{"id":510,"date":"2017-11-28T16:02:33","date_gmt":"2017-11-28T23:02:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ghosh.com\/blog\/?p=510"},"modified":"2020-04-29T19:46:41","modified_gmt":"2020-04-30T02:46:41","slug":"provide-raw-images","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ghosh.com\/blog\/provide-raw-images\/","title":{"rendered":"Why You Should Choose Photographers Who Will Provide RAW Images"},"content":{"rendered":"

I’m an advanced hobby photographer.\u00a0 I take lots of photos of my family, but alas, am rarely in any myself.\u00a0 Occasionally, I’d like to hire a professional photographer to take family photos.\u00a0 But I don’t need them to edit the photos because I’m experienced at editing.\u00a0 In fact, because photos are such valuable personal memories, I’ll spend more time and effort editing photos of my family than any pro photographer would find cost effective.\u00a0 But to edit quality photos properly, you should start with original RAW images.\u00a0 These are like having the negatives back in film days.<\/p>\n

However, I’m baffled how many professional photographers refuse to provide the RAW images.\u00a0 They usually simply reply to my request with, “This is not something I offer”, or “It’s not my policy.”\u00a0 Back in film days, it was common to withhold negatives because it forced the client to come back to the photographer for more prints, off of which they made profit.<\/p>\n

But with digital images, prints are not always the objective, and you can still print as many copies from a high res JPG file.\u00a0 So why do some photographers refuse to provide RAW images?<\/p>\n

Here’re some of the arguments I’ve heard:<\/p>\n

\n

“The final deliverable is my work of art.”<\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ok, I get that.\u00a0 Obviously, it’s less work and cheaper to not have to edit; but if you want to include edits, then do so, and include that in your price quote.\u00a0 The client can still edit your edited JPG, which will most likely look worse (e.g., grainier) than editing the original.\u00a0 Plus, the client is better equipped to pick meaningful photos — e.g., maybe the expression of child in one photo is meaningful to the client, but not to the photographer who throws it away in preference of a slightly better exposed alternative.<\/p>\n

\n

“I have to protect my brand.”<\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

There are plenty of ways to still protect your brand without withholding RAW files.\u00a0 For example, you could make it conditional that the photographer be credited only for the photos that s\/he has edited.\u00a0 Or perhaps require approval of an edited photo before using the photographer’s name.\u00a0 \u00a0These conditions can easily be explained and required in the commercial agreement.<\/p>\n

Besides, again, the client can always edit a JPG file, which will probably look worse than editing a RAW file anyway.<\/p>\n

\n

“RAW images are bad.”<\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Most people do not want RAW images; they wouldn’t even know what to do with them.\u00a0 Anyone who is asking for RAW images knows how to edit them and is experienced enough to know that exposure tests are taken, that sometimes someone’s eyes are closed, a stranger walks through the background.<\/p>\n

And some clients may rather spend the time Photoshopping out a background stranger in order to keep the familiar child’s expression available only in that one image.\u00a0 The client will be far more satisfied with that more meaningful image anyway.<\/p>\n

\n

“It’s like paying a painter for their canvas.”<\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I really don’t understand this argument.\u00a0 When you purchase a painting, the canvas is included.\u00a0 Perhaps they mean purchasing a print, and that’s really the difference.\u00a0 Some photographers are just selling you (digital) “prints”.\u00a0 But that doesn’t add up.\u00a0 Buying a print of a painting costs a fraction of the original.\u00a0 Thus, if a pro photographer is already charging $hundreds an hour just for prints, then that implies it would cost $thousands per hour to get their RAWs.\u00a0 Are they really worth $millions per year?<\/p>\n

Another analogy: When you hire a programmer to write a program for you, you almost invariably own the source code, which you can then modify, license, do with whatever you’d like.\u00a0 Even programmers do not charge $thousands per hour.<\/p>\n

\n

“It’s not as impressive as giving them post processed photos.”<\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Fine.\u00a0 Then provide both.\u00a0 If your value is so great in post-processing, then it’ll be even more evident by providing the original and hard to reproduce.\u00a0 I’ve shot literally with world-renown National Geographic cover photographers.\u00a0 I find that the top photographers believe that the best images are captured well in the first place; they try to rely as little as possible on post-processing.<\/p>\n

\n

“The client may use the meta info to hire cheaper photographer.”<\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The argument is here is that the client might use the meta settings to learn the exposure and equipment settings the photographer used, and then hire a cheaper photographer to recreate the same photos.\u00a0 First, this is impossible for any event shooting that can only happen once (e.g., weddings) and impractical for most family shoots, etc.\u00a0 Who’s going to recreate a wedding or family get together?\u00a0 Second, if the photos are so easily recreated from the same settings, then how much value is that photographer adding?\u00a0 Good photography is much more than settings and equipment.<\/p>\n

\n

“Clients pay the photographer to pick out the best.”<\/h2>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Sure, some may, but I bet those aren’t the folks asking for RAW files.\u00a0 \u00a0The reality is that these photos will matter way more to client than the photographer, so the client is more likely to put greater time into selecting and editing photos, and is more likely to find a gem hidden in the rough (that the photographer might not appreciate – like a familiar child’s expression).\u00a0 Why limit their choice and limit their editing with JPGs if that’s not what they want?<\/p>\n

Perhaps the real reason is under the surface, and not stated.\u00a0 For example, I suspect these photographers don’t want the client to see their “mistakes”.\u00a0 \u00a0But I suspect anyone who asks for RAW images is experienced enough to know everyone, even the best, take some shots that need straightening, cropping, or exposure correction.\u00a0 In other words, asking for the RAW images is probably self-selection enough.<\/p>\n

Besides, photographers, if the client really wants to edit your work, they will.\u00a0 Withholding RAWs doesn’t really inhibit them much.\u00a0 All it does is ensures they’ll have even worse results because they’re limited to editing JPGs.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, RAW pushback excuses come across as red herrings and look like the photographer wants to lock you into coming back to them for additional business.\u00a0 It seems too photographer-centric.\u00a0 E.g., What if the photographer goes out of business or my great-great-grandkids want to edit the images with advanced tools of the future?\u00a0 Business has taught me that successful businesses focus on clients first.<\/p>\n

If you don’t know what to do with RAW images or why you’d want them, don’t ask for them.\u00a0 However, if you do, the good news is that you can find photographers that provide RAW images, but you may have to dig a little.\u00a0 If you want the RAW original images and need no editing by the photographer, just ask for “Shoot & Burn,” and get agreement up front before the shoot.\u00a0 I find that the really skilled photographers, who can capture images well in the camera with little need for post processing, have no problem providing RAW images.\u00a0 These are the photographers you probably want to use anyway.\u00a0 So maybe asking for RAW images works well for self-selection the other way too.<\/p>\n<\/div>