Anna Adrielle wrote:
I wouldn't even want raws.

I don't think most models would.

Robert Randall wrote:
The majority opinion of the photographers on MM is that giving away raw files is akin to suicide, and I'm curious why so many of you feel that way. When people put a ton of post process on their images for a signature look, I can understand the hesitancy. For the most part, the majority of the folks on MM are the get it right in camera crowd, so what's the difference between giving out a raw file or giving out a tif or jpeg? If you're worried about someone stepping all over your files, they can just as easily to that to a jpeg as they can a raw.

Just curious.

I never gave away my negs back in the film days. Never duped them to give away either. For clients I shot chromes and those they got. But when I was planing on prints not reproductions in print MY style of printing is as important to the final image as my style of shooting. Today I've added post work as another step in my process and it's important to the final look as well. Like AA said, the negative is the score, the print the performance.

Robert Randall wrote:
The majority opinion of the photographers on MM is that giving away raw files is akin to suicide, and I'm curious why so many of you feel that way. When people put a ton of post process on their images for a signature look, I can understand the hesitancy. For the most part, the majority of the folks on MM are the get it right in camera crowd, so what's the difference between giving out a raw file or giving out a tif or jpeg? If you're worried about someone stepping all over your files, they can just as easily to that to a jpeg as they can a raw.

Just curious.

Read Ken Marcus' interview here on MM for a few examples of what can go wrong when you give out raw files.

Even if you get it totally right to how you want it in camera, you still need to tweak the raw settings somehow to get the image you want.

Open a  raw image in two different programs and you could get two radically different images based on what defaults the user has set.

Yes with a Tif or JPG they COULD change it. But with a raw file they WILL change it.

Robert Randall wrote:
get it right in camera

I get it right but all that camera and computer technology gets it wrong.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
I think That Italian Guy (Stefano) pretty much gives out raw files.... un-retouched straight out of the camera.

I generally give models JPG files that have been converted and minimally cleaned up in Lightroom with occasional exceptions that made it into Photoshop

I occasionally give actual RAW files to models who are also photographers/retouchers and who I know will do a decent job with them.

I would have no trouble giving RAW files to a client who was using a retoucher I respected. If my name wasn't going to be on the photos then I'd give RAW files to anybody who was paying me enough.

There's no hard and fast rule - for me every case is judged on its merits. As a general rule of thumb though it's probably better to keep the RAW files to yourself if you're not sure what's going to be done with them!



Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano
www.stefanobrunesci.com

MPM Photography wrote:
My personal opinion is "getting it right in camera" is a myth. In the film days it meant "get the exposure/framing/dynamic range/etc good enough for a lab to make it look right."  If you are shooting jpegs you can do the same thing and substitute the word "camera processor" for "lab".

I'm not sure what your experience is, but in the time before digital, at least in my end of the pool, if you didn't get it right in camera, you didn't get hired again. Whether I was shooting food, product, or people, a huge amount of time was taken to insure everything was as perfect as possible. It didn't matter if you were shooting chrome or neg, no manner of lab entered into the equation.

Robert Randall wrote:
I'm not sure what your experience is, but in the time before digital, at least in my end of the pool, if you didn't get it right in camera, you didn't get hired again. Whether I was shooting food, product, or people, a huge amount of time was taken to insure everything was as perfect as possible. It didn't matter if you were shooting chrome or neg, no manner of lab entered into the equation.

So you shot film that didn't need to be processed? I suspect you mean to say that you gave your client the unprocessed film and let them deal with the second part of the process of creating an image. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not a common workflow anymore.

Robert Randall wrote:
The majority opinion of the photographers on MM is that giving away raw files is akin to suicide, and I'm curious why so many of you feel that way. When people put a ton of post process on their images for a signature look, I can understand the hesitancy. For the most part, the majority of the folks on MM are the get it right in camera crowd, so what's the difference between giving out a raw file or giving out a tif or jpeg? If you're worried about someone stepping all over your files, they can just as easily to that to a jpeg as they can a raw.

Just curious.

I almost always offer the raw files - I have only had one person actually want them.  It was an "activity" escort I shot with.  Since she was paying me well, the files were all hers!

Robert Randall wrote:
The majority opinion of the photographers on MM is that giving away raw files is akin to suicide, and I'm curious why so many of you feel that way. When people put a ton of post process on their images for a signature look, I can understand the hesitancy. For the most part, the majority of the folks on MM are the get it right in camera crowd, so what's the difference between giving out a raw file or giving out a tif or jpeg? If you're worried about someone stepping all over your files, they can just as easily to that to a jpeg as they can a raw.

Just curious.

I can understand people not giving out raws so so someone else can edit them, but I agree, half the people don't retouch here so not sure what the difference is.

Myself, I do my own retouching and have never been asked. Even publications seem happy with full-res jpgs, I can't shift TIFs for love or money.

MPM Photography wrote:

So you shot film that didn't need to be processed? I suspect you mean to say that you gave your client the unprocessed film and let them deal with the second part of the process of creating an image. Nothing wrong with that, but it is not a common workflow anymore.

I assumed from your statement that you inferred somehow something magical happened at the lab, beyond simple processing. I was basically stating that while a tight lab was in order, it was also expected to be in order, as most all of them were, and they were an insignificant part of the process. No manner of lab processing was ever going to get rid of dust on the product, or wilted lettuce, or smudged makeup.

Robert Randall wrote:
I assumed from your statement that you inferred somehow something magical happened at the lab, beyond simple processing. I was basically stating that while a tight lab was in order, it was also expected to be in order, as most all of them were, and they were an insignificant part of the process. No manner of lab processing was ever going to get rid of dust on the product, or wilted lettuce, or smudged makeup.

No, nothing magical. But the lab did have quite a lot of control over things like color and contrast of the final image. Unless you sent them a test shot with a color checker, they were kind of left to their own devices on the those issues - just as we are in LR/Photoshop if we don't use some sort of color checker.

I definitely agree with you that the lab was much more limited in what they could do compared to a photoshop wizard of today. I think even the greatest photoshop wizard would agree that it is best to have as much possible correct up front.

Digital allows us to be both the guy behind the camera and the guy in the darkroom. In the film days, many photographers didn't have the means or time to do both. Now I think it's the norm for a photographer to process his or her own images.

MPM Photography wrote:
No, nothing magical. But the lab did have quite a lot of control over things like color and contrast of the final image. Unless you sent them a test shot with a color checker,

Could you explain this process the lab gave in regards to contrast, colour ect. as Bob was referring to film processing.
Only control a lab had on E-6 and this was the photographers request being +- stops, which would on the + push up the contrast a bit.

Process instructions;
5 sheets.
1 @+1/2
1@ - 1/2
Hold rest.
Usual type of lab instructions given.

Roll film was clip test.

MPM Photography wrote:
No, nothing magical. But the lab did have quite a lot of control over things like color and contrast of the final image. Unless you sent them a test shot with a color checker, they were kind of left to their own devices on the those issues - just as we are in LR/Photoshop if we don't use some sort of color checker.

it sounds like you're looking at it from the retail photographer's view, where the work was shot on negative film. Robert's references were for commercial photography, where the deliverable was a transparency, with 'cooked in' color balance, contrast, and a much more obvious exposure level. The lab didn't-usually couldn't-do much about the color, and 'fixing' contrast generally messed up exposure unless that was planned in-camera.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Could you explain this process the lab gave in regards to contrast, colour ect. as Bob was referring to film processing.
Only control a lab had on E-6 and this was the photographers request being +- stops, which would on the + push up the contrast a bit.

Process instructions;
5 sheets.
1 @+1/2
1@ - 1/2
Hold rest.
Usual type of lab instructions given.

Roll film was clip test.

It sounds like he was referring to color prints. Again, in my area of work, c prints were an anomaly, chrome was the most widely used film.

cwwmbm wrote:
1. RAW files are first thing that matters when there's a copyright issue. If two parties have RAW files it becomes complicated.
2. After "getting it right" in camera I don't think I spend less than 30 minutes per photo, often more than an hour, to get the final look.
3. I do work with clients who use their own retouchers though and in this case the understanding is that they get RAW files they pick in the end.

I've never heard the copyright argument before, that's an interesting point.

Robert Randall wrote:
It sounds like he was referring to color prints. Again, in my area of work, c prints were an anomaly, chrome was the most widely used film.

Yes, I was much more familiar with prints (both b&w and color) as prints were the desired final product. With slides, you really don't have too much control past film selection and camera work. Although I have to imagine that with product photography the slides are translated to a print (in a magazine or catalog) at some point, so the second step was there - just out of the photographers control.

I think shooting for a catalog or magazine meant that you had a very sophisticated client who wasn't expecting a final product. It's a fascinatingly different perspective from that of a hobbyist, retail portrait or fine art photographer.

heekun wrote:
Ownership/copyright for me is the primary reason I don't give out raws. In case the model/client requests raws I give them a selection of the raws converted to DNG. This works for me since my camera does not output DNG, so I still poses the only copies of the original raw files. Another bonus is the DNG file is a few megabytes smaller than the raw file(in my case NEF files).

What would happen if say Nike approaches you and asks to shoot their new sneakers? But only they would prefer their retouchers to work on the photos. Would you turn them down because you don't give away RAW?

I always think giving RAW files is something you exercise your judgement for. If a famous client asks you for them - you give it to them; they are not interested in claiming a copyright, they just want the best result possible. If noname model or agency asks for RAW then you might want to ask why they need it.

cwwmbm wrote:
1. RAW files are first thing that matters when there's a copyright issue. If two parties have RAW files it becomes complicated.
2. After "getting it right" in camera I don't think I spend less than 30 minutes per photo, often more than an hour, to get the final look.
3. I do work with clients who use their own retouchers though and in this case the understanding is that they get RAW files they pick in the end.

re #1: perhaps in Canada this is so, but not in the US, and I suspect not in Canada either because the RAW file contains the serial number of the camera and the lens used to shoot it. So we both have RAW files -- but I'm the guy whose camera is shown taking the photos, so who ya gonna believe?

In the US, the copyright belongs to whoever* registered it -- and that is me. Nobody cares who's got a RAW file or not.

re #2: Good for you. I, too, came of age when a great deal of attention and effort was put into getting it right in the camera. And I gotta tell you that while I spend very little time "fixing what ain't right" in post, I spend a great deal of time making modifications that were not possible before computers came into the picture.

re #3: clients with their own retouchers buy RAW files, no problem. But clients who do not have competent retouchers do not get RAW files to screw up, thank you very much.

I generally do not work with clients who would know what to do with a RAW file. What's more, every experienced model I've ever worked with wanted fully finished files, not RAWs, saying something like "100 mediocre files and one great one is NOT better than just one great one." Only the inexperienced ones had any interest in seeing them all, or having them all, or even having anything but the best of the finished edits.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

* See, I register everything I shoot in a timely fashion. So for the most part, you the client can't beat me to registration; it's already done. I got the certificate to prove it, and if you want to try to break my copyright, good luck to ya, that is really hard to do.