Thread: Wedding photography - why can't I have the RAW's?

Originally Posted by pdh

Did people used to get their negatives when film was the only medium?
I just can't remember ...

I think that was an option....obviously a much more expensive one since the photographer wouldn't be making money on each print.

She's good enough for me. But it's not a matter of questioning her competence, but rather, having the ability to do things differently in the future. What I explained to her is that in the future, there might be a photo in which I think it'd look great as black and white. Or with less highlights. Or more texture. So having the RAW would allow me to play with it, specially because I love photography. She said that I could fiddle all I want with the high res JPG, which would already be processed.

I recall that the fee structure for the whole gig included prices for additional prints - and they were very proud of their products. I wonder how many people - other than the immediate family - buy these prints? In any event, I think that's the portion of the business they're trying to protect, and if that's what the market will bear, I can't object to their policy. I might not like it, but....it's their livelihood.

A few years back I persuaded the professional photographer who took photos of my mothers 75th birthday gathering to sell me his medium format negatives. I only did this after taking everyones orders for prints so the photographer wasn't going to be loosing out on any income. I explained that I wanted them to put in the family archive of images, some of which were old glass plate negatives. I think he liked the idea of that.

I've read through this thread and I largely understand the photographer's reluctance to hand over the RAW files. If the client was to process the RAW files themselves (and do it badly or just differently), people are still always going to ask who the photographer is, and it will always be the photographer's name that will be attached to it for better or worse.

However it works out for you, Armando, we wish you a blessed wedding day! Enjoy every minute of it.

Originally Posted by TraamisVOS

I've read through this thread and I largely understand the photographer's reluctance to hand over the RAW files. If the client was to process the RAW files themselves (and do it badly or just differently), people are still always going to ask who the photographer is, and it will always be the photographer's name that will be attached to it for better or worse.

That was her basic explanation as well, which I understand. But I also explained to her that it was only for myself.

The fact that she's willing to give you high res jpegs in some sort of unlocked state where you can continue to play with them surprises me. If she'll do that, she may as well give you the raws. Everything i process from the X-Pro I'm starting with a jpeg and I can still process the living daylights out of them. Now, I guess if she's already smoothed out the skin and stuff like that, you can't undo that. But you could still do plenty of B&W conversions and add all sorts of filters that would result in second generation jpegs that she'd be just as reluctant to have floating around out in the world as anything you'd done from scratch. I'd think if I was doing it, I probably wouldn't give up any file that could be further processed. But if I was willing to allow my work to be processed by my clients later, I can't see any real reason not just go ahead and give them raws. Either way, they can make as many prints as they'd like from the files and much them up something terrible with additional processing, which would be the two things I'd think they'd be trying to prevent with such a policy.

So, yeah, I'm a bit confused...

-Ray

Just don't do what we did, pay a friend who was an amateur...who had too much to drink and took a lot of pix of her boyfriend. She got some good ones, but so many of my relatives never happened...and those wonderful aunts and uncles - and my own parents, too - who are no longer with us and I miss having those photographs.

All that said, find a photographer you like personally as well as their photographs and try to forget about it all and live for the day with your sweetheart.

Originally Posted by pdh

Did people used to get their negatives when film was the only medium?
I just can't remember ...

My wedding was on film and we got ZERO negatives. We could buy proofs if we didn't order all the photos [which btw we didn't], but there was no option for the negatives.

My daughter's graduation photos were digital. I was offered a final cd of high res for like 150.00 and the rights to print, or a low res cd [for social networking] for about half of that. The low res wasn't quality enough to make a 5x7. They delete the images come the next graduating class which is I guess why they offer one last option, so they can get a few bucks more.

My son who graduated only a few years before her must have been on film, no disc or even reprints were offered.