Asking Photographer For All Raw Files...Should I?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/18/2007 11:17:21 PM · #101

Well said! Thanks for the good advice. If I can't work something out with him, I'll take this route.

Originally posted by Quickshutter:

This is certainly getting interesting, isn't it.

I think that I can see both sides of the issue.

On one side is the view that a photographer's job is to show up at the wedding, aim the camera at whatever seems photo-worthy, hand off the files and go home. This is something that could be done by anyone who has enough skill/equipment to take acceptable photos. This is the level of photography that one would get from an individual such as myself, an amateur who wouldn't mind doing it and handing over the RAW files for a thousand dollars or so. The results will show you your wedding and remind you of the event.

On the other hand are the established professional photographers who are truly passionate about their art. They are experienced, brilliant, and more often than not hard to come by. They are meticulous, perfectionist, and would fear handing over their RAW files because they wouldn't bear for anything that bears their name to be less than perfect. Their results will help convey the emotions of the wedding and really bring you back to your wedding day every time you look at them.

My advice: hire a good photographer, and let them do the post-processing. They might let you have the hi-res jpegs as part of the contract. That will save you the added expense of the RAW issue, save you the time of going through and process your own wedding photos (I'm sure after the wedding you'll have a lot of things you would much rather do than sit hunched over a computer screen) You'll get the best results and it will save you a lot of time and money.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

01/18/2007 11:18:09 PM · #102

I am NOT a wedding photographer. I have managed to shoot one wedding a year for the past four years, and that is about one a year more than I wanted. I did not charge alot for them, for several reasons, but mainly because three of the four were small weddings (two of them were just the bride groom and family in the wedding), and three of the four of them were family members.

On a slightly different note, but in the same vein. Last fall, I took pictures at the little league football games that my nephews were in. I processed the pictures and had them printed. After everything was said and done, I made around $500 on 4x6s and some posters that I had made.

Contrast that experience with the fact that just before Christmas, I took some pictures of my niece's basketball game. She wanted a wallet size of each of the girls on her team (no problem), my sister wanted a "collage" of the girls to give the head coach (no problem), and I had some shots of the coach's son who played on the men's varsity team, so I made a couple of 4x6s of that. That was the night before the Wedding of 2006, and in the interest of time, I simply gave my sister a CD with pritable images and strict instructions about where to get them printed, how, and how big. Did she listen? Nope. She printed them at the little kiosk that scans them in and prints them out. Scan lines, miscolored, etc. Looked like crap. On top of that, she printed a freakin' 8x10 out of a file barely sized for a 4x6. I won't even go there.

My point? I have had many parents ask if I was going to shoot the games next football season because they already knew what they wanted me to do for them. From the basketball shoot (who, btw, demographically are much better off financially), squat. Largely, I believe because the prints that got "shown" suck, and most people can't tell that it is a good picture printed badly or a bad picture printed normally.

So, will I give RAW files? No. It is not a money issue. It is a reputation issue. I will negotiate a CD with printable files, but even then I will do that hesitantly. If I know the person is a photographer, as was stated in the OP, and I know the quality of their work, and they understand the importance of good processing/printing, I might be more willing to do it. But, if someone just contacts me and I don't know them, and can't assess whether or not I think their prints are quality, I would proceed with fear and trepidation. A bad print, in the wrong hands, is bad publicity.

I am too new to this to be able to afford any bad publicity.

edit -- there were like 15 posts while I was composing mine. sorry if it sounds a little "out of line" or out of place in the discussion

Message edited by author 2007-01-18 23:21:30.

Ubersteiny

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM for Canon

01/18/2007 11:19:30 PM · #103

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by noisemaker:
HOLY CRAP!!!!!!! ALL OF YOU ARE ACTING LIKE KIDS IN MY FREAKING HIGH SCHOOL!!!!!!!
seriously, you guys are all my parents age and up and you guys are whining and fighting like a bunch of monkeys!

Welcome to the internet.

i just wouldnt expect it from grown adults.
i see this stuff all the time on my little teeny sites but here i wouldnt think it'd happen

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/18/2007 11:19:30 PM · #104

ONCE AGAIN, I POSTED AN HONEST QUESTION AND WASN'T EXPECTING SO MUCH STATIC! LET IT GO

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Adrionni:
Oh, and I'm here just like you are - because I want to be here. Didn't think I needed your blessing or approval =).

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Adrionni:
And he would probably do a better job than most of the people on you A list.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by Adrionni:

Originally posted by rlinn3:
If you paid me 3 times my normal fee, @ $5,000, maybe. Other than that no way.

$15k for a few pics??? What are you SMOKING??? LOL. Photography is not rocket science, and it's not that serious.

If you have that kind of reaction to the thought of paying $15K, don't call Gary Fong.

or Dennis Reggie.

or Bambi Cantrell

or a host of others that easily command $15K and much more to shoot a wedding.

If it's not that serious for you, why not just get some homeless guy off the street and give him a camera? Just set it on "P" (for "P"rofessional) and let him have at it. You could probably get him to do it for $20 and a sandwich. I bet he'd even let you have the RAW files.

Then why are you posting here? Why aren't you out on Skid Row looking for your photographer? You could probably get some artsy looking pics if you slip him a bottle of Thunderbird before the ceremony too.

I never said you needed my approval for anything.

I just thought you might spend your limited pre-nuptial time looking for a photographer rather than stirring up trouble on DPC and suggested a place to start based on your earlier posts.

PaulE

Canon EOS-50D

01/18/2007 11:22:05 PM · #105

Loving this! Can we transfer to Rant?

I think I can add some value by sharing my perspective, and how it has changed over time.

When I got married in May 2005 I was not a photographer; and my priority was to get a couple of nice pics to print, and to be able to put a decent selection up on my website. It was this website requirement that dictated that I wanted the negatives, and digital originals. I wasn't willing to pay the prices the pro's were asking for that sort of package so I persuaded a keen friend who had published a landscape photography book to do the job in exchange for a new lens. She had never photographed a wedding before. Now the thing is that I have never been fully satisfied with the official pictures from the day. I know she tried her best, and really put loads of effort intot he job; but the standard just isn't there.

Two years later, and a hell of a lot of reading, research and learning later too, I would do things differently. Why? Because I now really value the art of photography. I now appreciate what goes into producing great images (even if I don't do so myself just yet), and because of DPC I am able to see the situation from a professionals perspective. How would I do it today? I would engaged an independant professional to take the shots, and try to negotiate a deal with access to the down-sized imaged for the website. And the rest of the the pictures for the website would come from friends and family (where I sourced most of my images from anyway). This would have cost me double what I did pay - but I would not be in the position I am today where I wish I had done a better job of arranging for the memories to be captured.

Fortunately the video guy was brilliant.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/18/2007 11:22:18 PM · #106

Anywho-

Thanks everyone for your opinions and for the lively discussion. From this point forward, let's entertain value-added responses to the original question.

Thank you,

Adrionni

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Techo

Canon EOS-7D

01/18/2007 11:23:39 PM · #107

When you folks talk about RAW you just mean an unprocessed out of cam file, could be just a JPG as well. Couldn't someone also do damage in PS to an already processed high res JPG provided by the photog? like add too much glow for your taste or glob it up with the smudge tool. So it actually all comes down the contract on what the client is allowed to do with the digital files provided? I would personally prefer to give the client the files edited as I prefer them. But of course there are exceptions to a rule.

Message edited by author 2007-01-18 23:25:19.

jenesis

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/18/2007 11:27:31 PM · #108

Well, I'm not a wedding photographer. I've only helped with two as a favor, but I'll throw my 2 cents in. I don't think the OP's first post was an unreasonable question. There is a huge gap between the Gary Fongs of the industry and the SkidRow bum. :) I'm sure you'd be able to find somebody that is willing to take on such a situation. There are people breaking into the business that would love the experience and probably love even more not to have to take on the PP. Yes, there is the "you get what you pay for" speech. But people have to start somewhere and there are a ton of amatures on this site alone that do outstanding work so you just never know until you ask. What's the harm in that? If someones ego gets a bit bruised well, then they probably weren't the person for you anyways.

Best of luck with your search. And many congrats on your upcoming nuptials. :)

Message edited by author 2007-01-18 23:36:28.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/18/2007 11:27:36 PM · #109

I think this is a great post, and I enjoyed your story. You've made a valid point, but the ppl who printed your photos weren't photogs or mindful of aspect ratios, nor did they heed your instructions! There are some issues associated with reputations and quality and such, but I don't think it's a big deal for me because I'm having a destination wedding and probably won't see my photog ever again, lol. Plus I understand quality, aspect ratios, etc.

Originally posted by karmat:

Spork99

OM System OM-1

01/18/2007 11:28:33 PM · #110

No need to shout.

It wasn't your question, it's the disdain you have for photography as a business.

Originally posted by Adrionni:

ONCE AGAIN, I POSTED AN HONEST QUESTION AND WASN'T EXPECTING SO MUCH STATIC! LET IT GO

01/18/2007 11:28:44 PM · #111

Originally posted by Techo:

I discuss editing with my clients during the interview. I show them examples of sepia, b/w, high key, editorial, etc and ask them what sort of style appeals most to them. Then when we view the proofs together if there is something they want to change (more b/w, more color, etc.,) I can change those then. Once the album is printed, it is the way they want it. The same goes for prints - if they want 50 prints in b/w, fine, if they want 2 in color, fine... whatever... 50% of photography is SERVICE.

01/18/2007 11:29:41 PM · #112

Your wedding in Florida by chance? Maybe we can work something out.... ;)

01/18/2007 11:31:00 PM · #113

Thanks for the support! My photog has been in business since 1981, and while he's good and pretty much current in PP, there are effects that I would like to apply to my photos that I haven't seen in any of his work.

Originally posted by jenesis:

01/18/2007 11:34:23 PM · #114

That's great! Many photogs do what they want to do because they feel the client isn't up to speed on the different processing options!

So let me ask you this: Do you give your clients a guarantee for their photos over time? What if 25 years down the road they want more pics and you are long gone (out of business, deceased, or MIA)?

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by Techo:
When you folks talk about RAW you just mean an unprocessed out of cam file, could be just a JPG as well. Couldn't someone also do damage in PS to an already processed high res JPG provided by the photog? like add too much glow for your taste or glob it up with the smudge tool. So it actually all comes down the contract on what the client is allowed to do with the digital files provided? I would personally prefer to give the client the files edited as I prefer them. But of course there are exceptions to a rule.

I discuss editing with my clients during the interview. I show them examples of sepia, b/w, high key, editorial, etc and ask them what sort of style appeals most to them. Then when we view the proofs together if there is something they want to change (more b/w, more color, etc.,) I can change those then. Once the album is printed, it is the way they want it. The same goes for prints - if they want 50 prints in b/w, fine, if they want 2 in color, fine... whatever... 50% of photography is SERVICE.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/18/2007 11:35:03 PM · #115

Nope, not Florida ;)

Originally posted by idnic:

Your wedding in Florida by chance? Maybe we can work something out.... ;)

fotomann_forever

01/18/2007 11:35:34 PM · #116

Originally posted by idnic:

You don't release JPGs either do you?

Techo

Canon EOS-7D

01/18/2007 11:36:34 PM · #117

Thanks for the detailed post Cindi.

Originally posted by idnic:

50% of photography is SERVICE.

Ah yes, I agree about the Service part , as in general business terms. It's what sets you apart from others as well. Do you also offer digital slideshows on cd/dvd if asked?

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/18/2007 11:36:54 PM · #118

Originally posted by Shakalaka:

Originally posted by idnic:

Originally posted by Techo:
When you folks talk about RAW you just mean an unprocessed out of cam file, could be just a JPG as well. Couldn't someone also do damage in PS to an already processed high res JPG provided by the photog? like add too much glow for your taste or glob it up with the smudge tool. So it actually all comes down the contract on what the client is allowed to do with the digital files provided? I would personally prefer to give the client the files edited as I prefer them. But of course there are exceptions to a rule.

I discuss editing with my clients during the interview. I show them examples of sepia, b/w, high key, editorial, etc and ask them what sort of style appeals most to them. Then when we view the proofs together if there is something they want to change (more b/w, more color, etc.,) I can change those then. Once the album is printed, it is the way they want it. The same goes for prints - if they want 50 prints in b/w, fine, if they want 2 in color, fine... whatever... 50% of photography is SERVICE.

You don't release JPGs either do you?

No, never have.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/18/2007 11:37:34 PM · #119

Yes, there are photographers that will do this and no, they won't charge you an arm and a leg or your first born. There are a bunch of photographers on Craig's List that advertise that they will work for so much an hour and hand you a CD of images at the end of the wedding.

It's becoming more common to do this, especially with digital. The reason? A lot of photographers have found that they would rather spend more time shooting weddings and portraits and making money than working for peanuts an hour processing, cropping, printing, putting into albums, etc., after the wedding. I don't think a lot of photographers have really looked at their per-hour wage after spending hours, days, weeks, in the after wedding processing... only to have the thrill and excitement wear off the bride and groom and family by the time they get to see and choose the pictures they want. Or to have someone copy them and then not buy very many after all. So the idea of being paid up front, handing off the work and being done with it can be very attractive.

No, this is not for everyone. Many photographers still believe that having control of the negatives or digital files means there is a chance they will make more money somewhere down the road. Maybe this was true with negatives, but it's not so true with digital images and the ability for people to copy and print their own work.

For the high end photographers, those that can command $20K or more a wedding, no, they probably wouldn't do it. For those that are more in the $1000 to $2000 range or even less, it might be a good fit, especially if you can do more weddings in a week with less work.

But as it seems in many areas of photographers, there are those that don't see a problem with being different and those that consider anyone that does something outside the norm as being a traitor to photographers everywhere. I see it all the time on other forums when the talk turns to how much to charge and what to provide for the amount that they are charging... if they are charging anything at all. It can be for some very interesting discussions.

So if the established "Pro's" won't talk to you, check Craig's List in your area and check out some of the ads on there for photographers. Some are beginners but some seem to have some real talent and might be a good fit for you.

Mike

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

01/18/2007 11:39:19 PM · #120

Originally posted by Adrionni:

Nope, not Florida ;)

Originally posted by idnic:
Your wedding in Florida by chance? Maybe we can work something out.... ;)

Western North Carolina? Eastern Tennessee? Upstate South Carolina? Southwest Virgina? I'm willing to drive. :)

01/18/2007 11:44:24 PM · #121

Originally posted by Techo:

Thanks for the detailed post Cindi.

Originally posted by idnic:
50% of photography is SERVICE.

Ah yes, I agree about the Service part , as in general business terms. It's what sets you apart from others as well. Do you also offer digital slideshows on cd/dvd if asked?

Yeah, last 2 proof meetings I had the Video ready and running while they were here - tears both times. :) Lumipix FotoFusion!

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

01/18/2007 11:44:36 PM · #122

I paid my wedding photographer for the negatives up front. She shot 4x36 frames. We got everything, all inclusive. In the end I paid about $20 per shot. Maybe 2 were not great out of the 144 she took.

So 142 great shots, rather than maybe the typical digital approach of 500-1000 and hope a few tens are okay.

01/18/2007 11:45:44 PM · #123

Originally posted by Adrionni:

No, I don't promise I won't be hit by a bus tomorrow. They better order what they want now! lol I do keep a gallery open for them for one year.