Robert Randall wrote:

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!

My experience was that clients/agencies didn't want dupes to print from. Freelance models were typically ok with them.

Melodye Joy wrote:
It took a few bad shoots and a half a dozen photographers giving me ALL images, edited or unedited, for me to realize how improper giving/receiving RAW files really is.

^Gospel^

Melodye Joy wrote:
From a models perspective, I dislike RAW files. Though the intent is that I receive ALL images from our collaboration out of kindness, I feel as if my time is invaluable to you. For some, they replace editing with giving. I know for me, I can edit an image as well as take a photo, but when I am a model, I expect my role to be model and possible stylist...not editor as well.

I also feel that the creative process you have is going to vary to what I may see in an image. A raw file takes away YOUR creativity, doesn't it?

It took a few bad shoots and a half a dozen photographers giving me ALL images, edited or unedited, for me to realize how improper giving/receiving RAW files really is.

I waited months for edited images from a photographer, you know waiting that long was annoying but so worth it? Getting only the edited images allowed me to push them around for publication and eventually they got in print! So worth the wait!

Most recently, a photographer posted up all the RAW files for a catalog shoot I partook in....my eyes were half closed, one girl was mid sneeze....plainly, if that's what is to be edited, I'm frightened! It just seemed very much unprofessional. A good go to if you need to refer what NOT to do while infront of the camera but just the same.

Just my few cents.
Xo

Hmmm, while I rarely give out RAW, it does have it's place it's all dependant on the job.

Same with all photos, the reasons for me taking loads of photos is the same as why a model constantly alters their pose: to get the best possible picture. Not to get the highest number of pictures.

As a model, it's your job to look at the ports of the people you are working with as an indicator of what you might get. A model should never really be shocked if they work with someone who gives out raw files if their port has unedited photos.

Ken Pegg wrote:
Can you imagine record companies selling master tapes?

They do.

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 don't use C1 so I don't know its capabilities, but in Lightroom there's a preset called "Zeroed" that basically sets all development parameters to zero.

I've created a user preset from that which sets the WB to 5200k (pretty close to what my strobes put out) and converts it to greyscale (flat conversion). When I shoot tethered I use that for the first few test shots to see as close as possible what's actually going onto the sensor, checking basic exposure for clipping (I prefer to ETTR)  and relative levels of lights etc. That's as close to your 'grey slurpee' as I can get, I think. It's a fairly representative view of what's happening in-camera, but it is in no way a finished image. I guess some would argue that this is where all 'the magic' should happen: in-camera, before the RAW file is adjusted in any way.

After the first few test shots though, I choose another LR preset which pulls the exposure down a bit (to account for the ETTR) and applies a basic RAW conversion with a custom WB, colour mix, convert to B&W if I'm shooting for B&W, curves and contrast adjustments etc. that gives the kind of 'look' I'm after - eg. high key, low key, moody, gritty, pretty, glamorous, and so on.

Is this where 'the magic happens'? Certainly the resulting previews can look a lot different than the previews from the zeroed preset, but for me that's kind of analogous to choosing a different film or processing time/temperature in the old days. The RAW file is still the (unspecified) film (not the negative); the presets are my film/development choices that will result in a negative I can use as a starting point for post processing (printing). The difference with digital is that I can now choose a different film or develop it in a different way as many times as I like after shooting the image! 

When I've finished shooting and come to process the RAW files for output or further retouching in PS, I may use the same preset as a starting point or I may decide that another one gives a better look. I will then tweak the development parameters a little more based on the images shot, apply a few blemish fixes in LR and either output directly to JPEG or convert to PSD and do further retouching in PS. So is this where 'the magic' happens? Again, these files may look quite different from the previews, especially if I choose a different preset or decide to do further retouching in PS.

Personally, I think the magic (assuming there is any) happens at every stage above. All the decisions made at every stage of the process from choosing the model through to deciding how much sharpening to apply before exporting a final file are creative choices under my control. Hand any one of them off to somebody else and the resulting images won't be 100% 'mine'. A good retoucher may (probably will) produce a better final image than I ever could because I'm not a retoucher and don't claim to be, but the more steps you take away from me the less the image is going to be 'my' work. That's why I generally prefer to retain control over the whole process if possible.

As I said before, I will (and have) handed over RAW files to people I trust or clients who demand them because I'm fairly confident that my workflow up to that point produces reasonable RAW files that are (at least in part, especially when I control which images make it into the 'selects') representative of what I do. However, of course, time and circumstances permitting, I would always prefer to do it all myself.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Robert Randall wrote:

Some of my clients returned the transparencies, and some didn't.  I love the usage part of estimates!

Most of the time didn't as they got sent from one department to the other and then put somewhere !
Hence you'd shoot a number of finals and keep one back.

c_h_r_i_s wrote:

Most of the time didn't as they got sent from one department to the other and then put somewhere !
Hence you'd shoot a number of finals and keep one back.

And depending on the usage agreement, you might have to get permission from the client to keep that transparency you held back. I just signed a NDA for a new client that doesn't allow me to discuss their projects, nor display the work I do for them, even though I own the images.

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.

my exif data is proprietary knowledge that I choose to not share with anyone. So much of what I do is unique to me and how I work in lightroom.

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?

That Italian Guy wrote:
I don't use C1 so I don't know its capabilities, but in Lightroom there's a preset called "Zeroed" that basically sets all development parameters to zero.

I've created a user preset from that which sets the WB to 5200k (pretty close to what my strobes put out) and converts it to greyscale (flat conversion). When I shoot tethered I use that for the first few test shots to see as close as possible what's actually going onto the sensor, checking basic exposure for clipping (I prefer to ETTR)  and relative levels of lights etc. That's as close to your 'grey slurpee' as I can get, I think. It's a fairly representative view of what's happening in-camera, but it is in no way a finished image. I guess some would argue that this is where all 'the magic' should happen: in-camera, before the RAW file is adjusted in any way.


Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

I would guess your workflow is very similar to that of most advanced photographers. I think that your standardized approach to presets probably makes your workflow tighter than mine. Because a lot of the work I do is outside the studio, my preset is basically an X-Rite color checker in every scene.

Your argument that the magic begins at all levels is accurate in my opinion. Which brings me back to the question originally posited. No one but you can interpret and articulate your images into the final images you present to your clients and the world. It's what separates your work from the work of everyone else. I get all of that, but what I don't get is the notion that somehow, a raw file is akin to a negative. I think that is either smoke and mirrors BS that we use to embellish our stature to the uninitiated, or it's a means of dinosaurs to hang on to the last shred of connection to a craft long gone. A raw file is nothing more than a bucket of pixels that can be manipulated a myriad of ways. A JPEG is the same thing; so what's the fuss?

I really won’t entertain the notion that a raw file possesses so much more information than a JPEG. As a retoucher, I’ve encountered problem jobs for which I've been given raw files from outside sources. Sometimes the exposures are so bad, nothing done during conversion could save the image. Only after extreme measures, taking into account image replacement and extensive masking techniques, would I be able to salvage an image like that.

I think an argument I could understand is the desire to not give out any electronic files. Simply give out prints and be done with it. However, given the plethora of copy devices available to the masses, even that argument doesn't hold water. In the long run, the real issue is that nothing anyone can do will safeguard them from someone that is eager to affect changes to, or steal, their images.

Star wrote:
my exif data is proprietary knowledge that I choose to not share with anyone. So much of what I do is unique to me and how I work in lightroom.

One of the more valid arguments! I pay no attention to the data you speak of when I look at a file. Is that data not available on a JPEG?

Robert Randall wrote:

One of the more valid arguments! I pay no attention to the data you speak of when I look at a file. Is that data not available on a JPEG?

the exif data on my files remembers everything done to the file in lightroom. So if you were to open one of my raw files in photoshop/lightroom you would see the exact changes to each of the setting I had done when "developing" my file. JPG has metadata that tells you the copyright information, the camera, the exposure etc... Metadata and exif data are two different things.

Star wrote:

the exif data on my files remembers everything done to the file in lightroom. So if you were to open one of my raw files in photoshop/lightroom you would see the exact changes to each of the setting I had done when "developing" my file. JPG has metadata that tells you the copyright information, the camera, the exposure etc... Metadata and exif data are two different things.

Wouldn't I have to be sitting at your computer to see all those changes? Without actually processing out a raw file, do those arbitrary settings somehow become embedded with the raw file. In Capture One, for CR2 files, there is something called a side car that has to accompany the file in order for anyone to see the recipe. If you delete the side car, isn't the raw back to ground zero, or am I getting that wrong?

Robert Randall wrote:
Your argument that the magic begins at all levels is accurate in my opinion.

I like hearing this. The magic starts in the brain. It comes from the heart, inspiration, empathy, the ability to communicate, and a good message that people relate or to respond to according to the way we lead them.

Robert Randall wrote:
No one but you can interpret and articulate your images into the final images you present to your clients and the world. It's what separates your work from the work of everyone else.

Artistic License. Yay. It happens at all levels starting with the stick figures we learned to draw as children. That is at the heart of our intellectual property and what we work to produce and deliver.

Robert Randall wrote:
A raw file is nothing more than a bucket of pixels that can be manipulated a myriad of ways. A JPEG is the same thing; so what's the fuss?

A bucket of pixels. That's all it is to me too. Raw material for us to make into something special.

As cameras continue to improve, I have gone back to shooting large JPGs with camera settings. It saves time and there are plenty of pixels in the bucket for what I plan to do with them. On rare occasions I'll switch back to RAW if conditions need a marginal additional flexibility that RAW might offer.

There are so many other factors involved in collecting our bucket of pixels that are so much more important. RAW vs JPG is insignificant to me by comparison.

Robert Randall wrote:
I really won’t entertain the notion that a raw file possesses so much more information than a JPEG. As a retoucher, I’ve encountered problem jobs for which I've been given raw files from outside sources. Sometimes the exposures are so bad, nothing done during conversion could save the image. Only after extreme measures, taking into account image replacement and extensive masking techniques, would I be able to salvage an image like that.

Totally agree. Buckets of pixels are like tubes of paint to smear on our palette for mixing, then applying to our canvas.

It's important to have nice quality tubes of paint to work with along with the skill sets and tools to transform them into something beautiful that captures hearts and souls ...  at least to the extent of our own visions and ability.

The result of our efforts should be far more than the lump that lies on the table or flashes across our computer monitors. It should also be measured by the extent to which we can move people. Effect is at least as important to our final product as the mere substance. At this end of the scale, the bucket of pixels is mundane by comparison.

Robert Randall wrote:
Wouldn't I have to be sitting at your computer to see all those changes? Without actually processing out a raw file, do those arbitrary settings somehow become embedded with the raw file. In Capture One, for CR2 files, there is something called a side car that has to accompany the file in order for anyone to see the recipe. If you delete the side car, isn't the raw back to ground zero, or am I getting that wrong?

You are getting it right.  Star could easily hand out her original raw files to anyone without them seeing any record of her processing.

Robert Randall wrote:

One of the more valid arguments! I pay no attention to the data you speak of when I look at a file. Is that data not available on a JPEG?

You can easily strip exif data from Jpegs before presenting them to people; options are reviewed here in this forum: http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Dy2C

On RAW, which in Nikon is .NEF (Nikon Electron File),  if you open  raw plus basic in View NX (Nikon's software that comes with the camera) the NEF and the basic jpeg look the same. Same sharpening, same tonality, etc.

Third party processing vendors do not get all of proprietary info that is in .NEF, Nikon releases a version of it to them, as it sells its own processing and tethering softwares. You can see a difference in megapixel size. In windows a file may be 19 megs (D7000) in View NX it may be as high as 30megs and that is before you process it in TIFF. Some propagandists for Capture One boast that it is better at tonality for raw, NEF, or the Canon version of raw, than photoshop. I think it may be. But if I want to start with what I shot with in (what I saw on the LCD screen)-camera sometimes I open in View NX, particularly if Lightroom is showing skin tonality issues with their interpretation of .NEF data.  I just go to View NX and I have a 92 meg Tiff file to process that starts off with the same look as the JPEG. The .NEF file is actually based on the TIFF FORMAT.

When Nikon released the D7000 if you had photoshop cs4 you had in May 2011 to upgrade from cs4 to Cs5 to open up the NEF files.

Photoshop has tried to get camera manufacturers to use DNG but I don't Nikon will put support for it in their cameras. I could be wrong on that.

Robert Randall wrote:
Wouldn't I have to be sitting at your computer to see all those changes?

For camera-generated RAW files Lightroom writes information about RAW development parameters to the Lightroom catalog (database) and (optionally) to sidecar files with the .XMP extension.

If you convert the RAW files to DNG when importing into Lightroom (which I believe Star does) then there is no sidecar file and the data is written directly into the DNG.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Robert Randall wrote:
What I don't get is the notion that somehow, a raw file is akin to a negative.

It's the best (closest, most accurate, least corrupted) representation of the light that hit the sensor that we're going to get.

It's not like a negative in that it brings no characteristics of its own to the party; it's more like a pre-negative I suppose.

Robert Randall wrote:
I really won’t entertain the notion that a raw file possesses so much more information than a JPEG.

It does though. A JPEG is 8 bits of information, pre-processed by the camera according to certain parameters, with loads of information thrown away.

If you apply an extreme Lightroom develop preset to both a JPEG and the RAW file it was derived from the results are often very different. Lightroom (or any RAW converter) can adjust contrast, colour balance, curves etc. much more precisely and with less banding and artefacts introduced if it's working on the RAW data than if it's working on an 8 bit JPEG.

Here's an example I posted a while ago in another thread. On the left is a fairly 'flat' JPEG converted from the RAW file, in the middle, the same RAW file with a very extreme LR preset applied and on the right, the first JPEG with the same preset applied.



hi-res version

As you can see, while the middle image (from the RAW) isn't exactly pretty, it has vastly less noise, better contrast, better tones, less posterization etc. than the image on the right which is what you get when you do the exact same thing to the JPEG!

Of course, I've used a greyscale JPEG as my starting point which obviously contains less information than a colour JPEG would, but the principle is the same.

Robert Randall wrote:
I’ve encountered problem jobs for which I've been given raw files from outside sources. Sometimes the exposures are so bad, nothing done during conversion could save the image.

Of course, if it's that bad (eg. 5 stops underexposed) then even a RAW file isn't going to be much use as there was not enough light on the sensor and hence not enough data in the RAW file to start with. However, a RAW file exposed within a stop or so of optimum will bear a lot more punishment before you start to see artefacts than an identically exposed JPEG.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Robert Randall wrote:

And depending on the usage agreement, you might have to get permission from the client to keep that transparency you held back. I just signed a NDA for a new client that doesn't allow me to discuss their projects, nor display the work I do for them, even though I own the images.

Pre launch product so they keep it secret, used to get that with cars. Covered transporter used to turn up to the studio at 2 a.m.'ish, car unloaded and security gaurd on the stage door 24/7. No one allowed into the stage apart from the crew.

That Italian Guy wrote:


[url=http://swanstep.f2s.com/embedded/forums/LR_RAW_JPG_example_hires.jpg]

I appreciate the comparison you supplied, and although I'm suspicious of its complete accuracy, it probably does come close to the differences between the two file types. In my mind, the differences represented by your exercise are within tolerance for most reproduction work. Basically, both files can be made to work... if you had to make them work.

I don't want to get hung up on a battle of which is better, because that isn't the basic premise for the thread. My position is that I don't understand the uproar over giving out raw files. Star gave as good a reason as I've ever heard, but there were those that suggested even her reasons could be bypassed successfully. Again, my thought is very simple; if you're already going to hand out a high res electronic file, what difference can it possibly make with regard to format type?

You should see some of the over and under exposed garbage I'm given to work with. And then, after you've saved that garbage, the photographer has the balls to post it on his web site. Yikes!

c_h_r_i_s wrote:
If a photographer is paid for his/her style of work which maybe part of the post processing..... what is the client paying for if the RAW  files are handed over to the client without any post processing ? being part of the photographers trade mark/style.

I don't understand much of what goes on in here.

Robert Randall wrote:
I don't understand much of what goes on in here.

What do you mean?

Robert Randall wrote:
My position is that I don't understand the uproar over giving out raw files.

Agreed.

If the circumstances warrant it then I don't have a problem with giving out RAW files either.




Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

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.

Back in the film days commercial photographers gave clients transparencies if that was what had been shot because those were what were required for scanning or separations. But that transparency was pretty much locked in... without spending a LOT of money (I know how much, I worked in one of the labs that created the comps for Marlboro) they couldn't take that image and change it from the image you delivered. And you got the transparencies back after the seps were made.

You didn't deliver B&W negatives - you delivered finished prints, whether from a lab that you worked intimately with (as Onofrio Paccione did) or from your own darkroom (as Larry Silver did).

And back then, commercial photographers rarely shot color negative, but wedding and portrait and photojournalists did.... and I expect only the photojournalists turned their film over to their clients (employers).

Melodye Joy wrote:
From a models perspective, I dislike RAW files. Though the intent is that I receive ALL images from our collaboration out of kindness, I feel as if my time is invaluable to you. For some, they replace editing with giving. I know for me, I can edit an image as well as take a photo, but when I am a model, I expect my role to be model and possible stylist...not editor as well.

I also feel that the creative process you have is going to vary to what I may see in an image. A raw file takes away YOUR creativity, doesn't it?

It took a few bad shoots and a half a dozen photographers giving me ALL images, edited or unedited, for me to realize how improper giving/receiving RAW files really is.

I waited months for edited images from a photographer, you know waiting that long was annoying but so worth it? Getting only the edited images allowed me to push them around for publication and eventually they got in print! So worth the wait!

Most recently, a photographer posted up all the RAW files for a catalog shoot I partook in....my eyes were half closed, one girl was mid sneeze....plainly, if that's what is to be edited, I'm frightened! It just seemed very much unprofessional. A good go to if you need to refer what NOT to do while infront of the camera but just the same.

Just my few cents.
Xo

Many years ago, I asked Onofrio Paccione what the difference between a professional and an amateur photographer was?

His reply: "A professional doesn't show off their mistakes."

Robert Randall wrote:
I really won’t entertain the notion that a raw file possesses so much more information than a JPEG.

NEF file from shot done two days ago - 15mb
JPEG of same shot - 5.85 mb

That's a hell of a lot more 1s and 0s.

Fact is, a RAW file is 12 or 14 bit (depending on manufacturer, settings).

A JPEG is 8 bit.

That means that, at minimum, there is TWICE the information in a RAW file of the same resolution as in a JPEG.

Robert Randall wrote:
I don't understand much of what goes on in here.

I'll put it in laymans terms;

Example; you expose your images by 2 stops under and through some process known to yourself in RAW you do whatever to the RAW file to get part of a desired effect.
Next after conversion pdf or Tiff you add some more effect be it 'overlay', 'soft light', 'high pass'. ect.
Client asks for the RAW file ! this becomes a problem if they don't have your style/formula of process. And part of your day fee is that process only know to yourself..... what then is the client paying for ? if you 'only' hand over RAW files. Taking into account the RAW file looks like a heap of crap without that magic processing.

cwwmbm wrote:

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?

...

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.

...

I may not still have the camera that shot that RAW but I will certainly have several more sets of RAWs with the same serial number...

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.

If you loose control over your images. You loose control over YOUR image!

If you allow everyone to have a go editing your pictures and giving you credit for it... well, when people type your name into google, there is a risk you may end up as a laughing stock, with all the absurd things people do, or have third parties doing with your photos, and by extension your image as a photographer may be damaged.

Just my opinion...

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Robert Randall wrote:
I really won’t entertain the notion that a raw file possesses so much more information than a JPEG.

NEF file from shot done two days ago - 15mb
JPEG of same shot - 5.85 mb

That's a hell of a lot more 1s and 0s.

Fact is, a RAW file is 12 or 14 bit (depending on manufacturer, settings).

A JPEG is 8 bit.

That means that, at minimum, there is TWICE the information in a RAW file of the same resolution as in a JPEG.

No, it doesn't mean that at minimum, there is TWICE the information in a RAW file of the same resolution as in a JPEG. It means that at minimum, the container has the potential to contain twice the information. How much of that extra space is actually utilized depends upon many factors, including but not limited to, sensor, camera settings, lighting conditions, subject mater, etc...

Ken Pegg wrote:
Can you imagine record companies selling master tapes?

I guess it all comes back to how much those master tapes are worth to them.

I can't imagine them getting much, if anything, for the likes of "the best of William Hung"

Robert Randall wrote:

And depending on the usage agreement, you might have to get permission from the client to keep that transparency you held back. I just signed a NDA for a new client that doesn't allow me to discuss their projects, nor display the work I do for them, even though I own the images.

If it's a direct client as opposed to an agency it would be interesting what they have planned for the RAW images.... in house retouching or passing the RAW to a retouch lab.

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.

It doesn't except you can edit all the EXIF data and have a counterfeit.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I have never had a model request RAW files.  I have given a paid model some JPEG files.

+1