When You're Not the Photo Editor

[BCampbell]

Hey all,

Just posted some experiences from an event assignment to my blog. The short story is the event planners from a shoot asked for all of the unedited files -- after I had delivered a strong set of edited ones to the organizers. The long story... well, you'll just have to read the whole thing, I guess.

Photo This » When You’re Not the Photo Editor

Enjoy!

[OsmosisStudios]

First things first: As far as Im concerned, this counts as advertising in the forums and that's not allowed. I realize you've been around a while, but it's just tacky.

That being said...

Never. Never ever ever give out RAW files. Even if they ask nice. Of course, it's your own damn fault for not having a contract, but even then I would have said no. Straight up.

Your edits on some of those photos are questionable. There are some issues with exposure on many (namely those with flash), but when that's been corrected, the images then lack contrast and colour.

Furthermore, your comparison shots aren't very fair. You've resized the images down on the web to fit your site from flickr, which makes them look considerably sharper: the ones posted by the event organizer actually look out of focus. If these are indeed the same files, your comparison isn't a fair one.

Finally, if you werent comfortable with the images they posted, I'd ask them to remove my name from them. I would never be associated with images I did not approve. If you are going to let them have the unedited files, dont whine that you're not happy with their work: that's your own fault.

[Sime]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

First things first: As far as Im concerned, this counts as advertising in the forums and that's not allowed. I realize you've been around a while, but it's just tacky.

Just so we're clear - the moderation team will be the judge of this, thanks.

[Sime]

I feel your pain... Though I've not been asked to provide raw images, and I'm not sure what I'd do if I were asked to do so. I suppose at the right price I might, but is that price higher or lower - higher because of the risk to me / my business / name if they do a bad edit (as in your story) or, do I charge less because I'm not doing as much work, ask them not to put my name against the images and wash my hands of it - couldn't be sure, I'd have to take it on a case by case basis.. I'd suggest, as you mentioned in your article, that you thought they were doing the right thing as a charity and so you went ahead and gave them the images - I guess we need to help where we can sometimes.

Thanks for sharing.

[BCampbell]

Hah, thanks for the comments.

I'll defer to the mods on whether or not this is appropriate.

You're absolutely right that the real issue is that I didn't have a contract. This is charity work, I've shot this event before with no contract and no hassles, and it was flat out a mistake. I didn't say no simply because I had nothing to lose here; I'm giving everything I did away anyway, and I have edits of the photos that I believe are of a higher quality.

Namely those with flash? They're all with flash. I actually agree with you that better processing could have been done, I'm still learning every day. But I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt if you can't even tell when a photo has and hasn't been artifically lit.

I addressed some of the resizing issues in an edit; flickr has a good resizing algorithm, which I simply defined height and width for their photos leaving a lot of aliasing. I was more concerned with exposure, but I'm going to hazard a guess that the softness you see in their photos is a combination of how they processed, saved, and are displaying them on the web. I did some denoising and sharpening; I'm sure they didn't. I save as high quality JPG; it looks like they used higher compression. This is pretty much exactly what I'm talking about; I took more care with the photos than they did. Hosting them on flickr isn't the issue, it's not lick flickr can actually make the photos look better. You can see much larger versions on my flickr than you can in their gallery, of course.

I like "If these are indeed the same files". Are you questioning my integrity there?

I'm not sure where I came off as whining. It was late when I wrote that, so maybe I'm missing it, feel free to point it out. I take full responsibility for my actions that led to the end of this story. I know what I did wrong, and I'm actually not totally displeased with the result. I'm not sure how closely you read it, but I actually did address a lot of what you say; I acknowledge that some areas of their versions are improved over mine, and I appreciate the lessons I learned from that.

Put bluntly, I dropped my ego at the door, let them have what they wanted, and I'm facing the facts. I think I'm being prety realistic here. I don't think many people would have the balls to do that, and you help prove me right: "Never ever ever give out RAW files." I'm confident in my work, but I also realize that hey, maybe they can do a better job than me so I'll let them take a crack.

Anyway, the main reason I wrote that entry and posted it here is that so others can learn from my mistakes and my experience. Of course criticism is expected and welcomed, so thanks for your response. Sorry if there wasn't anything for you to learn from here.

[BCampbell]

Originally Posted by Sime™

I suppose at the right price I might, but is that price higher or lower - higher

Well, that's the question, right? I think if I were not doing this for charity, I would change pricing in two ways; increase (by some factor) the per-image price for the raw files, but drop the processing cost (by a smaller factor). I still have to do some work transferring and cataloging, so there is a post charge, but not as many hours of editing.

because of the risk to me / my business / name if they do a bad edit (as in your story) or, do I charge less because I'm not doing as much work, ask them not to put my name against the images and wash my hands of it

When I was asked to deliver all of the unedited files from the event, I sweated a bit. I was giving up control, and man that really drove home just how much we all do love control over our images.

But as for bylines, on an album shoot I had a great image that needed a lot of editing. I had a decent version but I shot the RAW over to a friend who I totally admit is better in post than I am (how else are we gonna learn?). His final looked great and ultimately made the cover for the album. The work credited me as the photographer and him for photo editing, which I think is ideal. I could have easily requested the same in this case, but that would have seemed a little petty; I have my own edits for portfolio usage, and their gallery is more like a tearsheet -- people know that when your work is used by someone else it's partially out of your hands, so I'm not too worried. I'm actually a little thankful they used so many shots; in my experience, event photography is less about getting the one perfect shot and more about documenting the overall feel of the event in multiple shots.

I'd suggest, as you mentioned in your article, that you thought they were doing the right thing as a charity and so you went ahead and gave them the images - I guess we need to help where we can sometimes.

That's what it really comes down to; I'm offering my services to help, I believe in their mission, so I want them to benefit as much as possible. It doesn't kill me to give them a little extra rope.

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for reading and the response, I really wanted to share this because I think a lot of people here can benefit from this experience. Hopefully it helps someone else make a decision down the line.

[Swisstony10]

I do a fair bit of work for a couple of charities linked to the hospital where I was treated last year. One of them I'm involved with at an organisational level, and because it's something very close to me anyway, I flat out never charge. The other is a more general hospital-based organisation - sometimes I work for free for them, but every now and again they ask me to do something that they have a budget for, and so I bill them accordingly.

I always give them edited/processed images in a fairly compressed Jpeg form, just because it's easier to get the images to them when they're quite small. If they want to use them on the web, they let me know which ones they want to use, and I send them resized versions, and when they want to use something for a big poster or banner, I give them a resized Tiff because their printer prefers it that way. They know that they can always ask for whatever size and format they want, and I hope they know better than to ask for unedited RAW files.

Still, it's a good relationship - the charities concerned get a decent friendly service from me, and I get a warm fuzzy feeling inside, mucho brownie-points, and I've managed to score a few good paid gigs through the word-of-mouth that it generates.

Russ.

[Brian Mullins]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Never. Never ever ever give out RAW files. Even if they ask nice.

Charity or not, THIS is the best advice! Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing leaves my studio if it doesn't meet my standards. All it takes is one bad photo, badly edited, poorly manipulated or any "bad" thing done to it, with your name attached, to cost you future business.

Without a contract, you were under no obligation to provide anything as well. A simple "I'm sorry, the other images do not meet my studios rigorous vetting process and will not be distributed" will suffice. Having been thru this myself early in my career I will re-emphasize - don't ever give out the RAWS unless you are being paid ridiculous money for it and don't let anything leave your studio that you are not proud to have your name on it.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by Brian Mullins

Charity or not, THIS is the best advice! Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing leaves my studio if it doesn't meet my standards. All it takes is one bad photo, badly edited, poorly manipulated or any "bad" thing done to it, with your name attached, to cost you future business.

Without a contract, you were under no obligation to provide anything as well. A simple "I'm sorry, the other images do not meet my studios rigorous vetting process and will not be distributed" will suffice. Having been thru this myself early in my career I will re-emphasize - don't ever give out the RAWS unless you are being paid ridiculous money for it and don't let anything leave your studio that you are not proud to have your name on it.

Oh so how true Brian!

Thou shall not give out RAW images....never, unless they are willing to pay (see above).

[sk66]

I have been there, and I have always refused to give out the raw files, but it is getting harder these days with so many "professionals" including the RAW files as part of thier service....

I went to your blog and read the whole thing and I think this clearly shows how giving out the RAW files can really hurt you. If I was the maker of the rasberry chocolates I would never hire yuo to make my product look dull and half spoiled, and if I were an individual I would never hire you to make me look greasy/sweaty/reflective with harsh flash....both were posted in thier gallery (your edits looked much better). If I were reviewing thier gallery I don't think the first thought would be "Who took these shots and can I hire them?"