Wedding photographers... are we asking the unreasonable?
Discussion
So, we are getting married in September, very small occasion.
For the wedding photographer we were hoping to get usable digital copies (i.e. of a decent size, maybe even RAW) of any shots taken for us to play with ourselves (we both love post processing).
We've asked, in a perfectly decent manner,a couple of wedding photographers if this would be possible and have been somewhat amazed by the general responses of 'I'm not having someone else messing with my photos, I don't want to work for you'.
As a fellow photographer (just a hobby) I appreciate we all take pride in our shots but I was really surprised by this kind if attitude. Am I being the really unreasonable one here wanting someone to take decent shots but allow me to post process them entirely to my own choosing, for my own pleasure?
For the wedding photographer we were hoping to get usable digital copies (i.e. of a decent size, maybe even RAW) of any shots taken for us to play with ourselves (we both love post processing).
We've asked, in a perfectly decent manner,a couple of wedding photographers if this would be possible and have been somewhat amazed by the general responses of 'I'm not having someone else messing with my photos, I don't want to work for you'.
As a fellow photographer (just a hobby) I appreciate we all take pride in our shots but I was really surprised by this kind if attitude. Am I being the really unreasonable one here wanting someone to take decent shots but allow me to post process them entirely to my own choosing, for my own pleasure?
I have a feeling you'll find it very hard to find a pro who will give you the unprocessed image for you to play with. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask, but I guess the reality is that most established photographers don't like people messing with their images. You'll probably have more chance if you ask someone you know who is a photographer.
Look at it from the professional's point of view. He has a reputation to maintain, and has absolutely no idea what your post processing skills are like. If you make a complete hash, and then paste images all over the net, it could deter potential customers from booking him.
The other point is, technically, you would need the photographer to sign copyright of the images over to you before you start playing with them and I know of no professional photographer who would be willing to do that without a considerable sum of money changing hands.
The other point is, technically, you would need the photographer to sign copyright of the images over to you before you start playing with them and I know of no professional photographer who would be willing to do that without a considerable sum of money changing hands.
Nick Grant said:
This was covered about a week ago. Book Simpo he gives you a full disk 
Thanks Nick, I certainly do!ssray said:
Why can the photographer not give you a raw set and a processed set? are they not working for you?
If someone wants the RAW files they can have them (ask Ledaig). After all wedding RAWs are no use/value to me once the JPGs have shipped safely There's also a bit in my booking notes which says 'If you have Photoshop or similar software, and wish to modify/experiment with the images yourself, you are welcome to do so.'
John,
You're an enlightened man. I wish more professionals had your attitude. The customer is the person buying our work and we need to be flexible enough to provide the services they want in a deal both sides can love with.
I still see an awful lot of bulls
t and pomposity in the professional ranks, including some major names who profess never to use Photoshop on an image despite it being blatently obvious to any keen amateur an image is 'shopped.
Chris
You're an enlightened man. I wish more professionals had your attitude. The customer is the person buying our work and we need to be flexible enough to provide the services they want in a deal both sides can love with.
I still see an awful lot of bulls
t and pomposity in the professional ranks, including some major names who profess never to use Photoshop on an image despite it being blatently obvious to any keen amateur an image is 'shopped. Chris
CVP said:
John,
You're an enlightened man. I wish more professionals had your attitude. The customer is the person buying our work and we need to be flexible enough to provide the services they want in a deal both sides can love with.
That's very lind of you Chris; what it really stems from is the fact that I never set out to do what I do, I was just walking along one day and fell through the skylight You're an enlightened man. I wish more professionals had your attitude. The customer is the person buying our work and we need to be flexible enough to provide the services they want in a deal both sides can love with.
And so the obvious approach to take was 'What would I want if I was in their position?'. With newbies arriving on the scene every day clutching shiny DSLRs there's no room for pomposity. That said I have my standards and will stick to them.CVP said:
John,
You're an enlightened man. I wish more professionals had your attitude. The customer is the person buying our work and we need to be flexible enough to provide the services they want in a deal both sides can love with.
I still see an awful lot of bullst and pomposity in the professional ranks...
Agreed. Which is also why John has an email from us to discuss his availability for our wedding day. Maybe we'll hire him, maybe we won't, maybe he won't be free or thinks we're too ugly to photograph You're an enlightened man. I wish more professionals had your attitude. The customer is the person buying our work and we need to be flexible enough to provide the services they want in a deal both sides can love with.
I still see an awful lot of bulls
t and pomposity in the professional ranks... 
... but regardless I found his approach refreshing amongst a sea of 'attitude' from other photographers we approached. I don't think what we are asking for is unreasonable, how we asked was unreasonable ... and I don't think it would be that hard for a professional wedding photographer to politely turn us down if they are not willing/able/comfortable to offer that service. A couple of the responses we got made it seem like we wanted to butcher their pet rabbit!!!
I photograph weddings professionally on occasion and I give the couple a DVD of high-res, selected and processed images -JPGS - which they can do with what they like. If they want help printing etc I can do that, but most people can arrange that themselves.
I give them two sizes of JPG - a large version for printing, showing on the computer etc and a small version, with subtle watermark, for putting online / emailing etc. The watermark gives me some small measure of protection of theft and a bit of free advertising. Of course, there's nothing to stop them posting the large versions online and I don't mind if they do.
Regarding the supply of RAWs, I wouldn't normally do so for the following reasons:
1. supplying ALL the RAWs (there are normally two of us shooting) sometimes means A LOT of photos. Personal best a couple of weekends ago with 3700 pics between two of us! This is a ridiculously unwieldy number of photos for the client, especially as many are v.similar to eachother (e.g. group shots on burst mode to minimise 'blinkers'). You'd also need a hard drive / many DVDs to transfer that volume of data.
2. it could lead to the client questioning the choice of images that were taken forward to processing ("oh, but I prefer this version of the ring detail shot" etc). (btw, depending on the size of the wedding, 400-800 pics to the client is usual, though we never make promise. If the pic is decent, its processed and delivered).
3. it could lead to unfair question marks of the quality of the entire set if all the missed focus points / dodgy exposures etc are included. Example: my bro-in-law's wedding tog supplied ALL the pics for selection into the album. Many were soft, wrong exposure, poorly composed. My bro's response - "the photos are sh*t". I took a look and worked out that there were enough good 'uns for the album, but the first impression lingers for my bro.
If someone SPECIFICALLY asked for the raws as part of the deal.... never happened yet, but I think I would consider it, as long as I could remove all the bad pics before delivery (i.e. all the pics I would've taken forward to processing anyway).
I give them two sizes of JPG - a large version for printing, showing on the computer etc and a small version, with subtle watermark, for putting online / emailing etc. The watermark gives me some small measure of protection of theft and a bit of free advertising. Of course, there's nothing to stop them posting the large versions online and I don't mind if they do.
Regarding the supply of RAWs, I wouldn't normally do so for the following reasons:
1. supplying ALL the RAWs (there are normally two of us shooting) sometimes means A LOT of photos. Personal best a couple of weekends ago with 3700 pics between two of us! This is a ridiculously unwieldy number of photos for the client, especially as many are v.similar to eachother (e.g. group shots on burst mode to minimise 'blinkers'). You'd also need a hard drive / many DVDs to transfer that volume of data.
2. it could lead to the client questioning the choice of images that were taken forward to processing ("oh, but I prefer this version of the ring detail shot" etc). (btw, depending on the size of the wedding, 400-800 pics to the client is usual, though we never make promise. If the pic is decent, its processed and delivered).
3. it could lead to unfair question marks of the quality of the entire set if all the missed focus points / dodgy exposures etc are included. Example: my bro-in-law's wedding tog supplied ALL the pics for selection into the album. Many were soft, wrong exposure, poorly composed. My bro's response - "the photos are sh*t". I took a look and worked out that there were enough good 'uns for the album, but the first impression lingers for my bro.
If someone SPECIFICALLY asked for the raws as part of the deal.... never happened yet, but I think I would consider it, as long as I could remove all the bad pics before delivery (i.e. all the pics I would've taken forward to processing anyway).
The guy who did our wedding photos gave us the raws and progessed high-res JPGs. We didn't even ask for the raw versions but they arrived on DVD. Attitudes seem different in Sweden to the UK though.
Our guy was based over there and in the UK where he mainly does horse racing. Bloody good vfm too.
Our guy was based over there and in the UK where he mainly does horse racing. Bloody good vfm too.
DJ_AS said:
3. it could lead to unfair question marks of the quality of the entire set if all the missed focus points / dodgy exposures etc are included. Example: my bro-in-law's wedding tog supplied ALL the pics for selection into the album. Many were soft, wrong exposure, poorly composed. My bro's response - "the photos are sh*t". I took a look and worked out that there were enough good 'uns for the album, but the first impression lingers for my bro.
A wedding tog used by a friend put all the pictures on line for the client and guests to view and unfortunately because they put 700+ pictures into the slowest most painful site imaginable the impression was as mentioned above. I'm sure there were some good pictures in there somewhere, but at 45 seconds per picture to load and a large percentage being more than a bit suspect, I lost the will to look through them all!
For me the compromise would be to supply only the images the photographer deems suitable for an album.
Having said that my wedding photographer used good old film, took one exposure per set up and they were perfect, and even now I wouldn't wish to edit them for the world!
DJ_AS said:
I photograph weddings professionally on occasion and I give the couple a DVD of high-res, selected and processed images -JPGS - which they can do with what they like. If they want help printing etc I can do that, but most people can arrange that themselves.
I give them two sizes of JPG - a large version for printing, showing on the computer etc and a small version, with subtle watermark, for putting online / emailing etc. The watermark gives me some small measure of protection of theft and a bit of free advertising. Of course, there's nothing to stop them posting the large versions online and I don't mind if they do.
Regarding the supply of RAWs, I wouldn't normally do so for the following reasons:
1. supplying ALL the RAWs (there are normally two of us shooting) sometimes means A LOT of photos. Personal best a couple of weekends ago with 3700 pics between two of us! This is a ridiculously unwieldy number of photos for the client, especially as many are v.similar to eachother (e.g. group shots on burst mode to minimise 'blinkers'). You'd also need a hard drive / many DVDs to transfer that volume of data.
2. it could lead to the client questioning the choice of images that were taken forward to processing ("oh, but I prefer this version of the ring detail shot" etc). (btw, depending on the size of the wedding, 400-800 pics to the client is usual, though we never make promise. If the pic is decent, its processed and delivered).
3. it could lead to unfair question marks of the quality of the entire set if all the missed focus points / dodgy exposures etc are included. Example: my bro-in-law's wedding tog supplied ALL the pics for selection into the album. Many were soft, wrong exposure, poorly composed. My bro's response - "the photos are sh*t". I took a look and worked out that there were enough good 'uns for the album, but the first impression lingers for my bro.
If someone SPECIFICALLY asked for the raws as part of the deal.... never happened yet, but I think I would consider it, as long as I could remove all the bad pics before delivery (i.e. all the pics I would've taken forward to processing anyway).
I'm exactly the same, for pretty much the same reasons.I give them two sizes of JPG - a large version for printing, showing on the computer etc and a small version, with subtle watermark, for putting online / emailing etc. The watermark gives me some small measure of protection of theft and a bit of free advertising. Of course, there's nothing to stop them posting the large versions online and I don't mind if they do.
Regarding the supply of RAWs, I wouldn't normally do so for the following reasons:
1. supplying ALL the RAWs (there are normally two of us shooting) sometimes means A LOT of photos. Personal best a couple of weekends ago with 3700 pics between two of us! This is a ridiculously unwieldy number of photos for the client, especially as many are v.similar to eachother (e.g. group shots on burst mode to minimise 'blinkers'). You'd also need a hard drive / many DVDs to transfer that volume of data.
2. it could lead to the client questioning the choice of images that were taken forward to processing ("oh, but I prefer this version of the ring detail shot" etc). (btw, depending on the size of the wedding, 400-800 pics to the client is usual, though we never make promise. If the pic is decent, its processed and delivered).
3. it could lead to unfair question marks of the quality of the entire set if all the missed focus points / dodgy exposures etc are included. Example: my bro-in-law's wedding tog supplied ALL the pics for selection into the album. Many were soft, wrong exposure, poorly composed. My bro's response - "the photos are sh*t". I took a look and worked out that there were enough good 'uns for the album, but the first impression lingers for my bro.
If someone SPECIFICALLY asked for the raws as part of the deal.... never happened yet, but I think I would consider it, as long as I could remove all the bad pics before delivery (i.e. all the pics I would've taken forward to processing anyway).
I'm not experienced in this field at all. However, my personal experience from our wedding photographer was the same, in as much as he wouldn't release digital copies of the pic's.
My distinct impression, although he never said as much, was the he made a rather tidy sum from re-prints and additional copies ordered by other family members. Understandably, you can see why he wouldn't want to give that up!
Bob
My distinct impression, although he never said as much, was the he made a rather tidy sum from re-prints and additional copies ordered by other family members. Understandably, you can see why he wouldn't want to give that up!
Bob
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff