Weddings & RAW files

Genoma

Genoma

Genoma

Associate
Joined
5 Mar 2006
Posts
2,347
Location
Shropshire
I'm pretty much chuffed here. Not only our photographer did a great job at our wedding, following a chat with the owner and some praise for their work, he's now given me the full set or RAW images + .xmp's with their edits so I can post process them myself.

More than being able to modify them without loss to the original image, I'm chuffed just to have the non compressed versions for archival.

Having read about this before online, it doesn't seem like a very common practice for all sorts of reasons. What is your opinion on this?
 
Absolutely agree. Not only bothered but probably useless to a lot of people. This trend is probably changing though.

But if someone asked for the RAWs and demonstrated that they understand what they are and how to work with them, do you see an issue with them handing them over?
 
In the film days, having the negative is practically proof of ownership of its copyright. Possession is 9/10 of the law and all that crap. But more importantly, the old days having the negative is a way to print money, literally, when client want a photo of auntie betty you will abe charged for £x amount for a copy.

Now days, clients want the photo on a disc so soon as the jpegs are out the door, its gone, the way to make print sale, gone.

Giving away RAW files differ between photographers.

Some never give it out ever (includes me). The vast majority of clients just want the photos, like when i go out to eat, i just want nice food, i am not going there for the recipe or cooking lesson. Just give me good food.

Some gives out the RAW file but not the edit steps - Sal Cincotta is one of these. He doesn't mind you having the RAW as that's not his art. His art includes the processing which the RAW doesn't have.

He will however charge a fee for these files.

There are very few provides Jpeg and Raw with edit....most people don't care/can't read it with their PC. The only people who care would be photographers who wants to know how the photos are edited.
 
Yep, I'd never hand over the raws. It would be like dynamo explaining how he walked on the Thames, it would spoil the magic.
There is also a security aspect, what you are also effectively doing is handing over you're processing 'style'. In a sea of photographers this is often what helps to separate one tog from another. Why one tog can charge X, while another one can only charge x.

It's not that uncommon for amateur togs to start shooting wedding themselves after they get married, so they could start profiting off you're processing style that you spent so long perfecting.
 
Thing is someone good at editing could replicate images anyway, or could certainly get advice online how to achieve a certain look so I don't think giving the edits away is such a great concern in the end. Likewise, the RAW is not really that secure -given a JPEG you can make a RAW file out of it (but it would be fairly easy to detect as fake).

The real issues is as Raymond said, no one at all wants a RAW really but there arr exceptions. My sister asked for only RAW files form the photographer because she know she can edit them to her style and then also save a chunk of money. I did the same for my wedding just a few weeks ago, arranged to get all RAWs and I am now spending my evenings in light-room doing all the processing.
What my sister and I paid for at each of our weddings was the capture, the processing we can do our selves and have our own preferences.
 
Everyone is different. But if I was looking for a wedding photographer I would instead look for one who's work I loved in every respect.. and just trust the tog to deliver his product.
 
The one bit I'm not really seeing is why you would want the RAWs to process yourself....

Was the Photographer no good?
Did they not process them?
Did they do something weird with the processing?
Did you do it on the cheap?

Ultimately if I was getting married, I'd pick a good photographer who had a good history of quality work with clear feedback. I'd know what to expect, so baring a complete disaster I'd see no reason why I'd need RAWs and to change the edit they had presented. Ultimately also working with a good photographer there should be a clear dialogue as to what the couple want, just as an example perhaps they want quite natural processing, or maybe they want everything as HDR 'toxic sick'.

I think a Photographer giving away the RAWs is giving away their negative so to speak, as quite importantly you then lose all control about what happens to the image you have shot if somebody edits it. Although not necessarily the case, something could be done which is detrimental to your work.

As for archiving, well you would get the full size jpegs to archive. If its about wanting to have the highest quality file available for printing then its obviously something that has to be agreed by the Photographer and Client on a per shoot basis. I'd expect a significant charge to give away the RAWs though, as it is cutting out the Tog's ability to charge for prints.
 
I pretty much know who I want to shoot my wedding when it happens anyway. I know and love their work.

The processing style is a part of that and something that I want in my pictures. From that perspective I wouldn't want the RAWs with processing information.

That said, if I could get a copy of the unedited RAWs (without processing information), I'd happily pay an additional fee to do so, if the tog was willing. I very much like their work, I just would like to have a play myself, and own the RAW files for posterity (if you lose them etc...).

kd
 
The reason I might like to process them is personal preference, they did a great job but it doesn't mean I would not like a different perspective on a photo, which I now have the ability to do myself. To me as a customer that is a bonus.

On archival - it is a very good feeling of having the best quality possible for posterity. I'm pretty OCD with my digital backups. Redundant copies in the house and offsite copies in case of a disaster. In this case I definitely trust my ability to keep these safer than the studio. Not being derogatory to them in this respect, it's a simple fact that I have more interest in keeping my wedding photos than they do in years to come.

It wasn't a cheap job, they did process them and we bonded very well. I really liked the result and gave both the studio and the photographers on the day great feedback. We are now currently picking the shots and the layout for the printed album. Our choice of photographer was based on previous experience. They did the photos for my wife's sister's wedding. We did spend a lot of time discussing what we wanted, what kind of shots, who in them, etc. etc. No complaints there.

I'm sorry but I don't buy the loosing control argument. People could do worse damage with the jpgs alone. What is to stop anyone from doing a lovely collage job in MS Paint with them? :) I think if you have chosen to give away digital copies, you are already running that risk and the argument is rather moot.

On the commercial aspect I totally agree with you, hence I was rather surprised that they said yes right away. The copies of the pictures (digital and prints) are up on a portal for sale. I expected a conversation on the RAWs and/or JPGs after a period of time only so they could canvass any expected sales.

My POV as a customer? I must admit is that If I was to do it again, I would go with someone that gave me a choice over those that flat-out just said no for artistic reasons.

Not trying to annoy you guys by the way, honestly interested in your professional point of view.
 
Last edited:
Nexus said:
The one bit I'm not really seeing is why you would want the RAWs to process yourself....

Was the Photographer no good?
Did they not process them?
Did they do something weird with the processing?
Did you do it on the cheap?

Ultimately if I was getting married, I'd pick a good photographer who had a good history of quality work with clear feedback. I'd know what to expect, so baring a complete disaster I'd see no reason why I'd need RAWs and to change the edit they had presented. Ultimately also working with a good photographer there should be a clear dialogue as to what the couple want, just as an example perhaps they want quite natural processing, or maybe they want everything as HDR 'toxic sick'.

I think a Photographer giving away the RAWs is giving away their negative so to speak, as quite importantly you then lose all control about what happens to the image you have shot if somebody edits it. Although not necessarily the case, something could be done which is detrimental to your work.

As for archiving, well you would get the full size jpegs to archive. If its about wanting to have the highest quality file available for printing then its obviously something that has to be agreed by the Photographer and Client on a per shoot basis. I'd expect a significant charge to give away the RAWs though, as it is cutting out the Tog's ability to charge for prints.
Click to expand...


For em it was mostly about cost really. Got a huge discount for getting the RAWs only since the tog didn't have to the hours and hours of processing which i am perfectly capable of doing myself to sufficient standards. Was the same for my sister.
Both at my sisters wedding and mine we also only paid for a tog to be there for the church and a short photoshoot afterwards. At my Sisters wedding I shot the standard getting dressed, church/flowers/decor/tables, the reception, the group shots, first dance, cake cutting, disco etc. For my wedding she and her husband did the same (both great togs).

This way it is just paying for a 2 hours of a good photographers time to take some key photos. It was also helpful to get only RAW files and do the processing such that all the other photos of the wedding (from sister + husband, plus quite a few guests do semi-professional photographer, e.g. photo journalism for local paper and provided RAW photos) all get processed as a consistent set with the same styles.

What is more being RAW if in 5 years time I hate the style I processed now I can go right back and process a new one. Especially for things like black and white or high key shots - you get them in jpeg and you are screwed if you want a normal colour process of the same shot. I have come across a few amazing photos I will process in a couple of different ways for different purposes.
 
Vertigo1 said:
I'm the same. I'll often provide JPEGs in any resolution up to full size but will never ever release the RAW. As you say, it's effectively the digital negative.
Click to expand...

But its not really.
In film days if you want a photo printed you really needed the negative. not giving the negatives away meant you controlled the print and made a tidy profit. It would also be hard to fake a negative given a developed photo. And back then once you gave someone a developed photo that was that - they could not enlarge it, could not process it, could not make a black and white out of it etc.

With Jpegs and RAWs there is not that much difference between the 2. you give someone the Jpeg they can make prints (this is the standard model these days, full rez jpegs on DVD). People are free to print at different sizes or process as they wish on the computer.

It is also trivial to make a fake RAW out of the jpeg.


As Genoma says, there is nothing stopping any customer running the jpegs through photomatix and generating horrendous overblown HDRs with your name plastered all over them and telling all his friends you were the photographer.
 
Last edited:
I'm also curious, in your experience what % of wedding revenue comes for selling the prints/digital copies to friends and family? Is this part a diminishing market?
 
Genoma said:
I'm also curious, in your experience what % of wedding revenue comes for selling the prints/digital copies to friends and family? Is this part a diminishing market?
Click to expand...

I don't bother with this as I don't want to deal with the admin. Instead I let the couple distribute the images freely to friends and family. I also don't like the idea of holding images ransom, I would actually much rather people have free access so everyone can enjoy them.

Imo it is a demising business model. I think what's left is the remnants from the film days, although I do know selling prints to guests at the wedding can be profitable (£700+), there is no way I would consider doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom