Posted by theda: 
I either want 300 dpi 9x12 image files or the prints themselves. "TF-tiny web-sized jpg" isn't very useful.

I agree with theda,  it is standard for models to have print books that are 9x12.  In the future I may tweek contracts and releases to protect myself  for I am not used to the web.

Do not give out all images and shoot raw and NEVER give raw images will protect you.

Posted by marksora: 
...and NEVER give raw images will protect you.

for the images that you do give to the model, why should she not be able to get RAW images?

I guess your reasoning behind this is so you can watermark the photographs?

ClevelandSlim

Posted by studiomona: 
Since I am fairly new to TFPs myself, I want to ask both models and photographers how many images do you receive/give for doing TFCDs? Is there a set number per hours worked?

Thanks in advance. ( I hope I am not intruding on the thread by interjecting another question but I think they are related) But please advise me if I have to start a new thread for my question.

-mona

Mona, you'll find as many answers as there are photographers!  I've had collaborations that range from getting all the images burned to CD before I leave the shoot, to getting three post-processed web size images a couple of months later.  And everything in between. 

Basically, you'll need to figure out what you're comfortable with, and let prospective models know up front how you handle things. 

Hope that helps!

Posted by ClevelandSlim: 

Posted by marksora: 
...and NEVER give raw images will protect you.

for the images that you do give to the model, why should she not be able to get RAW images?

I guess your reasoning behind this is so you can watermark the photographs?

ClevelandSlim

The reason I've been told is that doing so is the digital equivalent of handing over one's negatives.

Posted by Shyly: 

Posted by ClevelandSlim: 

Posted by marksora: 
...and NEVER give raw images will protect you.

for the images that you do give to the model, why should she not be able to get RAW images?

I guess your reasoning behind this is so you can watermark the photographs?

ClevelandSlim

The reason I've been told is that doing so is the digital equivalent of handing over one's negatives.

It's not quite as bad as handing over one's negatives, since one can keep as many exact copies of RAW files as one wants. 

I compare it to handing over the first draft of an essay.  RAW files are just that, raw.  They are not finished.  I want only my best work to be seen, so I make the proper edits before releasing any photo.

And some people like to watermark them.

for the images that you do give to the model, why should she not be able to get RAW images?

I guess your reasoning behind this is so you can watermark the photographs?

Although Brian went over this briefly, I'll touch on it again.  A camera's "raw" format is completely unprocessed data straight from the camera's imaging sensor.  It's not even a color image yet -- since most digital cameras do not have full color pixel sites, they use an array of color filters, so that pixels alternate in what color range they are sensitive to (generally Red/Green/Blue/Green/Red etc and then offset one for each row).

From that mess of data a post-processing routine must be applied to convert the image into color, convert it to fit within a certain color space, and just like in a darkroom, adjustments can be made to exposure, contrast, color balance, etc etc.

Raw files are the digital equivalents of film negatives.  No one keeps my raw files but me.

To answer the original poster's question:

For TFP, at the time of the shoot I generally provide the model with a CD with all of the images, unprocessed, as small jpegs.  These are for the model's personal use only -- so the model can study her poses, see what works, what doesn't, etc.  They are not to be publicly used in any form.

I will then post-process up to 10 photos of their choosing for them to use in their portfolio / on the web / whatever.  I will provide these as 300ppi ready-to-print digital files, and if they would like, have them professionally printed.  I'll also provide appropriately downsized and web-ready versions of these images.

Posted by Lone Shepherd: 

for the images that you do give to the model, why should she not be able to get RAW images?

I guess your reasoning behind this is so you can watermark the photographs?

Although Brian went over this briefly, I'll touch on it again.  A camera's "raw" format is completely unprocessed data straight from the camera's imaging sensor.  It's not even a color image yet -- since most digital cameras do not have full color pixel sites, they use an array of color filters, so that pixels alternate in what color range they are sensitive to (generally Red/Green/Blue/Green/Red etc and then offset one for each row).

From that mess of data a post-processing routine must be applied to convert the image into color, convert it to fit within a certain color space, and just like in a darkroom, adjustments can be made to exposure, contrast, color balance, etc etc.

Raw files are the digital equivalents of film negatives.  No one keeps my raw files but me.

To answer the original poster's question:

For TFP, at the time of the shoot I generally provide the model with a CD with all of the images, unprocessed, as small jpegs.  These are for the model's personal use only -- so the model can study her poses, see what works, what doesn't, etc.  They are not to be publicly used in any form.

I will then post-process up to 10 photos of their choosing for them to use in their portfolio / on the web / whatever.  I will provide these as 300ppi ready-to-print digital files, and if they would like, have them professionally printed.  I'll also provide appropriately downsized and web-ready versions of these images.

I generally give 3-5 9x12 300dpi finished tiffs for compcards, books etc. in addition to watermarked web res jpegs (of the above) for online portfolio use. Usually I'll go through all the shots with the model looking over my shoulder, but I don't provide every shot on a tfp, not even low res jpegs- too much time and effort when shooting raw...only paying clients get everything.

I go with 300 ppi Level 10 JPEGs, which is perfect for print.  TIFFs aren't necessary, nor do most print places (even pro places like WHCC) accept them.

Also, I shoot RAW + small jpeg -- then I just burn them a CD of the jpegs that the camera processed.  These are relatively low resolution (~2 megapixels or so) shots that the model can use to pick her faves, as theda mentioned.  These are basically proofs; not to be seen by anyone except the model and the photographer.

Do you watermark your high rez, 300 dpi images that are meant for printing when doing TCFCD? I would assume so but just wanted to get additional feedback

No.  I give them the images unmolested, and trust that the models I work with to appropriately credit my work.  If someone loves a shot, they'll ask her who did it.  I see no reason to sully the print with a tag of any kind.

Posted by ClevelandSlim: 
for the images that you do give to the model, why should she not be able to get RAW images?
ClevelandSlim

Why would a photographer want a model to muck with work in photoshop?

Posted by studiomona: 
Since I am fairly new to TFPs myself, I want to ask both models and photographers how many images do you receive/give for doing TFCDs? Is there a set number per hours worked?

Thanks in advance. ( I hope I am not intruding on the thread by interjecting another question but I think they are related) But please advise me if I have to start a new thread for my question.

-mona

Photographers who charge will usually give a model 2 to 4 images per look. Anymore is useless for a portfolio. There's no reason a model who is not paying should be getting more images than the ones who pay.

A web catalog or CD as theda mentioned is a great way to let the model pick the shots. Then you only do photoshop editing on the images the client selected.

I recommend you give 9x12 prints with no watermark along with low res watermarked versions of the files. I also recommend you charge for the prints. You are already putting more time into the session than the model by editing in photoshop. There's no reason they cannot at least pay the cost of making the prints.

Posted by theda: 
I do like to get a CD of everything in proof form so I can choose the shots I want/need.  Typcially, I only want 1-2 shots per look, max, in final form.

I HATE visible watermarks on my prints. It looks cheesey. I won't use watermarked shots for my real book.

Posted by Brian Diaz: 

Posted by Shyly: 
The reason I've been told is that doing so is the digital equivalent of handing over one's negatives.

It's not quite as bad as handing over one's negatives, since one can keep as many exact copies of RAW files as one wants. 
I compare it to handing over the first draft of an essay.  RAW files are just that, raw.  They are not finished.  I want only my best work to be seen, so I make the proper edits before releasing any photo.
And some people like to watermark them.

As of now if you never give out the RAW image but convert it to a TIFF even then you do have a negative for then the image can be proved to be in your posssesion.   
The point I was making did not have to do with watermarking an image.  If you give it away then yes,  you lose control and it could be copied.  This also goes to why one should not give all of the images.

Posted by StMarc: 
2) CD with a web-gallery format index, pics at 600px in the longest dimension. The model sees these and picks her favorites, which I then deliver on a CD as uncompressed JPEGs at 1200px in the longest dimension. The CD also has a release on it which allows the model to print the images up to a certain size.

May I ask why 1200px?  It seems like a size too big for the web, but too small to print.

The model never even *sees* an unretouched picture: all the web-gallery preview/proofs are retouched.

Doesn't this make for a lot of retouching of photos that never get used?  About what percentage of the photos do the models get to see?

I do let the entire team see all the photos (well, all the photos that I didn't screw up ) because I know that my criteria are different from the models', which are different from the MUAs', etc.

Thanks!

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

If there is time. I show them all the photos on my laptop right after the session and flag the images they like in Photoshop's Browser. Works great for RAW images. If I do this, I can skip making a CD or web catalog.

That must save you gobs of time!  Does it make you twitchy at all that doing so means the model sees the not-so-great shots, too?  I've talked to photographers who say that the key to people thinking you know what you're doing is never letting them see the mistakes.  *grin*

Posted by Shyly: 

Posted by XtremeArtists: 

If there is time. I show them all the photos on my laptop right after the session and flag the images they like in Photoshop's Browser. Works great for RAW images. If I do this, I can skip making a CD or web catalog.

That must save you gobs of time!  Does it make you twitchy at all that doing so means the model sees the not-so-great shots, too?  I've talked to photographers who say that the key to people thinking you know what you're doing is never letting them see the mistakes.  *grin*

MUAs and stylists broke me of the habit of not showing anyone. They like to see how it's looking "on film" so to speak.

I come off looking pretty good if I'm not worried about showing all the shots. The bad ones don't look much worse than the good ones. Which could be a good or bad thing depending on what one thinks of the good ones.

My work needs to get better overall, so this isn't an egotistical statement, but the comment I hear most is that all the shots look great, and some clients get upset they can't have all the shots without paying additional for them.

Posted by Brian Diaz: 

Posted by StMarc: 
2) CD with a web-gallery format index, pics at 600px in the longest dimension. The model sees these and picks her favorites, which I then deliver on a CD as uncompressed JPEGs at 1200px in the longest dimension. The CD also has a release on it which allows the model to print the images up to a certain size.

May I ask why 1200px?  It seems like a size too big for the web, but too small to print.

Because it's plenty o' pixels to submit to most places that might want one, even to contests, where 600px might be a little small. It's plenty big to print something in the 5x7 range, which is enough for a comp card as well. But it's not enough for really big prints, which is sort of the idea.

The model never even *sees* an unretouched picture: all the web-gallery preview/proofs are retouched.

Doesn't this make for a lot of retouching of photos that never get used?  About what percentage of the photos do the models get to see?

They don't get used by the models, no. Who knows what I might do with them? I retouch the ones that, in my opinion, are worth retouching, and then I have them if I want them.

I do let the entire team see all the photos (well, all the photos that I didn't screw up ) because I know that my criteria are different from the models', which are different from the MUAs', etc.

Thanks!

I often retouch photos that *I* don't particularly want (I don't really need Yet Another Headshot) but that I think show the model to good advantage. So that takes care of the models' criteria too.

M

Posted by sixthessence: 
I usually ask for a copy of all the images in original size/state. I don't care too much about the format, as long as it's a good one [overcompressed jpgs are NOT a good one].

I prefer to get the images with no watermarks on, for my book. In case I have to print some picture I agree with what Theda said:

-quote-
I HATE visible watermarks on my prints. It looks cheesey. I won't use watermarked shots for my real book.
-end quote-
...
Delilah

I agree totally on that. Where's the point on work more, just to give the model bad files? I usually have the original pictures an harddrive anyway - so why should I start a batch job to resize and crop them? It's way easier to give her the original files. She can do whatever she want's with them for her own purpose... She was part of the creation process - so why give her worse results??