Wedding Photography - Do It Yourself Processing?

W

WDWFigment

Member
Mine for today:


Quick question (or perhaps job possibility) for my photography friends here: if you are a wedding photographer, or know a good wedding photographer in Northern Indiana, my fiancee and I need a photographer for our wedding in June 2010. Ideally, we would like a photographer who will provide us with the original RAW file for each image. Please send me a message if you have any information that might help. Thanks!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"WDWFigment" said:
Quick question (or perhaps job possibility) for my photography friends here: if you are a wedding photographer, or know a good wedding photographer in Northern Indiana, my fiancee and I need a photographer for our wedding in June 2010. Ideally, we would like a photographer who will provide us with the original RAW file for each image. Please send me a message if you have any information that might help. Thanks!
Click to expand...

First, congrats. Second, not sure if we have enough members in every area to know about that. But you could always try WPPI's search engine to start: http://www.wppionline.com/directory/

You have plenty of time to interview and reserve them before the big day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Congratulations!

It's a shame you can't clone yourself for the event huh?

I would vie for the job but have a feeling you'll find someone a little closer~

You two are really beautiful together.
 
Thanks for the congratulations, everyone. We actually got engaged in November 2007 on the beach of the Poly. I thought I had posted pictures here previously of it, but I guess not.

Roger, thanks for the link. I tried a few zip codes near our wedding location, but none returned any results.

I guess I need to do a little more research. I've contacted a couple photographers in the area so far whose work looked pretty decent, but neither would provide me with the original RAW files. It's not that I don't like the way they process the pictures (well, they both seem to have some huge affection for selective color, which I absolutely HATE), I just want to have them to process on my own, too. I'm not sure if wedding photographers generally don't provide these files because they don't want it to be an alternative to them buying pictures from them, or what. It's really a big sticking point for me though, so if it's "industry standard" to not provide the files, I guess I will have to teach one of my family members how to use my equipment and have them take "backup" pictures.

I know some of you do wedding work--do you know whether it's industry standard to not provide the original RAW files?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never heard of a professional photographer releasing their RAW files. You might have to befriend one and see if they'll relax their grip, but I kind of doubt it.

You've got enough time to train someone in the family to do the honors with your camera equipment. That might be the way to go.
 
pros will not usually release their raws... i surely won't. it's akin to an older photog giving you the negative, which they WILL NOT do. a new trend in wedding photography, although not too popular yet, is to hire a photographer a la carte, in which you pay them to shoot and give you the files, then you worry about the rest (processing, printing, getting albums, etc.).

if you do decide to have a family member shoot some pics for you, make sure they are aware of wedding etiquette, in which the paid photographer has total control over posing, timing, etc. you WILL get them upset if a family member interrupts the flow of the sets. when i shoot weddings, there is a timing and a rhythm to the way the main photographer (i am usually the assistant) sets up the groups, takes the photos, etc., and a family member can easily disrupt the flow. most pros have no problem with another person taking photos, as long as the other person defers to the pro who was hired to do the job. simple courtesy.

if you are worried about the photographer producing raws in a way you wouldn't care for, simply specify that ahead of time. based on what you want, try the a la carte way first. might cost you a bit more for the shoot, because studios make a good amount of money on the back-end work and albums.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In trying to figure out a bit more about this, I stumbled upon this: http://photo.net/wedding-photography-forum/00QjoD While it's a different topic, it has the same discussion I was looking for. In spending a long time reading it, it sounds like about half are willing to release the files, half aren't.

I heard back from another photographer who I contacted, and he said he would provide them. He provides a disc of images, which is why I imagine he is willing to release the RAW files (I don't see RAW files as akin to negatives in this regard...if I have the JPEG files, I can certainly still mess up their 'work' if I want. In the 'older' days, photo editing programs did not exist, and "coloring" on a print isn't the same as editing a digital file. So, to me, the only difference is that RAW gives me more latitude in making edits. I would think it would make more sense to only give out RAW files--it ensures that only those who care about photography enough to get an advanced editing program, and thus are more likely to not screw up your work, are manipulating your work...but I digress). He looks like the best bet in our area, but the prices reflect as much.

A la carte wedding photography...that is an interesting idea, Tim. I do wonder if it has caught on in our area, though, as we generally seem to be behind the curve in just about everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
when photographers mention discs with images, they sometimes mean dvd slideshows... double check that.
remember, photogs don't give out images because they hold the copyright to the image (they certainly would not want you to tell them you are planning on editing their work) and thus they have exclusive rights to sell the prints and related products from the shoot. they make most of their money in the backroom, and not much on the actual shoot. be careful with this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^Interesting point. A lot of them I've looked into have specified that it is a DVD slideshow but others just call it a CD of "prints" (who knows if that's a slideshow too, or files), so that would make sense. This photographer's site doesn't specify, but the one who said he'd provide us the RAW files generally seems to be more lax than other photographers (no time limits, etc.), but then again, he charges about $2,000 more than some of the other photographers into whom we're looking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"WDWFigment" said:
but then again, he charges about $2,000 more than some of the other photographers into whom we're looking.
Click to expand...

there ya go.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My take: I had found some wedding photographers back in the day that would agree to sell the negatives 2 years later at a fixed fee; but Tim's right about the money being made down the road with prints, etc.

But you can always get a copyright release. Disney releases their copyright on the Photopass for honestly dirt cheap.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have to agree that RAW and negs to me are akin...

Giving someone else free reign on their work is not the way most work.

I am the exception to the rule. When I do a wedding, it's for family and friends only, it's for a rediculously low fee and after I narrow the photos down to those that are album worthy, I hand over the files (i.e. negatives) to the bride and groom to do with as they please.
 
of course I keep a copy for myself of *all* of the originals. Not just the album copy.

I'd need to keep something so I can show future brides copies of my work right?
 
"ColleenMarie" said:
When I do a wedding, it's for family and friends only, it's for a rediculously low fee and after I narrow the photos down to those that are album worthy, I hand over the files (i.e. negatives) to the bride and groom to do with as they please.
Click to expand...

you just made our point. you are not depending on your files for your livelihood- these guys do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Congratulations Figment!

"Tim" said:
you just made our point. you are not depending on your files for your livelihood- these guys do.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think that you'll have a hard time getting a professional wedding photographer to hand over the raw files. I know someone who only does it part time and even she won't release her raw files. Unless you have a friend or family member who doesn't do it for a living like ColleenMarie, I doubt you'll get the files.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, they *may* be a way to convince a photographer to release them.


If you are a stickler to how they maintain them; and include that in the contract, with their details of how they will maintain their copies of the RAW files so that if a few years down the road you wanted more prints, you could get them. Only to find out that their HD crashed, and their backup HD burned in a fire, and the DVD-Rs suffered from laser rot...oops. What would the "pain & suffering" consequences there vs. if the "digital negatives" are in the client's possession and control.


Oops, some risk management came out there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger, funny that you mention including writing in the contract.  I actually included that we would be willing to include some clauses (including samples) in our contract indicating precautions we would take with the files, and that we would agree to not display any edited versions publicly, and that we understood that RAW files do not represent a "finished product".

Sarah (my fiancee) went to a Bridal Show today with her mom, so I had her ask the RAW question to some of the photographers with whom she met.  While I don't know exactly how many photographers she spoke with, she said that several said they'd provide the RAW files--both expensive photographers and inexpensive ones.  Only one said there would be an additional charge ($695).

I'm glad we'll be able to find a photographer who will do this.  While I understand that many photographers make money off of the prints, I think it's a bit of an antiquated way of doing business to not provide any digital copies.  Just as photography has changed from film to digital, so have the ways in which people store their images.  While I like having tangible images, I look at the photographs on my computer far more than anywhere else (including "coffee table albums"), and I would not be comfortable not having electronic versions of our photos.  I know that historically, things have been done a certain way, and it's hard for to buck the trend, but I think with our society's infatuation with the digital medium, photographers who do not release digital copies--even for an additional fee--will ultimately be doing themselves a disservice.

I understand the photographer's desire for others to not later manipulate the images to distort their work.  One photographer I contacted said they want their art portrayed in a certain way, from beginning of the wedding to end as that is how they present their "artistic story".  However, and this may be a result of the popular bridzilla ideology these days (but it's still the ideology), the wedding day is about us.  Not the photographer.  It may be their artistic spin put on the images, but ultimately, they are not being hired because of their artistic vision (at least, not by me), they are being hired because they will do a great job capturing OUR day (in an artistic way, perhaps).

I do not mean to be degrading wedding photographers with this, I just think that the focus of some wedding photographers should be on the desires of their clients.  I strongly believe that photography is art, but I think there are different purposes for photography, as well.  I think when it comes to things that are clearly only art (such as those awesome Castle shots of Tim's that merge day/night, etc.) the client should have absolutely no say in the content, etc.  However, when the primary purpose of the work is to capture a client's experience, I think it is less about the art of photography, and much more about the client. 
 
"WDWFigment" said:
Sarah (my fiancee) went to a Bridal Show today with her mom, so I had her ask the RAW question to some of the photographers with whom she met. While I don't know exactly how many photographers she spoke with, she said that several said they'd provide the RAW files--both expensive photographers and inexpensive ones. Only one said there would be an additional charge ($695).
Click to expand...

Cool. Free market at its' best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
let me state upfront that i do not do weddings for any money, only family and friends when asked and only to get the family dynamics that are known only to family members, the paid guy probably does not know that granny has not spoken to uncle fester in 20 years over some imagined slight and that the wedding has resulted in them burying the hatchet (in each others backs if granny had her way)
however having said this i come down completely on the side of the photographer, i only give jpegs to family/friends, never the raws, i don't want someone else editing my work, esp if it has my copyright on it, i might not be the most talented photographer in the world, but i do have a few to be proud of, and i make enough of my own trash, i don't need someone else's trash associated with my efforts
when you've given away the raws what else do you have left to make profit off of??, i could see it the way of the guy who gets $2000 more, he's willing to take the guaranteed money upfront versus potential later sales, i'm sure that's a figure he arrived at after analysis of historic sales, that's probably just above what most wedding sales come to, so he loses a little off the large family, more than makes it up on the under
bottom line, if it's me, the raws are for sale, you just might not like or understand the price
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top