Still going on about this?
I'm not sure I get it. Did the photographer price his package on coverage of specific content rather than just covering what he see's unfold during the day while he was there?
The pricing was reflective of the fact he wouldn't shoot the reception apart form cake cutting and first dance since to do so he would require a second shooter and he was under the explicit understanding that I would be solely in charge of the reception shots.
If someone has reasons to decline a booking, they will normally pick one rather that write a shopping list of why they won't book you. Germany is the obvious one.
Exactly, which is why most of the quotes I received didn't mention anything about RAWs, and the quote I did get said it would be no issue.
Also there are probably more photographers willing to go to Germany than hand over RAW files. There ARE plenty of destination photographers around.
That is a completely baseless conjecture. I will make my own and state the opposite is true. From my anecdotal data set I know more wedding togs willing to give RAWs than travel to a foreign country. The latter take a few seconds of effort, the former requires a lot of commitment and time, and for a weekend warrior taking time off work. We have already seen in this thread several people getting RAW files without any difficulty.
My personal reasons is it has more to do with pride in my work and not wanting it viewed in an unfinished state. I would literally rather lose money and not sell the RAW's.
That is fine, other professionals would rather have the business because that is what is putting food on their table and paying the mortgage. Others just simply don't care because they have no control over what people do with their photos whether it is a RAW of JPEG.
There was a time when wedding togs would charge the clients for prints and wouldn't make the digital files available free of charge. but you would have to pay a lot extra for a CD of the photos so you could print yourself. Eventually wedding togs joined the 21st century and include full access to digital files included in the package price. Providing RAW files is really no different and a natural progression. RAW files aren't "digital negatives". Where do you draw the line, 16bit TIFFs OK? Is an sRAW file that already has a tone curve and WB applied along with compression? What about full res JPEGS that are exposure and WB corrected with the default Adobe portrait tone curve?
Every photographer is free to make their own decisions regarding RAW files. I know many are ardently against it, some really don't mind, and I am perfectly happy to give RAW files to paying clients for no extra charge.
