Photographer
Raw and the cooked
Posts: 956
London, England, United Kingdom
Never again ( except for money!)
Photographer
Bravoscape
Posts: 259
Frederick, Maryland, US
Check out the thread about the photog being sued. He gave all images and someone is saying he is incompetent.
I only give out the acceptable shots on disc, usually in a degraded, lower resolution format.
Photographer
Dan D Lyons Imagery
Posts: 3447
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
No, what are they going to do with them? I never give RAW and I never give full res. Unless of course that's what the project is for. Ever. Not for free. Test-shoots get low-res web-images plus a portfolio-print (I'm known for my prints  ). For creatives, I'm open to negotiating a high-res image or even two prepared in the same way I prep editorial-pix (all talents credited, no manipulation of the images/drastic re-sizing/cropping/etc stipulations). If by "raw" it is understood as 'untouched/unmanipulated', I ask this: why would I give something away incomplete for free? Speaking personally (and I know many hold a similar attitude), I begin creation of an image by planning the elements going into it then capturing it right, then I have a wealth of steps I take until I have a finished product. Even the conversion-process is a vital step!
I'd rather jerk-off with sandpaper than give away unfinished images free. To anyone!
IMHO alone, as always;
Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site)
Photographer
Ally Moy
Posts: 416
New York, New York, US
Actual RAW file- no. Un-processed file- no. Un-retouched file-yes. I know unretouched images can be valuable for a model when booking or showing to an agency so that's fine. It doesn't reflect on my work negatively or anything. I'm assuming half of these requests are from botched up communication.
Photographer
KModel Photography
Posts: 280
Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand
Never raw. Never full PSD stacks. Even for money.
Only flat images, or at most a couple of layers if there is an alternate composition to a retoucher or graphic artist.
For TF* the largest I give is 800px (on longest edge). If the client wants a print, then I usually organize that.
Photographer
Michael Paolini
Posts: 33
Austin, Texas, US
Actually yes. Though just in the last year when I had a sucesful full time photographer turn me around on this.
The value is in the edited photos not the RAWs or the unedited. Really thee are 2 classes of product here, the out of the camera photos which are essentially worth very little (but make people happy and can be result in great word of mouth), and those which are then edited into premium stunning works. (The web calls this business model Freemium by the way, and it is everywhere).
Being insecure about giving out the RAWs is being insecure about both your photography and you editing. Either yor worried your photos look like junk without editing (in which case go back to basic and learn what you missed to address this) or your worried that someone may edit your files better than you (in which case you should hire a retoucher or go learn what you are missing).
(Worth also saying is thee one worry you should not have is that they edit the file to look awful and post it - because if you've done your job right they've already got an incredible looking photo and they won't want to post crap next to it.)
Bottom line, if your doing your job right, they'll want you edited images rather than your RAW or unedited ones, and if they are still asking for your RAWs it time to look at the quality of your edits and get an honest second opinion from a professional.
Photographer
Sam Cook Photography
Posts: 113
Los Angeles, California, US
Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
I have been doing Trade like crazy this past month to fill out some clothed stuff for my portfolio. And I have been getting a lot of requests for my RAWs (I do NOT give those out)..
So.. this is more of a Poll really than anything because I'm just if there are photographers out there doing it (personally I don't care, as I'm not changing my policy)
Just a curiosity poll is all  No, llamas would not know what to do with raw images let alone have the software to open it or edit it. And if they do edit it, they'll do retarded things to the image to make it look 'cool'.
They are llamas and we are the photographers, there's a reason for that.
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, US
Sam Cook Photography wrote:
No, models would not know what to do with raw images let alone have the software to open it or edit it. And if they do edit it, they'll do retarded things to the image to make it look 'cool'. the same thing can be said of photographers. 
Photographer
AJ_In_Atlanta
Posts: 13053
Atlanta, Georgia, US
No. What is a model going to do with a hundred unedited images? I edit down to the best 2-3 per look and send them over, then they can choose what ones they want to use.
Photographer
Sam Cook Photography
Posts: 113
Los Angeles, California, US
Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
the same thing can be said of photographers. True but that's still not a reason to give all your raw images to a model.
I just hired a guy to make a new driveway for my house. Is he going to drop off a wheelbarrow full of concrete and a shovel for me? No, he's going to complete the job that I paid for, the job that I hired him to do because he has the expertise to do it. Not me.
Some of you guys might as well just give your cameras to the models, put it on a tripod, and let her push the remote shutter to do all her pictures herself. What are you there for?
Furthermore, how many models do you know truly understand white balance and how to adjust it? (not many photographers either, lol). It's a ridiculous notion to give models raw images.
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, US
Sam Cook Photography wrote:
True but that's still not a reason to give all your raw images to a model.
I just hired a guy to make a new driveway for my house. Is he going to drop off a wheelbarrow full of concrete and a shovel for me? No, he's going to complete the job that I paid for, the job that I hired him to do because he has the expertise to do it. Not me.
Some of you guys might as well just give your cameras to the models, put it on a tripod, and let her push the remote shutter to do all her pictures herself. What are you there for?
Furthermore, how many models do you know truly understand white balance and how to adjust it? (not many photographers either, lol). It's a ridiculous notion to give models raw images. i know a lot of models that truly understand white balance and how to adjust it.
Photographer
Sarra Carol
Posts: 16
Motley, Minnesota, US
I won't give a raw file unless they have a real need for it. I haven't had an issue with giving fully edited jpeg images. I would take off filters and effects or gradients that I might have used, but if possible I wouldn't give them large files that aren't edited to the point that I'd like to see them posted.
I do provide in some cases a PDF of preview images 3x4 on a page so they can let me know their favorites.
Photographer
Dan D Lyons Imagery
Posts: 3447
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Michael Paolini wrote:
Actually yes. Though just in the last year when I had a sucesful full time photographer turn me around on this.
The value is in the edited photos not the RAWs or the unedited. Really thee are 2 classes of product here, the out of the camera photos which are essentially worth very little (but make people happy and can be result in great word of mouth), and those which are then edited into premium stunning works. (The web calls this business model Freemium by the way, and it is everywhere).
Being insecure about giving out the RAWs is being insecure about both your photography and you editing. Either yor worried your photos look like junk without editing (in which case go back to basic and learn what you missed to address this) or your worried that someone may edit your files better than you (in which case you should hire a retoucher or go learn what you are missing).
(Worth also saying is thee one worry you should not have is that they edit the file to look awful and post it - because if you've done your job right they've already got an incredible looking photo and they won't want to post crap next to it.)
Bottom line, if your doing your job right, they'll want you edited images rather than your RAW or unedited ones, and if they are still asking for your RAWs it time to look at the quality of your edits and get an honest second opinion from a professional. I shoot in a way that 75% of the work is done prior to conversion, and with a specific conversion and my decision on my take on a clients' desires the image is complete. It has nothing to do with insecurities, it relates to my desire to not devalue the work of other photographers. Thank you for broadcasting your position and approach sir, so when clients ask me for my 75%-complete images/RAWs and demand I sell it for 45% of the cost, I know one of 6the people causing the client to come to the conclusion this is acceptable  A little conscientiousness about your fellow photographer would be greatly appreciated.
IMHO alone, as always;
Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site)
Photographer
IrisSwope
Posts: 14857
Dallas, Texas, US
I usually give them some edited website photos first, then the full sized, then dropbox full of all the JPGs, minus the blurry, bad shots, etc.
They have the edited images first, so they rarely use the unedited JPGs.
Model
n p
Posts: 257
New York, New York, US
As a model I've had almost all my photographers I've worked with give me the RAW files. (except for like blurry, OBVIOUS bad shots they've decided to delete)
But under a few circumstances.
The reason I need RAWS (or the photag can send me a contact sheet where I can comfortable zoom in and observe the pics as much as I need to. this works for me too.)
is because it is a VERY important learning process for me. If photags only sent the few edited finals I'd never get to see what I was doing wrong/right through out the shoot. I want to study my poses, angles, and facial expression. I want to know what works and doesn't work. Without seeing my work I'll never learn.
Also, what the photographer may consider a great shot (through a photags perspective) may not be a great shot through a model's perspective.
Yeah yeah you're lighting is great but I just made a dumb expression that seeeemed to look good in front of the mirror earlier within the day.
And with this reasoning I've almost never had a problem with getting RAWS.
The circumstance I usually agree to is that I don't post/use any of the raws unless the photag is okay with it. (I usually pick out 2-4 pics that wasn't in the photag's selects and ask if he's/she's comfortable with me using them.)
Imo, both the photographer and model have a rep they want to keep solid. Its not fair if the photag says what goes and what stays without hearing a second opinion.
With that said I've had the unfortunate events where I've done 6hour shift shoots doing back bending poses (literally) only to get 3 final photos without ever seeing all the effort I've done throughout the shoot. Not to mention the utter disappointment where the mere 3 final photos are ones I'd never put in my port.
I only go by this standard on TF basis shoots.
Trade is a trade, esp if you can trust a model to stick to an agreement. (Thats what references are for.)
But sometimes photographers like to abuse their mighty powers since they have what models want; our shots.
Its not fair for those models who actually have goals and dreams for the industry and want to thrive, not just have pretty things to post on facebook.
Photographer
Shades Of Gray
Posts: 1054
Colorado Springs, Colorado, US
There is only one model (more of a muse, really) that I will give RAW image files to. She is damn good at editing and sometimes does better edits than I do. Also, she can be trusted not to display an image that I don't like. Otherwise, never ever will I give out RAW files.
Model
n p
Posts: 257
New York, New York, US
Michael Paolini wrote:
Being insecure about giving out the RAWs is being insecure about both your photography and you editing. Either yor worried your photos look like junk without editing (in which case go back to basic and learn what you missed to address this) or your worried that someone may edit your files better than you (in which case you should hire a retoucher or go learn what you are missing). this.
Photographers who don't want to show me the RAWS only show how insecure they are with their work, yes. Which is disappointing and regretful.
To be honest, 99.9% of the time, if I'm working with a skilled photographer and I don't like the picture, its because I don't like ME in it. I'll almost NEVER see the photographic flaws of it. And like I said in my previous post, I don't post anything that someone isn't comfy with.
The RAWS are just there for my personal llamaing edumacationnnnzz.
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, US
Michael Paolini wrote:
Being insecure about giving out the RAWs is being insecure about both your photography and you editing. Either yor worried your photos look like junk without editing (in which case go back to basic and learn what you missed to address this) or your worried that someone may edit your files better than you (in which case you should hire a retoucher or go learn what you are missing). Nicole Packs wrote:
this.
Photographers who don't want to show me the RAWS only show how insecure they are with their work, yes. Which is disappointing and regretful.
To be honest, 99.9% of the time, if I'm working with a skilled photographer and I don't like the picture, its because I don't like ME in it. I'll almost NEVER see the photographic flaws of it. And like I said in my previous post, I don't post anything that someone isn't comfy with.
The RAWS are just there for my personal modeling edumacationnnnzz. not this.
showing raw files and giving raw files are two different things.
if a model wants to look at all the photos from their shoot that's fine. i'm happy to help them and myself grow and learn as artists. but i don't give out raw files.
Photographer
Mike Hemming
Posts: 380
Easton, Maryland, US
Depends on the job, the llama, her skills and are we friends.
Last week I worked with a llama and gave her raw files of an experimental project Im working on.
She is a friend
She charged me very little for the session
She is skilled at PS.
Model
n p
Posts: 257
New York, New York, US
Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
showing raw files and giving raw files are two different things.
if a model wants to look at all the photos from their shoot that's fine. i'm happy to help them and myself grow and learn as artists. but i don't give out raw files. Thats absolutely fine.
As long as there isn't a giant, unnecessary, dense watermark where I can't see the picture clearly. Or a contact sheet with extreme low-res photos that blur incredibly when I zoom in one notch to see my face better.
That just kind of shows mistrust which creates uncomfortable vibes and another reason for me to regret working with a photag and never suggesting them.
If I give off a reason to be mistrusted (which I never have) or have my references say I'm awful to work with, then thats a different story.
You can give or show RAWS.
But you can also show or mask them.
Model
Cole Morrison
Posts: 3958
Portland, Oregon, US
as a model, there is no desire for a raw image. i wouldn't need that.
Photographer
Michael Paolini
Posts: 33
Austin, Texas, US
DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
I shoot in a way that 75% of the work is done prior to conversion, and with a specific conversion and my decision on my take on a clients' desires the image is complete. It has nothing to do with insecurities, it relates to my desire to not devalue the work of other photographers. Thank you for broadcasting your position and approach sir, so when clients ask me for my 75%-complete images/RAWs and demand I sell it for 45% of the cost, I know one of 6the people causing the client to come to the conclusion this is acceptable A little conscientiousness about your fellow photographer would be greatly appreciated.
IMHO alone, as always;
Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site) Danny,
First let me say while my intention is not to pick a fight, but to help you and other readers of the forum grow as photographers, I understand if you see this response as a personal attack rather than the constructive intervention I intend it to be. It's really not intended to be anything other than helpful.
If we look at photos you choose to represent your work publically, like this one for example
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 9#29082879
Art and composition merit aside, on the technical side these are little better than snapshots straight out of the camera, with no post or editing effort visible to the trained eye (meaning trained eyes see lots of places there should have been, but wasn't) - not even color correction. This is why you think there is value in your RAWs instead of your edited works - there is virtually no difference between your stuff straight out of the camera and what you produce in your post process. As a result they are of equal value and you see giving the RAWs out as giving away your value. That is a 1990's approach to photography - the new model is photographers develop the digital asset after, putting time and value into post to go further than going with cameras default choices (if you don't do post like this you might as well shoot JPeg instead of RAW). Or put another way, without post e best you can hope for is to look like everyone else who's letting the camera do all the work - which means you are at there pricing mercy.
So hard medicine here, relative to my post, I'd classify you as being in the category of needing to learn how to edit and Post or hire a post person to handle it for you. If you are a do it yourselfer, I'm happy to make some education suggestions to help with that.
1) Get a color vision test, particularly on hue right away. A free one is here
http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?pageid=77&lang=en
2) Learn (or relearn) about tone curves, contrast, and tonal range - I'd recommend the following free tutorial as a starting place (the whole site is excellent if you are willing to invest in education)
http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/curves/
3) Get some education update on the RAW converters and how to use them - I'm not sure which you are using or I'd make a suggestion.
4) Spend some time looking at professional photography sites and magazines to recalibrate your eye.
~mike
Photographer
RKD Photographic
Posts: 3265
Iserlohn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
Nicole Packs wrote:
this.
Photographers who don't want to show me the RAWS only show how insecure they are with their work, yes. Which is disappointing and regretful.
To be honest, 99.9% of the time, if I'm working with a skilled photographer and I don't like the picture, its because I don't like ME in it. I'll almost NEVER see the photographic flaws of it. And like I said in my previous post, I don't post anything that someone isn't comfy with.
The RAWS are just there for my personal modeling edumacationnnnzz. This is not quite the same thing as giving out RAW images: I have on occasion sent out lightly-watermarked, 1000x1500px JPEGs of unretouched images from a shoot to assist the learning-curve of the model (a simple enough job in Lightroom - just select all, click 'export', pick a destination folder and go and make a cup of tea), on the understanding that they are not to be used online or printed, but IMO that's not what most photographers are on about here: what we're talking about is the full-size, uncompressed RAW files straight from camera.
They're my negatives - I keep tight control over those...
Photographer
Paul Xanadu Photography
Posts: 782
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
It is no point to send a 105MB of RAW photo to model, unless he or she got an 8 or 12 cores computer with the right softwares to process it!
A 40MB JPEG of edited photo is good enough for any model's portfolio :-)
Photographer
Laubenheimer
Posts: 9317
New York, New York, US
Michael Paolini wrote:
Danny,
First let me say while my intention is not to pick a fight, but to help you and other readers of the forum grow as photographers, I understand if you see this response as a personal attack rather than the constructive intervention I intend it to be. It's really not intended to be anything other than helpful.
If we look at photos you choose to represent your work publically, like this one for example
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 9#29082879
Art and composition merit aside, on the technical side these are little better than snapshots straight out of the camera, with no post or editing effort visible to the trained eye (meaning trained eyes see lots of places there should have been, but wasn't) - not even color correction. This is why you think there is value in your RAWs instead of your edited works - there is virtually no difference between your stuff straight out of the camera and what you produce in your post process. As a result they are of equal value and you see giving the RAWs out as giving away your value. That is a 1990's approach to photography - the new model is photographers develop the digital asset after, putting time and value into post to go further than going with cameras default choices (if you don't do post like this you might as well shoot JPeg instead of RAW). Or put another way, without post e best you can hope for is to look like everyone else who's letting the camera do all the work - which means you are at there pricing mercy.
So hard medicine here, relative to my post, I'd classify you as being in the category of needing to learn how to edit and Post or hire a post person to handle it for you. If you are a do it yourselfer, I'm happy to make some education suggestions to help with that.
1) Get a color vision test, particularly on hue right away. A free one is here
http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?pageid=77&lang=en
2) Learn (or relearn) about tone curves, contrast, and tonal range - I'd recommend the following free tutorial as a starting place (the whole site is excellent if you are willing to invest in education)
http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/curves/
3) Get some education update on the RAW converters and how to use them - I'm not sure which you are using or I'd make a suggestion.
4) Spend some time looking at professional photography sites and magazines to recalibrate your eye.
~mike that's a terrible thing to say.
Photographer
Michael Paolini
Posts: 33
Austin, Texas, US
Mark Laubenheimer wrote:
that's a terrible thing to say. Mark,
Maybe, it certainly wasn't intended to be terrible, but rather the opposite. It was intended help by causing a realization and pointing him toward tools to improve. If that's terrible, I'd sure like to know why so I can improve as well.
~mike
Photographer
Gary Brackin Photoworks
Posts: 223
Austin, Texas, US
I see your talking about a trade shoot. In that situation, I never hand over RAW files.
But I have given out RAW files, in the case of copyright buyout. I hand over the files right when the shoot is done and transfer copyright to the client. I will do this in certain situations where I'm paid as a shooter. No photoshop, no nothing. I shoot, they get the files right then and I erase my copies. Sometimes, I will be a shooter when the work is often and steady. And the price is 4x what I would charge for a normal shoot.
Photographer
Jeffs Photography
Posts: 3608
Dakota, Minnesota, US
Nicole Packs wrote:
Photographers who don't want to show me the RAWS only show how insecure they are with their work, yes. Which is disappointing and regretful.
To be honest, 99.9% of the time, if I'm working with a skilled photographer and I don't like the picture, its because I don't like ME in it. I'll almost NEVER see the photographic flaws of it. And like I said in my previous post, I don't post anything that someone isn't comfy with.
The RAWS are just there for my personal modeling edumacationnnnzz. What can you learn from a RAW file that you can't from a jpeg?
Photographer
Jeffs Photography
Posts: 3608
Dakota, Minnesota, US
Michael Paolini wrote:
Danny,
First let me say while my intention is not to pick a fight, but to help you and other readers of the forum grow as photographers, I understand if you see this response as a personal attack rather than the constructive intervention I intend it to be. It's really not intended to be anything other than helpful.
If we look at photos you choose to represent your work publically, like this one for example
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 9#29082879
Art and composition merit aside, on the technical side these are little better than snapshots straight out of the camera, with no post or editing effort visible to the trained eye (meaning trained eyes see lots of places there should have been, but wasn't) - not even color correction. This is why you think there is value in your RAWs instead of your edited works - there is virtually no difference between your stuff straight out of the camera and what you produce in your post process. As a result they are of equal value and you see giving the RAWs out as giving away your value. That is a 1990's approach to photography - the new model is photographers develop the digital asset after, putting time and value into post to go further than going with cameras default choices (if you don't do post like this you might as well shoot JPeg instead of RAW). Or put another way, without post e best you can hope for is to look like everyone else who's letting the camera do all the work - which means you are at there pricing mercy.
So hard medicine here, relative to my post, I'd classify you as being in the category of needing to learn how to edit and Post or hire a post person to handle it for you. If you are a do it yourselfer, I'm happy to make some education suggestions to help with that.
1) Get a color vision test, particularly on hue right away. A free one is here
http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?pageid=77&lang=en
2) Learn (or relearn) about tone curves, contrast, and tonal range - I'd recommend the following free tutorial as a starting place (the whole site is excellent if you are willing to invest in education)
http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/curves/
3) Get some education update on the RAW converters and how to use them - I'm not sure which you are using or I'd make a suggestion.
4) Spend some time looking at professional photography sites and magazines to recalibrate your eye.
~mike No matter how you phrase it, this is an unsolicited critique.
Photographer
Fashion Beauty Photo
Posts: 954
Lansing, Michigan, US
Michael Paolini wrote:
Mark,
Maybe, it certainly wasn't intended to be terrible, but rather the opposite. It was intended help by causing a realization and pointing him toward tools to improve. If that's terrible, I'd sure like to know why so I can improve as well.
~mike It was an unsolicited critique of his work, which is against site rules.
Photographer
Rudi Brooker
Posts: 413
Manchester, England, United Kingdom
Nicole Packs wrote:
As a model I've had almost all my photographers I've worked with give me the RAW files. (except for like blurry, OBVIOUS bad shots they've decided to delete)
But under a few circumstances.
The reason I need RAWS (or the photag can send me a contact sheet where I can comfortable zoom in and observe the pics as much as I need to. this works for me too.)
is because it is a VERY important learning process for me. If photags only sent the few edited finals I'd never get to see what I was doing wrong/right through out the shoot. I want to study my poses, angles, and facial expression. I want to know what works and doesn't work. Without seeing my work I'll never learn.
Also, what the photographer may consider a great shot (through a photags perspective) may not be a great shot through a model's perspective.
Yeah yeah you're lighting is great but I just made a dumb expression that seeeemed to look good in front of the mirror earlier within the day.
And with this reasoning I've almost never had a problem with getting RAWS.
The circumstance I usually agree to is that I don't post/use any of the raws unless the photag is okay with it. (I usually pick out 2-4 pics that wasn't in the photag's selects and ask if he's/she's comfortable with me using them.)
Imo, both the photographer and model have a rep they want to keep solid. Its not fair if the photag says what goes and what stays without hearing a second opinion.
With that said I've had the unfortunate events where I've done 6hour shift shoots doing back bending poses (literally) only to get 3 final photos without ever seeing all the effort I've done throughout the shoot. Not to mention the utter disappointment where the mere 3 final photos are ones I'd never put in my port.
I only go by this standard on TF basis shoots.
Trade is a trade, esp if you can trust a model to stick to an agreement. (Thats what references are for.)
But sometimes photographers like to abuse their mighty powers since they have what models want; our shots.
Its not fair for those models who actually have goals and dreams for the industry and want to thrive, not just have pretty things to post on facebook. I'd be willing to bet you aren't getting RAW files. I don't even think you are talking about RAW files. I think you mean straight-out-of-camera, unedited and unretouched photos. This is NOT the same thing as receiving RAW files.
Firstly, you can't actually "see" a RAW file - it needs to be converted first or you need to use a special viewer. If you just double-click and it opens, it probably isn't a RAW file. If you can see it on your phone, it isn't a RAW file.
Secondly, RAW files are massive - say you get 100 photos from a TF session, you're talking about 2.5GB of RAW data. Unless you're getting them on multiple CDs or a DVD, you aren't getting RAW files.
Photographer
The Grand Artist
Posts: 468
Fort Worth, Texas, US
Well at least I know who to blame now when I get asked this question.
I have been asked for the RAW files and they meant RAW files. While I am sure there are many models that know how to photo edit images I am also sure it is no where close to the majority at least in these parts. It really is not that hard to know what a RAW file is in today's world of search engines and photographers that are happy a pretty girl is giving him attention.
It only takes one photographer to say yes it is no big deal. They will completely ignore the other 100 that said no.
Oh yeah, never throw rocks from a glass house.
Model
n p
Posts: 257
New York, New York, US
Jeffs Photography wrote:
What can you learn from a RAW file that you can't from a jpeg? Maybe I am misunderstanding something?
I'm sorry if I am, are RAW images all images taken during the shoot sent over in a Zip folder?
Bc thats what I usually get from photags. (And I don't demand it. Its usually openly offered to me)
I see all the images untouched (most of the time unwatermarked, but watermarks are fine as long as I can visibly see the picture.) and then I pick out, say, my top 5 that i'd use for me port, send over the file names of my top 5 and ONLY use the ones agreed on.
If I ever go back and want to use a different one I always ask.
Model
n p
Posts: 257
New York, New York, US
Rudi Brooker wrote:
I'd be willing to bet you aren't getting RAW files. I don't even think you are talking about RAW files. I think you mean straight-out-of-camera, unedited and unretouched photos. This is NOT the same thing as receiving RAW files.
Firstly, you can't actually "see" a RAW file - it needs to be converted first or you need to use a special viewer. If you just double-click and it opens, it probably isn't a RAW file. If you can see it on your phone, it isn't a RAW file.
Secondly, RAW files are massive - say you get 100 photos from a TF session, you're talking about 2.5GB of RAW data. Unless you're getting them on multiple CDs or a DVD, you aren't getting RAW files. Oh really? I'm sorry I feel really stupid now.
I'm obv not photography savy.
Yes you're right I get sent over via e-mail in a zip folder.
But I have gotten a CD given to me on two occasions, both directly after the shoot was over. It took 5 min and I was given a CD and told to pick out which ones I liked and wanted to use.
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1416
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
Photographer
Dan OMell
Posts: 1416
Charlotte, North Carolina, US
no they aren't RAWs.
the images in RAW format have the file extension CR2 or NEF (or something else than TIF, JPG, BMP)
some photogs set up their cameras to store both RAW and JPG files simultaneously. some cameras have 2 media slots, and a photog can choose one of them to store only JPGs, and and RAWs for another. in this way, s/he can give up all JPGs files immediately after session, if it's an option.
personally, I use ONLY RAWs, because I post-process (more or less) all images anyways, and I need a lot of storage space.
Photographer
Dan D Lyons Imagery
Posts: 3447
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Michael Paolini wrote:
Danny,
First let me say while my intention is not to pick a fight, but to help you and other readers of the forum grow as photographers, I understand if you see this response as a personal attack rather than the constructive intervention I intend it to be. It's really not intended to be anything other than helpful.
If we look at photos you choose to represent your work publically, like this one for example
https://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/p … 9#29082879
Art and composition merit aside, on the technical side these are little better than snapshots straight out of the camera, with no post or editing effort visible to the trained eye (meaning trained eyes see lots of places there should have been, but wasn't) - not even color correction. This is why you think there is value in your RAWs instead of your edited works - there is virtually no difference between your stuff straight out of the camera and what you produce in your post process. As a result they are of equal value and you see giving the RAWs out as giving away your value. That is a 1990's approach to photography - the new model is photographers develop the digital asset after, putting time and value into post to go further than going with cameras default choices (if you don't do post like this you might as well shoot JPeg instead of RAW). Or put another way, without post e best you can hope for is to look like everyone else who's letting the camera do all the work - which means you are at there pricing mercy.
So hard medicine here, relative to my post, I'd classify you as being in the category of needing to learn how to edit and Post or hire a post person to handle it for you. If you are a do it yourselfer, I'm happy to make some education suggestions to help with that.
1) Get a color vision test, particularly on hue right away. A free one is here
http://www.xrite.com/custom_page.aspx?pageid=77&lang=en
2) Learn (or relearn) about tone curves, contrast, and tonal range - I'd recommend the following free tutorial as a starting place (the whole site is excellent if you are willing to invest in education)
http://www.chromasia.com/tutorials/online/curves/
3) Get some education update on the RAW converters and how to use them - I'm not sure which you are using or I'd make a suggestion.
4) Spend some time looking at professional photography sites and magazines to recalibrate your eye.
~mike That image you linked was practically out-of-camera. As for your attempted personal attack on me, two words: "inter-continentally" published. Which I'll follow with "in appx 17 months of buying and shooting my first D-SLR". End of attacks, I hope. Note I've not reciprocated the attack, but hold steady to my insisting we don't devalue the work of our fellow-photographers. Best wishes.
Ðanny
http://www.dbiphotography.com (Blog On Site)
(I completely forgot about my posting here previously!)
|
). For creatives, I'm open to negotiating a high-res image or even two prepared in the same way I prep editorial-pix (all talents credited, no manipulation of the images/drastic re-sizing/cropping/etc stipulations). If by "raw" it is understood as 'untouched/unmanipulated', I ask this: why would I give something away incomplete for free? Speaking personally (and I know many hold a similar attitude), I begin creation of an image by planning the elements going into it then capturing it right, then I have a wealth of steps I take until I have a finished product. Even the conversion-process is a vital step! 
A little conscientiousness about your fellow photographer would be greatly appreciated. 
