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.

What you're talking about is contact sheets or proofs, which is fine.  That, you can accomplish with jpegs.

Insecurity about giving out unedited images is one thing, but that's a different kind of "raw" from a raw file.  A raw file (.DNG, .CR2, .NEF, etc.) is the digital negative - the unprocessed, digital information from which the images and edits are made.  Photographers who don't give those out typically refuse not because of insecurity, but because it's the same in principle as giving out film negatives.  It's a protection of ownership and a measure of controlling how their work is presented.

If the photographer refuses to show you unedited images with that understanding, then yeah, it might be insecurity.  Just keep in mind that that's not what a lot of photographers think you're asking for when you say "raw."


Edit:  Guess I should have read a little further.  Already addressed.

Mike Mango wrote:
I agree with what was said before that most models mean "unedited" when they request "RAW".

I do let them see unedited versions, but never give out RAW files.

This.

.
+1
and for TF* shoot they get between 15-20 edited shots between half and 2/3 full resolution - enoght at least to print to A4 (approx 8x10 inch) for their port. And these images are also re-sized to webpage format they need. I've seen to many images ruined by poor re-sizing and that is always comes back to you as a photographer.

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

Ways to improve? Smell the coffee beans, bucko. Look at my CV, then review your own (do you even know what one is?).  I'm not getting into unsolicited critique of your stuff, but since you & I both know clearly how many paying clients it attracts you already *know there are issues there

Ðanny
Sent from DBIphotography via his CrackBerry®
http://dbiphotography.com

Innovative Imagery wrote:
Even if not technically accurate, I use RAW to mean the proprietary camera files and raw to mean the un-processed or un-retouched jpegs.

I don't give out RAW.  I will do or arrange to have the retouching done.

I don't give out all the files except sometimes on low res proof sheets for selection purposes.  Even those have been edited down for blinks and so forth.

I do provide SOOC (Straight Out of Camera) raw jpegs as as the final file when that is all that is required on short notice jobs, but again, only after editing or making the selects.

I have already typically set the style settings and balanced the lighting and exposure to produce clean files.

Please do not use the term RAW to describe'"unedited jpegs straight from camera! They are exactly tha!.RAW is a file format! You are  just  adding to the confusion!

Raw and the cooked wrote:
Please do not use the term RAW to describe'"unedited jpegs straight from camera! They are exactly tha!.RAW is a file format! You are  just  adding to the confusion!

+1

Sadly, this is a diffuse slight in terminology rampant amongst those newer to model-photograpy in general, particularly in those who are (new and) self-taught or have been "advised" or "informed" by those with flaws in their own abilities and perceptions/judgment (who tend to be noobs/newER themselves). For example, I cringe when I recall a noobie-post of mine where I referred to the "CF cards I used in my [then] D90"! I didn't know wtf I was talking about, but I was "informing" others - like an idiot! I'd suggest all we can do is what you've done here: state what is correct, and state why   Thanks for this post, and thx to the others who've said it before you. Next mission: getting the newbs to read......(Haha!)

Ðanny
http//www.dbiphotography.com

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
Do You Give Your RAWs to the Model?

I don't even bother shooting in RAW, to be honest. I think it's a waste of time and space to do so.

If I have an image that's 8,000 pixels wide, I'll give the model a downsized (and post-touched) version at around 6,000 pixels wide. That makes both parties happy. She gets a great photo that's beyond useable on the web or in print, and I keep a slightly higher resolution original in cold storage for archival reference. I strongly believe the artist (or the owner of an image) should hold on to the absolute native version of the photo with original EXIF data intact to prove ownership.

Mike Mango wrote:
I agree with what was said before that most models mean "unedited" when they request "RAW".

I do let them see unedited versions, but never give out RAW files.

+1

In most cases they would be unusable to them anyways.

And in most cases I email the edits formatted for MM with the offer to send larger on request.

Marc Esadrian wrote:

I don't even bother shooting in RAW, to be honest. I think it's a waste of time and space to do so.

If I have an image that's 8,000 pixels wide, I'll give the model a downsized (and post-touched) version at around 6,000 pixels wide. That makes both parties happy. She gets a great photo that's beyond useable on the web or in print, and I keep a slightly higher resolution original in cold storage for archival reference. I strongly believe the artist (or the owner of an image) should hold on to the absolute native version of the photo with original EXIF data intact to prove ownership.

So you strongly believe you should hold on to the absolute native version of the photo, but you think shooting in raw is a waste of time?

Interesting.

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

I just posted a long rant about this about two weeks ago.

By RAW does the model mean unedited?

Most models don't know the meaning of the term RAW. And most models don't have the software to edit RAW (NEF for Nikon for example).

When I asked a young model to clarify this, I was met with profanities and insults so be careful when you ask them. And no matter how politely or gently you ask them to clarify, people will blame your attitude for making the model curse and insult you.

A word of caution...........

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

NEVER:   Most of my work is  advertising and commercial..  I never give out RAW files even to a commercial client..   I do paid model portfolios,  but even then NEVER any files..

Nicole Packs  wrote:

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.

You want UNEDITED JPEGS  Not RAWs!

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
What are people resurrecting old threads? Seems silly. But the answer is Hell No!

Sorry, I was busy when this thread was going on and it wasn't relevant to me then. Old is all relative. I used to think 1776 was old until I realized Chinese civilization has been around for 5,000! It they were a centinarian (or whatever a 100-year old is), US would be like a 5-year-old toddler. China finds it incongruous that a youth would be so disrespectful as to tell their elder how to run IP, etc Then we look at the evolutionist who claim that our world was millions of years old. The decade or so MM has been existence is like the life of a blade of grass by comparison.

So I guess it's the lens you use.

BUT, let me get to the content that I wanted to share
https://www.modelmayhem.com/education/m … g-industry

"to be sure the model doesn’t expect a DVD of RAW files at the end of the shoot." [middle of 2nd graf]

Never thought of that as one of the purposes!

Wysiwyg Photography wrote:
Do You Give Your RAWs to the Model?

Sure all the time and don't really care what others think or do.

LeeRenny wrote:
May sound silly, but what can they do with them to hurt your business?

It's a valid question. Raw files are often not the final representation of photographer's vision. Images are often shot with the assumption that they will be processed later using Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One or other software. They are not sharpened, color corrected or otherwise adjusted. Raw files are the digital negatives of our time.

This doesn't mean a photographer did (or can do) a poor job in the first place. Raw files give us flexibility.

So by giving out raw files, a photographer is handing over unfinished work.

LeeRenny wrote:
May sound silly, but what can they do with them to hurt your business?

Actually ANY type of file can be manipulated.   But yes, it "could" hurt a persons business.  But now that I think about it, if your giving out raw files, at least to a model, and unless you know they also trained or skilled in post processing, chances are, you really don't have much of a business anyway. 

I do tons of headshots.  I shoot them a certain way and I process them a certain way.  Nothing out of the ordinary but I have certain flow to my work for "consistency."   I lighten.  I darken.  I burn.  I dodge.  I straighten hair.  I soften skin.  I clean up the eyes and get more color in there.  I whiten teeth so they look natural.  All in a professional way that looks nice.  Not over done.  Not too much.  Not too little.

I give you a raw file to do what you want and then you go to say a model agency, or show someone else looking to get a headshot done and they ask who did this off color, unsharp, frizzy hair, bags under the reddish eyes, yellow tooth headshot, it "could" effect my reputation.

ChadAlan wrote:

It's a valid question. Raw files are often not the final representation of photographer's vision. Images are often shot with the assumption that they will be processed later using Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One or other software. They are not sharpened, color corrected or otherwise adjusted. Raw files are the digital negatives of our time.

This doesn't mean a photographer did (or can do) a poor job in the first place. Raw files give us flexibility.

So by giving out raw files, a photographer is handing over unfinished work.

Amazing explanation, thank you very much!!

Mike Collins wrote:

Actually ANY type of file can be manipulated.   But yes, it "could" hurt a persons business.  But now that I think about it, if your giving out raw files, at least to a model, and unless you know they also trained or skilled in post processing, chances are, you really don't have much of a business anyway. 

I do tons of headshots.  I shoot them a certain way and I process them a certain way.  Nothing out of the ordinary but I have certain flow to my work for "consistency."   I lighten.  I darken.  I burn.  I dodge.  I straighten hair.  I soften skin.  I clean up the eyes and get more color in there.  I whiten teeth so they look natural.  All in a professional way that looks nice.  Not over done.  Not too much.  Not too little.

I give you a raw file to do what you want and then you go to say a model agency, or show someone else looking to get a headshot done and they ask who did this off color, unsharp, frizzy hair, bags under the reddish eyes, yellow tooth headshot, it "could" effect my reputation.

All clear now, thanks a bunch for answering my question. I hope you have a wonderful day!!

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

Nope, Never!!!

RedrumCollaboration wrote:
Never.

No, no need.