John Jebbia wrote:
Sometimes if a model's pestering me for RAW files, I give them actual RAW files (NEF's) and let them figure out how to open them.

I suspect the reason many photographers don't wanna give out RAW files is because they don't really know what they're doing until they get into photoshop and thus the RAW files will reveal just how amateur they really are.

Sometimes, but I've noticed that those guys also don't know what to do with it in PS, either.

Michael DBA Expressions wrote:

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.

Do you still have all the cameras you shot with? I don't. Do you register copyright for every single raw file? I don't.
You may have misunderstood me - I try to get everything perfect in camera too. It's just some things are impossible to get perfect. No makeup ad will be ever shot so that it's perfect right out of the camera.

As for clients with their own retouchers - I'm talking about ad and fashion jobs, usually gotten through ad agencies. Kind of clients who pay their retouchers three digits per hour. And usually when you book a job that is specified. You either play along or you don't get the job.

cwwmbm wrote:

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.

In my case, I'm almost always the retoucher as well as the photographer, so I don't field many requests for raw files. But every now and then I do a job for someone that has a studio department in house, or their own pet retoucher. In those circumstances I absolutely must turn over the raw files. Usually it's just the selects, but sometimes it's the entire shoot.

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.

http://jezebel.com/5693656/how-your-pla … -made-nsfw

Playboy was an exception.

Rik Williams wrote:
It's like giving away the negatives...

What he said. The RAW file is your negative. You should maintain control over that, whether you get it perfect in camera or flub it a little.

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.

It's like cutting off Samson's hair or having water splashed on us (re:Wizard of Oz). 

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.

Not true.

Giving someone a RAW file is like giving them a negative, not a print. They can change the color balance, change exposure, change contrast, etc.... all in a manner that is far less destructive than doing so with a JPEG. In other words, someone can take my RAW (from a shoot that I go "right" in the camera) and change it into something that is very much NOT what I was shooting - and do so in a way that will not reflect the manipulation that it would require to try to do that with a JPEG (assuming they could even do it).

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.

RAWS in digital is equal to negatives in film.

Nobody gets my raws unless they pay for them or they are a publication (sometimes a publication will request the RAWS and have their retoucher edit them so that the images are uniform with the other magazine images. They do this because each photographer tends to edit their own way and in some/many cases, it won't work with certain publications).

However, models will no ever get my raws. Nope. Never going to happen. Besides not many models that I know of even want the RAWS.

That is just pointless.

And the ones who scream that they have to have it at the end of the shot usually have the shittiest portfolios with the poorest post work ever.

John Jebbia wrote:
Sometimes if a model's pestering me for RAW files, I give them actual RAW files (NEF's) and let them figure out how to open them.

I suspect the reason many photographers don't wanna give out RAW files is because they don't really know what they're doing until they get into photoshop and thus the RAW files will reveal just how amateur they really are.

It would be funny if you posted this in the photographers forum, not the passive aggressive part about models, but your suspicion about why photographers do not give their RAW images away.  Oh my the ensuing dog pile would be a laugh riot!

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.

Never pushed or pulled? Did clip tests? Had a B&W job?

A good twenty-five years ago, I assisted Larry Silver on a job he was shooting for the Virginia Film Authority. Pretty much all Black and White. Yeah, exposure, etc. was right in the camera.... but they weren't just hiring Larry for that - they were also hiring him for his ability to develop that film and make B&W prints that, when converted for printing on a press, would still look amazing. A LOT more to some jobs than just getting it right in the camera.

For me, 90% of the film work I did was on Kodachrome, mostly pro K64... and I did clip tests on pretty much every job and a lot of it got pushed 1/4 stop. Guess I didn't get it right in the camera.... but I did get hired again and again and again.

I know what you mean though... back in the day of film, retouching was EXPENSIVE... so we spent a lot of time to get as much as possible right so that at least one piece of the film was as close to perfect as possible.

cwwmbm wrote:
No makeup ad will be ever shot so that it's perfect right out of the camera.

Around 1994, Revlon commissioned photographers, MUAs, and hired some of the best models in the industry to launch a special supplement to advertise a new line they brought out. The supplements were printed at 600 dpi. The photographs were ALL shot on 8x10 transparency. No retouching. Perfect, right out of the camera.

Robert Randall wrote:
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.

Al Lock Photography wrote:
Not true.

Giving someone a RAW file is like giving them a negative, not a print. They can change the color balance, change exposure, change contrast, etc.... all in a manner that is far less destructive than doing so with a JPEG. In other words, someone can take my RAW (from a shoot that I go "right" in the camera) and change it into something that is very much NOT what I was shooting - and do so in a way that will not reflect the manipulation that it would require to try to do that with a JPEG (assuming they could even do it).

It seems to me that someone messing with a JPEG would do more damage than someone doing the same messing with a raw file.  All those color balance, exposure, contrast, etc. changes would be destructive, and resaving the JPEG would introduce even more compression.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Robert Randall wrote:
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.

It seems to me that someone messing with a JPEG would do more damage than someone doing the same messing with a raw file.  All those color balance, exposure, contrast, etc. changes would be destructive, and resaving the JPEG would introduce even more compression.

Yep... part of my point. They can create an image that is not what I intend or was shooting and do so in a way that is not evident as a change against my intent.

Brian Diaz wrote:

Robert Randall wrote:
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.

It seems to me that someone messing with a JPEG would do more damage than someone doing the same messing with a raw file.  All those color balance, exposure, contrast, etc. changes would be destructive, and resaving the JPEG would introduce even more compression.

Yeah, in theory. In practice it would take A LOT of changes to introduce noticeable artifacts.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Around 1994, Revlon commissioned photographers, MUAs, and hired some of the best models in the industry to launch a special supplement to advertise a new line they brought out. The supplements were printed at 600 dpi. The photographs were ALL shot on 8x10 transparency. No retouching. Perfect, right out of the camera.

The fact that you found just one case that contradicts me in the last 20 years is the proof of what I'm saying, really. That's not to mention that shooting transparency is VERY different from shooting RAW and not processing it. Transparency is already pretty heavy processing in itself.

Untitled Photographer wrote:
Well here is an indisputable fact - one cannot "get it right" out of camera shooting RAW. It's possible to get it right shooting jpeg, but not RAW. RAW is an unprocessed file, jpeg is a processed one. This is why some people describe RAW files as digital negatives. While they are not actual negatives they are indeed unprocessed files.

When I click on a MOS file in Capture One, or a CR2 file, an approximation of the image appears on the monitor. Typically this image is close in color and tone to what I intended it to be when I lit and exposed/captured it. The image isn't a slurpee rendition of gray mush, it is for all practical purposes a complete picture. I don't know how to turn off all the affects that would make the picture become a gray slurpee. So, at what point does all the magic take place that determines when a raw file transcends the boundaries of negative metaphor into picture?

I understand the opinions surrounding stylized post processing, but saying a raw file is synonymous with a negative is basically moonshine.

cwwmbm wrote:
Yeah, in theory. In practice it would take A LOT of changes to introduce noticeable artifacts.

That's assuming the person resaving the photos knows what she or he is doing.  Push the quality level down below 8 or so, and the artifacts are readily apparent.

Brian Diaz wrote:

That's assuming the person resaving the photos knows what she or he is doing.  Push the quality level down below 8 or so, and the artifacts are readily apparent.

I won't presume to know what the reproduction schedules are for all images saved at level 8, or lower, jpegs, but I will guarantee that no one of you could tell the difference between a high res PSD and its compressed to level 8 jpeg cousin, when both are output to 133 line screen.

Brian Diaz wrote:

That's assuming the person resaving the photos knows what she or he is doing.  Push the quality level down below 8 or so, and the artifacts are readily apparent.

What Robert Randall said + I thought here we were talking about people who know what they are doing, not people who don't what's the difference between curves and selective colour

Robert Randall wrote:
When I click on a MOS file in Capture One, or a CR2 file, an approximation of the image appears on the monitor. Typically this image is close in color and tone to what I intended it to be when I lit and exposed/captured it. The image isn't a slurpee rendition of gray mush, it is for all practical purposes a complete picture. I don't know how to turn off all the affects that would make the picture become a gray slurpee. So, at what point does all the magic take place that determines when a raw file transcends the boundaries of negative metaphor into picture?

I understand the opinions surrounding stylized post processing, but saying a raw file is synonymous with a negative is basically moonshine.

You realize you are talking out both sides of your mouth as you contradict yourself?

When someone shoots jpeg the camera is doing the post process. When they shoot RAW the human processes with Lightroom, PS, etc.  I would suggest Google.  And note I did not say a RAW image is a negative, I attempted to explain why some people compare them or describe them like a negative. And this is not about stylized or heavily processed images, this is fundamental camera and file technology.

Without processing a RAW file is unusable for practical application. A film negative shares that attribute. Obviously a digital file is not a film negative but they share a critical attribute - neither are finished or usable images, for practical purposes that is.

Furthermore if you export a RAW image straight to a jpeg and send that jpeg to your high fashion magazine client you will find yourself unemployed quickly. This has nothing to do with stylizing or heavy post process.

And as you said, your out of camera RAW image is close, but it must be processed unless you want to print or share a crappy image.

So once again, giving someone your RAW file forces them to process your image. I'd prefer to do that myself, you seem comfortable allowing models and I suppose anyone else, based on the tone if your OP, to process your images. More power to you.

Untitled Photographer wrote:

You realize you are talking out both sides of your mouth as you contradict yourself?

When someone shoots jpeg the camera is doing the post process. When they shoot RAW the human processes with Lightroom, PS, etc.  I would suggest Google.  And note I did not say a RAW image is a negative, I attempted to explain why some people compare them or describe them like a negative. And this is not about stylized or heavily processed images, this is fundamental camera and file technology.

Without processing a RAW file is unusable for practical application. A film negative shares that attribute. Obviously a digital file is not a film negative but they share a critical attribute - neither are finished or usable images, for practical purposes that is. If you export a RAW image straight to a jpeg and send that jpeg to your high fashion magazine client you will find yourself unemployed quickly. This has nothing to do with stylizing or heavy post process.

And as you said, your out of camera RAW image is close, but it must be processed unless you want to print or share a crappy image.

So once again, giving someone your RAW file forces them to process your image. I'd prefer to do that myself, you seem comfortable allowing modems and I suppose anyone else, based on the tone if your OP, to process your images. More power to you.

I'm not talking out of the both sides of anything. Confronting me with such a vague, yet hostile comment serves absolutely no purpose except to somehow elevate your posture within your own mind. Stick to the ideas and leave the messenger alone.

The last time I checked, the operator has complete control over the variables in the camera that determine the look of a jpeg direct from camera. And to be clear, you're the first person to suggest anyone wants a jpeg direct from camera.

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.

I never give away RAW files, because I try to sell them to the clients.  Most clients don't even ask for them, but some do, and it's just another way to earn a fee.  It's really like the client wanting to buy the negatives back in the film days, thinking that they could save money for themselves by not having to hire a photographer on their next project.

Robert Randall wrote:

I'm not talking out of the both sides of anything. Confronting me with such a vague, yet hostile comment serves absolutely no purpose except to somehow elevate your posture within your own mind. Stick to the ideas and leave the messenger alone.

The last time I checked, the operator has complete control over the variables in the camera that determine the look of a jpeg direct from camera. And to be clear, you're the first person to suggest anyone wants a jpeg direct from camera.

The operator programs the camera to process to the desired outcome. But the camera lacks human judgement, thus we shoot RAW because we feel we can post process better than the camera.

I'm not attacking the messenger but much if your top post is demonstrably false and exaggerated misinformation. You asked for opinions, mr moonshine :-)

You're obviously a very talented and accomplished professional. That only adds to my sense of puzzlement :-) ha ha ha.

You and I both process our images, neither of us creates a RAW image that does not require processing for practical application. You're comfortable letting people process your RAW files, I'm not. But creating stylized or heavy processes images has nothing to do with not handing RAW files over, yet its certainly possible.

ou and a couple others suggest those who don't hand over their RAW files are suspect, rely in heavy processing, or are afraid if getting caught at being shitty. Those assertions are demonstrably moonshine. Lol!!

Cheers!

Ruben Sanchez wrote:

I never give away RAW files, because I try to sell them to the clients.  Most clients don't even ask for them, but some do, and it's just another way to earn a fee.  It's really like the client wanting to buy the negatives back in the film days, thinking that they could save money for themselves by not having to hire a photographer on their next project.

I have a hard time understanding your analogy, because back in the film days, you gave the clients the film... That was the product they paid for. I suppose there's an argument for prints from negs, but that's a business model I'm not familiar with. If I was familiar with it, I can't imagine someone making an argument for the sacrament of custom c prints, because that would be just too much bull smoke to handle.

Untitled Photographer wrote:
The operator programs the camera to process to the desired outcome. But the camera lacks human judgement, thus we shoot RAW because we feel we can post process better than the camera.

I'm not attacking the messenger but much if your top post is demonstrably false and exaggerated misinformation. You asked for opinions, mr moonshine :-)

You're obviously a very talented and accomplished professional. That only adds to my sense of puzzlement :-) ha ha ha.

You and I both process our images, neither of us creates a RAW image that does not require processing for practical application. You're comfortable letting people process your RAW files, I'm not. But creating stylized or heavy processes images has nothing to do with not handing RAW files over, yet its certainly possible.

ou and a couple others suggest those who don't hand over their RAW files are suspect, rely in heavy processing, or are afraid if getting caught at being shitty. Those assertions are demonstrably moonshine. Lol!!

Cheers!

Where did you read anything I wrote that said I was comfortable having someone else process my files? As far as my top post being false, it was basically a question, nothing more... How can a question be construed as false? If you program the camera to process to your standards, you have just exercised human judgement.

I find you to be mentally challenged and argumentative to a fault, go away!

Edit... See Brian, I told you i couldn't do this.

FabulousFotos wrote:
I take uncompressed RAW images with my Nikon D800, approximately 75 megs each. One model recently asked for the .NEF files. I asked if he knew how to process them and he did. So I provided his images on a 32 GB memory stick.

He did a great job processing them, and both our portfolios benefitted. As far as I can tell, neither of us were hurt by sharing those files.

On a side note, I recently was given a Nikon D800 to play with on a job. The job called for the use of a medium format back. During the shoot of one of the scenes, I slipped the D800 in for a few exposures. I'm very close to thinking the D800 is a viable replacement for a Leaf Aptus back. I just wish it had a leaf shutter!

Robert Randall wrote:
I have a hard time understanding your analogy, because back in the film days, you gave the clients the film... That was the product they paid for. I suppose there's an argument for prints from negs, but that's a business model I'm not familiar with. If I was familiar with it, I can't imagine someone making an argument for the sacrament of custom c prints, because that would be just too much bull smoke to handle.

No, I never gave away my 4x5 negatives or my 4x5 transparencies to the clients.  Not familiar with what market you were involved in, but when shooting for clients who were going to put advertisements in newspapers, magazines, bill boards, etc., the client got the use of them, and then they would be returned.  Of course, not all clients wanted to buy them, but some would.  It's the same with most old school commercial photographers that I know.  They won't give away the RAW files either.  I have no problem giving away low-res jpeg files, but full RAW files, not for free.

C-prints?  No, I didn't do portraits, ha, ha.

Ruben Sanchez wrote:

No, I never gave away my 4x5 negatives or my 4x5 transparencies to the clients.  Not familiar with what market you were involved in, but when shooting for clients who were going to put advertisements in newspapers, magazines, bill boards, etc., the client got the use of them, and then they would be returned.  Of course, not all clients wanted to buy them, but some would.  It's the same with most old school commercial photographers that I know.  They won't give away the RAW files either.  I have no problem giving away low-res jpeg files, but full RAW files, not for free.

C-prints?  No, I didn't do portraits, ha, ha.

Ahhh, you didn't mention the returned part in your previous post. Some of my clients returned the transparencies, and some didn't.  I love the usage part of estimates!