Melissa Wenger wrote:
Hey man, maybe you're right.  I mean besides the fact that I do in fact have a very productive life.  But we as photographers, especially who aren't competing, should be building each other up and not battling.

There's nothing I didn't like about your answer, I just didn't think it applied, or maybe I just didn't understand the meaning.  As is the way of the internet world. Either way, I should've just ignored it.  I'm no longer going to amplify my previous comments- you take care now.

Passive aggressive is just another sort of aggressive. And it's transparent.

Really - why not take my words in good faith from the start?

Virtual Studio wrote:
Passive aggressive is just another sort of aggressive. And it's transparent.

Really - why not take my words in good faith from the start?

I think the Op became frustrated that you did not listen to the actual (for her) issue .  The issue was: how many times does one agree to alter the terms of a contract that one believes to be fulfilled .

ETA: Failing a good answer on that... the concurrent question was is there a real danger to just handing over the raw files and is there an alternative ?

NewBoldPhoto wrote:
I think the Op became frustrated that you did not listen to the actual (for her) issue .  The issue was: how many times does one agree to alter the terms of a contract that one believes to be fulfilled .

I'd have a happily answered - still will: It's "as many times as will give benefit you to you long term".

Which is often difficult to quantify in the context of an ongoing relationship without thinking it through.

If you're involved in a contractual dispute then think - what is the down side of acquiescing to the other party's demands (ie how am i worse off) vs what is the potential benefit to me?.

My question was really aimed at the first half of that equation - how would you be worse off? I dont think you would be; other than marginally (the model is still able to mess around with the pics JPG or RAW). The upside is potential better local "word of mouth", maybe work with the model again, maybe she will do a better job at the edits.. so some.

I'm surprised that this was seen as being off topic and induced what frankly looked a lot like a temper tantrum.

If you look at the answers which received positive feedback rather than some (not just to me) quite prickly comebacks then I think the OP is looking for validation for a particular course of action. External validation is not really the point of a discussion forum though is it?

Virtual Studio wrote:
I'd have a happily answered - still will: It's "as many times as will give benefit you to you long term".

Which is often difficult to quantify in the context of an ongoing relationship without thinking it through.

If you're involved in a contractual dispute then think - what is the down side of acquiescing to the other party's demands (ie how am i worse off) vs what is the potential benefit to me?.

My question was really aimed at the first half of that equation - how would you be worse off? I dont think you would be; other than marginally (the model is stall able to mess around with the pics JPG or RAW).The upside is potential better local "word of mouth", maybe work with the model again, maybe she will do a better job at the edits.. so some.

I'm surprised that this was seen as being off topic and induced what frankly looked a lot like a temper tantrum.

If you look at the answers which received positive feedback rather than some (not just to me) quite prickly comebacks then I think the OP is looking for validation for a particular course of action. External validation is not really the point of a discussion forum though is it?

Perhaps you can see that without the underlined above it might sound like someone echoing the question back. And suggesting that raws were unnecessary for editing , while true, was neither comforting nor enlightening.
Still no excuse for poor behavior

ETA: MM can be a tricky place. There are a lot of people here with vastly different yet equally valid advise- look at John Allan's post in this thread vs Art Silva's. Neither actually addressed the OP's situation yet both are perfectly accurate in their own context.

NewBoldPhoto wrote:
Perhaps you can see that without the underlined above it might sound like someone echoing the question back. And suggesting that raws were unnecessary for editing , while true, was neither comforting nor enlightening.
Still no excuse for poor behavior

ETA: MM can be a tricky place. There are a lot of people here with vastly different yet equally valid advise- look at John Fisher's post in this thread vs Art Silva's. Neither actually addressed the OP's situation yet both are perfectly accurate in their own context.

I'm  not sure how I could have been clearer than asking "So - if you dont care whether she edits them or not - what's the issue?" where I specifically asked what issue the OP wanted addressed. Evidently I could have or the thread wouldn't have gone bad - but that's a tough ask.

Hey - I've been dense before and will be again in my life - but a bit of patience can go a long long way. If you want the answer to a specific question then when someone asks you "what question do you want answered?"  not going off on one will probably get you the answer you seek faster than abuse.

Michael McGowan wrote:
There's damn-all little to be lost by giving unretouched images to this particular model, and lots to be lost by refusing. If you give them, you get good will (tempered by the delays) and possibly good word of mouth. If you don't, you tend to get the opposite.

Right, I was just hoping there was someone with specific experience to share with this. 

Some have stated how it could go bad.  I mean, what if I hate her edits and she stamps my name on them? What if she takes them and just doesn't credit me at all?  I guess I'd never know having provided her RAWs.

I can wrap my head around the negatives, but I can't find a solid plus to giving this model RAWs.  Other than most photogs who do it have had no problems with it.

Virtual Studio wrote:
I'm  not sure how I could have been clearer than asking "So - if you dont care whether she edits them or not - what's the issue?" where I specifically asked what issue the OP wanted addressed. Evidently I could have or the thread wouldn't have gone bad - but that's a tough ask.

Here's a question I'm going to state very, very clearly: can we just let this go now?  I'm sure there are still people out there who'd like to share their thoughts without having to sift through the drama. Bro, just let it go.

Melissa Wenger wrote:

Right, I was just hoping there was someone with specific experience to share with this. 

Some have stated how it could go bad.  I mean, what if I hate her edits and she stamps my name on them? What if she takes them and just doesn't credit me at all?  I guess I'd never know having provided her RAWs.

I can wrap my head around the negatives, but I can't find a solid plus to giving this model RAWs.  Other than most photogs who do it have had no problems with it.

You control your image to the world in terms of your photography as long as you control your images. As soon as you give up the RAW files, you lose that control. Do you trust this model enough to give her control of your brand?

Al Lock Photography wrote:
You control your image to the world in terms of your photography as long as you control your images. As soon as you give up the RAW files, you lose that control. Do you trust this model enough to give her control of your brand?

Holy crap; another great analogy!  I'm honestly not sure.  I think I was until another photographer she has worked with happened to tell me she cropped/edited his pic without his permission, and wasn't the most pleased with it.  While she has some well retouched photos in her port, there are others I would never have let see the light of day.  There's no way to know if that's her work or not... and if she'd do the same to me!

Melissa Wenger wrote:

Holy crap; another great analogy!  I'm honestly not sure.  I think I was until another photographer she has worked with happened to tell me she cropped/edited his pic without his permission, and wasn't the most pleased with it.  While she has some well retouched photos in her port, there are others I would never have let see the light of day.  There's no way to know if that's her work or not... and if she'd do the same to me!

I do not understand why you say you're not sure. What you've written makes it clear that you don't trust the model.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
I do not understand why you say you're not sure. What you've written makes it clear that you don't trust the model.

Because a large part of me still wants to make her happy.  I hate that she was unsatisfied and I'm trying to put myself in her shoes.  If I were the model, I'd want the photographer to trust that my judgement is sound.  She's also a really lovely person!

Melissa Wenger wrote:

Because a large part of me still wants to make her happy.  I hate that she was unsatisfied and I'm trying to put myself in her shoes.  If I were the model, I'd want the photographer to trust that my judgement is sound.  She's also a really lovely person!

She can be the loveliest person in the world. That doesn't mean you should trust your brand image to her.

It's business. Tell her that you are willing to try and find a solution but you will not give up control of your RAWs or the final image appearance. Might consider looking at having a third party (a retoucher) do the post to her specifications but with the requirement for your approval before release to her.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
My brand is strong enough to withstand uncredited, unbranded, unmarked photos, worked up by someone else, being out there for the whole wide world to see.

Actually, for years, that's how I made a living.

That's why you are a semi-professional....  no offense.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
That's why you are a semi-professional....  no offense.

None taken.  If you hadn't been so keen to score a cheap point, and had actually read my profile, you would have read that I am now semi-retired.   After a long career in photography, first as a newspaper photographer, then as a successful jobbing photographer for many years, and more recently as a rather successful art photographer in a niche market, I am enjoying my semi-retirement and am quite comfortable living off the fruits of my previous endeavours.

Art Silva wrote:
Should you ever give a model RAW files?

NEVER!!!

Might as well hand over your camera while your at it.... now unless he/she pays you a hefty fortune for the images and copyrights, then you might consider.

Access to an un-retouched image (the issue in this thread) is in NO WAY similar to transferring copyright. It is irresponsible to suggest that it is.

Melissa Wenger wrote:
Here's a question I'm going to state very, very clearly: can we just let this go now?  I'm sure there are still people out there who'd like to share their thoughts without having to sift through the drama. Bro, just let it go.

Why the anger?

This in itself is a snarky post addressing me and not the issue.

Honestly I think the issue here is very very clear from you posts.

"Bro, just let it go" - Sweetpea - you came asking for advice - dont get angry when the discussion doesn't go your way.

Virtual Studio wrote:
"Bro, just let it go" - Sweetpea - you came asking for advice - dont get angry when the discussion doesn't go your way.

The only way I want the discussion to go is down a path that is relevant to my main issue.  My main issue is not you, so this focus on you and your ego is really undue and detracting from the question I need answered. Now please go terrorize another thread because I still haven't decided on whether or not I, in this case, should give the model RAWs.  That's the issue here.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Might consider looking at having a third party (a retoucher) do the post to her specifications but with the requirement for your approval before release to her.

The only issue I'd have with that is compensating a retoucher for a TF shoot.  Maybe if this were an unhappy paying client, I'd be willing to.  But she's a model who worked with me based on my previous work and post production who wants to retouch her own photos.  Maybe I can have her sign something saying she'll allow me approval rights, but there are no guarantees there.

Kent Art Photography wrote:

None taken.  If you hadn't been so keen to score a cheap point, and had actually read my profile, you would have read that I am now semi-retired.   After a long career in photography, first as a newspaper photographer, then as a successful jobbing photographer for many years, and more recently as a rather successful art photographer in a niche market, I am enjoying my semi-retirement and am quite comfortable living off the fruits of my previous endeavours.

Actually, I did read your profile. Maybe you need to rewrite it if you mean to say that you were a professional and now are semi-retired, because the way it reads, it sounds as if you consider yourself to have never been any more than a semi-professional and are now semi-retired.

That's how it reads. Might want to rewrite it.

Melissa Wenger wrote:

The only issue I'd have with that is compensating a retoucher for a TF shoot.  Maybe if this were an unhappy paying client, I'd be willing to.  But she's a model who worked with me based on my previous work and post production who wants to retouch her own photos.  Maybe I can have her sign something saying she'll allow me approval rights, but there are no guarantees there.

I've had a number of retouchers approach me to do work on a TF or trial basis in order to generate trust for commercial work. Can't hurt to post something in the retouching forum or a casting explaining your situation and ask if anyone can help you out. The key point of course is that you need to have final control.

tcphoto wrote:

After twenty years in this business I hardly think that I'm a newb. My model release states that the subject may use the images in their portfolio, compcard and agency promotional pieces. They cannot use, trade or authorize others to use them in any way. I hope that you feel better about yourself by belittling someone else.

Then for 20 years you have been using improper documentation AND you are giving bad advice about it. Sorry dude, but that's an amateur move considering you have as much experience as you claim to have. It's not about belittling someone, it's about calling someone out who should know better, and if you've been shooting for 20+ years as a professional, you should.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Then for 20 years you have been using improper documentation AND you are giving bad advice about it.

Maybe it's not bad advice but just coming from what he's actually experienced.  If he hasn't experienced anything to the contrary, of course he thinks what's worked for him is sound advice.  I think the spirit of his post is in the right place, maybe he just could've done the research before stating it as fact.

Hey, we're all learning from each other here; I'm probably learning the most!

Al Lock Photography wrote:
I've had a number of retouchers approach me to do work on a TF or trial basis in order to generate trust for commercial work. Can't hurt to post something in the retouching forum or a casting explaining your situation and ask if anyone can help you out. The key point of course is that you need to have final control.

I've actually used the retouching forum before and have had some fantastic results, but I don't feel I can justify asking someone to do 20 edits for free.  Would you suggest maybe a more reasonable number and put some feelers out there?  Either way, I'd give them the ability to use the images for self promotion so maybe it could be a win-win.

Melissa Wenger wrote:

I've actually used the retouching forum before and have had some fantastic results, but I don't feel I can justify asking someone to do 20 edits for free.  Would you suggest maybe a more reasonable number and put some feelers out there?  Either way, I'd give them the ability to use the images for self promotion so maybe it could be a win-win.

So you're starting to see why best practice for model collateral-building work includes not agreeing to so many images (maybe one [two maximum] per look for the deliverable of finished images. All the best-practice considerations are intertwined and support each other.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
So you're starting to see why best practice for model collateral-building work includes not agreeing to so many images (maybe one [two maximum] per look for the deliverable of finished images. All the best-practice considerations are intertwined and support each other.

Oh definitely.  I have since this shoot accepted that I need to minimize the number of edits I do, but balance that with giving the model/team as many as I can reasonably do to maximize their time and efforts.  That balance is probably closer to 2-3 edits per look that to 5... or what I used to do in the past, which was 10!  Quality over quantity right?

Melissa Wenger wrote:
Right, I was just hoping there was someone with specific experience to share with this. 

I can wrap my head around the negatives, but I can't find a solid plus to giving this model RAWs.

I have given raw files to models on a number of occasions, but it has always been on a case by case basis and is certainly not something that I would do for just anyone.

The only positive is that it can create some goodwill.  In my experience so far, it has never created superior images.

There are plenty of negatives, but, again in my experience so far, the impact of the negatives has been negligible.

If I were in your shoes, and given that you have reports of the model's making unauthorised alterations to photos, I would probably not give her raw images unless there is a very high degree of trust between you.

Melissa Wenger wrote:

I've actually used the retouching forum before and have had some fantastic results, but I don't feel I can justify asking someone to do 20 edits for free.  Would you suggest maybe a more reasonable number and put some feelers out there?  Either way, I'd give them the ability to use the images for self promotion so maybe it could be a win-win.

Part of what you discuss with the model.

First step is to talk to the model and let her clearly know you are not going to make the RAW files available to her. But that you MIGHT be willing to make a limited number available to a retoucher with you having final say on how they look. One step at a time.

Melissa Wenger wrote:
I worked with a model on a TFP basis. Once on set, she tells me she intends to use the photos for her agency. Therefore, she says she needs them sans a watermark. I tell her that is outside my usual practice to provide unwatermarked photos after a TFP, but I'll do it ::just this one time::

I allow her to select 5 per look (we shot 4, but she ended up picking 25 instead of 20). She doesn't send me her selects until a week after the shoot. Well, less than two weeks later, she starts asking for the photos. I explain I need at least 3 to 4- and end up delivering them in roughly 3.5 weeks. Yes, I did give her the unwatermarked photos for use with her agency (the name of which she's avoided telling me). Then, I get this email:

"I appreciate all your hard work and I realize you had a lot of images to work on so thank you again!! Would it be possible to just get some of these photos unedited? Im really really appreciative of your work and in no way am I trying to be difficult but to be perfectly honest the contrast & brightness is too high on some of these photos. I hope I can be of help to you by sharing exposure of your work with future clients..."

The thought of sending a model unretouched photos makes me itch, but since at this point I'm unwilling to spend any more time on this shoot, should I cave? Or is there an alternative?

------HAS ANYONE HAD A REALLY BAD OR REALLY GOOD EXPERIENCE IN DOING THIS?----

Photographers, I need your thoughts!

**It's been referenced a few times so I'll mention it here: the model signed a usage agreement and a release before she mentioned her agency.

Of course you should send them to her at your going rate of $350.00[Fill in your rate] per hour session shoot time, and $600.00[Fill in your rate] dollars per image for portfolio use.

You have met and actually exceeded your TF agreement so anything extra should cost extra. Looking at your portfolio photos the model has seen your work so she should know what to expect.

As far as the agency, get the contact information and talk directly with them

Jim McSmith wrote:
No it may put her off.

I'm sorry I don't think I understand. What may put her off? Seeing the unedited photos?

Melissa Wenger wrote:
New email from the model:

She is requesting 5 I've already edited sent in a higher resolution and unwatermarked. Then she wants a different 5 RAW files, of which she said, "as far as images I could work on and send back to you for approval, these are the ones I am interested in: 27, 60, 69, 105, and 163."  I only personally like 4 out of the 10 she likes but oh well.

The moment of truth is upon us people!

I'm still giving myself time to think on it, but here's where I'm leaning:

Give her the first 5 at 300dpi. The next 5 she requested to edit, instead I'll send to a trusted retoucher. Maybe pay a few bucks but nothing crazy.  If she still doesn't like them, well, tough luck kiddo, better luck next time. Better yet, pay a photographer next time.

Thoughts?

Yep, I'd do the first part of that no problem.
The 2nd part - you're in so deep at this point, I'd probably (if I were you in your specific situation), probably give her the last 5 as RAW - being sure to reiterate her commitment to submit to you for approval and being clear that she can't display/post/whatever in any way without your specific approval and that, her spending her time and energy on retouching does not guarantee approval by you.

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:
Yep, I'd do the first part of that no problem.
The 2nd part - you're in so deep at this point, I'd probably (if I were you in your specific situation), probably give her the last 5 as RAW - being sure to reiterate her commitment to submit to you for approval and being clear that she can't display/post/whatever in any way without your specific approval and that, her spending her time and energy on retouching does not guarantee approval by you.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


OP, you have already expressed that this shoot isn't worth anymore of your time... how could it be worth your money? The model is apparently willing to invest her time and energy ( a situation that some of us only dream of)... why not give her a few see what she produces? If her work is good give her more, if it sucks say 'no thanks.'
It feels like you are investing way too much emotional energy in this. Isn't this a hobby for you? Isn't this supposed to be fun?