p.1 #1 · How many trust there raw files to editors
I have a client (magazine) that wants my select raw files and they will adjust etc. I'm one that prefers to edit myself, don't trust anyone else, been there done that. I told them that I can give them a hi res tiff and they still insist on the raws. Would like to here others opinions before I make my decision to go forward or pull the plug.
p.1 #2 · How many trust there raw files to editors
I give the client what they want. They're paying for it after all.
As for trusting a magazine staff with your RAW files, well they are going to do what they need to do for their layout, regardless of the format they get from you. So if they need to mangle your photo to get what they need, they'll do it regardless of whether it's RAW or TIFF, or JPEG.
I'd never turn over all the RAWs from a shoot, but if a client demands the selects as RAW, and they're paying for it, I say give it to them.
p.1 #3 · How many trust there raw files to editors
First, your web site if blocked by Norton as a harmful web page, what is that all about. Second, PP images for publication is something that I would bet you have ZERO experience in, we are now talking about prints here we are talking about press production, ink colors, CYMK, etc. The need your original images in order to successfully get press ready images, give them the raws or just forget the opportunity.
p.1 #4 · How many trust there raw files to editors
Thanks Chas.
davenfl wrote:
First, your web site if blocked by Norton as a harmful web page, what is that all about. Second, PP images for publication is something that I would bet you have ZERO experience in, we are now talking about prints here we are talking about press production, ink colors, CYMK, etc. The need your original images in order to successfully get press ready images, give them the raws or just forget the opportunity.
Dave
For some reason google flagged my site as having some suspicious script in it. Bunch of BS but I need to deal with it. Only a few people have mentioned it, thanks for bringing it to my attention.
And yes I do understand what they need to do for print, but there are some images that I spend time on and to let someone else PP CAN have undesirable (to me) final results. Thanks for the opinion Dave.
p.1 #7 · How many trust there raw files to editors
davenfl wrote:
First, your web site if blocked by Norton as a harmful web page, what is that all about. Second, PP images for publication is something that I would bet you have ZERO experience in, we are now talking about prints here we are talking about press production, ink colors, CYMK, etc. The need your original images in order to successfully get press ready images, give them the raws or just forget the opportunity.
Dave
I have been supplying files to clients for publication for like 10 years and never have I had to supply raw files or for that matter "press ready" files. Unless you have profiles of their presses, and know how to use them there is no point in delivering a cmyk file. A retouched, color corrected rgb tiff or jpg file has worked with all of my clients, and I'm sure it would work in this situation.
The only time i do cmyk conversions is for my own short run promo cards and for those, the printer supplies profiles.
p.1 #8 · How many trust there raw files to editors
davenfl wrote:
First, your web site if blocked by Norton as a harmful web page, what is that all about. Second, PP images for publication is something that I would bet you have ZERO experience in, we are now talking about prints here we are talking about press production, ink colors, CYMK, etc. The need your original images in order to successfully get press ready images, give them the raws or just forget the opportunity.
Dave
You can get press ready images from JPG and TIFF also. I never give out my raw files. I've never had a client ask. You don't need raw to print anything. What do you think we used before raw files became availiable??
p.1 #9 · How many trust there raw files to editors
I never release RAW files to a client. I sell "finished" images and that's what I deliver. I'll gladly deliver a 16-bit TIFF file if they need, but not the RAW files. It's a matter of how you word your agreements too.
p.1 #11 · How many trust there raw files to editors
Thanks everyone for the input. I told the magazine that I will only send edited hi res jpegs and tiffs and no harm done if they want to pull the plug. So they are "settling" with the jpegs and tiffs.
p.1 #12 · How many trust there raw files to editors
It's shocking what happens when photographers stand up for themselves, eh? (this industry is on overload with pansy pushovers which is why the industry is so rocky right now). The best word to master as a photographer is "no."
p.1 #13 · How many trust there raw files to editors
I'm curious; for what reasons are so many photographers hesitant to release the raw-file? This is a genuine question btw, so don't get all upset on me now
p.1 #14 · How many trust there raw files to editors
Because any person can basically re-create your photograph and make it something you the photographer didn't intend. A photographer delivers a finished image. Of course every situation has it's own set of variables. I've personally done photography for super repeat clients where it was high volume shooting and they wanted jpgs straight out of the camera. For that particular situation, I did that. But that was heavily more information gathering than anything considered artistic photography. All other jobs get a finished, polished image.
p.1 #15 · How many trust there raw files to editors
sputnik wrote:
I'm curious; for what reasons are so many photographers hesitant to release the raw-file? This is a genuine question btw, so don't get all upset on me now
I used to shoot features for USA Today, and they would want me to fedex the unprocessed film. Didn't really like it but that's how they worked. Not many creative decisions were needed when processing E6. Push it or pull it...
These days the post processing in photoshop is a major part of the photographers creative vision. I shoot things with an idea of how I'll finish it in photoshop, sending raw files gives that role over to someone else who doesn't know what I had in mind.
p.1 #16 · How many trust there raw files to editors
davenfl wrote:
Second, PP images for publication is something that I would bet you have ZERO experience in, we are now talking about prints here we are talking about press production, ink colors, CYMK, etc. The need your original images in order to successfully get press ready images, give them the raws or just forget the opportunity.
Dave
Um... no.
That's nonsense.
I've never had RAWs requested, and I wouldn't give 'em out unless there's a damn good reason. As others have mentioned, photographers tend to deal with finished (or semi-finished, when there's a major post house involved) images. Press ready, ink colors, CYMK... doesn't require RAW in the least.
I contribute (photojournalism) to some of the widest-circulation newspapers and magazines in the U.S. for feature stories, including images that have run double-page spread in the glossy/photo-y magazines... and it's shoot in RAW, process to JPG, send some subset of the final images (from which the publication will make selections, or will ask if I have other images of TK or TK).
I'd balk at RAW images being requested. Standing up for one's craft-- or at least negotiating one's terms/contract-- is an important aspect of managing the relationship between a freelancer, her subjects, and her clients.
p.1 #17 · How many trust there raw files to editors
I tend to agree with most others here. I've never had a client request raw files and it's been very rare for them to want anything other than jpgs or once in a while uncompressed tiffs. I don't see it as a matter of the client not knowing the direction I wanted to take with the image. I don't like how so much photoshop work is done to some images, making them into completely different looks than what they were shot as. I see it as if your raw file isn't pretty close to what you wanted to achieve in your "vision", you didn't do something right and shouldn't rely on photoshop to change it. I don't mind showing and giving clients unedited jpgs because I rarely need to change anything in the images.
I don't see a huge problem with supplying raw files, it's just more of a matter of principle for me. I of course don't want the client changing the image tons from how it was shot (simply because my name/reputation will be attached to the picture) but if they want to change it, they can do so with raw file or not. They can mangle the image with any format you give them.
p.1 #18 · How many trust there raw files to editors
ping279 wrote:
I tend to agree with most others here. I've never had a client request raw files and it's been very rare for them to want anything other than jpgs or once in a while uncompressed tiffs. I don't see it as a matter of the client not knowing the direction I wanted to take with the image. I don't like how so much photoshop work is done to some images, making them into completely different looks than what they were shot as. I see it as if your raw file isn't pretty close to what you wanted to achieve in your "vision", you didn't do something right and shouldn't rely on photoshop to change it. I don't mind showing and giving clients unedited jpgs because I rarely need to change anything in the images.
I don't see a huge problem with supplying raw files, it's just more of a matter of principle for me. I of course don't want the client changing the image tons from how it was shot (simply because my name/reputation will be attached to the picture) but if they want to change it, they can do so with raw file or not. They can mangle the image with any format you give them....Show more →
The reason I disagree is that RAW is purposely designed to put out a flat, lower-saturation, lower-contrast image. The RAW format file is nearly always a poor match for the subjective reality of the captured scene, and it requires at least minor processing choices (exposure, contrast, saturation, white balance) to bring the image as captured in a RAW file to match the scene as it looks through a piece of glass limiting angle of view and magnification.
I don't touch my work with Photoshop. I'm probably more strict about edits than most photojournalists. But I absolutely process my RAW images in order to faithfully match what I saw/shot to the viewing environment of an image on a screen without local edits.
Sending a RAW file would, for a photojournalist, lead to more inappropriately "edited" (read: processed) images than sending finished images in some actual viewing format like jpg/psd/tiff-- if for no other reasons than i) RAW is designed to be flatter than the scene actually was, and ii) an editor who never saw the scene for herself can't possible know what processing tweaks (exposure, contrast, saturation, white balance) to make to bring the image as viewed on a screen into parity with the scene as the photographer was capturing it.
p.1 #19 · How many trust there raw files to editors
It really depends on the image, but yes. Raw files do require some post processing and that goes without saying. Slight curves, sharpening, etc, are all fine with me. I only don't like it when it becomes much more than that and the photographer is changing the picture to make it something that they did not see in the environment when shot. I'm not talking about B&W conversions or things like that, but rather changing the image immensely.
Anyway, to get back on topic... I agree that sending raw files can lead to inappropriately edited images. I still don't change my pictures very much at all from their raw form. Many times the only thing I will do is sharpen the image.
p.1 #20 · How many trust there raw files to editors
As a photographer who is loathe to let my own raw files up for any reason. As a high end retoucher, I only want raw files from those that I'm retouching for. They understand that we're working together toward a common goal and there is always communication about what is being done or going to be done. There are always iterative approvals along the way. The ultimate goal is to have the best possible image for the paying client. The problem is, and this is not aimed at anyone in particular, is that far too many photographers fancy themselves as digital experts and think that they're better than they are. It's hard to give up that control but sometimes it's better all 'round.
I shot a job for a prominent film industry lighting company a couple of years ago and they insisted on getting the raw files. I finally relented, after their assurance that their in house "guy" knew what to do with them, uploading 1.2 gigs of files to my ftp. The very next day I got a call asking me how to "open" the files. I quietly chuckled to myself and ended up doing the retouching and file prep myself. Some of those images are in that company's display at their dealers around the country including the fourth floor at Samy's Hollywood.
In another recent project involving a well known circus company, I did all the raw file work and overall retouching, but had to hand the layered files over to their own retoucher as I was not allowed to work on their performer's images in these compositions.
Most people don't know what they're asking for or often what they actually need in terms of file. Usually a quick conversation or email will clear that up.
