to process raw files and that they're for archival purposes, you want to 'future proof' your wedding. Also add that you don't intend to buy prints. I'd still ask for a higher res set of jpgs too, I think you'll look through those most frequently in the immediate years.

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.

helen842000 13y ago
I think what the customer 'wants' is always right. What the customer asks for can be an entirely different thing and a lot can be lost in translation. If you take the first ask at face value without delving deeper it can result in a very disappointed customer. It's not offensive to check you are delivering what they 'actually' want. I think the photographer is just checking they know what they're actually getting when they ask for raw files. If OP is prepared for them to be nothing like the finished version then that's great, they're on the same page. I think they'll get more use out of higher res jpegs though. Why pay someone to produce 2.5mp finished images or raws you need to work on yourself when you can just have a high res set. I can't tell you the number of people that ask for raw when what they mean is high resolution. I've heard lots of horror stories where photographers deliver raw files and they get a long furious e-mail back saying "what the hell, these don't even open on my computer, I asked for the best quality images dammit!" With wedding photography 80% of customers have never been married before & it's their first time discussing photography services, a good photographer will check the customer is fully informed. A bad one will do anything to make the sale, pop the card out of the camera, hand it over and say "hey that's what you asked for" As OP has said, they're not interested in prints so asking for a much higher res digital finished image makes a lot of sense, ready for the big screen tv, perhaps a large canvas etc. Prepping the raws ready to share is a big time investment. Also be sure to make your own copies of the disc as optical media degrades over time too. Make as many backups as you can. Photographers take backups more seriously that you think. We're as precious about backups as we are the raw files! They're our livelihood. I think our backup strategy is better than the average user. Dual card slots shooting raw images, transported separately from the venue at the end of the day. One is stored off site in a fire proof box in an anti static pouch. The other is the 'working' card and imported to the working machine with SSD raid. They're also mirrored to an external hard drive & cloud backup while working. Exported final jpgs are burned to DVD for the client along with a box of 6x4 proofs and online gallery access. For our own work archives they are uploaded to our viewing portal which is paid for several years at a time (e.g if we were no longer around, clients can still re-download them within that time frame - good luck doing that with raw file sizes). We also store final jpgs in cloud storage and put an archive of work on both optical media and sd card with the original raw card in the off site fire proof storage along with a copy of the customers details. I think saying photographers are not tech savvy and don't care about their clients images is equally offensive.

yajoe 13y ago

I've spent a little bit more time talking with the photographer, and it absolutely seems related to prints. The problem is, in 5 years there will be 60", high-resolution color e-ink displays that you can hang on your wall and use as printed canvases. What will he do then? He wasn't aware the tech already existed as a prototype. I don't want to print. I want quality shots, and I want to take the burden of archiving them.

helen842000 13y ago
Perhaps you make it clear to them you fully understand how to process raw files and that they're for archival purposes, you want to 'future proof' your wedding. Also add that you don't intend to buy prints. I'd still ask for a higher res set of jpgs too, I think you'll look through those most frequently in the immediate years.