Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Pro Business Discussion => Topic started by: Abdulrahman Aljabri on May 31, 2011, 02:35:52 pm
-
By raw I don't mean necessarily RAW format files but rather files that have not been edited, or files straight out from the camera. Remember that raw files may not represent your final vision as a professional. The pictures might also badly need very basic adjustments like color correction contrast, etc. I am curious if you, as professionals, are willing to provide the files raw.
-
Generally no-once I guess I gave the raw files on a very lucrative shoot of lighting fixtures. When asked they had no explanation why they wanted them and they ended up using my processed files anyway.
-
Never.
+1 - NEVER.
I tend to be supplying prints only - although occasionally I license images to clients for their purpose; in which case they get a finalised processed TIFF that is my vision.
I see handing a RAW over to a client the equivalent of giving them the ingredients to bake the cake without the recipe (me). Not a good idea.
-
Only in special instances. And those don't happen very often.
I don't think most clients really want to screw around processing files.
But for the sake of argument, lets go back in time.
I used to shoot 4x5 chrome by the case load. I had it processed, picked the brackets and delivered it.
The agency had it scanned and retouched as needed ( not). One could argue they got the "raws"
As a general rule I was mostly happy with this workflow. Once in a blue moon something I wanted fixed in post did not get done. Still we made a lot of images and a lot of money.
Enter digital...
Now I shoot with post processing in mind, which allows me to do things that were near impossible with 4x5 chrome. Not on every shot of course but quite a few. And I can fix things to my satisfaction before the files leave.
When i have been asked for raws, that's the argument I put forth.
But somedays after staring at the monitor for way too long, delivering a box full of chromes seems like a really good idea :)
-
Had what turned out to be a very bad client ask me for JPEGs straight off-camera after doing a quick available-light shoot at their offices (among other work including publication design). I told them I only shot RAW (which was not true, as I had the camera set to RAW+JPG that day) because there was no way I would give them unprocessed files. Needed to balance flash with fluoros for instance.
The situation here in Australia is much more fluid than in the US where copyright and paid usage is more widespread and accepted. And it may be so for Abdul too. Just noting the *rahman*, Abdul; are you in Malaysia or nearby?
-
This should be spelled out in your agreement with the client.
-
When I deliver a print or a digital file to a client it is my best work. The only thing 99% of clients can do to a raw file is make it garbage.
-
Generally no
Never.
+1 - NEVER.
Only in special instances. And those don't happen very often.
because there was no way I would give them unprocessed files.
That's what I thought and this is a good summary for the reason:
When I deliver a print or a digital file to a client it is my best work. The only thing 99% of clients can do to a raw file is make it garbage.
THANKS ALL FOR POSTING!
-
The situation here in Australia is much more fluid than in the US where copyright and paid usage is more widespread and accepted. And it may be so for Abdul too. Just noting the *rahman*, Abdul; are you in Malaysia or nearby?
"copyright" what is that, lol? I am in Saudi Arabia man. Customers here demand raws and it seems I am the only one in the business that is saying NO! and I made a habit of saying no and the more I say no the better my work is getting.
This should be spelled out in your agreement with the client.
I do, along with the fact that I state down payment and full payment terms and clients try to ignore everything.
-
One more point: I've seen newlyweds post ALL their wedding shots onto Facebook, Flickr, etc. You can imagine that they bought all the digital files from the photographer and rather go through the editing and polishing any thinking photographer would do before delivery, they simply plastered the internet with dozens of crappy images along with the all-too-few good ones. And if they were the raw files they'd be doubly bad. I'd cringe with having my name associated with such a hodgepodge.
-
Customers here demand raws and it seems I am the only one in the business that is saying NO! and I made a habit of saying no and the more I say no the better my work is getting.
Not to tell you what to do but if you find yourself in a situation where you MUST supply "raws" I would suggest that you go ahead and process the raws for tone and color and embed the settings and IPTC metadata wrapped inside a DNG. At least then, you'll be sure that the image will look "right" at the point you give the file over and your metadata will be intact. I would also suggest burning the files onto DVD so that you can be sure that any changes the client makes to the file will not be reflected in the delivered files-in the event they screw up the images AFTER you've turned them over.
As for giving the unprocessed raw files, you really want to tell them no (nicely) because the raw file is, well the raw file and won't have your special touch and skill applied to them. Really, you want to tell them no in a way that makes you look more professional than the rest of the shooters who are giving unprocessed raws away...
-
As for giving the unprocessed raw files, you really want to tell them no (nicely) because the raw file is, well the raw file and won't have your special touch and skill applied to them. Really, you want to tell them no in a way that makes you look more professional than the rest of the shooters who are giving unprocessed raws away...
Nicely the first time, neutrally the second time, and harshly the third time. You might wonder why repeat three times? Because some clients intend to keep asking until you agree, it's a pressure tactic used by some clients who want your professional quality but don't respect your professional guidelines.
-
If I may take the topic to a different path, what about final image selection? Say you have several life-style pictures for one theme, do you choose the final pictures to deliver or is it the client, or maybe 50/50 collaboration?
-
If I may take the topic to a different path, what about final image selection? Say you have several life-style pictures for one theme, do you choose the final pictures to deliver or is it the client, or maybe 50/50 collaboration?
This is a difficult one, because the client is [usually] extremely subjective about their work/business, whereas suppliers like us should maintain a disinterested attitude (not uninterested).
I cull bad pix for [lack of] focus, exposure etc., but there have been times (for example) where a person with closed eyes in a group may be clonable from a less-good shot. But I would not deliver the less-good shot to the client; instead I would do the retouching first, or tell the client that I could look for a reject shot that may contain a better version of that person’s mug.
Funniest example of giving the client too much information was when I supplied a client with two (or three) proofs of some artwork—I do print design too. I deliberately made a version that was extremely fugly, and the client loved it! Needless to say, that job did not become part of my portfolio. At least I got paid …
-
This is a difficult one, because the client is [usually] extremely subjective about their work/business, whereas suppliers like us should maintain a disinterested attitude (not uninterested).
I tell my clients who are interested in picking the pictures that it is a collaboration between us and that they need to consider that I make my comments from a professional standpoint.
I cull bad pix for [lack of] focus, exposure etc., but there have been times (for example) where a person with closed eyes in a group may be clonable from a less-good shot. But I would not deliver the less-good shot to the client; instead I would do the retouching first, or tell the client that I could look for a reject shot that may contain a better version of that person’s mug.
your approach makes sense
Funniest example of giving the client too much information was when I supplied a client with two (or three) proofs of some artwork—I do print design too. I deliberately made a version that was extremely fugly, and the client loved it! Needless to say, that job did not become part of my portfolio. At least I got paid …
lol, sad but it does happen sometimes.
[/quote]
-
I made a big mistake by not making it clear that I wanted the RAW files from a photographer friend I hired to take a 25 person family group shot last Christmas. I knew he was familiar with the digital work flow and that he had both the lighting setup (for my home) and the experience in shooting group shots. And I told him I wanted only the digital files so that I could work with them and print them myself. He was there for about an hour setting up and getting everything ready for us to line up in our living room. I repeated that I wanted only the digital files so that I could do all the cropping, editing, etc.
A few days later I pickup up the disk from his studio and wondered if all the files fit on it. He said there was plenty of room as they were all jpgs! I was astounded that he shot only jpgs when he knew I was going to be working on them swapping heads, etc. I was further astounded and dismayed to learn that he didn't even use the highest jpg resolution available for his camera for capture! He replied that the lower resolution was just fine in all the work he usually did for clients.
Needless to say I spent hours cleaning those images of the artifacts, noise and other sundry problems inherent with all his in-camera settings so that I could print decent quality 11x14s. Don't even get me started with the sharpening problems. Luckily I know enough PS and NIK to work around lots of the problems but I learned my raw lesson the hard way.
-
I made a big mistake by not making it clear that I wanted the RAW files from a photographer friend I hired to take a 25 person family group shot last Christmas. I knew he was familiar with the digital work flow and that he had both the lighting setup (for my home) and the experience in shooting group shots. And I told him I wanted only the digital files so that I could work with them and print them myself. He was there for about an hour setting up and getting everything ready for us to line up in our living room. I repeated that I wanted only the digital files so that I could do all the cropping, editing, etc.
A few days later I pickup up the disk from his studio and wondered if all the files fit on it. He said there was plenty of room as they were all jpgs! I was astounded that he shot only jpgs when he knew I was going to be working on them swapping heads, etc. I was further astounded and dismayed to learn that he didn't even use the highest jpg resolution available for his camera for capture! He replied that the lower resolution was just fine in all the work he usually did for clients.
Needless to say I spent hours cleaning those images of the artifacts, noise and other sundry problems inherent with all his in-camera settings so that I could print decent quality 11x14s. Don't even get me started with the sharpening problems. Luckily I know enough PS and NIK to work around lots of the problems but I learned my raw lesson the hard way.
There is a large range of photographers in the industry. Its a good rule of thumb to assume that any good to great photographer will not provide his raw files by default unless there is an agreement with a clear intent.
-
My friend said he never had any need to even capture raw files. My mistake was not to require him specifically to take raw files. I assumed that he surely did so every time.
-
No I don't give unedited or unprocessed images to anyone.
I see every project as my most current "portfolio" one that I have no control over. I'd never take a chance that a CD wouldn't be handed off without an explanation as to what the contents are.
I wouldn't expect an editor to remember that a certain CD was everything including outtakes, while another was the finished project.
I also always add the ITPC and other metadata especially my copyright info.
As for camera RAW files, yes I have allowed certain clients, or more specifically their desk-top publisher, to process files for their own unique requirements. This has always been talked about beforehand.
-
No I don't give unedited or unprocessed images to anyone.
I see every project as my most current "portfolio" one that I have no control over. I'd never take a chance that a CD wouldn't be handed off without an explanation as to what the contents are.
I wouldn't expect an editor to remember that a certain CD was everything including outtakes, while another was the finished project.
I also always add the ITPC and other metadata especially my copyright info.
As for camera RAW files, yes I have allowed certain clients, or more specifically their desk-top publisher, to process files for their own unique requirements. This has always been talked about beforehand.
Thanks for the feedback, how do you add information to the metadata?
-
There are many ways to add metadata and/or keywords, I like and use Bridge a component of PhotoShop.
Geting back to the question at hand, I have supplied a raw file once to a client who insisted it was necessary. The retoucher was genius and actually got more out of the file than I did. But this was years ago, and with my evolved skills and the exceptional software now available there is no reason to supply a raw.
-
I work for a media company (as a private contractor) and ALL my work belongs to my client, be it RAW or otherwise.
Where? In the USA? If so then no, as a private contractor (vs a paid employee) the copyright to the work you produce is yours unless you've explicitly signed a contract granting ownership to the contracting party–which a really bad idea to do.
It's one thing to grant broad rights–meaning virtually everything, and it's completely different to have never been considered the author of the photo in the first place.
Work For Hire is a really bad word when applied to non-employee situations. Unless you are a full time employee with all the benefits of being an employee health/dental/disability insurance, employer paying for your place of business and all equipment used in your line of work, you are a freelancer being exploited by being called a "private contractor".
-
Not sure why I or anyone of the other working photographers would insist on copyright on these images especially when we're taking them on behalf of someone else.
Are you new to this game?
-
I like your "Socialist" way of looking at employment, and yes, a health/dental/disability plan would be fantastic, but in reality you probably need to be working for the Government or a national/international corporation these days to enjoy all these glorious benefits.
So...you aren't in the USA? That explains a lot (unfortunately).
All indicators are you are being exploited...sorry, but true.
If you are expected (in your normal role as a creative shooter) to hand over the original raw files and have zero claim over their final exploitation then yes, you are being exploited.
It ain't "socialist" bud, it's capitalism and boils down to the relative value of what you are providing to those that are exploiting you. If you are an independent contractor and not being provided with the various benefits required by US law, then what you create does not fall under the heading of work-for-hire. "Google" it to know what I'm talking about).
Bottom line, based on US Copywrite Law (and the Bern Convention) unless you sign away the rights explicitly, you own all the rights to exploit your images(the copyright)...if you choose not to, that's your burden to bare...but USA photographers have fought very hard to mitigate this issue as a normal course of doing business.
If you fall under the heading of being exploited (meaning being spreading your legs and claiming to enjoy it) so be it. It would be useful to state where you are working and what agreements your signed that make your statements so, well, truly pathetic.
-
You seem to have “employment” confused with “exploitation”.
I suspect way too much time on PhotoShop manipulating images and not enough time spent in the real world.
It's spelled Photohop, no inter-cap...
And no, having been the national president of APA (Advertising Photographers of America) I do actually know a bit about what I'm talking about. A photographer that has NOT agreed to a Work-For-Hire agreement (in the good ol' USA) in advance of an assignment is the author of the copywrited work the moment the work is created (shot). If you agree to grant the commissioning party the ownership of the work (in writing) then more the fool you...
Been there, have the Tee Shirts, don't want the feedback (blowback).
If you have no pride and no sense of ownership (authorship) then you deserve the results you seem to expect. In the USA, unless you sign an agreement to the contrary, the photographer owns the copyright to the the original art they create. You might want to look into copyrights. Perhaps it may have an impact in the country to work in (or not).
Really, is this a fight you want to have? You really want to stand up and state you have no authorship (control) of the work you create? Really? Do you care so little about the work you create?
Sorry, I hav just a bit more self-respect than you seem to have...
-
this kind of copyright problem seems to be more or less an us problem.
i'm from europe and working for a media comp. as well, and see it more like west1.
maybe it's a compensation problem: i'm paid very good as well and don't care much about the copyright of daily news pix.
schewes concept of being "proud" of one's pics seems very american as well, to me. i live in a free country, surrounded by friendly people and good social basics. our job is no struggle for life, our contractors are no enemies.
don't worry, be happy.
-
Work For Hire is a really bad word when applied to non-employee situations. Unless you are a full time employee with all the benefits of being an employee health/dental/disability insurance, employer paying for your place of business and all equipment used in your line of work, you are a freelancer being exploited by being called a "private contractor".
In Australia, a freelancer owns copyright, unless otherwise negotiated before hand. In this jurisdiction, copyright is automatically applied on creation, though some sort of publication can be useful. From the Copyright Act 1968 (Commonwealth):
“Freelance photographers, engravers and people doing portraits. Freelance creators usually own copyright in what they create. Someone who pays for work to be created will generally not own copyright, but will be able to use it for the purposes for which it was commissioned. However, there are a number of situations where someone who commissions another person to create material for them will own copyright under the rules set out in the Copyright Act. This is the case in relation to commissioned portraits and engravings, and is sometimes the case for photographs.”
-
Only to professional clients that specifically request them and that I can trust. i.e. that I know they have quality professional photo processers and editors there.
Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk
-
this kind of copyright problem seems to be more or less an us problem.
i'm from europe and working for a media comp. as well, and see it more like west1.
Issues regarding copyright aren't much different in Europe to the US. Working in magazine editorial, it's a constant battle to keep copyright. But it's a battle worth fighting, as you can more than double your income by reselling pictures.
It sounds like both you and West1 work full time for news agencies who syndicate your work. You're paid highly, and in exchange you hand over your copyright. I don't see a problem with that.
-
Hi,
If you are Canadian, then reading the short note on http://www.ppoc.ca/copyright.php may surprise you. If someone pays you to photograph (portrait, wedding, whatever) that someone, person or other entity, owns the copyright. So make sure that you word your contracts very clearly so that copyright is assigned to you before accepting a commission, that way your work remains your propeerty.
Jean-Michel
-
By raw I don't mean necessarily RAW format files but rather files that have not been edited, or files straight out from the camera. Remember that raw files may not represent your final vision as a professional. The pictures might also badly need very basic adjustments like color correction contrast, etc. I am curious if you, as professionals, are willing to provide the files raw.
Never the raw file format, but in some kinds of work the client will want to pick their selection from the day's shoot. You generally give them a JPEG gallery of untouched images. Perhaps I will do a colour balance and some contrast if the pics look too bad without it, but that's about it - just one or two batch processes.
-
Never, :)
-
I never give a RAW file to a client. I generally deliver my files in 3 formats: Tiff 8bit with the good level of accentuation, JPEG12 (from the 8bit file), and jpeg 8 144dpi 30x40cm. Allways with a ©. I can possibly deliver some selections to the request, but it is rare. The Tiffs without background are given with their transparent layer.
My personal files are stored in 16 bit, with different layers and selections necessary for any different subsequent postproduction. Without any accentuation, in Tiff RGB LZW format.
PdF
-
My personal files are stored in 16 bit, with different layers and selections necessary for any different subsequent postproduction. Without any accentuation, in Tiff RGB LZW format.
You might want to rethink the LZW compression and switch ti zip compression. 16 bit LZW compressed files are sometimes bigger than the uncompressed 16 bit files because LZW doesn't work really well on 16 bit files. Zip will produce the smallest 16 bit compressed files. Both BTW are lossless compression.
-
Zip will produce the smallest 16 bit compressed files. Both BTW are lossless compression.
I’ve switched to ZIP. Lev-Zempel-Welch was good in its day, but times move on.
-
It has been an occasional question between those in the business and here is my two cents worth. I provide them raw images (the one without editing) but I still subject them to my choices. I do not give those which are not pleasing to work with. Or, you would not want to give them a lot of choices or that would just prolong the period in which they should be coming up with a list.
What I try to do is, give them at most 2 options for specific shots and just 1 for those which are on a comparable level as the others. So basically, raw after my own choosing.
-
<<You might want to rethink the LZW compression and switch ti zip compression. 16 bit LZW compressed files are sometimes bigger than the uncompressed 16 bit files because LZW doesn't work really well on 16 bit files. Zip will produce the smallest 16 bit compressed files. Both BTW are lossless compression.>>
That may be true. I will try to see the Zip. Although, ideally, a file for the backup should not be compressed (not even LZW). Who knows if in a few years, these compression programs will still be operational?
PdF
-
<<You might want to rethink the LZW compression and switch ti zip compression. 16 bit LZW compressed files are sometimes bigger than the uncompressed 16 bit files because LZW doesn't work really well on 16 bit files. Zip will produce the smallest 16 bit compressed files. Both BTW are lossless compression.>>
That may be true. I will try to see the Zip. Although, ideally, a file for the backup should not be compressed (not even LZW). Who knows if in a few years, these compression programs will still be operational?
While that is a prudent approach in general, LZW is widely known and used algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch), and the knowledge of how to uncompress it is as unlikely to disappear as TIFF itself. Media (CD/DVD/HDD/tape/etc) will be unreadable much quicker due to media corruption and standards obsolescence.
-
While that is a prudent approach in general, LZW is widely known and used algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch), and the knowledge of how to uncompress it is as unlikely to disappear as TIFF itself.
Correct, but in the case of 16 bit image files, it's a suboptimal compression. Seriously, I've gotten LZW compressed files from 16 bit image that were larger after compression than before compression. Kinda defeats the purpose of compression...
-
While that is a prudent approach in general, LZW is widely known and used algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lempel%E2%80%93Ziv%E2%80%93Welch), and the knowledge of how to uncompress it is as unlikely to disappear as TIFF itself. Media (CD/DVD/HDD/tape/etc) will be unreadable much quicker due to media corruption and standards obsolescence.
Feppe
zip is probably used more than tiff and the sourcecode is as freeware available.
-
zip is probably used more than tiff and the sourcecode is as freeware available.
TIFF is a file format, and ZIP is a compression format—not at all the same thing. Still, ZIP is ubiquitous, and well-documented.