Have a client that wants me to deliver the Raw files from a shoot. ("Send me the Raw and jpg high res files, no editing needed, we have 2 graphics designer".) For anyone who has been requested to do this, how did you respond? Not something I really want to do but loosing a job because of it is not so good either. Have a good rap for dissuading this request? Thanks!

Tell her that it is your business policy to deliver the best product you can and that requires at least minimal post-production and conversion from RAW files. Explain, if needed, that delivering RAW is like surrendering your negatives--you lose all control of the quality (really punch that part of it--don't go off about theft or anything) and that is just not something you can live with. After all, you take quality as one of the most important parts of what you do...etc.

If she insists on RAW, then you have to do a hard think about whether it really is worth it. In the long run. you are better off NOT delivering RAW.

Best--
Leslie

If you deliver RAW, and someone down the line messes up the conversions or prints, it will reflect badly upon you as a photographer. The question when viewing a so-so or badly printed image will not be "who converted that", it will be "who shot that", so I would avoid that problem.

If you do not specifically list charges for RAW conversion, then you could tell the client that it does not cost them anything extra for RAW conversion. Then, as Leslie suggested, let them know that to maintain the highest quality you control the RAW conversions.

If you're worried about the conversion, send them DNG files with your conversion settings embedded. Even if you delivered corrected TIFFs, nothing will prevent the client from further tweaking the files to suit their 'vision' anyways, unless you put such a restriction in the delivery memo.

As far as theft goes, I don't think it's really an issue, since image theft is not limited to raw formats. I'd feel much better delivering raw files than I would film originals -- which is thankfully behind us.

Part of the reason for not sending RAW is also about metadata. While you can, in some situations, embed metadata in RAW files:
http://www.updig.org/disg/metadata.php

it is better to make the conversion for that.

And you never, ever, ever want to release an image file without embedded metadata.

-Leslie

I only release RAW to an agency with a digital imaging department I trust.

Other than that, it's a bad deal too stay very far away from.

Do you trust your client? There are a few agencies that I work with who have digital departments, and l ike photographers, their level of competence varies.
If I was really really afraid of what they would do to my vision I would process the files the way that I had intended but still offer the client a crack at doing it 'their way' as ekatsumata says they can tweak it however they want anyway. And in many cases when dealing with commercial clients, their 'vision' trumps your 'vision'. Often they know what they want more than you know what they want..
For those who used to deliver transparencies did you demand that there was no retouching done by the client to fit their needs? Is there a difference between delivering a RAW file and a trans?

I think it also depends on what kind of client we are talking about. If this is an editorial client and your name is going on the page I would go with what Leslie said in the first post. If this is advertising then I would let them have it, though I would certainly edit the shoot to the best images.
Did you negotiate post processing fees? Are they trying to avoid these? I shot a big ad job and they paid me a huge amount for the post processing but the AD wanted the raw to do his own thing with. I was fine with that, it is his campaign. They looked great and I still got paid for my Post fees.

ditto cuechick.

I was going to ask what type of client it is too, as that has a lot of weight on how I'd proceed.

If it was someone I had a working relationship with and the utmost trust I would consider it, but a new client or someone that I had seen from past experience that they could not do it better than me then no way.

The goal is that the client hired you for what you can bring to the job and your sensibilities and style...not because we may have been the cheapest or most convenient. Generally when someone hires you for the former reason they want that special something that they see that you do and want to give you the freedom to do that or even surprise them with what you deliver.

If they choose you for the latter reason then they think of photographers as interchangeable and want to control everything with their vision. So it boils down to if you are comfortable with someone interpreting what you shot.

There are exceptions though. Now no one would hire me specifically for the type of shot that combines several to make a new entity, but if they did the amount of Photoshop production work of retouching and assembling would be way out of my league and I would gladly hand that project over to more qualified hands.

I'm in discussion with a client at the moment who wants the raw files delivered. I have always said no but after talking to their retouching guy and seeing some samples of he has done, I happy to hand them over. His skill is far beyond mine.

Anyway, as someone else said, a client can and will alter any tiff you send them so really its a moot point.

I'm over it, so from now if I trust the client and know what they want to achieve, I'll deliver raws.

Cheers
Mike

The client is a potential one so I don't really know how they are to deal with. From the email it sounded like they wanted the Raw files so as to not pay for any post processing. Just my guess right now. It does seem that sending a Raw file is not such a dilemma except for the metadata issue that Leslie brought up and also by starting a bad precedent. So, if you convert to DNG the metadata issue solved? Correct?

I think if your dealing with some mom and pop shop down the street, yeah, you better color correct your images, but if your dealing with a legitimate magazine, agency, and or company, then
I wouldn't sweat it... I would put that energy into making the images on your website perfect.....

quote:

Originally posted by Leslie Burns-Dell'Acqua:
[qb] Part of the reason for not sending RAW is also about metadata. While you can, in some situations, embed metadata in RAW files:
http://www.updig.org/disg/metadata.php

it is better to make the conversion for that.

And you never, ever, ever want to release an image file without embedded metadata.

-Leslie [/qb]

Which is why I suggested delivering adjusted and corrected DNG files, since it allows for conversion settings to be stored within the file, as well as contact and copyright info which will transfer over to the appropriate IPTC fields of the final tiff or jpeg (which is the embedded metadata I assume you're referring to?).

Of course, if the client's production folk aren't using Adobe to do the raw conversion, DNG files will probably be of no use to them.