Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Do you provide your raw files to the client?  (Read 14590 times)
Abdulrahman Aljabri
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 12, 2011, 11:51:12 PM »
ReplyReply

No I don't give unedited or unprocessed images to anyone.

I see every project as my most current "portfolio" one that I have no control over.  I'd never take a chance that a CD wouldn't be handed off without an explanation as to what the contents are.

I wouldn't expect an editor to remember that a certain CD was everything including outtakes, while another was the finished project.

I also always add the ITPC and other metadata especially my copyright info.

As for camera RAW files, yes I have allowed certain clients, or more specifically their desk-top publisher, to process files for their own unique requirements. This has always been talked about beforehand.


Thanks for the feedback, how do you add information to the metadata?
Logged

MY SITE: ALJABRI MEDIA PRODUCTION

Abdulrahman - and yes its a long name but has a meaning "servant of the merciful". you can also call me abdul
Go Go
Jr. Member
**
Online Online

Posts: 96


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 17, 2011, 02:19:44 PM »
ReplyReply

There are many ways to add metadata and/or keywords, I like and use Bridge a component of PhotoShop.

Geting back to the question at hand, I have supplied a raw file once to a client who insisted it was necessary. The retoucher was genius and actually got more out of the file than I did. But this was years ago, and with my evolved skills and the exceptional software now available there is no reason to supply a raw.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2011, 02:28:21 PM by Go Go » Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5253


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 20, 2011, 06:31:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I work for a media company (as a private contractor) and ALL my work belongs to my client, be it RAW or otherwise.

Where? In the USA? If so then no, as a private contractor (vs a paid employee) the copyright to the work you produce is yours unless you've explicitly signed a contract granting ownership to the contracting party–which a really bad idea to do.

It's one thing to grant broad rights–meaning virtually everything, and it's completely different to have never been considered the author of the photo in the first place.

Work For Hire is a really bad word when applied to non-employee situations. Unless you are a full time employee with all the benefits of being an employee health/dental/disability insurance, employer paying for your place of business and all equipment used in your line of work, you are a freelancer being exploited by being called a "private contractor".
Logged
elliot_n
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #23 on: June 20, 2011, 08:58:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Not sure why I or anyone of the other working photographers would insist on copyright on these images especially when we're taking them on behalf of someone else. 

Are you new to this game?
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5253


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 20, 2011, 11:16:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I like your "Socialist" way of looking at employment, and yes, a health/dental/disability plan would be fantastic, but in reality you probably need to be working for the Government or a national/international corporation these days to enjoy all these glorious benefits.

So...you aren't in the USA? That explains a lot (unfortunately).

All indicators are you are being exploited...sorry, but true.

If you are expected (in your normal role as a creative shooter) to hand over the original raw files and have zero claim over their final exploitation then yes, you are being exploited.

It ain't "socialist" bud, it's capitalism and boils down to the relative value of what you are providing to those that are exploiting you. If you are an independent contractor and not being provided with the various benefits required by US law, then what you create does not fall under the heading of work-for-hire. "Google" it to know what I'm talking about).

Bottom line, based on US Copywrite Law (and the Bern Convention) unless you sign away the rights explicitly, you own all the rights to exploit your images(the copyright)...if you choose not to, that's your burden to bare...but USA photographers have fought very hard to mitigate this issue as a normal course of doing business.

If you fall under the heading of being exploited (meaning being spreading your legs and claiming to enjoy it) so be it. It would be useful to state where you are working and what agreements your signed that make your statements so, well,  truly pathetic.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2011, 11:26:53 PM by Schewe » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5253


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2011, 11:57:49 PM »
ReplyReply

You seem to have “employment” confused with “exploitation”.  
I suspect way too much time on PhotoShop manipulating images and not enough time spent in the real world.

It's spelled Photohop, no inter-cap...

And no, having been the national president of APA (Advertising Photographers of America) I do actually know a bit about what I'm talking about. A photographer that has NOT agreed to a Work-For-Hire agreement (in the good ol' USA) in advance of an assignment is the author of the copywrited work the moment the work is created (shot). If you agree to grant the commissioning party the ownership of the work (in writing) then more the fool you...

Been there, have the Tee Shirts, don't want the feedback (blowback).

If you have no pride and no sense of ownership (authorship) then you deserve the results you seem to expect. In the USA, unless you sign an agreement to the contrary, the photographer owns the copyright to the the original art they create. You might want to look into copyrights. Perhaps it may have an impact in the country to work in (or not).

Really, is this a fight you want to have? You really want to stand up and state you have no authorship (control) of the work you create? Really? Do you care so little about the work you create?

Sorry, I hav just a bit more self-respect than you seem to have...
Logged
ixania2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 42


« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2011, 08:08:12 PM »
ReplyReply

this kind of copyright problem seems to be more or less an us problem.
i'm from europe and working for a media comp. as well, and see it more like west1.
maybe it's a compensation problem: i'm paid very good as well and don't care much about the copyright of daily news pix.
schewes concept of being "proud" of one's pics seems very american as well, to me. i live in a free country, surrounded by friendly people and good social basics. our job is no struggle for life, our contractors are no enemies.
don't worry, be happy.
Logged
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672



« Reply #27 on: June 22, 2011, 12:57:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Work For Hire is a really bad word when applied to non-employee situations. Unless you are a full time employee with all the benefits of being an employee health/dental/disability insurance, employer paying for your place of business and all equipment used in your line of work, you are a freelancer being exploited by being called a "private contractor".

In Australia, a freelancer owns copyright, unless otherwise negotiated before hand. In this jurisdiction, copyright is automatically applied on creation, though some sort of publication can be useful. From the Copyright Act 1968 (Commonwealth):

Freelance photographers, engravers and people doing portraits. Freelance creators usually own copyright in what they create. Someone who pays for work to be created will generally not own copyright, but will be able to use it for the purposes for which it was commissioned. However, there are a number of situations where someone who commissions another person to create material for them will own copyright under the rules set out in the Copyright Act. This is the case in relation to commissioned portraits and engravings, and is sometimes the case for photographs.”

Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
riddell
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 26


Pro photographer Hertfordshire


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 22, 2011, 12:19:05 PM »
ReplyReply


Only to professional clients that specifically request them and that I can trust. i.e. that I know they have quality professional photo processers and editors there.

Paul.
www.photographybyriddell.co.uk
Logged

elliot_n
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #29 on: June 22, 2011, 12:50:21 PM »
ReplyReply

this kind of copyright problem seems to be more or less an us problem.
i'm from europe and working for a media comp. as well, and see it more like west1.

Issues regarding copyright aren't much different in Europe to the US. Working in magazine editorial, it's a constant battle to keep copyright. But it's a battle worth fighting, as you can more than double your income by reselling pictures.

It sounds like both you and West1 work full time for news agencies who syndicate your work. You're paid highly, and in exchange you hand over your copyright. I don't see a problem with that.
Logged
JeanMichel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 219


« Reply #30 on: June 22, 2011, 02:58:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

If you are Canadian, then reading the short note on http://www.ppoc.ca/copyright.php may surprise you. If someone pays you to photograph (portrait, wedding, whatever) that someone, person or other entity, owns the copyright. So make sure that you word your contracts very clearly so that copyright is assigned to you before accepting a commission, that way your work remains your propeerty.

Jean-Michel
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2011, 03:14:29 AM »
ReplyReply

By raw I don't mean necessarily RAW format files but rather files that have not been edited, or files straight out from the camera. Remember that raw files may not represent your final vision as a professional. The pictures might also badly need very basic adjustments like color correction contrast, etc. I am curious if you, as professionals, are willing to provide the files raw.  

Never the raw file format, but in some kinds of work the client will want to pick their selection from the day's shoot. You generally give them a JPEG gallery of untouched images. Perhaps I will do a colour balance and some contrast if the pics look too bad without it, but that's about it - just one or two batch processes.
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
julienlanoo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 227


« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2011, 09:00:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Never, Smiley
Logged
PdF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286



« Reply #33 on: July 29, 2011, 12:46:52 PM »
ReplyReply

I never give a RAW file to a client. I generally deliver my files in 3 formats: Tiff 8bit with the good level of accentuation, JPEG12 (from the 8bit file), and jpeg 8 144dpi 30x40cm. Allways with a ©. I can possibly deliver some selections to the request, but it is rare. The Tiffs without background are given with their transparent layer.

My personal files are stored in 16 bit, with different layers and selections necessary for any different subsequent postproduction. Without any accentuation, in Tiff RGB LZW format.

PdF

Logged

PdF
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5253


WWW
« Reply #34 on: July 29, 2011, 02:09:24 PM »
ReplyReply

My personal files are stored in 16 bit, with different layers and selections necessary for any different subsequent postproduction. Without any accentuation, in Tiff RGB LZW format.

You might want to rethink the LZW compression and switch ti zip compression. 16 bit LZW compressed files are sometimes bigger than the uncompressed 16 bit files because LZW doesn't work really well on 16 bit files. Zip will produce the smallest 16 bit compressed files. Both BTW are lossless compression.
Logged
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 672



« Reply #35 on: July 31, 2011, 05:11:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Zip will produce the smallest 16 bit compressed files. Both BTW are lossless compression.

I’ve switched to ZIP. Lev-Zempel-Welch was good in its day, but times move on.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
kiefers
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2011, 10:52:52 AM »
ReplyReply

It has been an occasional question between those in the business and here is my two cents worth.  I provide them raw images (the one without editing) but I still subject them to my choices.  I do not give those which are not pleasing to work with. Or, you would not want to give them a lot of choices or that would just prolong the period in which they should be coming up with a list.

What I try to do is, give them at most 2 options for specific shots and just 1 for those which are on a comparable level as the others.  So basically, raw after my own choosing.
Logged
PdF
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 286



« Reply #37 on: August 03, 2011, 10:23:53 AM »
ReplyReply

<<You might want to rethink the LZW compression and switch ti zip compression. 16 bit LZW compressed files are sometimes bigger than the uncompressed 16 bit files because LZW doesn't work really well on 16 bit files. Zip will produce the smallest 16 bit compressed files. Both BTW are lossless compression.>>

That may be true. I will try to see the Zip. Although, ideally, a file for the backup should not be compressed (not even LZW). Who knows if in a few years, these compression programs will still be operational?

PdF
Logged

PdF
feppe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2907

Oh this shows up in here!


WWW
« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2011, 11:19:14 AM »
ReplyReply

<<You might want to rethink the LZW compression and switch ti zip compression. 16 bit LZW compressed files are sometimes bigger than the uncompressed 16 bit files because LZW doesn't work really well on 16 bit files. Zip will produce the smallest 16 bit compressed files. Both BTW are lossless compression.>>

That may be true. I will try to see the Zip. Although, ideally, a file for the backup should not be compressed (not even LZW). Who knows if in a few years, these compression programs will still be operational?

While that is a prudent approach in general, LZW is widely known and used algorithm, and the knowledge of how to uncompress it is as unlikely to disappear as TIFF itself. Media (CD/DVD/HDD/tape/etc) will be unreadable much quicker due to media corruption and standards obsolescence.
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5253


WWW
« Reply #39 on: August 03, 2011, 12:36:49 PM »
ReplyReply

While that is a prudent approach in general, LZW is widely known and used algorithm, and the knowledge of how to uncompress it is as unlikely to disappear as TIFF itself.

Correct, but in the case of 16 bit image files, it's a suboptimal compression. Seriously, I've gotten LZW compressed files from 16 bit image that were larger after compression than before compression. Kinda defeats the purpose of compression...
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad