Wedding Pics & RAW Files (Page 2): Annie, you gave the best answer. Case closed. Any lawyer or judge will agree with her answer. The Photogs have rights to their...

salvofoto Loc: Los Angeles

Annie, you gave the best answer. Case closed. Any lawyer or judge will agree with her answer. The Photogs have rights to their photos....copyright....and have to be paid extra if you want them to give you the RAW files or Negs/Digital or not. You'll have to 'buy' them aside from the fee you are paying them to shoot for you. These is the correct way to transact this business.

rrh69 Loc: Hampton, VA

The Captain is right. I know of no professional that would provide his/her raw files without specific limitations and a hefty fee.
The Colonel, CPP

Jollypapa Loc: Scotland

Something like Adobe giving the code with their software?

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

Annie_Girl wrote:

Same here, actually you would be surprised how many times this is asked and how often you will find insulted photographers complaining about the balls of clients who even ask this before booking all over photography forms. It would be considered even more in bad taste coming from a fellow photographer.

I agree. In the old as days you didn't get to buy the negatives.

Atomicmechanic Loc: Corinth New York

Across the Pond here in America, most pros keep the original negatives, or digital files. If it was a small wedding, especially during the week I normally included the negatives or digital files for a small fee if the couple wanted them. I certainly didn't get rich from reprints, so it was a good way for me to make a little extra money, and I didn't have to file away the negatives or digital files. Plus if that couple was happy, they normally referred more clients to me, so it was a win win situation for me. So my advice for you is to find a photographer that you are comfortable with, you like his previous work, and then work it out to get what you want. In this day and age there is a lot more competition and it might just be in your best interest. Congratulations and Good Luck.

floridamet

Most pro will not give you their files. That is where they make their money.
2nd the files do not belong to you.
3rd if you want the files go to someone that freelance.
4th you get what your paying
5th pros spent years learning their craft

Floyd Loc: Misplaced Texan in Florence, Alabama

Legally, X-Rays, taken of you and even of your innards, belong to the facility that made the images; i.e., their time, their equipment, their personnel, etc. No difference with a photographer. Your argument that because it is a picture of you, it belongs to you is false and was settled in courts long ago. Unless, agreed to in a separate contract, all you are purchasing is the product the producer chooses to release.

floridamet

you paid for his/her service and nothing more. If you want the file expect to pay.
You never own the negative/files. They belong to the photographer. As I said before find an amateur at a local camera store or a camera club. they might do it for the experience.
But you get what you are paying. No or little experience. Also remember that pro knows what to shoot, good lighting, good posing and fast. Also you will enjoy the day.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Wezza1977uk wrote:

Hi guys havent posted for a while as have been pre... (show quote)

Wezza, although you pay the photographer, unless it is specified in the contract, at least here on this side of the pond, the photographer owns the originals.

I, personally, see no issue in negotiating a fee that includes copies of the original RAW files. The photographer can still keep his "originals" and provide you with copies.

The only issue I really see with this is that my RAW files look nothing like the finished product/print. This could cause a photographer to be concerned about what you might think of their work, since a lot of errors could be masked in post processing.

Just my couple of cents worth.
--Bob

Luki Loc: New York

Skellum0 wrote:

What he said

What he said to what he said. If you find someone to give you the RaW files, expect to pay top dollar, as they make a good portion of their money on prints, albums, etc.

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

A fascinating discussion that I'd not thought about before- thanks lads and lasses.
Just a thought- surely a confident professional photographer under circumstances like these would be happy to have the client sit with her or him when manipulating the images- at a presumably large price, of course. That would at least allow for the client's personal preference. Or am I opening another can of worms?
Let's see...

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Jackdoor wrote:

A fascinating discussion that I'd not thought about before- thanks lads and lasses.
Just a thought- surely a confident professional photographer under circumstances like these would be happy to have the client sit with her or him when manipulating the images- at a presumably large price, of course. That would at least allow for the client's personal preference. Or am I opening another can of worms?
Let's see...

Yes, an EXTREMELY large can.

The customer's 'preference' is irrelevant at this point.

The photographer was hired at least partly based on his/her style and finished quality.

It also means that the photographer would now have to set an appointment to have the client come in and be with them WHILE they edited, instead of doing it late night/early morning, in their PJ's, drinking coffee. And they couldn't be doing other financially productive activities.

The "presumably large price", would have to be OBSCENELY large.

Does your car mechanic allow you into his garage to watch (and help) him diagnose and fix your car?

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

Does your car mechanic allow you into his garage to watch (and help) him diagnose and fix your car?[/quote]

Umm- yes. But he's a mate!

I do realise it's a big ask, with lots of difficulties, but as a doc, I wouldn't dream of just bashing on and doing what I think is right for the patient, without deeply involving them. Surely there's some room for compromise when someone feels the same way about their wedding photos?

dfchief7

The photos do belong to you as long as you do not use them to make money commercially. Then, that is not legal and the photographer can sue you.

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Wall-E wrote:

Does your car mechanic allow you into his garage to watch (and help) him diagnose and fix your car?

Jackdoor wrote:

Umm- yes. But he's a mate!

I do realise it's a big ask, with lots of difficulties, but as a doc, I wouldn't dream of just bashing on and doing what I think is right for the patient, without deeply involving them. Surely there's some room for compromise when someone feels the same way about their wedding photos?

Like I said, the photographer was at least partly hired for their style. Having the client STANDING OVER THEIR SHOULDER, watching and complaining about what the RAW images look like, much less the editing being done, is just unacceptable to anyone with half a brain.

All these types of things need to be worked out/explained during the consultation(s) prior to booking the job.

There is currently a similar thread on a wedding photog forum. Almost all second the idea that RAW images should NEVER be let out.

RAW images look flat, lifeless and un-sharp.

Never let the public/client see anything but your best work.

Jackdoor: Would you want current patients see the first dissection you did in med school?
Or only your latest (and hopefully greatest) work?