Have I committed some photographer faux pas?

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by cmdwedge, Dec 3, 2013.

  1. wrobel

    wrobel Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Messages:
    933
    Location:
    Adelaide
    [


    Besides, why would you, for example, want raw image photo against a white backdrop or somesuch, when the post-processed image can end up like this

    You need FB for that'n, by the way'[/QUOTE]

    Doesn't look photoshopped to me.
     
  2. Catweazle

    Catweazle Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,867
    Location:
    Sale, Vic.
    Defs 'shopped, wrobel. I was standing right beside when the snap was shot. Corner of a really messy lounge room, with all the furniture shoved outta the way over in t'other corner.

    Lassie who took it was in the middle of home renos, and just shy of securing her shopfront/studio.
     
  3. BlueRaven

    BlueRaven Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    4,214
    Location:
    Sydney
    Mopping beer off keyboard as I type.

    Trying not to imagine what the RAWs of that shoot might have looked like. I need to get some sleep tonight.
     
  4. herzeg

    herzeg Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2010
    Messages:
    1,005
    Location:
    Melbourne
    /POPCORN

    Thanks guys; off to sleep now... :cool:
     
  5. triggerpeg

    triggerpeg Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    2,387
    Location:
    Sydney
    Exactly why I never give out RAWs. Stated on every contract that only JPGs will be given and explanation to the customer why this is. They all understand and happy with the 14mp files I give them.

    Doesn't look photoshopped to me.[/QUOTE]
     
  6. Pinkeh

    Pinkeh Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    10,935
    Location:
    Sydney
    When i do a job, the client is buying my time to create a final product. The "original" or RAW file is not the final product so i seldom give that away. It's just a process of capturing an image to process. I then post process the image to suit the client brief.

    Out of 50 or so commercial jobs i've only had 2 customers that wanted the "originals". Both customers did not understand what RAW files were.

    One bought the originals, and tried to send the RAW camera file to the printing company and complained that the printing company refused to accept the file format. :rolleyes:

    The other bought the originals believing that they need the originals to further edit the images, without realising that they didn't have people with the skills or specialised software to work with the files. They had Photoshop, that's it. It doesn't open - must be something I did. :rolleyes:

    Both clients were of course given post processed, high resolution JPEGs that suited their purpose as described in the agreed contract/brief.

    Depending on the job/client i output at 8-14 mega pixels JPEG files, which has more than sufficient for majority of client print jobs.

    I don't deal with prints, rather i collect lump sum payments to license for commercial / personal use.
    Even then i don't often get requests to purchase the digital negatives. They eat up storage space, and most clients dont know what to do with them.

    As Jack and Dan have already explained earlier - If the business doesn't give out their digital negatives, the reason is simple: it's not part of the "final product".
    There is no sensible reason to give them away for free either.

    For the OP: You can write to them and ask for it but dont be annoyed if they refuse to offer it as a product.

    Another thing to note for the photographer is that sometimes the only evidence to prove that you're the owner of a photograph is to have the original file and metadata intact for a copyright infringement dispute.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  7. glenpinn

    glenpinn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,524
    Location:
    Hobart
    Wow, man if you gave me this kind of attitude, i would never want to deal with you, i think its very unprofessional and rude, and i personally think that if what transpired between the OP and the photographer was as he stated, then that is not good business practice, and very rude on er part.

    some of you photographers really amaze me with your attitudes.

    exactly my point above, if i was treated like the OP was then i would be over there having it out with that woman, and she could have handled it a lot better than she did.

    if i shoot a video for someone, they get a copy of the original 1080/50p m2ts unedited files as they were shot on my camera, and they get 4 copies of the final edited file, 1080/50p in m2ts and mp4, and 720/50p in m2ts and mp4, and i do this for playback support.

    i keep a copy of all files archived for 1 year and then i delete them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  8. BMan2

    BMan2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    My analogy. The jpegs and prints, are a finished product. The RAW files aren't.

    Do you pay for a meal at the restaurant, and then ask the chef for the ingredients? Of course not. So why ask for the RAW files? You're absolutely not paying enough money for the raw ingredients AND the finished files.

    Similarly, I won't give out my RAW files because a) often I shoot with a particular amount of processing in mind, and I produce to a standard
    b) I know NOTHING about your level of post-production skill - but with the RAW file - you can make my photo look like an absolute mess and say "This is what came from the RAW file xxx gave me". While I'm aware you can do that with jpegs too, you can do infinitely more damage with the RAWs.
     
  9. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    58,365
    Location:
    brisbane
    Your analogy is terrible and justification for keeping the files... weak.
     
  10. BMan2

    BMan2 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2002
    Messages:
    821
    Oh sorry. Your overwhelming torrent of evidence surely disproves my theory. Do you actually get the raw ingredients at your restaurants. That'd be awesome, except for the flour. I hate raw flour.
     
  11. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    58,365
    Location:
    brisbane
    It's still a terrible analogy and made even worse by you trying to justify it like this.

    *edit*

    A better analogy would be to get a wedding video shot and then ask for all the raw footage. Even then, what harm would it do?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  12. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    15,435
    Location:
    Sydney
    Aside from personal responses to people in this thread (and surely you can understand people are responding on an internet forum and it isnt how they actually deal with clients).

    Not knowing the tone of how she presented the information in the first place. If you carefully read the first post, what exactly did she do wrong?

    She answered the questions, if she was blunt in doing so or did it with a tone that was rude then fine.. but she actually answered the questions asked (maybe in not the best way, she could have elaborated but again.. you never know how much she even knows).

    This isnt someone trying to justify it, more so trying to understand the uproar about it in the first place. Are you angry at the attitude, or the information given? Ill be honest that when I first read the OP I thought that perhaps the information given was wrong, as well as being rude. But now I think she was just being rude and that in large is what the problem was.

    EDIT: This post is really in addition to my previous post about business models and how they would work for photos.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  13. kombiman

    kombiman Dis-Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    11,764
    Location:
    viva brisvegas
    disagree

    I have eight kilos of dough to pick up from a baker on Saturday morning to use and I buy timber from the cabinetmaker/joiner across the road from work quite often. I had the luck to hire a tog for our wedding as a session and then give us the film to do as we pleased. Was excellent and she wasn't all butthurt about it.

    I can hire a mechanic to diagnose and not fix my car. I can hire someone to sand my house but not paint. I hired a builder to build an extension but did the final fit and paint myself. I had a plumber come and do some pipework after I cut the hole in the slab and got it all ready, I then back filled and re slabbed over the work. I can hire a writer to do the content for a web page, turn my notes into an article as piecework, an editor to simply proof but not publish, a designer to put it together, I can hire a coder to write an app for me and retain the copyright myself in all those cases etc etc etc.

    I think some togs get real precious in the real world. Not everyone doing the job is an artiste
     
  14. power

    power Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2002
    Messages:
    58,365
    Location:
    brisbane
    well put, I think the modern photographer styles him/herself after the photographer of the past (film days) when real talent was required, now there are a flood of dicks with DSLR's self styling themselves as Pro Photographers and getting an attitude to match.

    I'm not saying there aren't good photographers out there, but PS and good cameras are the unsung hero's if you ask me.
     
  15. Catweazle

    Catweazle Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,867
    Location:
    Sale, Vic.
    Yeah, but if he'd prefaced his comments with the "most" caveat rather than clumsily leaving them as absolutes, you wouldn't reasonably be able to :)
     
  16. glenpinn

    glenpinn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,524
    Location:
    Hobart
    all you guys using this "resturant" thing as a comparison is crap, and you all know it, and it has nothing to do with you guys not having to give the raw photos to the client.

    my take on this is easy, it is their money, the money i charge is actually for my time to shoot and produce the final video, so they are entitled to get a copy of everything that was shot on my camera, and i would never treat anyone i deal with in the same manner as i have seen here in this thread by a few of you guys.

    when i shoot a video, it would usually be shot in many individual segments, and the very first thing i do before editing the video is import the single clips into me editing tool, and join them all together and mux them to the exact same format they were shot in, thus creating a single, unedited 1080/50p m2ts video file, and it it this file that would be my equivalent to a photographers "Raw" files before processing.

    i would never in my life, have the audacity to tell a client they have no right to this file, when it is rightfully theirs, they pay me to shoot the video, so they have a right to everything i shoot on my camera.

    as part of the fee i charge for my service, i edit the video for them, consulting with them until they are happy with the final cut, and i then output to 4 different formats for playback.

    i then provide a copy of the edited video in all 4 formats, plus the original unedited file, which only has additional video on it that was not used in the final cut.

    i see no difference between this, and the "raw" files from a photographers camera.
     
  17. methd

    methd Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2006
    Messages:
    3,251
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I always give out raws if requested. They pretty much look like the edited photo anyway lol. Client just has to realise that there are lots of random shots like boobs and legs in the set which are totally irrelevant and a little bit creepy
     
  18. glenpinn

    glenpinn Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    5,524
    Location:
    Hobart
    why not, the photos belong to the client, they paid you to take the photos, so they have a right to them, and saying that they are not part of the "final product" is a cop out, they are the files that the processed files were created from, so give them to the client, with your "final product"
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  19. Peka

    Peka Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2005
    Messages:
    379
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    It's not quite the same. An m2ts file can be played back quite easily in any media player. A RAW file is raw sensor data that has to be processed just to see an image. If it is processed badly by the customer (all it takes is to get the white balance wrong), that can reflect badly on the photographer if people are told that the photographer "took these photos and they are shit".

    I agree with the restaurant analogy being crap though.
     
  20. interlopr

    interlopr Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    Messages:
    216
    Location:
    Sunshine Coast QLD
    You see, That is Raw footage.

    You don't give it to your clients without putting it together do you ;)
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: