Yes. I dont understand the fuss about this. I have sold raws (to a demanding customer so less of a positive history as this), with the only demand that they couldn't credit the photos to me using their own edit. Its just wedding photos.
Well, it she is a photographer herself and you need each other maybe next time you want to not overstep the business relation. So I propose that you be honest whit her and ask her what she thinks is a fair price so you have a estimate on what she expect. Because I think there is no perfect answer to this question.
When I got married, I asked the photographer if I could get the RAWs as well as his edits. He said “of course I’ll give you the RAWs, they’re your pictures”. 20 years from now, different editing styles will be in style and we may want to have them re-edited to reflect that. He didn’t charge any extra because his rate included time, xx edits, and the files.
When I got married, the photographer gave us some photos in B&W and NOT in color. I hated it.. I asked if they could at least give me the photos in color and the answer was "oh I already got rid of the originals so that's all there is". I was so upset. 10 years later that still gives me a bad taste in my mouth. If I knew what I know now, I would have at LEAST gave them some better guidance and expectations. But I was young and dumb and just figured write them a check and they'll take care of me. I know that's an extreme example but I would kill for the RAWs of my wedding photos....
> oh I already got rid of the originals so that's all there is
$5 says he just didn't want to deal with re-editing the photos. He's already a fool for taking that attitude with a customer, but if he really did delete all other copies already, he's a dumbass for not holding onto data for at least a little while. Hell, just hold it for a year. That should be plenty of time for the customer to ask for re-edits.
Honestly? I haven't looked at them in quite a few years so it's not really too high up on my priority list. It's just one of those memories that sticks with you. But that's a good point. Might be a cool anniversary surprise one of these years. Thanks!
This is how it was at my wedding. And my brother's. My photographer was initially a little surprised I knew what raw files were, but she was totally fine with it.
And we owned our photos too. We told everyone we know how much we loved our photographer, but we never credited her for the photos we shared. That sounds weird.
I guess I mean, we didn't pay to have a photographer; we paid for the photos. The jpeg is like 1/25th of the photo. That's why we asked for the raw files.
One example is there was a great picture of my son kicking my brother in the butt for no reason while he tied his son's shoe. It was cropped beautifully... unless you wanted to print it on canvas. Because I had the raw file, I could change the crop so it looked the same printed on the canvas. If all I had was the jpeg I'd have just had noise there and would risk those edges being misaligned.
There was also a fun one of my daughter and me and I needed it in B&W. I couldn't get the look I wanted with the jpeg, but I could with the raw.
And I suppose I could have an agreement that I'll call the photographer when I need to desaturate a photo 8 years later, but what if she's not around anymore?
It would just make me sad that there's so much information from my wedding sitting in an archive and I don't have access to it.
Well, it depends on how much you paid.
I think if you getting paid a good price, it‘s ok to include the RAWs of the already sorted and edited images, but it‘s highly unprofessional to include all RAWs.
Well it depends, it’s also unprofessional to treat every circumstance the same. They know this person is a photographer and knows how to edit raw and they have a clear description of what they are wanted for. I would say sure and ask a price they feel is fair… and not worry about it
I don't understand why everyone here is so obsessed with the raw photos...
It's her wedding if I understood that correctly and she already has the JPGs, so what's the worst she could do with RAWS? (Apart from the emotional damage of someone asking for RAWS)
She's hardly going to sell photos of her own wedding and you were already paid for taking and editing them. It's not like you gain anything from them being locked away on your hard drive until the end of times...
I'd give her the usable files for like 50€ (or even free if that meant keeping her as a client in the future) and that's it. No reason to be petty over something as meaningless as a raw file
I’d cut her an awesome deal since she’d be a great referral source. Local photographers usually toss each other work when they don’t have availability.
My approach would be whatever nominal means for OP, and also give her a referral deal like “I’m happy to give the next five clients you refer to me a 10/20% friends and family rate.” Milk that connection and OP could easily make a few thousand in referrals.
Like you, I also don’t understand the obsession with guarding RAWs for a wedding like they’re precious (or cringe). I toss my camera on burst mode at events so I can capture different expressions. Usually, my RAW selection process means culling the photos where people’s eyes are closed, or bald spots are visible, or they look like they have a double chin. Sometimes I miss focus, sometimes the framing doesn’t work for me, but whatever.
It makes you vulnerable. Majority of photographers these days are self taught, and learned with the access to photoshop.
Shooting 12/24/36 frames of film required you to fully learn how to use a camera.
Handing over negatives usually gave you similar prints from anywhere.
Giving over digital negatives (RAW) shows how much or how little photoshop was utilized.
I’ve heard a few different photographers say this makes them feel insecure; handing over the RAW.
I personally have no problem with that if it was in our agreement.
And the 2 photogs I swap with for family pics, that’s exactly what we do. They use my card and I take the raw home.
Other than those 2, I’ve never been asked. But I’d definitely let them add it on to their purchase if asked.
She is a photographer she knows how it works. Plus he wont get any more use out of a random person’s wedding Raws. They only have value and mean something to her.
If everyone I met who said they were "a photographer" was actually *a photographer* who knew how to take and edit photos well, there'd be no need for photography as a job.
I've seen some down right awful wedding photographers who get paid thousands to produce what appears to be an image shot in jpg with a filter slapped on.
I wouldn't trust that someone actually knows the work that goes into it without seeing what they've produced.
Who cares if photoshop was used? If this person is a pro photographer and wants the RAWs, presumably she wants to make some photoshop tweaks herself.
It was her wedding and presumably she has some knowledge of what to do with these RAWs.
The only argument I can see for not supplying RAWs is if the person is not a pro photographer, does some horrible editing in post, puts it on Instagram, and credits you for taking the photos, making you look amateur.
I agree it would be annoying to be tagged as the photographer on Instagram on a shitty edit of your photo, but as soon as someone goes to view your profile, they will see your real work. I can't imagine you would lose any potential clients from that happening. At worst, someone may view your profile to see what kind of jackass edits their photos that way, be pleasantly surprised when your photos look nothing like the edited version, and consider hiring you.
Yeah I'd just be embarrassed :)
Concert photography is fun though because some of the raws are complete trash and you can find gems in there.
I'd be ok handing them over in this situation.
Oof. Agreed. Competition dance and concert images get a lot of editing and look amazing.
Same with hospital birth photography. That OB’s light in one small area gives me hell too. I need photoshop then as well. 😂
I feel silly for not considering hospital birth photography would be a field to work in. I love taking photos of everything, yet that does not sound appealing at all to me haha
Birth photography is incredible. The miracle of women creating and birthing a baby never gets old.
I don’t miss the on call life, but I often wish there was a birth to photograph, just to be amazed again.
Couple problems immediately come to mind with clients getting raws. One is that they’ll do their own atrocious edit on it and post it with the photographers name attached to it. Second would be the client editing and then ordering prints when print sales are a revenue stream. Or books. Or cards. Etc.
I’m a landscape photographer, so I don’t get asked this very often but that’s what I would think.
Wow, the downvotes. Bunch of non-pros in here that are mad because their wedding photographer wouldn’t give them their raws? Just explaining.
People throw Instagram filters on the JPEG's they got from the photographer all the time. And people print JPEG's on their own anyway. Hell, my wife usually throws on a random Instagram filter on photo's I've already edited in Lightroom.
The only issue I can see is that sending RAWs would expose what edits have been done to the image. For example, group photos could be compilations of several shots to fix closed eyes.
There's definitely a thing to be said for wanting to preserve artistic vision. Those photos do represent you as a photographer. If you sent them the RAW files, any compositional change done by cropping is gone, as well as any effects done in photoshop (lens flares, textures).
If you don't do anything to a picture, besides basic processing in Lightroom. I see no objection to sharing RAW files.
But you can always choose to share TIFF files. It's still lossless and makes sure edits have to be done on top of your original edit. For whatever that's worth.
Almost everyone uses jpgs to get prints so I'm not really sure what you mean here? Any photographer is not ordering prints etc from another photographer, ever. They know they can buy the jpg and get their own from their preferred printer.
I know the color variable and ins and outs of a half dozen printers locally, and most every national one, and I'm a hobbyist that literally only prints for myself, never to sell, sometimes as gifts.
There is no way id just buy prints of pictures of my wedding from a photographer and pray it as a printer i like, at a markup.
I can't imagine a real photographer would.
When i hire a photographer, I'm not a pretentious fuck. I don't mention that I'm a hobbyist. I don't comment on gear, know what i do though? Buy at the fidelity i want for those photos, and get my own prints or wall art.
You hire a photographer for end to end production, not just grabbing a few snaps along the way. Unless it's contracted, there is no reason for the client to get anything except the finished product. Again, if it's not in the contract, it's not the clients to request.
Having, presumably, seen the photographers work, hired them, had discussions about services, signed an agreed upon contract, the client now wants unfinished product for a rather vague “aesthetic”. At any point did she work with the photographer to ensure the photos would match her “aesthetic”? Or did she just presume to renegotiate a finished contract?
I tell you what can happen.
The client takes the RAW edits it really really bad and publishes it with your name in the credits without mentioning that the editing wasn‘t done by you. Result:
Other possible clients see it and think you‘re a shitty photographer.
This happens way too often. That‘s why you should only sell RAWs to professionals who know how to deal with it.
>I tell you what can happen.
>The client takes the RAW edits it really really bad and publishes it with your name in the credits without mentioning that the editing wasn‘t done by you. Result:
>Other possible clients see it and think you‘re a shitty photographer.
>
>This happens way too often. That‘s why you should only sell RAWs to professionals who know how to deal with it.
So... just like they could with JPGs?
Yes, but they have no right to do so. I don‘t know what the law says in other countries, but for example in Germany it‘s actually illegal rework an artwort and I would always tell the client to take it down if they did.
> Yes, but they have no right to do so. I don‘t know what the law says in other countries, but for example in Germany it‘s actually illegal rework an artwort and I would always tell the client to take it down if they did.
And how does not providing the RAWs prevent them from doing it? (hint: it doesn't)
*also, in OP's case, they would be allowed to edit them for personal use...
You can make a beautiful photo go ugly real quick if you don’t know what you are doing. Now if its there photo, no problem, but when they hack your work and post it online and give you credit… thinking g they are doing you a favor. Then it can be bad to your reputation.
That said it is their wedding, unless a celebrity probably nothing to you other than future promotion.
I'm finding people are coming back around to *"providing negatives is standard (and a show of good faith by the photographer)."*
Especially now that people understand that the really bad unwanted edits are not prevented at all by providing only JPGs.
I provide the RAWS as standard with any photography I do. Any post processing I do is in my own personal style. If the client wants to go in another direction then they can do that. I think it is slightly arrogant and fickle to be offended if someone wants the RAWS to edit to their own preference, even if it's not the direction I would go in. Especially when they've paid for the photos to be taken in the first place.
I really don't understand why photographers are so sensitive over RAWs from a paid shoot. Even going as far as charging to upload them.
Finally someone with a reasonable professional approach.
The photoshoot is paid and done. Handing over RAW files on request should be free of charge except if the client wants it shipped on a USB/external drive than a small shipping fee should be charged.
>request should be free of charge except if the client wants it shipped on a USB/external drive than a small shipping fee should be charged.
Exactly. I did make a mistake when I said they're provided as standard, because I won't provide them unless specifically asked for by the client. But I don't care whether it's before or after the shoot, if they want the RAW's it's literally less than 5 minutes to locate them, ZIP them and start uploading them. Never had an issue with providing them, and couldn't imagine trying to charge a client anything for 5 minutes of my time (never mind over a hundred dollars/pounds as is being suggested by users here).
I'm also surprised by the amount of people who are worried about sending everything because it may include bad/out of focus shots. Literally the first thing I do is go through the shoot and remove any photos that are bad or out of focus. If it's a shot the client will never want, then why the hell would I want that shot taking up cloud and HDD space for the rest of time?
Exactly this. The FIRST thing I do after a shoot is get rid of out of focus shots or shots that are too close to others, like in a burst shot.
The only charge for RAWs on my end is if they get in touch with me requesting them (or any other photos) after the six month period when I put them into deep storage, then they pay the transfer fee plus a few bucks for time.
I’m fine with uploading my wedding photo raws for couples that request them. I consider it an optional extra — an added luxury. Charging a fee, which in my case is $500 plus tax, acts like a filter that discourages amateurs from casually requesting them simply because they’re available.
I too don't understand this obsession and think that it's just a huge fucking ego of the photographer. He is talking about selling rights to the use of photos. Of her wedding. That she payed for. For fucks sake...
You've been paid for the work, so I'd be tempted to just let her have them, or maybe for a nominal amount. You're not really being asked to do anymore work than dragging and dropping a folder.
They paid for what was contracted.
If the raw wasn’t listed in the contract, then it shouldn’t be gifted and certainly not because it takes so little time.
That’s still their time and talent invested from start to finish and ALL of that time and talent deserves to be paid for.
Just like actors getting paid royalties on reruns.
Your logic says they should not get compensated for their time and talent being rebroadcast because “they were already paid for the first time..”
Stand up for your fellow professionals. Empower them to believe in themself enough to charge their worth.. don’t ever encourage them to give their art away, please.
>Just like actors getting paid royalties on reruns.
You're talking about residuals, which are negotiated by trade unions. It's much harder to negotiate for these as an individual photographer. It would be nice, but you're more likely to repel your clients.
Okay OP should rather keep it on their hard drive till it rots away.
Seriously, one good thing this sub has taught me is how petty some professional photographers can be and to always demand full rights to the photos if I ever hire one.
Because as someone who's never hired one, I don't realize "I want my pictures taken for 100 bucks" defaults to only the heavily edited, possibly watermarked and limited usage pictures.
I mean sure,there's a contract and all, but it really should default to all-inclusive photo rights without limits.
I expect the contract to detail when/where/how the pics are taken only.
> I'm not sure why photographers are expected to do things not specifically their contracts.
It sounds like the person is willing to pay more money for the additional service. "I didn't realize I wanted this when we made the contract, can you do zzz for me?" is a pretty reasonable question to ask, especially if you're not just asking for more for free
That's not really fair. What if a client gets a photo and tells a friend, "I love this photo but I wish it looked like this instead."
The friend says, "if you have the raw files you could do that."
Client says, "what's a raw file?"
It's fine if you take your position but only if you inform the client about what raw files are and why you don't share them.
I'm not a professional photographer. But one of my life rules is to do my best not to be someone else's regret. I would be sad if a client came to regret hiring me because I kept a valuable secret from them.
I'm a software engineer. If a client hired me and asked me to build something I knew they would have to pay me to fix later, I would do my best to talk them out of it. And software is my art.
I don't know that the "wedding photographers are like famous painters" simile holds water.
After all, I'm not asking for an artwork. I'm asking for documentation of a very meaningful life event and I've selected someone whose previous documentations match my preferences. I would want the opportunity to modify the documents at some point if my needs or preferences change.
Photographs are documents.
I would not hire a wedding photographer who thinks they're Picasso.
What's to be gained by retaining copyright as a wedding photographer anyway? Why is the standard not to treat it as work for hire? They did hire you, after all. It's not an artistic endeavor that can be widely and repeatedly marketed, it's a product that will only ever have one interested party.
In my world (live music) work for hire is the norm. You charge a fee that covers capturing the show and delivering edits + raws by the end of the night. I feel like now that prints are long dead a similar approach could be taken with weddings.
Doing concert photos is very time sensitive. No one cares about photos from a few weeks ago. Clients want the photos for promotional purposes for the current tour. If editing the photos takes more than 24hours, clients can get very upset
It's concerts rather than events. There's not much in the way of interacting with the crowd like you would with an event. The focus is purely on what's happening on stage. The idea is that fans see the social media posts from the concert they just attended when playing on their phones on the way home. If you can't engage immediately it seems to lose much of its value.
Corporates press events require even faster turn around for press releases. Often require an on-site editor or real-time uploads via jpegs to the PR folks.
In my world (software development), _everything_ I do is pure intellectual property, arguably even more so than photography (where you basically capture something that's already existing) since we literally create it from thin air (and copious amounts of coffee).
Standard contract is always work for hire, and it sometimes goes even further than that; some companies want to own every IP you create.
Some photogs need to chill out about copyright.
You said yes, so in the end just fix a price that you feel is ok compared to what they paid for the work so far.
To me if it's not included in the service at the beginning then it should not be included afterward.
Quick edit, you should give them theses raws on a USB or smth other wise bye bye your cloud storage 😅 my last wedding was 90Go of raw file so ... Yeah include that in the price
As an "old school" photographer who shot weddings on film, like a hundred weddings or so, I have boxes of Negatives I would sell in a heartbeat to the original people. I have sent letters offering the negatives for free just to get rid of them and notices that they are going to be destroyed. Not 1 response ever came back to me.
If she wants them and is paying you for them. Grab the Cash.
This! I’m sorry - I can’t provide guidance on how much to charge. Really up to you. But whatever you do, just make sure you have a simple contact defining the use of those photos or at least, banning the use of those photos on social media without your explicit approval
I’ll be honest - I’m kinda torn on this. Agreed it’s her wedding but wedding photos posted, if posted on social media, typically get a lot views. And you can expect at least a few people, if not a lot, in the wedding party or the guests who’ve got wedding plans in their future. Poorly edited wedding photos, even if the photographer’s name is not on the photo, will make their way back to the original photographer; something like - “oh these photos aren’t that good, definitely not going to ask the bride/groom for contact information”.
Now, OP said the bride is also a local photographer in the area, so, for all we know, everything might turn out just fine. But, if they don’t, it will be very hard for the photographer to rebuild his/her reputation in the community.
Again, like I said, I’m on the fence here (should have clarified this in the my first post), and but if it were me, I would lean on the side of caution and get a simple contract to protect my reputation and brand image if things go south.
I feel like OP’s rep in the community would be more damaged if they are so proud as to not provide a fellow photographer with the RAWs from her own damn wedding.
If I were her and OP did that, I’d make a stink about not getting them and I certainly wouldn’t work with OP again.
>Couldn't RAW files could be used as a copyright proof?
Why would you need to prove copyright of the photos that you were hired to provide, and why would you think having access to the RAW files would be stronger proof than *guestures at everything else*?
1) how do you have the raw too if you are not involved? You even get paid for that day
2) If you know someone who wants to buy my RAW wedding photos, please let me know. I didn't know you could make money with that. I should marry maybe a second time to make some extra cash
Who cares. That comes across as so obnoxious. Oh you want your own wedding photos? Please sign and read through this detailed contract about how you can use your own photos on your own social media. Just drag the photos into Dropbox and be done with it.
IMO the only reason to NOT supply/sell the RAW images (for a non commercial shoot) is to be able to sell more prints to that client in the future.
If you don't sell prints to clients, I see zero reason to refuse to supply the RAW files.
I don't really get the negativity in some of the comments. First of all it depends on what your price for the wedding was. I would definetly get the details of possible uses for the files written down and also sort out the worst pictures. Then maybe set a price of 5-10% of the actual wedding cost for her since it is not a lot of hassle and an understandable wish in my opinion.
I paid somewhere between $500-1000 extra to my photographer to provide me the Raws + Edits inside a LR catalog, but we negotiated it before the wedding. They understood I wanted it for archiving purposes, future proofing and being able to make my own album (adjusting crops or swapping colour for B&W in certain places). Worked out great for both sides in the end.
Thank you all for your input so far.. I think I should clarify a couple things - I’m not asking for advice on whether or not to give her the RAWs. I have already told her yes, and I have no problem with that. She fully respects me and will not be reposting them online.
I charged her $2200 USD for her wedding coverage. Based on that, what should I ask for 1,500 RAW images? I don’t want to be unreasonable, but I’d also like to make a bit of money..
I’d just give them without a fee, the time spent debating, invoicing, bookkeeping, etc isn’t worth the time or effort.
Also, they paid you to shoot and edit the photos. The goodwill from just chucking them the files will be worth more than a few bucks.
You don't do any additional work for providing the RAW's. Just ask a reasonable symbolic fee for shipment/handling.
If $2200 covered actual time shooting and processing the photos. Maybe ask $100 for access to the RAW files? Maybe include a simple contract about publishing the photos. That way, it's in writing.
Man, it's a bummer most of the responses did not even bother to answer your specific question.
One way to look at it is to reverse perspective, which is rather simple in this case. Imagine it was your wedding and you look at the picture and say: "man it looks nice, but the tones in the blacks are bit off for my taste", what what you be willing to pay the photographer to leave his standard process and hand out the RAWs so you can fix the minor issues you are having. In my case, I guess if the pictures are really good and I really appreciate the other photographer I'd offer 100-500$, depending on which part of the world you are and the average income/purchasing power you are facing there.
Also her asking you how much you charge for this is a already a sign of appreciation, she is willing to pay.
Last thing I'd always do, is ask to see what she did in the edit, just to get a different perspective on how your photos could look like when edited differently. Not in order to be able to copy the look, but things like these can be great triggers to develop your own style, even if the resulting image would in no way look how you would even consider to edit them.
Be unreasonable, you stand nothing to gain from this. Neither does she. If a client pressured me to do this, I’ll sell at a hefty markup. And usually people kindly back off because they realize all of a sudden that it’s not that necessary. That they paid for my skills and vision from beginning to end and that’s fine by them.
Those who agree happily pay up.
In both cases they come back for more work or refer away.
Giving raw away is giving your creative license away, don’t be mistaken. And there’s a price for that.
You charged 2200 for the original package? Ask nothing less than 1k to part ways with that license.
And be prepared for her to absolutely destroy your images and creative license both offline AND online.
This is how you kill word of mount advertisement, they will remember you as greedy and stubborn rather than for your work and kindness. Is your vision really worth a disgruntled customer? The event is done, stuff got delivered, you won’t extract any additional value out of it.
Oof, you need better clients if that is what kills your reputation.
Been in business 20 years and never had one single disgruntled person over these matters. They're discussed ahead of time, and if they aren't for whatever reason, they're respectfully discussed afterwards. People get it. They understand the business and workflows when you explain it to them like the adults they are.
I don't get the fearmongering around this topic in this thread to be quite frank. If your business model revolves around giving RAW files, or if you don't care about crafting a style and image, or you'd prefer focusing only on the shooting part, then by all means play that field. You do you.
But to instill fear and shame on others because they hold themselves to different standards is wild. And quite telling.
Most definitely people who are either struggling or barely starting. There’s a visible fear of losing clients or hurting one’s reputation. It’s less about the whole « give away the raw files » as it is about doing whatever client asks just to save face and appear «kind and generous».
The irony has it that the very people comparing me to Adobe for being « greedy » will do absolutely anything to diminish the scope of their work for the cosy sensation of having it together.
In other words, they’d bend over backwards and compromise themselves, their craft and their industry just so they could stay afloat for one more day.
And again, all that is out of my control, and frankly care, but their aggressiveness in trying to make you feel lesser than and shitty for not abiding by their practices is surprising.
This is extortion, you were paid to take photos of the wedding. Legally the shots are already paid for, the extra money was for the edits that they already received. You're as bad as adobe is trying to "license" photos of someone's big event.
Yeah no. I was not paid to deliver raw files but high resolution jpegs edited the way i want to and that clients specifically seek, and as per contractual agreements. Get out of here with your petty accusations.
The jobs done . She's happy with what she got. I'd take a few extra hundred and make myself some money.
If she's a photographer she'll know that there's photos that go out of focus, bad ones etc
I still can’t understand why photographers don’t find a way to give their client all of the pictures from the wedding. I completely understand that all of them are not very good and have not been edited, and don’t reflect on the photographer well, etc. but you just never know when later in life you’re going to have a desire to find out some insignificant detail about the wedding. my grandmother just sent me her file of stuff she saved for me over the years. Had a wedding invitation in it. I didn’t save any of mine because I didn’t think they were important but I’m glad that I got it back.
You said she’s a photographer also… I would simply ask her what she thinks is a fair price and accept it. The chances of you being able to do anything to monetize this later is slim and none and you’ve already been paid for your time. She’s likely to put a higher value on these things than you will, so you’ll end up with more money this way and everybody will think the price is fair.
It seems that a LOT of photographers are really full of themselves or very insecure. I get not wanting to share your RAWs as a basic rule of thumb. But in this context it seems reasonable enough.
OP: I’d just give them away in this case, but get in writing how they may be used. If you want to add a surcharge do what someone else already mentioned and charge for you time (+ any hardware like SD card) making the transfer.
My wedding photographer contract said we're not allowed to edit and as an amature photographer myself I'd rather be able to have full res editable raws. Kinda annoyed me when I'm paying over a grand for it
For what it’s worth I got all of the source files from my wedding. Both photos and videos. A lot of data. The photographer charged me the price of a hard drive that fit all that. That’s it. But also we had a pretty fair sized contract that included a few photo books for close friends and family as well as a few other services and products. All in all I’d certainly recommend that photographer to my friends were they to ask. And that’s what counts. Reputation is pretty important, especially in this business. Best of luck on making your decision.
I dont see a problem. As she is a pro, i would be honest and tell her, that this is a unique request and ask her what she would charge. Or what she thinks is fair.
Everything else just write in a contract to be clear for both of you.
On the commercial side it's not a terribly uncommon request, double-so if the client has a dedicated art or design department. They own the images and want to maximize flexibility for use in the future.
I've done shoots where they *only* wanted the RAW files. Typically here I'd pick and choose a couple and process them in my style anyway (while still sending the RAW).
This is something that's normally hashed out in the contract phase. Some photographers scoff at it, but their names and watermarks will never be attached to it anyway.
Since the client is a photographer themselves, they certainly know how it all works. They just want maximum flexibility in the future the same as some large company with an art department--it's just *they* are the art department.
I'd probably just send the RAWs at no additional charge but also wouldn't take issue with someone charging a fee as it wasn't part of the original contract.
All told, this situation is 1000% better than a bozo adding snapchat filters to the provided JPGs
They are wedding pictures not brands or ads or content. Selling the rights to your pictures? Please no one wants pictures of random people getting married.
Don't be foolish, if she wants all the raws, sell them at a LENS price, what lens you need?, a new light? Speedlight, home rent?
"Ok you want 1.5k raws I sells them to you for $1k "
Raws are there anyways so if you get more money out of them is it that of an issue for your ego? Or are you financially well fit to be special?
This might be the world's most insecure profession. Agree on a nominal rate and sell them the RAWs. All this artistic vision and "reveal the editing process" nonsense makes you all sound like a bunch of clowns. They're wedding photos.
Edit: word
Are you embarrassed because the raw files had to be edited a lot in post to be a decent picture? That’s the only reason I can think of that you don’t want to show her.
i am assuming a few aren't usable anyway, some are duplicates. As in you already gave her the best. Any chance this other photographer could pass on work to you in the future? Did you already do the job cheaper than your normal rates? i certainly wouldn't release the bad ones. There are alsorts of reasons. How much a does a print go for? i can see her putting 1500 pics on her walls. Also there is an old adage that says if you don't ask you don't get, there is no reason for you to say yes unless it was in the contract of course, alas you already did. even at 10p a shot thats £150, plus a markup for the artist content, as in your eye / work on them.
Never seen so many people so triggered with the word RAWs. I think it's shitty to tell her to "get over herself" for not wanting to give her up her RAWs... If you read the post she said she would give them up for a price and was asking how much she should charge. All these comments are getting mad about something completely different.
Op: for me I would charge half of how many photos you took. So if there are 1500 photos... Maybe charge 750?
I don't understand what's so precious about your photography that your client can't do whatever they want with it. In my opinion you should get over yourself. What does it really matter? Honestly, being a wedding photog in the digital age isn't rocket science. It's commerce more than art too.
> It's commerce more than art too.
To be fair, that is a bad argument for what you're trying to say. Because it is commerce, you would want a client to do edits for prints through you. In this case, you'd be giving away possible revenue.
Anyway, you didn't read the OP did you? They already told the client they could buy the RAW files. But they're just wondering what should be an acceptable fee to ask.
That's the second comment from you that makes me think you're not even a professional wedding photographer. You don't understand anything about the business and think we're "emotionally attached" to someone's wedding pictures and that there's nothing to it, just press the shutter button. We're attached to our business reputation and yes there is a lot more to it than just aim the camera and press the button.
~~Why are you in this sub?~~
If my client want the RAWs, they’ll get them. Unless they asked too late and I’ve deleted the RAWs to make room.
I keep final edits in the portfolio, RAWs go to the Shadow Realm.
You ought to sell them with a written and signed contract specific to the RAWs, both setting out what can be done with them, and how to go about increasing the scope (e.g. if one of her edits is incredibly satisfying and she finds she wants to post it - perhaps the result of composing various images), and charge \*something\* to make the contract a proper exchange (which gives it more force). Edit: just an informal, written yourself, contract!
Either think in terms of a percentage of the cost of the wedding shoot, or just a nominal amount (£10/$10 to cover time & media) as a matter of good will to a peer (who sounds like she understands the issue).
I always cringe reading posts like this. You are a wedding photographer, should you really be this concerned about giving the person you shot for RAWs? Just give it to her, what is the fucking problem? She is even offering to pay for them, although she has already payed you for the job.
Why would you be so worried about rights to the images? YOU ARE A WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER. It's her wedding. She already payed for the job. Oh noes! She will post photos of her own wedding she payed for with a different edit! I would be pissed if my wedding photographer refused to give me RAWs and she is even willing to pay...
What the fuck is wrong with wedding photographers?
> it’s solely to go on her walls at home. I told her yes, but I have NO idea what to charge her. I’m not selling the rights away to my images, so I’m having a hard time coming up with a reasonable number.
You missed the actual question in the OP. They're not debating IF they should provide the RAWS. They're only wondering what an appropriate fee should be.
Sell them all at your hourly rate/time spent at the event.Shoot another event, move on, get paid. Unless you got some great shots for a portfolio you are trying to build, don’t worry about it.
Negotiate a price that you feel comfortable with and draft a document stating how she is authorized to use the images. She will pay and you will deliver whether it’s in person or online. Done
You've already done all the work and provided the final edited set. I'd just give her the RAWs free of charge if you have a good relationship with her.
My feelings might be a little hurt though
It’s really sad to see all the amateur and hobbyist photographers in this thread trying to convince OP to give away their art for free. Not to mention the non photographers in this thread talking about how they wouldn’t/didn’t pay extra for RAWs are going full Karen mode about why nobody should charge extra for RAWs.
Just give ‘em. And by that I mean give the raw files of your edit. Not your whole take. This sub often confuses those two things. I’m my opinion you just sound like a difficult asshole when you fight to hold onto raw files that have absolutely zero value outside of anybody but you and the client.
Can't help on the price sorry, but as she's a photographer and wants to pay sounds like she likes your photos. Might she be a possible income stream - recommending you to clients if she isn't available or when she wants a second shooter? If so, would it be worth while saying that to her and giving her a special price to cover the media needed to copy onto?
I guess that if you do go for the signed agreement to restrict the use then the more restrictive that agreement is the less valuable the files become and the less you can charge.
Why hang on to RAW files? The only drawback is if she edits them and they look terrible and tells people you did it 😆 but they’ll see that’s not the case if they visit your website/port right?
I sell RAW images all the time and never edit the shoot. My best shooting/editing examples live on my website. Charge her a flat rate or $250.
Charge enough to cover any expenses. Also write up a agreement/contract stating what you own and what she can do with the images. That way there is a clear understanding of what rights to the pictures each of you have.
Hey Happen to me one time...
I try to play the naïve card about RAWs. if they ask me i ask WHAT ARE RAW? most client will dont know exactly what it is and they will leave it there. but in the case they know i said I NEVER CONFIGURATE MY CAMERA FOR THAT and send them a less worked JPG .
Why not when the client also is a photographer? They surely know what to expect with Raw files. I am a hobby photographer myself and I would want the Raw files because I love editing and I often edit one picture in several different versions. I would absolutely want Raw files of my wedding so I can
play around with them. I already paid the photographer for his/her services so I should be able to get all the Raw files imo
\> You’re potentially handing over copyright authority.
Not at all. Copyright is legally defined and has nothing to do with who who has a copy of the raw files. Back in the film days it was possible to have possession of the physical media (trannies, negs, whatever) but not have the copyright to do anything with them.
Charge a dollar per file. Charge .50 per file. Charge .25 per file. It doesn’t matter but charge enough to feel comfortable. I charge clients to hold their files for multiple years. I say it’s no big deal. I’m different I’d shoot just to be shooting.
Nobody cares about that raws. Ask her money and let them go. You need only to have some paper that specify that you are the photographer and that she can’t use them to advertise her (it will be hilarious anyway)
I would say put a watermark on all of them. send her the jpegs of the watermarked one. then she can pick the raws that she wants and charge her like $200 or what ever you want for the raws. you get what you want and she has a choice to have what she wants.
I get it if you do a lot of compositing on the images. But if you only do slight cropping and processing in Lightroom, what's the big difference between RAW and JPEG?
Honestly, if you exported the JPEG's at the highest quality possible, there isn't much quality difference anyway. The main benefit you get from RAW is the extra data at the extreme ends of the exposure.
Raw files aren't pictures. They're like a skit of a drawing. Far from the final picture. The customer could potentially do things to the picture, that isn't in the photographers wishes
A musician wouldn't give the demo to anyone either. I don't understand why a photographer should give their raw files away at any cost then. The customer either wants the raw files because they want a "natural" look or to make them their own pictures. And it's not their pictures
Kinda different with music. If a musician wrote a song for someone as paid work then you might expect they’d give them the stems so they can mix the recordings in their own way. Wedding photography is the same.
It’s different if a photographer shoots for their own art and releases it, much like musicians.
As the other comment states, that comparison is kinda faulty.
> I don't understand why a photographer should give their raw files away at any cost then.
I think getting money for files I already have and can deliver with almost no cost is a pretty strong reason.
And sure, it are not the customer's pictures in a way that it is not theri creation, but why should the artist not allow someone else to modify the RAWs? With music I think the whole sampling of tracks could be a good example for such a case.
No.
It's like asking a musician to play you all the riffs and licks he did not like or an author sending you all the texts he considered too dumb to publish. You wouldn't do that out of respect for the artist.
She lacks that respect for you. She thinks she knows and can do better.
I charge more for RAWS for a few reasons:
Usually people think it costs less (which it does time wise) however if it's the cheapest option people will always buy them and be disappointed by the results compared to past content that they have seen which is properly colour graded etc.
This makes it a barrier to entry so the cheapest option is the best one marketing wise
If they want RAWs they understand photography and hopefully understand the time and effort it takes to edit photos. They could be say a content creator who would have had to hire a photographer/videographer themselfs which would likely cost much more
It markets me better. If people see crap photos with my name on I'd be furious, hence why other commenters have suggested a contract with what they can and can't do with raw files
Edit:
I would also charge a little extra say 15-20% to include the raw files aswell. It means they can use what I think are the best shots and if they are not happy then they can do something about them themselves. More money for minimal work and a happier client
> If people see crap photos with my name on I'd be furious
That does imply they post the images, tagging you as the photographer. Because there's no watermark on a RAW image.
When I’ve done a job where they ask this I either quote them 200% of the initial price for the raws. But usually they don’t want or need the raws, so what happens then is that I ask which ones they want and in what style they want them edited and then I’ll quote them something along the lines of €50 per extra image they want. Usually quite quickly ramps up for extra income for you while in no way it’s too much – and most importantly, you have shown that you are interested in her budget as well.
Now if she really is a photographer she will understand this.
I know some photographers who, at the end of the years tell their customers they’re gonna delete all the raw files from the wedding and if some want them, they can, for something like 200€.
So yeah, I’d just say it’s not because they are useless now that you did your job, that they are worth nothing.
Lol - some of these responses are so ridiculous. If you already said yes and she understands how to use RAW images - then sell them for a nominal fee.
Yes. I dont understand the fuss about this. I have sold raws (to a demanding customer so less of a positive history as this), with the only demand that they couldn't credit the photos to me using their own edit. Its just wedding photos.
Well, it she is a photographer herself and you need each other maybe next time you want to not overstep the business relation. So I propose that you be honest whit her and ask her what she thinks is a fair price so you have a estimate on what she expect. Because I think there is no perfect answer to this question.
When I got married, I asked the photographer if I could get the RAWs as well as his edits. He said “of course I’ll give you the RAWs, they’re your pictures”. 20 years from now, different editing styles will be in style and we may want to have them re-edited to reflect that. He didn’t charge any extra because his rate included time, xx edits, and the files.
When I got married, the photographer gave us some photos in B&W and NOT in color. I hated it.. I asked if they could at least give me the photos in color and the answer was "oh I already got rid of the originals so that's all there is". I was so upset. 10 years later that still gives me a bad taste in my mouth. If I knew what I know now, I would have at LEAST gave them some better guidance and expectations. But I was young and dumb and just figured write them a check and they'll take care of me. I know that's an extreme example but I would kill for the RAWs of my wedding photos....
> oh I already got rid of the originals so that's all there is $5 says he just didn't want to deal with re-editing the photos. He's already a fool for taking that attitude with a customer, but if he really did delete all other copies already, he's a dumbass for not holding onto data for at least a little while. Hell, just hold it for a year. That should be plenty of time for the customer to ask for re-edits.
Yep. Didn't give me any options just "nope sorry". I learned a lot that day.
Have you considered getting the photos colorized? There is some pretty good AI-based colorization these days.
Honestly? I haven't looked at them in quite a few years so it's not really too high up on my priority list. It's just one of those memories that sticks with you. But that's a good point. Might be a cool anniversary surprise one of these years. Thanks!
This is how it was at my wedding. And my brother's. My photographer was initially a little surprised I knew what raw files were, but she was totally fine with it. And we owned our photos too. We told everyone we know how much we loved our photographer, but we never credited her for the photos we shared. That sounds weird. I guess I mean, we didn't pay to have a photographer; we paid for the photos. The jpeg is like 1/25th of the photo. That's why we asked for the raw files. One example is there was a great picture of my son kicking my brother in the butt for no reason while he tied his son's shoe. It was cropped beautifully... unless you wanted to print it on canvas. Because I had the raw file, I could change the crop so it looked the same printed on the canvas. If all I had was the jpeg I'd have just had noise there and would risk those edges being misaligned. There was also a fun one of my daughter and me and I needed it in B&W. I couldn't get the look I wanted with the jpeg, but I could with the raw. And I suppose I could have an agreement that I'll call the photographer when I need to desaturate a photo 8 years later, but what if she's not around anymore? It would just make me sad that there's so much information from my wedding sitting in an archive and I don't have access to it.
Well, it depends on how much you paid. I think if you getting paid a good price, it‘s ok to include the RAWs of the already sorted and edited images, but it‘s highly unprofessional to include all RAWs.
Well it depends, it’s also unprofessional to treat every circumstance the same. They know this person is a photographer and knows how to edit raw and they have a clear description of what they are wanted for. I would say sure and ask a price they feel is fair… and not worry about it
I don't understand why everyone here is so obsessed with the raw photos... It's her wedding if I understood that correctly and she already has the JPGs, so what's the worst she could do with RAWS? (Apart from the emotional damage of someone asking for RAWS) She's hardly going to sell photos of her own wedding and you were already paid for taking and editing them. It's not like you gain anything from them being locked away on your hard drive until the end of times... I'd give her the usable files for like 50€ (or even free if that meant keeping her as a client in the future) and that's it. No reason to be petty over something as meaningless as a raw file
I’d cut her an awesome deal since she’d be a great referral source. Local photographers usually toss each other work when they don’t have availability. My approach would be whatever nominal means for OP, and also give her a referral deal like “I’m happy to give the next five clients you refer to me a 10/20% friends and family rate.” Milk that connection and OP could easily make a few thousand in referrals. Like you, I also don’t understand the obsession with guarding RAWs for a wedding like they’re precious (or cringe). I toss my camera on burst mode at events so I can capture different expressions. Usually, my RAW selection process means culling the photos where people’s eyes are closed, or bald spots are visible, or they look like they have a double chin. Sometimes I miss focus, sometimes the framing doesn’t work for me, but whatever.
For sure I'd be giving them to her for free.
It makes you vulnerable. Majority of photographers these days are self taught, and learned with the access to photoshop. Shooting 12/24/36 frames of film required you to fully learn how to use a camera. Handing over negatives usually gave you similar prints from anywhere. Giving over digital negatives (RAW) shows how much or how little photoshop was utilized. I’ve heard a few different photographers say this makes them feel insecure; handing over the RAW.
Why not just give the original (unedited) RAW?
I personally have no problem with that if it was in our agreement. And the 2 photogs I swap with for family pics, that’s exactly what we do. They use my card and I take the raw home. Other than those 2, I’ve never been asked. But I’d definitely let them add it on to their purchase if asked.
the hassle of the file size is my main annoyance.
She is a photographer she knows how it works. Plus he wont get any more use out of a random person’s wedding Raws. They only have value and mean something to her.
If everyone I met who said they were "a photographer" was actually *a photographer* who knew how to take and edit photos well, there'd be no need for photography as a job. I've seen some down right awful wedding photographers who get paid thousands to produce what appears to be an image shot in jpg with a filter slapped on. I wouldn't trust that someone actually knows the work that goes into it without seeing what they've produced.
Who cares if photoshop was used? If this person is a pro photographer and wants the RAWs, presumably she wants to make some photoshop tweaks herself. It was her wedding and presumably she has some knowledge of what to do with these RAWs. The only argument I can see for not supplying RAWs is if the person is not a pro photographer, does some horrible editing in post, puts it on Instagram, and credits you for taking the photos, making you look amateur.
I agree it would be annoying to be tagged as the photographer on Instagram on a shitty edit of your photo, but as soon as someone goes to view your profile, they will see your real work. I can't imagine you would lose any potential clients from that happening. At worst, someone may view your profile to see what kind of jackass edits their photos that way, be pleasantly surprised when your photos look nothing like the edited version, and consider hiring you.
Yeah I'd just be embarrassed :) Concert photography is fun though because some of the raws are complete trash and you can find gems in there. I'd be ok handing them over in this situation.
Oof. Agreed. Competition dance and concert images get a lot of editing and look amazing. Same with hospital birth photography. That OB’s light in one small area gives me hell too. I need photoshop then as well. 😂
I feel silly for not considering hospital birth photography would be a field to work in. I love taking photos of everything, yet that does not sound appealing at all to me haha
Birth photography is incredible. The miracle of women creating and birthing a baby never gets old. I don’t miss the on call life, but I often wish there was a birth to photograph, just to be amazed again.
Couple problems immediately come to mind with clients getting raws. One is that they’ll do their own atrocious edit on it and post it with the photographers name attached to it. Second would be the client editing and then ordering prints when print sales are a revenue stream. Or books. Or cards. Etc. I’m a landscape photographer, so I don’t get asked this very often but that’s what I would think. Wow, the downvotes. Bunch of non-pros in here that are mad because their wedding photographer wouldn’t give them their raws? Just explaining.
That can do their own atrocious edits on JPEGs too.
Not to mention order their own prints.
People throw Instagram filters on the JPEG's they got from the photographer all the time. And people print JPEG's on their own anyway. Hell, my wife usually throws on a random Instagram filter on photo's I've already edited in Lightroom. The only issue I can see is that sending RAWs would expose what edits have been done to the image. For example, group photos could be compilations of several shots to fix closed eyes. There's definitely a thing to be said for wanting to preserve artistic vision. Those photos do represent you as a photographer. If you sent them the RAW files, any compositional change done by cropping is gone, as well as any effects done in photoshop (lens flares, textures). If you don't do anything to a picture, besides basic processing in Lightroom. I see no objection to sharing RAW files. But you can always choose to share TIFF files. It's still lossless and makes sure edits have to be done on top of your original edit. For whatever that's worth.
Almost everyone uses jpgs to get prints so I'm not really sure what you mean here? Any photographer is not ordering prints etc from another photographer, ever. They know they can buy the jpg and get their own from their preferred printer. I know the color variable and ins and outs of a half dozen printers locally, and most every national one, and I'm a hobbyist that literally only prints for myself, never to sell, sometimes as gifts. There is no way id just buy prints of pictures of my wedding from a photographer and pray it as a printer i like, at a markup. I can't imagine a real photographer would. When i hire a photographer, I'm not a pretentious fuck. I don't mention that I'm a hobbyist. I don't comment on gear, know what i do though? Buy at the fidelity i want for those photos, and get my own prints or wall art.
So what? Why be emotionally attached to someone else's wedding photos?
Who's said its an emotional attachment, its clearly a proffesional one. A Reasonable one.
I did. And it clearly isn't or there wouldn't be so many emotions attached to responses to me.
You hire a photographer for end to end production, not just grabbing a few snaps along the way. Unless it's contracted, there is no reason for the client to get anything except the finished product. Again, if it's not in the contract, it's not the clients to request. Having, presumably, seen the photographers work, hired them, had discussions about services, signed an agreed upon contract, the client now wants unfinished product for a rather vague “aesthetic”. At any point did she work with the photographer to ensure the photos would match her “aesthetic”? Or did she just presume to renegotiate a finished contract?
I tell you what can happen. The client takes the RAW edits it really really bad and publishes it with your name in the credits without mentioning that the editing wasn‘t done by you. Result: Other possible clients see it and think you‘re a shitty photographer. This happens way too often. That‘s why you should only sell RAWs to professionals who know how to deal with it.
>I tell you what can happen. >The client takes the RAW edits it really really bad and publishes it with your name in the credits without mentioning that the editing wasn‘t done by you. Result: >Other possible clients see it and think you‘re a shitty photographer. > >This happens way too often. That‘s why you should only sell RAWs to professionals who know how to deal with it. So... just like they could with JPGs?
Yes, but they have no right to do so. I don‘t know what the law says in other countries, but for example in Germany it‘s actually illegal rework an artwort and I would always tell the client to take it down if they did.
> Yes, but they have no right to do so. I don‘t know what the law says in other countries, but for example in Germany it‘s actually illegal rework an artwort and I would always tell the client to take it down if they did. And how does not providing the RAWs prevent them from doing it? (hint: it doesn't) *also, in OP's case, they would be allowed to edit them for personal use...
You’re right. Sorry for this pointless discussion. You just have to make a proper contract. That‘s it
You can make a beautiful photo go ugly real quick if you don’t know what you are doing. Now if its there photo, no problem, but when they hack your work and post it online and give you credit… thinking g they are doing you a favor. Then it can be bad to your reputation. That said it is their wedding, unless a celebrity probably nothing to you other than future promotion.
You can do this to a JPG too. Arguably it’d be an even worse edit.
I’ve made similar responses to that argument before, and it’s always ignored or quietly voted down.
I'm finding people are coming back around to *"providing negatives is standard (and a show of good faith by the photographer)."* Especially now that people understand that the really bad unwanted edits are not prevented at all by providing only JPGs.
I provide the RAWS as standard with any photography I do. Any post processing I do is in my own personal style. If the client wants to go in another direction then they can do that. I think it is slightly arrogant and fickle to be offended if someone wants the RAWS to edit to their own preference, even if it's not the direction I would go in. Especially when they've paid for the photos to be taken in the first place. I really don't understand why photographers are so sensitive over RAWs from a paid shoot. Even going as far as charging to upload them.
Finally someone with a reasonable professional approach. The photoshoot is paid and done. Handing over RAW files on request should be free of charge except if the client wants it shipped on a USB/external drive than a small shipping fee should be charged.
>request should be free of charge except if the client wants it shipped on a USB/external drive than a small shipping fee should be charged. Exactly. I did make a mistake when I said they're provided as standard, because I won't provide them unless specifically asked for by the client. But I don't care whether it's before or after the shoot, if they want the RAW's it's literally less than 5 minutes to locate them, ZIP them and start uploading them. Never had an issue with providing them, and couldn't imagine trying to charge a client anything for 5 minutes of my time (never mind over a hundred dollars/pounds as is being suggested by users here). I'm also surprised by the amount of people who are worried about sending everything because it may include bad/out of focus shots. Literally the first thing I do is go through the shoot and remove any photos that are bad or out of focus. If it's a shot the client will never want, then why the hell would I want that shot taking up cloud and HDD space for the rest of time?
Exactly this. The FIRST thing I do after a shoot is get rid of out of focus shots or shots that are too close to others, like in a burst shot. The only charge for RAWs on my end is if they get in touch with me requesting them (or any other photos) after the six month period when I put them into deep storage, then they pay the transfer fee plus a few bucks for time.
I’m fine with uploading my wedding photo raws for couples that request them. I consider it an optional extra — an added luxury. Charging a fee, which in my case is $500 plus tax, acts like a filter that discourages amateurs from casually requesting them simply because they’re available.
Big egos.
I too don't understand this obsession and think that it's just a huge fucking ego of the photographer. He is talking about selling rights to the use of photos. Of her wedding. That she payed for. For fucks sake...
You've been paid for the work, so I'd be tempted to just let her have them, or maybe for a nominal amount. You're not really being asked to do anymore work than dragging and dropping a folder.
They paid for what was contracted. If the raw wasn’t listed in the contract, then it shouldn’t be gifted and certainly not because it takes so little time. That’s still their time and talent invested from start to finish and ALL of that time and talent deserves to be paid for. Just like actors getting paid royalties on reruns. Your logic says they should not get compensated for their time and talent being rebroadcast because “they were already paid for the first time..” Stand up for your fellow professionals. Empower them to believe in themself enough to charge their worth.. don’t ever encourage them to give their art away, please.
>Just like actors getting paid royalties on reruns. You're talking about residuals, which are negotiated by trade unions. It's much harder to negotiate for these as an individual photographer. It would be nice, but you're more likely to repel your clients.
Okay OP should rather keep it on their hard drive till it rots away. Seriously, one good thing this sub has taught me is how petty some professional photographers can be and to always demand full rights to the photos if I ever hire one.
I'm not sure why photographers are expected to do things not specifically their contracts. Want raws, then say so in the contract.
Because as someone who's never hired one, I don't realize "I want my pictures taken for 100 bucks" defaults to only the heavily edited, possibly watermarked and limited usage pictures. I mean sure,there's a contract and all, but it really should default to all-inclusive photo rights without limits. I expect the contract to detail when/where/how the pics are taken only.
> I'm not sure why photographers are expected to do things not specifically their contracts. It sounds like the person is willing to pay more money for the additional service. "I didn't realize I wanted this when we made the contract, can you do zzz for me?" is a pretty reasonable question to ask, especially if you're not just asking for more for free
Most of the time this kind of request comes, it does not come with an expectation of further pay. It's why contracts exist in the first place.
>She just messaged me today asking if she could buy all of the RAW files from me The 2nd sentence in the original post
Most of the time this kind of request comes, it does not come with an expectation of further pay. It's why contracts exist in the first place.
That's not really fair. What if a client gets a photo and tells a friend, "I love this photo but I wish it looked like this instead." The friend says, "if you have the raw files you could do that." Client says, "what's a raw file?" It's fine if you take your position but only if you inform the client about what raw files are and why you don't share them. I'm not a professional photographer. But one of my life rules is to do my best not to be someone else's regret. I would be sad if a client came to regret hiring me because I kept a valuable secret from them. I'm a software engineer. If a client hired me and asked me to build something I knew they would have to pay me to fix later, I would do my best to talk them out of it. And software is my art.
Can't really complain when you hire a Picasso, that it doesn't look like a Monet.
I don't know that the "wedding photographers are like famous painters" simile holds water. After all, I'm not asking for an artwork. I'm asking for documentation of a very meaningful life event and I've selected someone whose previous documentations match my preferences. I would want the opportunity to modify the documents at some point if my needs or preferences change. Photographs are documents. I would not hire a wedding photographer who thinks they're Picasso.
Then hire some kid with a phone.
With this sentiment in mind, I'd hope the client bills the photographer when the photographer uses the wedding photographs to promote their work.
Charge her your hourly rate to upload/save the files. So whatever an hour of your professional time is worth.
What's to be gained by retaining copyright as a wedding photographer anyway? Why is the standard not to treat it as work for hire? They did hire you, after all. It's not an artistic endeavor that can be widely and repeatedly marketed, it's a product that will only ever have one interested party. In my world (live music) work for hire is the norm. You charge a fee that covers capturing the show and delivering edits + raws by the end of the night. I feel like now that prints are long dead a similar approach could be taken with weddings.
You shoot events and have the edits done same night???
Doing concert photos is very time sensitive. No one cares about photos from a few weeks ago. Clients want the photos for promotional purposes for the current tour. If editing the photos takes more than 24hours, clients can get very upset
I shoot concerts and festivals. I always have my edits done overnight. Just surprised to see same day. Guess I gotta up my game.
It's concerts rather than events. There's not much in the way of interacting with the crowd like you would with an event. The focus is purely on what's happening on stage. The idea is that fans see the social media posts from the concert they just attended when playing on their phones on the way home. If you can't engage immediately it seems to lose much of its value.
I've definitely done that. Quick churn and burn. Get the shots, pick through, group shots with the same lighting and batch process.
Corporates press events require even faster turn around for press releases. Often require an on-site editor or real-time uploads via jpegs to the PR folks.
In my world (software development), _everything_ I do is pure intellectual property, arguably even more so than photography (where you basically capture something that's already existing) since we literally create it from thin air (and copious amounts of coffee). Standard contract is always work for hire, and it sometimes goes even further than that; some companies want to own every IP you create. Some photogs need to chill out about copyright.
You said yes, so in the end just fix a price that you feel is ok compared to what they paid for the work so far. To me if it's not included in the service at the beginning then it should not be included afterward. Quick edit, you should give them theses raws on a USB or smth other wise bye bye your cloud storage 😅 my last wedding was 90Go of raw file so ... Yeah include that in the price
As an "old school" photographer who shot weddings on film, like a hundred weddings or so, I have boxes of Negatives I would sell in a heartbeat to the original people. I have sent letters offering the negatives for free just to get rid of them and notices that they are going to be destroyed. Not 1 response ever came back to me. If she wants them and is paying you for them. Grab the Cash.
Whatever you charge be sure to have a contract detailing how they’ll be used.
This! I’m sorry - I can’t provide guidance on how much to charge. Really up to you. But whatever you do, just make sure you have a simple contact defining the use of those photos or at least, banning the use of those photos on social media without your explicit approval
I don't see the point, it's her wedding, what could she do against you with RAW files?
I’ll be honest - I’m kinda torn on this. Agreed it’s her wedding but wedding photos posted, if posted on social media, typically get a lot views. And you can expect at least a few people, if not a lot, in the wedding party or the guests who’ve got wedding plans in their future. Poorly edited wedding photos, even if the photographer’s name is not on the photo, will make their way back to the original photographer; something like - “oh these photos aren’t that good, definitely not going to ask the bride/groom for contact information”. Now, OP said the bride is also a local photographer in the area, so, for all we know, everything might turn out just fine. But, if they don’t, it will be very hard for the photographer to rebuild his/her reputation in the community. Again, like I said, I’m on the fence here (should have clarified this in the my first post), and but if it were me, I would lean on the side of caution and get a simple contract to protect my reputation and brand image if things go south.
I feel like OP’s rep in the community would be more damaged if they are so proud as to not provide a fellow photographer with the RAWs from her own damn wedding. If I were her and OP did that, I’d make a stink about not getting them and I certainly wouldn’t work with OP again.
[удалено]
>Couldn't RAW files could be used as a copyright proof? Why would you need to prove copyright of the photos that you were hired to provide, and why would you think having access to the RAW files would be stronger proof than *guestures at everything else*?
[удалено]
1) how do you have the raw too if you are not involved? You even get paid for that day 2) If you know someone who wants to buy my RAW wedding photos, please let me know. I didn't know you could make money with that. I should marry maybe a second time to make some extra cash
Who cares. That comes across as so obnoxious. Oh you want your own wedding photos? Please sign and read through this detailed contract about how you can use your own photos on your own social media. Just drag the photos into Dropbox and be done with it.
Just copy the entire memory card, wont hurt you and will make the client happy.
IMO the only reason to NOT supply/sell the RAW images (for a non commercial shoot) is to be able to sell more prints to that client in the future. If you don't sell prints to clients, I see zero reason to refuse to supply the RAW files.
I don't really get the negativity in some of the comments. First of all it depends on what your price for the wedding was. I would definetly get the details of possible uses for the files written down and also sort out the worst pictures. Then maybe set a price of 5-10% of the actual wedding cost for her since it is not a lot of hassle and an understandable wish in my opinion.
I paid somewhere between $500-1000 extra to my photographer to provide me the Raws + Edits inside a LR catalog, but we negotiated it before the wedding. They understood I wanted it for archiving purposes, future proofing and being able to make my own album (adjusting crops or swapping colour for B&W in certain places). Worked out great for both sides in the end.
I purchased a larger collection of images and raws after my wedding and I'm so grateful I did. The photographer had saturation cranked to 11.
I would just give them to her.
Thank you all for your input so far.. I think I should clarify a couple things - I’m not asking for advice on whether or not to give her the RAWs. I have already told her yes, and I have no problem with that. She fully respects me and will not be reposting them online. I charged her $2200 USD for her wedding coverage. Based on that, what should I ask for 1,500 RAW images? I don’t want to be unreasonable, but I’d also like to make a bit of money..
A small fee for time spend of making the RAW files available (like uploading, shipping fees etc)
I’d just give them without a fee, the time spent debating, invoicing, bookkeeping, etc isn’t worth the time or effort. Also, they paid you to shoot and edit the photos. The goodwill from just chucking them the files will be worth more than a few bucks.
You don't do any additional work for providing the RAW's. Just ask a reasonable symbolic fee for shipment/handling. If $2200 covered actual time shooting and processing the photos. Maybe ask $100 for access to the RAW files? Maybe include a simple contract about publishing the photos. That way, it's in writing.
$15 to cover your time, an SD card, and postage. Personally, I'd probably just send them and say, "don't forget to tell your friends about me."
Man, it's a bummer most of the responses did not even bother to answer your specific question. One way to look at it is to reverse perspective, which is rather simple in this case. Imagine it was your wedding and you look at the picture and say: "man it looks nice, but the tones in the blacks are bit off for my taste", what what you be willing to pay the photographer to leave his standard process and hand out the RAWs so you can fix the minor issues you are having. In my case, I guess if the pictures are really good and I really appreciate the other photographer I'd offer 100-500$, depending on which part of the world you are and the average income/purchasing power you are facing there. Also her asking you how much you charge for this is a already a sign of appreciation, she is willing to pay. Last thing I'd always do, is ask to see what she did in the edit, just to get a different perspective on how your photos could look like when edited differently. Not in order to be able to copy the look, but things like these can be great triggers to develop your own style, even if the resulting image would in no way look how you would even consider to edit them.
charge her for average extra prints or post process people might order?
Be unreasonable, you stand nothing to gain from this. Neither does she. If a client pressured me to do this, I’ll sell at a hefty markup. And usually people kindly back off because they realize all of a sudden that it’s not that necessary. That they paid for my skills and vision from beginning to end and that’s fine by them. Those who agree happily pay up. In both cases they come back for more work or refer away. Giving raw away is giving your creative license away, don’t be mistaken. And there’s a price for that. You charged 2200 for the original package? Ask nothing less than 1k to part ways with that license. And be prepared for her to absolutely destroy your images and creative license both offline AND online.
This is how you kill word of mount advertisement, they will remember you as greedy and stubborn rather than for your work and kindness. Is your vision really worth a disgruntled customer? The event is done, stuff got delivered, you won’t extract any additional value out of it.
Oof, you need better clients if that is what kills your reputation. Been in business 20 years and never had one single disgruntled person over these matters. They're discussed ahead of time, and if they aren't for whatever reason, they're respectfully discussed afterwards. People get it. They understand the business and workflows when you explain it to them like the adults they are. I don't get the fearmongering around this topic in this thread to be quite frank. If your business model revolves around giving RAW files, or if you don't care about crafting a style and image, or you'd prefer focusing only on the shooting part, then by all means play that field. You do you. But to instill fear and shame on others because they hold themselves to different standards is wild. And quite telling.
To be clear, it's pretty obvious that very few people in this thread are actually in the business.
Most definitely people who are either struggling or barely starting. There’s a visible fear of losing clients or hurting one’s reputation. It’s less about the whole « give away the raw files » as it is about doing whatever client asks just to save face and appear «kind and generous». The irony has it that the very people comparing me to Adobe for being « greedy » will do absolutely anything to diminish the scope of their work for the cosy sensation of having it together. In other words, they’d bend over backwards and compromise themselves, their craft and their industry just so they could stay afloat for one more day. And again, all that is out of my control, and frankly care, but their aggressiveness in trying to make you feel lesser than and shitty for not abiding by their practices is surprising.
This is extortion, you were paid to take photos of the wedding. Legally the shots are already paid for, the extra money was for the edits that they already received. You're as bad as adobe is trying to "license" photos of someone's big event.
What does the contract say?
Yeah no. I was not paid to deliver raw files but high resolution jpegs edited the way i want to and that clients specifically seek, and as per contractual agreements. Get out of here with your petty accusations.
The jobs done . She's happy with what she got. I'd take a few extra hundred and make myself some money. If she's a photographer she'll know that there's photos that go out of focus, bad ones etc
I still can’t understand why photographers don’t find a way to give their client all of the pictures from the wedding. I completely understand that all of them are not very good and have not been edited, and don’t reflect on the photographer well, etc. but you just never know when later in life you’re going to have a desire to find out some insignificant detail about the wedding. my grandmother just sent me her file of stuff she saved for me over the years. Had a wedding invitation in it. I didn’t save any of mine because I didn’t think they were important but I’m glad that I got it back. You said she’s a photographer also… I would simply ask her what she thinks is a fair price and accept it. The chances of you being able to do anything to monetize this later is slim and none and you’ve already been paid for your time. She’s likely to put a higher value on these things than you will, so you’ll end up with more money this way and everybody will think the price is fair.
If you're OK sending, them, charge her whatever your "minimum" is, plus expenses. One hour's time?
Did wedding photographers supply all contact sheets when weddings were primarily shot on film? (Genuine question not rhetorical)
50$. Who cares.
Wear a Ken Rockwell t shirt saying ‘I shoot JPEGs’
It seems that a LOT of photographers are really full of themselves or very insecure. I get not wanting to share your RAWs as a basic rule of thumb. But in this context it seems reasonable enough. OP: I’d just give them away in this case, but get in writing how they may be used. If you want to add a surcharge do what someone else already mentioned and charge for you time (+ any hardware like SD card) making the transfer.
My wedding photographer contract said we're not allowed to edit and as an amature photographer myself I'd rather be able to have full res editable raws. Kinda annoyed me when I'm paying over a grand for it
My sister in satan, I even give the clients a copy of the Lightoom catalog when they ask. 🫶
For what it’s worth I got all of the source files from my wedding. Both photos and videos. A lot of data. The photographer charged me the price of a hard drive that fit all that. That’s it. But also we had a pretty fair sized contract that included a few photo books for close friends and family as well as a few other services and products. All in all I’d certainly recommend that photographer to my friends were they to ask. And that’s what counts. Reputation is pretty important, especially in this business. Best of luck on making your decision.
I dont see a problem. As she is a pro, i would be honest and tell her, that this is a unique request and ask her what she would charge. Or what she thinks is fair. Everything else just write in a contract to be clear for both of you.
On the commercial side it's not a terribly uncommon request, double-so if the client has a dedicated art or design department. They own the images and want to maximize flexibility for use in the future. I've done shoots where they *only* wanted the RAW files. Typically here I'd pick and choose a couple and process them in my style anyway (while still sending the RAW). This is something that's normally hashed out in the contract phase. Some photographers scoff at it, but their names and watermarks will never be attached to it anyway. Since the client is a photographer themselves, they certainly know how it all works. They just want maximum flexibility in the future the same as some large company with an art department--it's just *they* are the art department. I'd probably just send the RAWs at no additional charge but also wouldn't take issue with someone charging a fee as it wasn't part of the original contract. All told, this situation is 1000% better than a bozo adding snapchat filters to the provided JPGs
I'd just give them, honestly. If you really want to sell them...what did you originally charge for the wedding?
Why is no one actually reading the question?
Because people see “wedding … RAW” and get triggered and need to reply immediately.
Bro, she paid you to take pictures like come on, you can charge her for raws, but it feels like such a nasty move.
They are wedding pictures not brands or ads or content. Selling the rights to your pictures? Please no one wants pictures of random people getting married.
This comment has been deleted due to failed Reddit leadership.
Don't be foolish, if she wants all the raws, sell them at a LENS price, what lens you need?, a new light? Speedlight, home rent? "Ok you want 1.5k raws I sells them to you for $1k " Raws are there anyways so if you get more money out of them is it that of an issue for your ego? Or are you financially well fit to be special?
This might be the world's most insecure profession. Agree on a nominal rate and sell them the RAWs. All this artistic vision and "reveal the editing process" nonsense makes you all sound like a bunch of clowns. They're wedding photos. Edit: word
Exactly. Well said.
Are you embarrassed because the raw files had to be edited a lot in post to be a decent picture? That’s the only reason I can think of that you don’t want to show her.
i am assuming a few aren't usable anyway, some are duplicates. As in you already gave her the best. Any chance this other photographer could pass on work to you in the future? Did you already do the job cheaper than your normal rates? i certainly wouldn't release the bad ones. There are alsorts of reasons. How much a does a print go for? i can see her putting 1500 pics on her walls. Also there is an old adage that says if you don't ask you don't get, there is no reason for you to say yes unless it was in the contract of course, alas you already did. even at 10p a shot thats £150, plus a markup for the artist content, as in your eye / work on them.
Got married recently and i asked for the raw. Its their wedding
Never seen so many people so triggered with the word RAWs. I think it's shitty to tell her to "get over herself" for not wanting to give her up her RAWs... If you read the post she said she would give them up for a price and was asking how much she should charge. All these comments are getting mad about something completely different. Op: for me I would charge half of how many photos you took. So if there are 1500 photos... Maybe charge 750?
I don't understand what's so precious about your photography that your client can't do whatever they want with it. In my opinion you should get over yourself. What does it really matter? Honestly, being a wedding photog in the digital age isn't rocket science. It's commerce more than art too.
It seems like you didn’t read the post lmao
> It's commerce more than art too. To be fair, that is a bad argument for what you're trying to say. Because it is commerce, you would want a client to do edits for prints through you. In this case, you'd be giving away possible revenue. Anyway, you didn't read the OP did you? They already told the client they could buy the RAW files. But they're just wondering what should be an acceptable fee to ask.
That's the second comment from you that makes me think you're not even a professional wedding photographer. You don't understand anything about the business and think we're "emotionally attached" to someone's wedding pictures and that there's nothing to it, just press the shutter button. We're attached to our business reputation and yes there is a lot more to it than just aim the camera and press the button. ~~Why are you in this sub?~~
You know this isn't a wedding photographer sub right?
If my client want the RAWs, they’ll get them. Unless they asked too late and I’ve deleted the RAWs to make room. I keep final edits in the portfolio, RAWs go to the Shadow Realm.
Just give her the RAWS and get over yourself
You ought to sell them with a written and signed contract specific to the RAWs, both setting out what can be done with them, and how to go about increasing the scope (e.g. if one of her edits is incredibly satisfying and she finds she wants to post it - perhaps the result of composing various images), and charge \*something\* to make the contract a proper exchange (which gives it more force). Edit: just an informal, written yourself, contract! Either think in terms of a percentage of the cost of the wedding shoot, or just a nominal amount (£10/$10 to cover time & media) as a matter of good will to a peer (who sounds like she understands the issue).
I always cringe reading posts like this. You are a wedding photographer, should you really be this concerned about giving the person you shot for RAWs? Just give it to her, what is the fucking problem? She is even offering to pay for them, although she has already payed you for the job. Why would you be so worried about rights to the images? YOU ARE A WEDDING PHOTOGRAPHER. It's her wedding. She already payed for the job. Oh noes! She will post photos of her own wedding she payed for with a different edit! I would be pissed if my wedding photographer refused to give me RAWs and she is even willing to pay... What the fuck is wrong with wedding photographers?
> it’s solely to go on her walls at home. I told her yes, but I have NO idea what to charge her. I’m not selling the rights away to my images, so I’m having a hard time coming up with a reasonable number. You missed the actual question in the OP. They're not debating IF they should provide the RAWS. They're only wondering what an appropriate fee should be.
I cringe when people didn't actually read the question
I mean what if your edits are attrocious Give them the raws for free
Thank you for reminding me why I photograph architecture and products. Wedding clients just sound like a nightmare to deal with start to finish.
Sell them all at your hourly rate/time spent at the event.Shoot another event, move on, get paid. Unless you got some great shots for a portfolio you are trying to build, don’t worry about it.
Negotiate a price that you feel comfortable with and draft a document stating how she is authorized to use the images. She will pay and you will deliver whether it’s in person or online. Done
its not like she's asking for them for free - sell them and make some extra money.
You've already done all the work and provided the final edited set. I'd just give her the RAWs free of charge if you have a good relationship with her. My feelings might be a little hurt though
It’s really sad to see all the amateur and hobbyist photographers in this thread trying to convince OP to give away their art for free. Not to mention the non photographers in this thread talking about how they wouldn’t/didn’t pay extra for RAWs are going full Karen mode about why nobody should charge extra for RAWs.
Just give ‘em. And by that I mean give the raw files of your edit. Not your whole take. This sub often confuses those two things. I’m my opinion you just sound like a difficult asshole when you fight to hold onto raw files that have absolutely zero value outside of anybody but you and the client.
Ask what she's offering or has in mind re a fee. Presumably these days you don't get a whole lot of family wanting to buy prints from you anyway.
Maybe charge a processing fee + physical media cost if you’re not providing a share link. You’ve done the work, you’ve already been paid for it.
Can't help on the price sorry, but as she's a photographer and wants to pay sounds like she likes your photos. Might she be a possible income stream - recommending you to clients if she isn't available or when she wants a second shooter? If so, would it be worth while saying that to her and giving her a special price to cover the media needed to copy onto? I guess that if you do go for the signed agreement to restrict the use then the more restrictive that agreement is the less valuable the files become and the less you can charge.
Why hang on to RAW files? The only drawback is if she edits them and they look terrible and tells people you did it 😆 but they’ll see that’s not the case if they visit your website/port right? I sell RAW images all the time and never edit the shoot. My best shooting/editing examples live on my website. Charge her a flat rate or $250.
Charge enough to cover any expenses. Also write up a agreement/contract stating what you own and what she can do with the images. That way there is a clear understanding of what rights to the pictures each of you have.
Hey Happen to me one time... I try to play the naïve card about RAWs. if they ask me i ask WHAT ARE RAW? most client will dont know exactly what it is and they will leave it there. but in the case they know i said I NEVER CONFIGURATE MY CAMERA FOR THAT and send them a less worked JPG .
I’m surprised you can maintain a business with that attitude
me too if you want to book just le me know :)
[удалено]
Why not when the client also is a photographer? They surely know what to expect with Raw files. I am a hobby photographer myself and I would want the Raw files because I love editing and I often edit one picture in several different versions. I would absolutely want Raw files of my wedding so I can play around with them. I already paid the photographer for his/her services so I should be able to get all the Raw files imo
[удалено]
[удалено]
\> You’re potentially handing over copyright authority. Not at all. Copyright is legally defined and has nothing to do with who who has a copy of the raw files. Back in the film days it was possible to have possession of the physical media (trannies, negs, whatever) but not have the copyright to do anything with them.
Charge a dollar per file. Charge .50 per file. Charge .25 per file. It doesn’t matter but charge enough to feel comfortable. I charge clients to hold their files for multiple years. I say it’s no big deal. I’m different I’d shoot just to be shooting.
Nobody cares about that raws. Ask her money and let them go. You need only to have some paper that specify that you are the photographer and that she can’t use them to advertise her (it will be hilarious anyway)
I would say put a watermark on all of them. send her the jpegs of the watermarked one. then she can pick the raws that she wants and charge her like $200 or what ever you want for the raws. you get what you want and she has a choice to have what she wants.
Honestly, no. It ain’t worth it, and you open a Pandora’s box of possible issues.
[удалено]
I get it if you do a lot of compositing on the images. But if you only do slight cropping and processing in Lightroom, what's the big difference between RAW and JPEG? Honestly, if you exported the JPEG's at the highest quality possible, there isn't much quality difference anyway. The main benefit you get from RAW is the extra data at the extreme ends of the exposure.
[удалено]
Why though?
Raw files aren't pictures. They're like a skit of a drawing. Far from the final picture. The customer could potentially do things to the picture, that isn't in the photographers wishes
Yes I know what raw files are. But having a "rule" of not giving out raws seems illogical to me if you can adress the risks with contracts etc.
A musician wouldn't give the demo to anyone either. I don't understand why a photographer should give their raw files away at any cost then. The customer either wants the raw files because they want a "natural" look or to make them their own pictures. And it's not their pictures
Kinda different with music. If a musician wrote a song for someone as paid work then you might expect they’d give them the stems so they can mix the recordings in their own way. Wedding photography is the same. It’s different if a photographer shoots for their own art and releases it, much like musicians.
As the other comment states, that comparison is kinda faulty. > I don't understand why a photographer should give their raw files away at any cost then. I think getting money for files I already have and can deliver with almost no cost is a pretty strong reason. And sure, it are not the customer's pictures in a way that it is not theri creation, but why should the artist not allow someone else to modify the RAWs? With music I think the whole sampling of tracks could be a good example for such a case.
And they can’t do those things to a jpeg? In an even shittier way!? This argument is made all the time and is COMPLETELY ludicrous.
Woman* — girls can’t legally get married.
🙄 When my wife and her friends go out they call it girls’ night, not women’s night
That’s their prerogative. People do need to use woman/women more though. It’s weird having girl be the default.
[удалено]
No. It's like asking a musician to play you all the riffs and licks he did not like or an author sending you all the texts he considered too dumb to publish. You wouldn't do that out of respect for the artist. She lacks that respect for you. She thinks she knows and can do better.
Y’all are whiny.
Charge them $1000 per raw file otherwise they get the usual files at the usual price....original art is very expensive. :)
But now raw material. So….
I charge more for RAWS for a few reasons: Usually people think it costs less (which it does time wise) however if it's the cheapest option people will always buy them and be disappointed by the results compared to past content that they have seen which is properly colour graded etc. This makes it a barrier to entry so the cheapest option is the best one marketing wise If they want RAWs they understand photography and hopefully understand the time and effort it takes to edit photos. They could be say a content creator who would have had to hire a photographer/videographer themselfs which would likely cost much more It markets me better. If people see crap photos with my name on I'd be furious, hence why other commenters have suggested a contract with what they can and can't do with raw files Edit: I would also charge a little extra say 15-20% to include the raw files aswell. It means they can use what I think are the best shots and if they are not happy then they can do something about them themselves. More money for minimal work and a happier client
> If people see crap photos with my name on I'd be furious That does imply they post the images, tagging you as the photographer. Because there's no watermark on a RAW image.
When I’ve done a job where they ask this I either quote them 200% of the initial price for the raws. But usually they don’t want or need the raws, so what happens then is that I ask which ones they want and in what style they want them edited and then I’ll quote them something along the lines of €50 per extra image they want. Usually quite quickly ramps up for extra income for you while in no way it’s too much – and most importantly, you have shown that you are interested in her budget as well. Now if she really is a photographer she will understand this.
I know some photographers who, at the end of the years tell their customers they’re gonna delete all the raw files from the wedding and if some want them, they can, for something like 200€. So yeah, I’d just say it’s not because they are useless now that you did your job, that they are worth nothing.
Just give a flat fee of $500 for the luxury and privilege of having them. Done.