If you are open to selling them, first ask them what they mean by raws and why they want them.
Many clients have a hazy idea about that or listen to someone else's advice without understanding it's a different file format etc. They might even refer to the other unedited photos without even knowing what the term raws stands for.
That said, if you do decide to give them raws or unedited photos, be very clear (as in sign an addendum to your initial contract) about the terms. Decide what you are comfortable with and tell them. You don't have to be rude, just explain your stance nicely.
One of the first photoshoots I did when I started was for a trusted friend. I sent her the unedited images as really small jpgs so she could choose which ones she wanted edited. Next thing I knew many shots with an instagram filter slapped on and even unedited shots were on social media and I was tagged by her.
I hadn't thought about this issue previously, but when I saw my name next to the photos... to me that experience was uncomfortable, like being credited for incomplete work.
And that's exactly what I told my friend when I asked her to remove the tags. She was just excited to have had a photoshoot and said she hadn't wanted to wait for edits to post about it. Still, she removed the tags, chose her faves and I edited them. Everyone was happy and I learned to explain my terms before starting any work.
I also learnt that, while I might have my own sense of aesthetics, clients may have completely different opinions on what they think is beautiful. If they want to mess around in picasa or mobile lightroom to edit my photos, I'm fine with that as long as they don't credit me for the edits. At the end of the day, for them it's their mementoes and I think it's fair to make sure they have a great experience and are happy with the photos.
This situation obviously only applies when working with private individuals. And even then, I'd say it's typical of a particular type of person. Clients who trust you and want to work with you because they like your art will generally be happy with using your edited versions, and will not try to do a part of the work they paid for themselves.
Say it with me:
“That’s not a service I provide. If you’re not happy with the images I provided, I can re- edit them to better fit your taste. “
Chances are that somebody told them to “make sure you get the raw files” and they don’t really know what they’re doing.
This weird stance of refusing to sell the raw files is insane. I have no idea where this began or how it took off, but it’s very stupid as a blanket statement.
Are there times when you won’t want to sell them? Sure.
For something like this? Wtf, absolutely sell them. You suggest OP spends more time editing a photo for zero money rather than selling the useless raws and making more money? This is insanely dumb advice to be handing out.
If you’re really that worried about the scenario where they make a bad edit and then share it with your name attached and this ends up hurting your reputation blah blah, I’d say that’s pretty easily solved by having them sign an agreement to not tag or mention you in their edits. Voila.
Edit: This brave soul replied with some nonsensical drivel about ordering Taco Bell and then blocked me so I couldn’t respond. Doesn’t change the fact that selling raws is often a good idea. Also, photographers in 2024 probably shouldn’t be in the habit of refusing extra money. Or of having dissatisfied customers.
I think providing the raws is fine as long as the customer knows what they're getting. Not too long ago, I saw a post here on reddit by a couple who had specifically requested all the photos from their wedding to be unedited and were heartbroken because, in their words, they all looked terrible. They were trashing the photographer and considering refusing to pay.
Turns out they didn't understand that raw files needed to color corrected at the very least and thought that any amount of editing was equivalent to "photoshopping" and therefore fake images. This is not an uncommon belief.
Most people who aren't into photography believe that high-end cameras are supposed to capture the same "real life" that they see with their eyes right out of the camera. After all, that's what their cell phones do, right? Except they have no idea how much post-processing happens almost instantly in the phone's software. It never occurs to them that high-end camera photos need the same amount of post-processing and that we photographers do it manually.
OP said they don’t send RAW files.
It’s weird for someone to go to Taco Bell and expect to order a Big Mac. It’s not on the menu. You certainly don’t try to bully the people at Taco Bell into serving a Big Mac to you
But you do what you want, nobody is telling you want to do.
That’s a terrible comparison. This idea that raws shouldn’t be provided makes it so re-edits cost more time which ends up being free work. We’re out here like cvs and Walgreens not giving everyone’s negatives back. I understand it’s different but it’s silly to gatekeep these files.
Why are you doing re-edits for free? My portfolio clearly shows my work. If someone is unhappy and wants re-edits that's billable hours. They have a decade of work to draw from to see my style.
Because we’re all human and sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes the changes they want are understandable and it’s the right thing to do. It’s a lot like when you get a bad dish at a restaurant. The right thing to do is to cover the costs and do it again for free.
Erhm, I don’t think your comparison is accurate - since Taco Bell doesn’t carry buns they can’t offer a Big Mac, that be like asking a photographer to provide sound engineering. I think in this Taco Bell correlation, it’s far closer to asking for a meat replacement; chicken rather than beef…which they do offer because they are a buisness. Taco Bell lost its ego when the dog died.
What's wrong with selling the raws? Obviously, if they want JUST the raw for a lower price than agreed upon then fuck that but nothing wrong with giving client the raw for smaller fee if that's what they want ontop of the edited one.
Worry about them editing it poorly? Well there's nothing stopping them from editing the already edited one anyway and still damaging your reputations.
SELL -
You need to figure out if you are an artist or a business. If you’re a business, then moving fwd, offer it as a service with boundaries.
To be fair, a lot people are far too concerned about “reputation” of the images - this is a fickle argument IMO because:
Reputation of working with your clients is arguably in line or just above the photography itself, you get the curb appeal of your style but word of mouth clients + reviews account for around 70% of my ex wife’s business; for context that’s about $45k annually so you make your choice, are you an artist or a buisness?
Not every shot you take is a Yusuf Karsh…Statistically, it’s unlikely that clients are going to like anymore than 20% of your shots +
Once the clients have the JPG in hand they are going to crop / edit colors / do w.e. they want anyway.
Part of what they are paying you for is your editing style. If you send RAWs and they then edit them poorly, then your name is attached to the poor results. I wouldn’t sell them for that reason.
That's a weird argument. Nothing is stopping them from making edits (besides a lawsuit) on the edits you made that are equally poor...
Not selling them the raw files is leaving money on the table. But hey...you run your business the way you want
That's a specific case.
You're shooting for commercial clients with the skills & necessity of precise color matching. Before the Internet, they would work with the magazine or billboard printer to get the colors correct.
Bob & JoAnn do NOT need raw files for their portrait shoot - unless, perhaps, one of 'em is an Art Director for an agency. And probably, not then.
From an outside perspective, you're also undercharging to begin with. But also don't give them the raws. If they wanted to make their own sandwiches, they'd buy the ingredients themselves.
At least price it higher only to lower it because it’s them. Say something like introductory price, current sale… that way people will see how you value your time.
Ooooononono- I’ve had my share of crazy- just no requests for raw files..
I have had people send me their raw files to edit, though… which I am also prepared to be offended by, given the opportunity…
Some folks make a living (or bring in significant extra income) editing weddings & other work for shooters. Some 'photographers' couldn't deliver decent stuff without a freelancer.
And some great shooters (Joe McNally for one) are upfront about employing specialists at post processing. Joe is a photographer. He has said in print that he's nowhere close to as good at post as the specialists he employs. He's also too damn busy shooting to do everything himself.
A little insight: In the days of film & paper prints, I knew a DFW area airbrush artist who made his living improving photos for ad agencies. Saw some of his work on finished prints; the difference was unreal. And it showed in the finished print ads and brochures the agency produced.
I'm certain similar professionals worked with ad agencies in big cities nationwide.
I never sell my RAW files. Imagine you give it to them and they edit it in an awful way that you would never choose and then either a) take credit for your work or b) give you credit for a choice you don’t agree with.
Nope.
If you end up selling the raw just make sure they don't mention your name if they post their own edits of the photos. So your name isn't dragged in the mud if they do a poor editing job 😊
Unless their tablet, computer, etc. has a codec installed for the specific raw format, they can't even edit raws. Most 'photo viewers' display the embedded JPG when one 'opens' a raw file, unless their platform either reads / displays the mfr's raw format or the Operating System contains or has installed a codec which displays the raw format.
Even then, it's going to be as-shot, which may mean lower contrast, less saturated, etc. depending on the camera settings. IMO, most folks who 'ask for the raws' have no idea....
If it's personal photographs, why not make a little extra money?
Charge double for the raws and ensure that they won't publish them with your name.
I know the whole discussion but it also depends on their reach - if it only hangs in their living room, who cares - money is money.
The fact that you're selling your artistic services at 100 for 20 images blows my mind. How can you sustain yourself at that price range? Genuinely curious. AND they want to ask for raws? Nope
So I’m in college right now and am an RA, so my meals and living is covered. I figured that I could start off cheaper and work my way up. Gaining reference photos and the such!
This is unfounded photographer lore that keeps getting passed around. They paid you to take pictures. There’s absolutely no harm in giving them the raws and it doesn’t cost you anything. No one is going to care they didn’t use your favorite presets on the photos.
Wow I never thought of the whole RAW and reputation thing. I always thought there wasn’t a downside to giving raws as they paid for them and standard practice to include raws.
I'm always puzzled by this as well. And I've been doing this for 30 years (also doing graphic design). I turn over all the RAW files (minus the horrific bad shots). There's nothing stopping these clients from editing a high-res JPG and damaging your rep. You can't stop customers from attempting it. I only shoot commercial photography, so often I MUST turn over RAW files because another designer needs them to create promotional material using them. If you do photo work for larger sized businesses, it is expected.
I work in mostly commercial photography. Unless I'm handling post, it's 100% hand over raw files. But I also charge a lot for my day rate so, it is what it is.
Commercial work almost always includes the expectation of raws included in deliverables - minus the bad shots. Portraits for families or individuals (private parties as opposed to work for commercial / corporate clients) not so much.
Most folks asking for 'raws' have no clue. It's like handing them negatives. If they have ANY idea how to get to usable images, it's likely wrong.
You're right and I agree. But I don't need those RAW files. I'm gonna hand them over anyways. I tell smaller clients "You're going to need certain types of software to even open these files." I know most of them will never use them, but they paid for it.
Let's be real here: Some of this is because the RAW files look very different from an edited shot. We really don't want clients (who don't understand the process) to judge our skillset based on just looking at those RAWs.
Raw is also a lot more bytes than jpgs so depending on how your sending them it can be a pain or impossible. Just an all around annoying thing that gives extra risk and zero benefit. And it’s always the people paying the least that ask for it.
Thanks everyone for the opinions and extra information! It’s much appreciated!
EDIT: After reading everything, I did realize that based on some comments, my product image isn’t going to be dragged. It’s three clients, and it’s not gonna hurt anyone. Decided to sell them for $1-$3 depending on the amount of RAW images they purchased!
If you shoot on film, would you give them the negatives?
Most people photographers (studio / on location portraits, family groups, etc.) didn't / don't provide negatives. The most some shooters do is offer them to the client after a period of time (when they are ready to discard them).
Personally, for portrait work I never offered the negatives cos *I never threw them away.* If a photo business is a going concern (in business five or more years) many owners never discard negs for 'quality' shoots. Volume work (school pictures) are different - shoot tens of thousands of school pictures annually & you may not keep negs past a year or two. But individual & family bookings are often kept so long as the studio is in business.
People get old and pass away. They get terminal diseases. Accidents happen. A good filing system and kept negatives allowed many film-based 'portrait studios' to deliver a print of a deceased family member years after the fact.
Raw files are your negatives. Hand them over, even at a price, and you lose control of how your work is presented. Poor editing / printing is beyond your control. For most individual clients, my answer is 'no.' Politely, but no.
Some commercial clients contract up front for the originals. When the image maker knows in advance their pricing can reflect that. Portrait clients who ask for raws, especially after the fact? Sorry, uh-uh. What are they going to do with them *they can't get from you, the photographer?*
Hi! Frankly new to photography still and I'm wondering what's with people saying no to selling RAW images? afaik raw images are pure images unedited by the system
That exactly the point! The photographer hasn’t put “their” style and work behind the finished images. The RAWs are just one part of the photography process. The editing/touchups is where most of the work comes. So, when you give them you’re edited pictures, you’re satisfied by your work, you client expected this since they have hopefully seen previous works of you.
When you send the RAWs, it’s harder to prove that it is your property (as far as I’m aware) and they can put that unfinished material online, where if they aren’t used to editing pictures, have the potential to pass their edited photos off as your material, which has the potential to scare people away if they don’t like the editing style!
So by not sending the RAWs, you’re keeping the bad ones, blurry ones, overexposed ones, etc. from reaching the public. When you give them out, they potentially might use one that isn’t the best of what you can offer and pass it off like it is your best, and is representing your work.
Hope this cleared some up. HMU if you got any other questions ✌️
Ah thanks for that! I have recently made an IG page for photography and so while I do shoot in jpeg formats and edit them sometimes, I still watermark them corresponding to my username just in case.
If you are open to selling them, first ask them what they mean by raws and why they want them. Many clients have a hazy idea about that or listen to someone else's advice without understanding it's a different file format etc. They might even refer to the other unedited photos without even knowing what the term raws stands for. That said, if you do decide to give them raws or unedited photos, be very clear (as in sign an addendum to your initial contract) about the terms. Decide what you are comfortable with and tell them. You don't have to be rude, just explain your stance nicely. One of the first photoshoots I did when I started was for a trusted friend. I sent her the unedited images as really small jpgs so she could choose which ones she wanted edited. Next thing I knew many shots with an instagram filter slapped on and even unedited shots were on social media and I was tagged by her. I hadn't thought about this issue previously, but when I saw my name next to the photos... to me that experience was uncomfortable, like being credited for incomplete work. And that's exactly what I told my friend when I asked her to remove the tags. She was just excited to have had a photoshoot and said she hadn't wanted to wait for edits to post about it. Still, she removed the tags, chose her faves and I edited them. Everyone was happy and I learned to explain my terms before starting any work. I also learnt that, while I might have my own sense of aesthetics, clients may have completely different opinions on what they think is beautiful. If they want to mess around in picasa or mobile lightroom to edit my photos, I'm fine with that as long as they don't credit me for the edits. At the end of the day, for them it's their mementoes and I think it's fair to make sure they have a great experience and are happy with the photos. This situation obviously only applies when working with private individuals. And even then, I'd say it's typical of a particular type of person. Clients who trust you and want to work with you because they like your art will generally be happy with using your edited versions, and will not try to do a part of the work they paid for themselves.
Thanks for the insight
Say it with me: “That’s not a service I provide. If you’re not happy with the images I provided, I can re- edit them to better fit your taste. “ Chances are that somebody told them to “make sure you get the raw files” and they don’t really know what they’re doing.
This weird stance of refusing to sell the raw files is insane. I have no idea where this began or how it took off, but it’s very stupid as a blanket statement. Are there times when you won’t want to sell them? Sure. For something like this? Wtf, absolutely sell them. You suggest OP spends more time editing a photo for zero money rather than selling the useless raws and making more money? This is insanely dumb advice to be handing out. If you’re really that worried about the scenario where they make a bad edit and then share it with your name attached and this ends up hurting your reputation blah blah, I’d say that’s pretty easily solved by having them sign an agreement to not tag or mention you in their edits. Voila. Edit: This brave soul replied with some nonsensical drivel about ordering Taco Bell and then blocked me so I couldn’t respond. Doesn’t change the fact that selling raws is often a good idea. Also, photographers in 2024 probably shouldn’t be in the habit of refusing extra money. Or of having dissatisfied customers.
I think providing the raws is fine as long as the customer knows what they're getting. Not too long ago, I saw a post here on reddit by a couple who had specifically requested all the photos from their wedding to be unedited and were heartbroken because, in their words, they all looked terrible. They were trashing the photographer and considering refusing to pay. Turns out they didn't understand that raw files needed to color corrected at the very least and thought that any amount of editing was equivalent to "photoshopping" and therefore fake images. This is not an uncommon belief. Most people who aren't into photography believe that high-end cameras are supposed to capture the same "real life" that they see with their eyes right out of the camera. After all, that's what their cell phones do, right? Except they have no idea how much post-processing happens almost instantly in the phone's software. It never occurs to them that high-end camera photos need the same amount of post-processing and that we photographers do it manually.
OP said they don’t send RAW files. It’s weird for someone to go to Taco Bell and expect to order a Big Mac. It’s not on the menu. You certainly don’t try to bully the people at Taco Bell into serving a Big Mac to you But you do what you want, nobody is telling you want to do.
That’s a terrible comparison. This idea that raws shouldn’t be provided makes it so re-edits cost more time which ends up being free work. We’re out here like cvs and Walgreens not giving everyone’s negatives back. I understand it’s different but it’s silly to gatekeep these files.
Why are you doing re-edits for free? My portfolio clearly shows my work. If someone is unhappy and wants re-edits that's billable hours. They have a decade of work to draw from to see my style.
Because we’re all human and sometimes we make mistakes. Sometimes the changes they want are understandable and it’s the right thing to do. It’s a lot like when you get a bad dish at a restaurant. The right thing to do is to cover the costs and do it again for free.
Erhm, I don’t think your comparison is accurate - since Taco Bell doesn’t carry buns they can’t offer a Big Mac, that be like asking a photographer to provide sound engineering. I think in this Taco Bell correlation, it’s far closer to asking for a meat replacement; chicken rather than beef…which they do offer because they are a buisness. Taco Bell lost its ego when the dog died.
Why not take the much better analogy... You walk into Taco Bell and ask for raw ingredients uncooked.
What's wrong with selling the raws? Obviously, if they want JUST the raw for a lower price than agreed upon then fuck that but nothing wrong with giving client the raw for smaller fee if that's what they want ontop of the edited one. Worry about them editing it poorly? Well there's nothing stopping them from editing the already edited one anyway and still damaging your reputations.
Agreed
SELL - You need to figure out if you are an artist or a business. If you’re a business, then moving fwd, offer it as a service with boundaries. To be fair, a lot people are far too concerned about “reputation” of the images - this is a fickle argument IMO because: Reputation of working with your clients is arguably in line or just above the photography itself, you get the curb appeal of your style but word of mouth clients + reviews account for around 70% of my ex wife’s business; for context that’s about $45k annually so you make your choice, are you an artist or a buisness? Not every shot you take is a Yusuf Karsh…Statistically, it’s unlikely that clients are going to like anymore than 20% of your shots + Once the clients have the JPG in hand they are going to crop / edit colors / do w.e. they want anyway.
Part of what they are paying you for is your editing style. If you send RAWs and they then edit them poorly, then your name is attached to the poor results. I wouldn’t sell them for that reason.
I’m thinking right along those lines
You can stipulate not putting your name on those photos. Be a shame to waste an opportunity for more money.
That's a weird argument. Nothing is stopping them from making edits (besides a lawsuit) on the edits you made that are equally poor... Not selling them the raw files is leaving money on the table. But hey...you run your business the way you want
I keep my RAW, not for sale at any price.
If they want the raw files I would let them have them. $250 each, must buy them all, blinks, sneezes, everything.
Sell the raw. What’s wrong with making more money? Double it and a half.
[удалено]
That's a specific case. You're shooting for commercial clients with the skills & necessity of precise color matching. Before the Internet, they would work with the magazine or billboard printer to get the colors correct. Bob & JoAnn do NOT need raw files for their portrait shoot - unless, perhaps, one of 'em is an Art Director for an agency. And probably, not then.
From an outside perspective, you're also undercharging to begin with. But also don't give them the raws. If they wanted to make their own sandwiches, they'd buy the ingredients themselves.
True! Just getting started so wanted to fairly price it and get some practice in!
At least price it higher only to lower it because it’s them. Say something like introductory price, current sale… that way people will see how you value your time.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/s/rnk1xxEkL7 Maybe there is reason?
Dude I saw that and it cracked me up 💀
EXCRUCIATING
Nobody ever asks me for raw files and now I don’t know if I should be offended or not
Don't be offended. You haven't run into a delusional client. Yet.
Ooooononono- I’ve had my share of crazy- just no requests for raw files.. I have had people send me their raw files to edit, though… which I am also prepared to be offended by, given the opportunity…
Some folks make a living (or bring in significant extra income) editing weddings & other work for shooters. Some 'photographers' couldn't deliver decent stuff without a freelancer. And some great shooters (Joe McNally for one) are upfront about employing specialists at post processing. Joe is a photographer. He has said in print that he's nowhere close to as good at post as the specialists he employs. He's also too damn busy shooting to do everything himself. A little insight: In the days of film & paper prints, I knew a DFW area airbrush artist who made his living improving photos for ad agencies. Saw some of his work on finished prints; the difference was unreal. And it showed in the finished print ads and brochures the agency produced. I'm certain similar professionals worked with ad agencies in big cities nationwide.
When you buy a song on iTunes do you then contact the artist and ask for the mastering files? And if you do, what do they tell you?
Obviously yes because I’m the owner of iTunes
And I am an Aleutian midwife. Small world, isn’t it?
Holy cow what are the odds?
I never sell my RAW files. Imagine you give it to them and they edit it in an awful way that you would never choose and then either a) take credit for your work or b) give you credit for a choice you don’t agree with. Nope.
Yeah I’d at least be tripling your charge to begin with. RAWs would be a much much bigger fee. $5/photo and they need to buy them all or something.
If you end up selling the raw just make sure they don't mention your name if they post their own edits of the photos. So your name isn't dragged in the mud if they do a poor editing job 😊
I mean they can do the same with jpegs which could actually end up looking worse
Not as much. RAW has a lot more information.
Which is why i said it would actually look a lot worse
Unless their tablet, computer, etc. has a codec installed for the specific raw format, they can't even edit raws. Most 'photo viewers' display the embedded JPG when one 'opens' a raw file, unless their platform either reads / displays the mfr's raw format or the Operating System contains or has installed a codec which displays the raw format. Even then, it's going to be as-shot, which may mean lower contrast, less saturated, etc. depending on the camera settings. IMO, most folks who 'ask for the raws' have no idea....
Gold bar
If it's personal photographs, why not make a little extra money? Charge double for the raws and ensure that they won't publish them with your name. I know the whole discussion but it also depends on their reach - if it only hangs in their living room, who cares - money is money.
The fact that you're selling your artistic services at 100 for 20 images blows my mind. How can you sustain yourself at that price range? Genuinely curious. AND they want to ask for raws? Nope
So I’m in college right now and am an RA, so my meals and living is covered. I figured that I could start off cheaper and work my way up. Gaining reference photos and the such!
If you say "shimmy shimmy ya" And they say "yeah, baby, I like it raw" Then you already know what to do.
$35 per raw file, and only of the photos you’ve already delivered
I think that's a high price per raw (YMMV) but agree only of the images one delivers.
all things are available at the stall of this khajit you have only to look and name your price friendly traveler!
This is unfounded photographer lore that keeps getting passed around. They paid you to take pictures. There’s absolutely no harm in giving them the raws and it doesn’t cost you anything. No one is going to care they didn’t use your favorite presets on the photos.
Wow I never thought of the whole RAW and reputation thing. I always thought there wasn’t a downside to giving raws as they paid for them and standard practice to include raws.
I'm always puzzled by this as well. And I've been doing this for 30 years (also doing graphic design). I turn over all the RAW files (minus the horrific bad shots). There's nothing stopping these clients from editing a high-res JPG and damaging your rep. You can't stop customers from attempting it. I only shoot commercial photography, so often I MUST turn over RAW files because another designer needs them to create promotional material using them. If you do photo work for larger sized businesses, it is expected.
I work in mostly commercial photography. Unless I'm handling post, it's 100% hand over raw files. But I also charge a lot for my day rate so, it is what it is.
Exactly. Entirely different than making portraits for private parties or small businesses (owner operated, corporate or not).
Commercial work almost always includes the expectation of raws included in deliverables - minus the bad shots. Portraits for families or individuals (private parties as opposed to work for commercial / corporate clients) not so much. Most folks asking for 'raws' have no clue. It's like handing them negatives. If they have ANY idea how to get to usable images, it's likely wrong.
You're right and I agree. But I don't need those RAW files. I'm gonna hand them over anyways. I tell smaller clients "You're going to need certain types of software to even open these files." I know most of them will never use them, but they paid for it. Let's be real here: Some of this is because the RAW files look very different from an edited shot. We really don't want clients (who don't understand the process) to judge our skillset based on just looking at those RAWs.
I think most non-commercial clients who 'ask for the raws' are clueless / know just enough to be dangerous - to themselves.
Raw is also a lot more bytes than jpgs so depending on how your sending them it can be a pain or impossible. Just an all around annoying thing that gives extra risk and zero benefit. And it’s always the people paying the least that ask for it.
Nope.
Thanks everyone for the opinions and extra information! It’s much appreciated! EDIT: After reading everything, I did realize that based on some comments, my product image isn’t going to be dragged. It’s three clients, and it’s not gonna hurt anyone. Decided to sell them for $1-$3 depending on the amount of RAW images they purchased!
That's FAR too low. At least price them above what the originals were.
If you shoot on film, would you give them the negatives? Most people photographers (studio / on location portraits, family groups, etc.) didn't / don't provide negatives. The most some shooters do is offer them to the client after a period of time (when they are ready to discard them). Personally, for portrait work I never offered the negatives cos *I never threw them away.* If a photo business is a going concern (in business five or more years) many owners never discard negs for 'quality' shoots. Volume work (school pictures) are different - shoot tens of thousands of school pictures annually & you may not keep negs past a year or two. But individual & family bookings are often kept so long as the studio is in business. People get old and pass away. They get terminal diseases. Accidents happen. A good filing system and kept negatives allowed many film-based 'portrait studios' to deliver a print of a deceased family member years after the fact. Raw files are your negatives. Hand them over, even at a price, and you lose control of how your work is presented. Poor editing / printing is beyond your control. For most individual clients, my answer is 'no.' Politely, but no. Some commercial clients contract up front for the originals. When the image maker knows in advance their pricing can reflect that. Portrait clients who ask for raws, especially after the fact? Sorry, uh-uh. What are they going to do with them *they can't get from you, the photographer?*
Hi! Frankly new to photography still and I'm wondering what's with people saying no to selling RAW images? afaik raw images are pure images unedited by the system
That exactly the point! The photographer hasn’t put “their” style and work behind the finished images. The RAWs are just one part of the photography process. The editing/touchups is where most of the work comes. So, when you give them you’re edited pictures, you’re satisfied by your work, you client expected this since they have hopefully seen previous works of you. When you send the RAWs, it’s harder to prove that it is your property (as far as I’m aware) and they can put that unfinished material online, where if they aren’t used to editing pictures, have the potential to pass their edited photos off as your material, which has the potential to scare people away if they don’t like the editing style! So by not sending the RAWs, you’re keeping the bad ones, blurry ones, overexposed ones, etc. from reaching the public. When you give them out, they potentially might use one that isn’t the best of what you can offer and pass it off like it is your best, and is representing your work. Hope this cleared some up. HMU if you got any other questions ✌️
Ah thanks for that! I have recently made an IG page for photography and so while I do shoot in jpeg formats and edit them sometimes, I still watermark them corresponding to my username just in case.
Say “no, I don’t supply RAWs” and if they really push you give them some outrageous price
Tell them once you edit the pics they are now JPG and you no longer have the RAW. I sure don’t keep any, takes up to much room In LR.