I had an interesting discussion recently with a bride who wanted my RAW files. Of course, I said no at first but that’s mostly because she seemed to be on a budget. Like any good (scratch that) smart (scratch that) money oriented business person I would have created a happy price that would allow my photographic conscience to release my RAW files. I think business people are supposed to like money. If I was to sell my RAW files it would probably be something absurd like twice my normal rates. Before you call me a sellout here’s my thinking:
- I do very little editing to 90% of my images anyway so straight out of the gate my RAW files will be fairly representative of my final edited product anyway.
- Someone asking for RAW files is not your average client. Most have no clue what an actual RAW file is and most do not have the ability to edit them.
- Assume they do actually muck about with the RAW files. I don’t think that 1 client out of hundreds having the RAW files is going to damage my “art” or business to the point that I wouldn’t book another wedding.
- I’d be making about $10,000. <— this one really resonates with me
BTW, these are just my opinions as an actual wedding photographer and not the opinions of the DWF in any way shape or form. So what do you think? Would you ever sell your RAW files to a client? This is our first go with a twitter poll so it will be interesting to see how this one pans out. Check back to see the final results.
Back Home
10 Comments at "POLL: Would You Ever Sell Your RAW Files?"
Interesting that so far YES is winning. Though it is a close margin. Anyone care to share why they are voting yes or no?
Whoops it just flip flopped. NO is winning.
Any product we release is a direct reflection of our business. Releasing less than “ready for public viewing” products is a negative reflection of our value, IMO.
@Geo
Do you believe that this would “damage” you somehow? What about all the photographers who release non-corrected proofing galleries. That was common place for ages and ages. Real quick put them up then color/exposure correct once a proof was ordered.
Yes is making a comeback…
Here’s a vote for, “I’m not sure.” My wife picked out a photographer for our wedding. Little did I know that it was actually a wedding mill that outsourced shooting and did processing/production in-house. Yeah, we definitely got burned when they sent someone (I actually knew the guy- he used to be one of my gradeschool teachers) who hard really only done studio portraits out to shoot our wedding. I guess when times are down, they get a lot of inexperienced applicants.
Long story short, when I asked about getting RAWs before the wedding, the first associate had no clue what I was talking about. That definitely perked my ears up. She went and got someone else and the best she could tell me was, “Oh, we don’t keep those. Sorry.”
Personally, unless a client is paying me extra for non-watermarked digital copies of their photos, I won’t hand them over. I know handing them RAWs would be really easy since almost no one has the hardware software setup that I do for photos and could replicate the exacting job I do making sure the copies clients receive are perfect. But then again, there’s a lot of work and consideration that goes into every shot I take.
My a la carte business model does offer clients JPEGs and TIFFs with or without watermarks (mine is small and unobtrusive) and has them priced accordingly. I want people to know if a photo was the result of my work, and to loose that has its value. However, you can’t watermark RAW images, to my knowledge. I guess my final word is yes, but I’d have to price it somewhere between watermarked and un-watermarked regular photo files.
A couple of weeks ago I posted a comment on ‘Virtual Photography’ blog (http://virtualphotographystudio.com/photographyblog/) related to this issue.
Every job I have ever done resulted in my client receiving a DVD with full resolution images. All images went trough my editing and enhancements treatment (I use a plethora of actions and presets) and are selected by me (between 400-550 images).
The only reason I will not sell my raw files is because they are uncorrected and are not suitable for viewing or printing. I edit and enhance 90% of my images because I can and we should.
We should give the client what is rightly theirs, their own images. Especially after receiving $10,000 from them (I love when photographers brag…makes their client look like a fool btw).
I have no use for the photos and squeezing (read:taking advantage) of a client is beyond my capabilities. The days of reprints and selling prints is over, mark my words.
And that’s a good thing.
Making money is our right and duty like any business person but squeezing the same client again and again (ESPECIALLY when they generously agreed to your prices) WILL NOT be the best way to earn a living.
Have pride in your work, give your client the best images you can create and go to the next one.
Have a great day,
Motti
Motti I think you misunderstood. Nobody had agreed to any prices in the scenario I described so there was no squeezing or taking advantage of. And I actually said no when asked to sell my RAW files. We never reached a point of negotiation on the RAW prices because my normal base fees were not in her budget. I made this post knowing that I could catch some flack but I think it also came of the realization that I do have a happy price and that my business would not cease if I sold my client the RAW files in addition to their full set of corrected jpegs.
As far as stating a price goes, I wasn’t boasting I was simply trying to show what value I place on my RAW files. I take great pride in my work, I give my clients the best images I can but hopefully rather than move on I create a business relationship that will extend beyond their wedding.
Mark, my mistake. I thought that after the job was done the client did not have much of a choice but to agree to your extra fees. My apology.
I find many photographers practice this way of doing business (I know one personally)and I do believe they give us a bad name.
Keep up the good work!
Have a great day,
Motti
Why not? Unless your RAW files suck.
I would prefer them to have RAW over jpeg. I have to ‘finish’ jpegs
I happily show on the back of the camera all day, and while they might get a little change in colour, skin retouching and maybe a vignette when finishing them (if I didn’t get it in camera with lighting) I’m comfortable with them having RAW files.
Of course they have to pay
Kris
Comment Now!