We hired a pro photographer to take family photos last summer during a beach vacation. My wife wants to use some of the photos for a Christmas card and she bemoaned the fact that in all the photos, the beach and sky have been pretty much whitewashed out of existence. I told her I could fix them in Photoshop if the photographer could provide RAW versions. We’re talking about 15 photos here. Is this a reasonable request? I assume the photographer still has the RAW versions, but not sure. The photographer in fact has not responded to my request. Maybe photographer feels insulted or something.
You must log in or register to comment.
This actually takes quite a bit of time to sort out. To get the RAWs, they need to go to Lightroom and check the file name of the RAW image, then go to the RAW folder and copy it for you. X15 and this will take some time, assuming they still have the RAWs easily available. It might be easier to just give you all of the RAW files but then you have storage and sharing issues. You might offer to compensate them for the effort, especially if it’s some time after completion of the shoot.
You can ask, the worst they can say is no. Prepare to be charged extra for the release of the RAW photos, and in the most extreme case work with the edited photos with the Generative Fill functions.
I would be personally mad as a photographer if I saw that done to my work, but if there’s no contract stating the images can’t be altered or manipulated, you’re within your rights to do it. What happens after that is on your relationship with the photographer.
youre more likely to be successful to ask for a reedit in more neutral tone (and pay for it) than getting raws.
I don’t know anyone who would hand over unedit files or RAW files. I know a number of photographers who would not be happy with pictures being reused and have even sued people for making copies of wedding pictures.
My point is, there might be a clause in your contract with the photographer about usage because they own the copyright to your pictures.
Honestly no one don’t find it reasonable. I personally never give out RAW files. Does the editing look like the rest of the photographers work? If so then it’s sorta on you for hiring someone with a style different than what you want.
Also truthfully even if the photographer didn’t find this ask to be an issue, there’s very little chance they still have the raws. I personally wouldn’t have kept family photo raws that long
just replace the sky with your own sky
Did you sign a contract and what clauses does it have with respect to artistic rights and client use?
If a client asked nicely I would consider it. You never know until you ask, especially if it’s for a holiday card. Can’t imagine being a grinch about it.
You’re implying that if the photographer doesn’t capitulate and give the OP what they want (free product), they are being a grinch. Is that accurate?
If they were a “professional photographer”, you signed a contract for their services. What does it say about the RAW files?
Something tells me after reading your responses OP, that this photographer likely delivered work that completely falls in line with their portfolio.
Controversial take:
If they are a capable photographer I believe they should hand it out.
Hear me out: I work in graphic design and illustration for the better part of a decade, I am capable of editing raws myself and I often need to as part of my work.
A photographer not handing out raws is a kill-criteria and makes collaboration difficult. Frankly, I hate it.
I also believe in handing out open files and source material in pretty much any field of visual art.
Remember folks, clients hire your visual talent because of your signature and style (of shooting) + in large parts your personality. If you are afraid a client will walk away with source files and ridicule your work publicly or run off with it to a cheap competitor, than you are not as good as you think you are in the first place.
Agencies I worked for also always gave out files on request.
Okay but as a graphic designer, that’s a different thing entirely. A family photo shoot doesn’t need raws
I wouldn’t ask for raw images. Not only are they quite large in file size, they also look nothing like the photographers usual work. I’d never give my clients raw images because I shoot underexposed with a cool white balance so they look dark and cold at first. Now you could however edit the photos you already have in Lightroom. There are probably even some presets that would work wonders on the jpg version.
You can ask but expect to either get a no answer or if they do say yes, you’ll probably be asked to pay more.
You may want to ask if they can be re-edited.
It does concern me that the final images you have are being reported by you in an unusable condition. The RAW files may be of no use if you are getting sub standard images delivered to you.
Bigger issues may be in play here
You could also ask in the https://www.reddit.com/r/PhotoshopRequest/ to fix your photos for a small fee which is usually a tip
As a photographer I give my clients all the raws. I don’t really care for them. It’s their photos. They can have them after I get paid. Lol