|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Why photographers DON'T provide all/RAW on TF*
Herman Surkis wrote: Pure GENIUS! Dec 06 12 05:31 pm Link Always makes me laugh. All these togs who have never made any money and most likely will never make anymore then token change with there photography worrying that someone seeing there unedited pictures will somehow cause them any harm. Almost as funny as "I have seen many women naked I don't care if I see another one" Dec 06 12 05:43 pm Link Dan K Photography wrote: Bro, I've seen SO MANY naked women... Dec 06 12 05:45 pm Link Sometimes its not that the model is selfish, distrustful, or picture greedy. Sometimes she just doesn't know any better. I'm glad you posted this because I was once the girl that didn't know any better. When I was new to modeling I did not know this, and the first person I ever shot with was an amateur who did not not edit his photos at all. As in, cropping and rotating was all he did. Now, obviously that's fine if he wanted to do that and if he felt that the images looked nice enough to leave them alone. Obviously he has every right to do that if he wished. So anyway he never asked me to sign a release or anything. Right after the shoot he just dumped them on a cd and gave it to me without rotating or cropping or anything. So I asked him if I could play with them myself, (not knowing that is not an okay question) like make some black and white or crop stuff out or whatever, and he said that was totally fine with him. Well, being young and new to the game I had no idea that this wasn't standard operating procedure for a TFCD shoot. I know that I never should have assumed but unfortunately because of this I learned the hard way (someone had to actually sit me down and gently explain to me all the stuff you just posted. thankfully this was also one of the first shoots i ever did) that this is not how it is done with professionals. I think the photographer also learned that as well because now he does not do that anymore. Because of my personal experience now I get weirded out when a photographer offers me raw images, or even asks me to choose the pictures he or she edits. It makes me wonder if they trust their own creative vision or if they truly care/are protective of their work. When they offer the raw ones I wonder if they had any intention of editing any of the pictures at all and are just willing to give me a whole cd of raw versus one or two really good finished ones. Like what was the point of the shoot? Now that I have learned to trust the professionals I work with I have learned that his or her judgement is best. Although I will say that sometimes I see a shot and I think, "omg that was gorgeous, why didn't he like it?" I have learned to roll with it and let their vision be their vision. I signed up for the job knowing that whatever the photographer wants to trash, he has every right to trash. Dec 06 12 06:35 pm Link ArtisticGlamour wrote: What if her boyfriend is Michael O? Dec 06 12 06:37 pm Link Jordan L Duncan wrote: Then that would be what's called a win-win example. Dec 07 12 05:57 am Link GNapp Studios wrote: To me, THIS is nailing it on the head. Most digital cameras today will shoot dual...both RAW and High Res JPGs of the same image. Sure it takes up a LITTLE more space on your card but not that much. Dec 11 12 09:11 pm Link In case you haven't noticed to give away your RAW Digital files is like giving away your Negatives if you were still shooting Film. Why would i give any model doing trade or paid work my original files, that is always the photographers ownership. ALWAYS!! Dec 11 12 09:18 pm Link Bravo Magic Images wrote: BRAVO!!!! Dec 11 12 09:36 pm Link I would never give any RAW files. It may be the models nievety that they ask in the first place. If I am in my studio I may shoot tethered and can easily go through the shots with them to review poses etc... After a location shoot if we go for a drink then we can have a quick look in camera. I generally make a first cut and then process quickly from RAW, sending the selection to the model as 72dpi 800mp (longest side) low quality Jpegs so they can review. We then discuss which we think are best and why to decide on the final shots. To me that is good service. If they insist on RAW then I'm sorry but they are out the door, that is my work, my copyright and my reputation. Dec 12 12 12:00 am Link Miss Havisham Phtgrphy wrote: great Dec 12 12 12:04 am Link Models need to stick to THEIR guns and NOT work with photographers who do not give them FAIR COMPENSATION for their time. Photographer egos are way too big, and models put up with it. Or some, do. Some learn. The best way to avoid problems is to discuss BEFORE hand, and maybe get a CONTRACT in writing. *NOT* a release, a CONTRACT. After all, TF* is an agreement (CONTRACT) like any other. THEFT of service applies to TF* just as it applies to a paid shoot. In one, the "payment" is images, while in the other, it's cash, but it's *STILL* payment. Photographers think one image is enough for a TF* shoot, but they are WRONG. Dead wrong. And, if that image is below par, has a watermark, etc, they are actually STEALING from the model, since the model has put in the *SAME* time as they have, and has not gotten anything she can use. *THAT* is the key to a TF* agreement. BOTH parties need to come away with something of value ot them. If they don't, then there is NO REASON TO WORK TOGETHER TF*!! NONE. That "value" could be as little as good will, or networking, or it could be "testing" for another job/shoot, etc. But it has to be of value to BOTH parties, EQUALLY. Photographers *think* that because they put a value of $100 on an image, the image is worth $100 of a _MODELS_ time. It's *NOT*. The models' time is worth as much as the photographers -- and if she is a working in-demand model, maybe more THat whole "I've got $10,000 in equipment" is just bullshit. It always was, and always will be. The models' time is HERS. If she wants to SPEND it doing a TF* shoot, that TF* shoot has to be worth that TIME. Maybe she could be cleaning her house. Or reading a book. Or sleeping in. But it's HER TIME. Not yours. And if you want it, you need to PAY -- more than a few low res watermarked images. The *REAL* problem is photographers are trying to use TF* as way of getting "FREE" models, *NOT* for what it was meant to be -- eg: a way to turn down-time into productive time. TF* is *NOT* a means of "free" and many people have been surprised by what happened to them in court when a "FREE" shoot became commercialized -- especially if the model was "mis-informed" of the purposes, and intent. That whole "release" thing where you claim commercial use, *ONLY* applies if the model was given FAIR compensation, and *IF* there was no intent to defraud. Unfortunately, most TF* has become an intent to defraud. Theft of services/time. And more. TF* is a way to shoot "STOCK" photos, to turn down-time into productive time (STOCK) or test out IDEAS, concepts, etc. SOMETIMES it's a way of doing a "commercial" shoot on a shoestring budget, if EVERYONE agrees that it's a trade, and the goal is a published tearsheet. But, even then, someone is paying more than others, or a makeup artist is consuming supplies, etc. TF* OFTEN includes some compensation for materials and travel, it's TIME that is traded, *NOT* commercial goods. There are a *LOT* of problems with TF* as practiced here, and I've only a touched on a few that piss me off, time and again. There are more. But as for "RAW" images, if you consider the RAW to be a "NEGATIVE" then the models never got the negatives. *BUT* since you can make high-res JPG files that are nearly as good, and more than adequate for most purposes, giving them the JPG files is *NOT* unreasonable. I do. I buy flash drives in bulk, or when I see them for $5. And, 8 gig drives are now readily available "on sale" for $5-6. I'm getting 16 gig drives for $9 locally in the big-box stores. Sandisk, pony, HP, etc. Not generic. The thing is, you just have to get over the fact that *YOU* want to control everything. Maybe as an old stock/news photographer, I'm used to turning photos in, and not having control over the final use. But, I got my expenses paid, perks, and such. I got to keep shooting. Decide what is most important to you. Happy models and a full shoot schedule or tight control and an empty schedule. Right now I'm at the point (I think because I do give so many images is part of it) where we have more models willing to work, than I can fit into the schedule, or find photographers for. (And before anyone starts up, *I* need to charge for use use of my studio space, lighting, overhead, equipment breakage, prop loss, insurance, etc. So, while the models are willing to work TF* the photographers have to pay a little for what they get. *I* don't get anything out of letting people use my stuff for free -- remember, "trade" has to be of value to BOTH parties. "trade" doesn't replace that broken light or blown unit. Around here, photographers want stuff for free... not just models. They want events, workshops, use of YOUR studio, even free food. Pisses me the hell off. I set up another group for the more serious photographers, willing to PAY for their hobby, art, etc. It's much, much smaller, but we have a much,. much better time!) TF* is *NOT* free. It's a form of BARTER. and Barter has rules going back millennia, to earliest man, which people here, in the last decade, seem to want to redefine. Scott WOW! A lot of YELLING dude. Dec 12 12 12:20 am Link Duncan Longden wrote: This! Dec 12 12 12:21 am Link I've read most of this thread and it's quite an entertaining one! I have had only one model ask me this and I gave her a polite no. Other then that one time(which I thought was bizarre when she asked) I've never been asked. Would you serve someone raw food? no. A raw image is like a half cooked meal, serve it and your work will get sick. You'll have butchered or non-retouched images floating somewhere. Maybe not but I don't know who would want to take the chance. I definitely don't mind letting the model pick some images, but I can't imagine that there is a valid argument for this! Dec 12 12 02:23 am Link Alixx Rose wrote: I think that you are a very unusual model (but one that I would be more than happy to work with). If models were truly interested in improving what they do, I would be happy to give them copies of all the images that I shoot. However, in practice, I offer them the opportunity to sit with me and go through the images to decide which ones to work up, but their patience does not last the distance. Dec 12 12 06:49 am Link ArtisticGlamour wrote: I have also seen many. I still want to see more! Dec 12 12 06:54 am Link Lol you guys are still going at it! Hi! Dec 12 12 07:02 am Link I dont and wont ever give RAWs to anyone. Its unfinished work. Period. IMO only newbies and hobby shooters do this. They shouldnt but to each their own.. I have a 5 image minimum for TF. Usually they get 7-12 images. Also a TF for me is about me and my idea, its not an "our" thing. I pick the location, dress them, and do their makeup. However this doesn't mean I wont collaborate poses, outfits, etc. All I ask is show up on time with a clean face, I do the rest. I don't even let them see the images, I choose. This is all known a head of time so they can choose not to work with me. Never had an issue.. they work with me because they trust my work and know they are going to get some solid images. I don't even let paying clients see RAW images or choose. Thats what they pay for, my eye, my vision, and my talent. They want to select they can go to Walmart. Never have an issue here either, its all spelled on on my website. Dec 12 12 01:54 pm Link Because it's like asking a model to be cool with just a video tape of everything they do while at the studio and having any of the stills from that published as their "modelling" skills. Dec 12 12 01:57 pm Link Ok, didn't read the whole thread, let me know if it's come up, but what about a watermarked image makes it unusable? It looks far more professional, and means it wasn't shot with an iphone. (ie the model knows how to be in a shoot, not just catch a lucky shot occasionally.) * "unusable watermarked images" or similar was mentioned but I can't find it now. Dec 12 12 09:29 pm Link illused wrote: Watermarks, especially large ones, usually look *less* professional. If you need a watermark to know it's shot professionally, you have other problems. Dec 12 12 10:11 pm Link Dan K Photography wrote: +1 Dec 12 12 10:30 pm Link natural beauties of qld wrote: ...they eventually become artistic directors, or *gasp* ...photographers. Dec 12 12 10:36 pm Link Jordan L Duncan wrote: This. MnPhoto wrote: To me...they are. Dec 13 12 05:52 am Link Bravo Magic Images wrote: Yes and no. There is ONLY one original negative. Dec 13 12 09:50 am Link For the model's benefit, I post small jpegs of all the useable RAW shots online for her review, usually within 24 hours of the shoot. I feel it's important that the model make the connection between what a pose feels like, and what it looks like. That said, they cannot (easily) download any of these images, and I only provide them with edited final images that were mutually decided upon. Dec 15 12 08:01 am Link I would never ask for all the RAWs, but I really appreciate it when photographers give me some sort of say in which images they decide to edit and finish. I've had photographers give me some great images from a photography stand point...but my face was weird or my modeling in those images was off so I can't really use them. Dec 16 12 06:42 pm Link |
Cheers, good luck, and sa·yo·na·ra.
and I don't care if you see another one, either.
