Why the photographer does not give the source. Why don't I and almost all professional photographers give the source? Why the photographer does not give photos for a long time

Why don't I and almost all professional photographers give the source? Let's find out what Raw is and why it's so difficult to transfer it to clients. Please be patient and try to read to the end, believe you it will be 100 times easier than me giving you the source code. I think many clients do not know what Exif is, post-processing, author's style, RAW format, individual camera settings in manual mode. That is why misunderstandings occur. Many people think that a reflex camera will do everything by itself and the photos will immediately turn out beautiful, but the greedy photographer, out of principle, does not want to give the photo away. I will try to describe in detail the reasons why the return of the source code is impossible. I'll open the door to the photographer's "kitchen" for you. 1. RAW is raw dough. The dough still needs to be kneaded, let it rise, mold, cook, and then only eat. The situation is the same with the footage, first the photographers upload them to the computer, then they select and delete obviously unsuccessful photos, then the photos are loaded into the first program in my case - this is Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, the necessary photos are already selected in detail, all the details are taken into account, then they are given the desired look (color correction and initial processing) and only after that the photos are processed and retouched in detail individually and only frame by frame (I alternate Lightroom + Photoshop processing). To your disappointment, the source codes will not be the same as you imagined them. You will get blurry, fuzzy, dark photos that will have the wrong tone. RAW is data read from the camera's matrix in its purest form. They will look even worse than what you saw on the screen of my camera when asked to show how you turned out in this pose. And it can even be worse than JPEG from soapboxes and phones, because your device automatically processes the picture, and you lead the frame already processed by the technique. In RAW format, all settings are reset to zero - everything needs to be output manually. With each photo individually, depending on the lighting and many other factors. Processing can be compared to developing a film. Just as our ancestors developed the film in the basement, then soaked the photo in various developing solutions, we now do this with digital in certain programs. Also, do not forget that in your program, where you will view the source files, the profile of the camera on which the picture was taken is not set, your monitors are not calibrated, so the same RAW file will look different. The reaction of customers to such a situation can be unpredictable. 2. The source is not just a picture. By transferring the source, the photographer literally transfers all his secrets to you. The fact is that in the Exif of a digital photograph of the source, not only authorship is prescribed, but also the rest of the camera settings. I am 100% sure that not a single master of his craft gives out all his secrets. Together with the source, having also processed material, the whole process of post-processing and shooting will be in full view. Some photographers sell sources and in most cases they cost more than the shooting itself. Everything is very simple! The volume of an average wedding for 12-14 hours of shooting is approximately 500 to 1000 selected photos. One photo in RAW format weighs approximately 20-50 MB, the average full wedding shooting is 40-50 GB, and together with the processed material in two copies prepared for printing and for the Internet, JPEG + RAW is from 150 to 300 GB on the hard drive, And you are not the only customers. Additional archives, memory, external media, etc., all this is not cheap. In addition, many photographers keep copies of the source on other media, since the technique is not eternal and breakdowns are not uncommon. For a photographer, this is a must. In your own interests, so that in case of a breakdown, the photographer has archives. It is very sad if your photos are lost, but the wedding cannot be played again. Of course, the money will be returned to you, but the photos will be lost, and the impression of such a misunderstanding will remain with you for a long time, most likely you will even tell your children about the grief of the photographer who shot the wedding, and the media broke and the photos were irretrievably erased! In terms of volume, this is about 70 simple (CD-R), 30 DVD discs, I don’t even know how many flash drives, count for yourself. Recording speed can reach 45-60 minutes. Few people know that disk writing takes up almost 90% of RAM resources. That is, it is highly undesirable to use a computer at the time of recording. That is, for ten hours the computer is paralyzed by the recording of source files, the recording process requires control, it is impossible to suspend, cancel or put the recording on the night. As a result, what seems simple to you may take up to 24 hours of my time. File hosting is a completely different story - no resources are enough: 1) The Internet connection does not always work stably, God forbid it breaks and everything is gone! Start over! 2) To upload gigabytes of sources, it may take up to two days and nights of constant work of the Internet and a computer, this is provided that the photographer has a good processor and a good Internet provider. Even if the photographer spends time and unloads heavy sources, they just won't open - Windows won't recognize them. To open Raw files you need special programs. They need to be downloaded only on official sites and properly installed on the computer in the right place. 99% of the necessary programs are paid. But by asking for sources, you take time from yourself. During this time, I will prepare a preview of 5 to 10 photos, processed and prepared for publication. You will be clear about what you will get in the end. If you want something specific, you can tell the photographer about it. And it’s even better to meet before filming, get to know each other, discuss all the details - this helps to liberate yourself at a photo shoot in the future. I try to take into account all the wishes, if you do not ask to repeat the author's style of another photographer. 3. The most offensive thing that can disappoint, offend, humiliate, trample and crush a photographer is when clients post source files on social networks. It is very difficult to find words for what this means for a photographer. Most often, requests and promises not to do this are just empty words! Hoping that the Internet is big and most likely the photographer will not even notice, the photos end up on the Internet. And the consequence of such amateur performance for the photographer is the loss of image and future clients and a spoiled mood, and he will still need to process these sources for you. 4. The age-old question of authorship remains the most acute. Copyright remains with the photographer for life - this right was not invented by me. To transfer this right, special agreements are needed, certified and signed by both parties. The client buys only the agreed number of processed photos, but not the source, and certainly not the copyright. In case of disputes about authorship, it is the source that is its proof. If you are reading this, it means that someone once again tearfully begged for the source code and I had to spend your and my time to write this and explain to everyone why I do not give the source code! I hope you read to the end and will no longer ask for the source materials of the photographer. Please understand and forgive! Sincerely, your photographer Zhukovskaya Tatiana

Plot:
"And another question to all photographers. Why are you all shaking over your "masterpieces" of the source, are you afraid to transfer them? Like, the ears of the photographer's jambs will see? Tell me the motivation, I'm just curious who has what motives;)"

Most likely, the person who wrote these sarcastic lines does not know such a thing as post-processing and author's design :))

The misunderstanding between photographers and models in this matter is primarily due to a misunderstanding of the very word SOURCE :)) For some reason, it seems to everyone that there are the same cool glossy photos as "at the exit", and the photographer (from su4ka which one) squeezed them because his zhlobsky nature :))
Let's take a look at the five main reasons why photographers do not give back the source.

1. Two-week educational program on RAW

I had one meticulous couple :)) who, by hook or by crook, lured me out of their sources in RAWe ... Their first SMS was like this: "We don't open photos ..." That's right. In most cases, Windows simply does not see them. A special format requires special programs, most of which are not installed on your computer by default... :)) You have to look for them on the Internet, install, find or buy serial numbers, because 99% of such programs are paid... and now a couple are turning again to me for help... I helped them install Camera RAW and Lightroom and... then the next step begins "How does it work?" O_o Dear source hunters, I'm a photographer, not a software seller, not an installer, not a debugger, and even more so I don't teach design courses... Not because I'm such a bad guy, but because there are things that are difficult to "show" over the phone ... :)) Learning how to work with RAW, studying such a complex converter as Adobe Lightroom is a whole science, you cannot master it from scratch in an hour and a half. There is no such button "shYdevr" after which everything will be done by itself ... :)) Then I want to say in the words of a classic: "And such rubbish all day long - then a seal will call, then a deer ..." (c) :))))) ))))))

2. RAW is not a picture, it is an intermediate (raw) initial stage of a photo

The best comparison of the RAW format (in which all professional photographers work) is the dough :)) It is just as shapeless, you can’t eat it yet, but you can make bread from it, you want pies, you want kalachi, just change the ingredients and you will be happy :)) Many people think that if a photographer works in RAWe, then this is already cool by default and, therefore, the source files will be immediately like in a magazine on their own :)) But when they get their hands on a slightly blurry, darkish version, which is also turns yellow, questions arise - WHAT IS IT? This is the same source in RAWe that you have been asking for so long ... enjoy ... Here they are "data taken from the camera's matrix" in its purest form :)) Disappointment comparable to how if a person ordered dumplings for himself, and they brought him minced meat, dough and a rolling pin separately :)) Because RAW is a classic example of a semi-finished product, in order to turn it into a photo, you still have to work and work manually. If you nevertheless undertook independent source conversion, you need to clearly understand that here you can easily get even worse results (for example, hard-contrast) if your program does not have a "camera profile" (something like a special driver) for which picture taken. Why am I ... to the fact that the same RAW file will look different for you and me, and it’s not a fact that yours is better :)) :)))))) Consumer reaction to such a " zalepu" can be unpredictable.... :)) Because, in this case, professional RAW will look worse than JPEGa from guests' soapboxes... Why so? Because in RAWe all settings are reset to zero. Brightness, saturation, contrast, white balance, "noise level" and even sharpness - everything needs to be output manually ... with each photo, individually.

3. Do no harm

The next stage is when the model suddenly starts uploading hastily-self-processed sources to the network ... This is just a complete pipets ... The most interesting thing is that here all the words "This is for me" and "I will not publish them" turn out to be just words . In 90% of cases, the model thinks that "the Internet is big, a couple of photos are probably still possible." I have been deceived so many times... but something else is insulting, in the comments under such pictures there is often frank banter that drops the image of the photographer... Why do we not see the sources of Rashap or Tityaev on the net (I mean commercial orders and not master classes) ? The answer is simple, they do not give out the source code to their hands - only the finished processed material. Because the publication is like a showcase of an elite restaurant, there should not be any semi-finished products here .... In general ... there were precedents, there were unpleasant consequences, there was banter too :)) I decided to protect myself from such insinuations ... : ))

Copyright remains with the photographer for life, unless he assigns it under a special agreement to another party... When buying pictures, the client buys the product, but not the copyright. Moreover, copyright is not transferred with DFT. If the model received a monetary reward for her work, she thus transferred the right to publish without further agreement with her (of course, everything needs to be formalized with releases). In disputes about the right of publication or authorship, it is the source that is its proof. Since many "journalists" and "polygraphers" in our country like to steal work for free and do not like to pay photographers for their work ... the question of authorship remains very acute.

5. The secret of the focus.

As a child, I was very fond of magic tricks ... this feeling of the mystery of the process, involvement in the beyond ... Until my dad gave me the book "1000 secrets of magic tricks." Since then, I was not interested in the circus: I clearly knew that the dove was up my sleeve, the rose was in my pocket on a clothespin, and the top hat had a double bottom. In the Middle Ages, magicians who divulged secrets were simply killed .... :)) What am I talking about ... The source is not just a picture - it's like a fulcrum for Archimedes. Having the source file, you can see almost the entire post-processing process at a glance, many production secrets are revealed, depriving the photo of not only Know-how, but also some kind of romance ... Many source files can generally instill an inferiority complex in the model :)) The fact is that unlike film, modern super-sharp photography ages a person, turning skin defects into objects, enhancing their detail, increasing wrinkles, pimples, peeling, large pores, scars ... the skin becomes dry, often showing what we do not notice when we look at the interlocutor in the eyes. Therefore, the source is not a "display of reality" in its original form. This is raw material that still has to be worked on and worked on. And when people compare the original with the author's photo, many have the idea that photography is not art anymore, PHOTOSHOP - this is art! :)) But most importantly, the magic of photography disappears, the magic becomes sleight of hand, technology. The photographer turns from a wizard into a production worker Mikhalych from the 3rd workshop :)) Creativity becomes a sequence of actions. The trick, the secret of which is clear, is no longer interesting ... :))

Article posted by: Wedding photographer - Anton Chekhov

A source: fashion bank

I am often asked this question - do you give the source code? At first I never did this, but then I decided: the client wants it - let the client pay for it, and introduced an additional service. Any of my clients can get the original photos for an additional 20% of the cost of the photo session. They ask often, but rarely take it, and they wonder why I don’t do it for free. There is a lot of talk about this on the Internet, many different reasons are called, but I want to tell you about my personal point of view.

So why don't I like to give away the source? I don’t like it, even for a surcharge - I still don’t like it. There are several reasons.

First, perhaps the most important reason - I do not want to spoil the impression of my photos. There can be a lot of different flaws on the source files - a littered horizon, and the shine of the face, and glare, and underexposure, wrong white balance, and a whole bunch of other things. And if the client sees these photos, especially before receiving the processed version, I risk getting some portion of the negative.

Second reason: not everyone correctly imagines what source codes are. Many people think that these are the same photos, just before Photoshop processing. But this is not entirely true - I, like almost all professional photographers, shoot in RAW format, which not all image viewers can open, let alone edit. Therefore, sometimes, having received and sent the source codes, I get "What did you send us, give us normal files." By the way, raw files weigh a lot, for example, the entire wedding can easily weigh about 40GB.

Third reason is legal. Ownership of the source confirms copyright. If I give it away, I give away the copyright. In most cases, of course, this does not matter, but there are situations when it is important - for example, when third parties use my photos for commercial purposes without my consent.

Fourth- I'm afraid that my photos will be spoiled by their processing and posted, signing my name. It sounds trite, but believe me, it hurts a lot, even when Instagram filters are just applied to my photos, and in most cases, someone else's processing is a very sad story. Or, as an option, they will lay out without treatment, with all the pimples, yellow teeth and others - also very little pleasant.

Often the source is asked not to wait a couple of weeks the readiness of the processed photos - well, there are no comments here.

As you can see, there are enough reasons, and if individually they may not seem very convincing, then all together they are a very good reason not to give the source files without good reasons (for example, perhaps the client himself is a photographer or retoucher).

I believe that if you applied for services to me, with all the abundance of offers, it means that you liked my work. And my work is only 40% shooting, the remaining 60% is processing. Therefore, simply believe, with very rare exceptions - you don't need the source, just not needed.

"... Burn the source files to disk!"

/According to colleagues/

Hipsters dictate fashion, grandfathers shave their beards, and grandchildren wear them. Everywhere maximalism and slogans: "Pay, I'll give everything!"

Rumors about "garbage distribution" have resurfaced. Society is clouded by a fog of uncertainty and the choice does not seem obvious: “Result or semi-finished product?”

I'll leave my thoughts.

Why photographers do not give the source

Let's put emotions aside and look at the arguments:

Result. The client pays for the result, not the status, time or process. Paying for a position is a mistake that is hard to avoid (more on that later). Photographing is one of the stages of creating a photograph. There are three of them: preparation, photography, post-processing. If the paid total is printed products, then printing is the fourth stage. The break in the production cycle is the creation of a marriage. The master won't do it.
Fool protection. The choice of the best take for further processing is responsible and very difficult, in confirmation of my words - a cycle. And also high-quality retouching (years of practice, or a hired retoucher) and prepress images. The master controls all processes, thereby preventing the client from making mistakes.
Acquisition. Photography - tactile sensations, not eye fatigue from paging through files on the screen. Photographers are moving away from digital media, providing clients with a ready-made printing solution: prints, books, etc. The exception is advertising products and files for virtual resources (stocks and websites).
Copyright. Source - raw file. It contains technical information about the camera, settings, shooting time, etc. In conflict situations, it is an argument for the photographer and he rarely loses it, on the basis of an agreement on the transfer of rights and payment, which exceeds the cost of the final photo several times.
Culture. A mature master works according to his own rules: the style of photography and processing, personal plots for narration, filtering works that can be seen by the public. Someone calls it reputation, but in my circle everything sounds different - not to devalue the profession by the frivolous attitude of colleagues and customers, to think about the completeness of the story that touches the soul and cultural background of the client.

Why customers are unhappy

Life values and taste are formed in a person in his youth, at the very time when he is faced with the need to get a vignette, or a book of his school graduation. He will be lucky if his parents make the choice for him, but if he has to go on about the crowd - access with a personal password, picking the source, pointing to an acceptable frame with a finger. And that's it, the approach is formed, the person did not find out how it really is.

Years have passed. Yesterday's child grew up, got stronger financially and for the sake of the heritage, turns to the master for a photo of his parents, but the author's approach is "strange". A familiar song begins:

Photographers are greedy. No, there are simply rules: what, how much and when. Like a mother in childhood, hitting her hand with a spoon: “Don't grab it, it's not ready yet! My hands, sit down at the table, we will eat soon ... "
Photographers are closed. No, photographers value trust, rely on skill and do not accept rules - the client is always right (alas, but this is the fate of the sphere of small domestic services and beginners who just came into photography without understanding the craft in the field of visual art).
The photographers are incomprehensible. No, the photographers have played enough with the sources, it's just that there is no consensus at all levels yet. The current confusion is a consequence of the technology used: film or digital.

Customer dissatisfaction is a man-made problem and its owner is a photographer. It is necessary to answer questions, explain the obvious, and not very, points:

The photo shoot will take two hours.

- What is it? Paying for two hours of photographer time? And the result of the activity to me and fled?

- Not. Two hours is the time to take the specified number of photos. And this is the second part of the process. Then the third - sampling and post-processing. And then the print.

“You will receive the photos in a month,” everyone reacts differently to these words: one client nods approvingly, another begins to resent, the third wants to understand: why you have to wait, especially now, when the click is done!

Indeed, the 21st century, technology and blah blah: filmed - serve tomorrow on the table! Anyone who has ever approached a photographer has had similar thoughts. I can’t vouch for all my colleagues, because the working standards of a portrait photographer differ from the life of a wedding photographer (and you will have to study all the special cases that affect your task), but I will point out the arguments and objective reasons that do not allow us to quickly perform high-quality work.

Why the photographer does not give photos for a long time

"The photographer is a bad person!" - they think alone. The photographer technically will not be able to give: prints or a photo book, the next day, - alas, few understand:

Color correction needed. The camera saves "raw data", which the author cannot leave unchanged, because the colors that the camera "captured" and the colors that the person likes do not match; camera capabilities - to show "how it was", the photographer's task is to show "how it should be" (author's style or your TK).
Edits are possible. The camera does not analyze the incoming information, and this obliges us to take into account the peculiarities of human vision: how we look and how we see. What we pay attention to, and what we don’t: remove a pimple on the face and “brush off” dust from clothes - it’s necessary (sometimes), but this is the time (always).
And rest. Photography, computer, meetings… the photographer is a person and we need rest and time for our family. “If you need to rest in order to do a better job, then I need to wait, I understand,” I once heard from my customer; thanks to him!

I understand that these arguments are not enough for some - well, I will explain in more detail:

"Breathe". After taking a photo, the photographer is overwhelmed with emotions that distort the perception of the pictures. There is no objectivity. All good. This attitude is harmful: it is easy to miss technical flaws, visual garbage, color inaccuracies (in the work on which the rush is excluded). Time is needed to “weather the frames” from the head, in order to later look at them with the eyes of a viewer or censor. A couple of weeks, a month or a couple of days - at the discretion of the photographer.
Grade. “Head cleared”, “frames forgotten” - it's time to remember, open the project and evaluate the photos. Technical marriage - to remove, and valuable shots that did not raise doubts, once again postpone for a while, so that the best photos will be chosen from them, which will be given to the customer. It's not worth waiting a month, but a couple of weeks is enough.
Selection. In my opinion, the most important stage after photography. Selection of the best and most valuable frames that meet the TOR or criteria of the author. It is these frames, in the future, that are subject to conversion, color correction, retouching, and printing. In terms of time… and 3-5 minutes, or 3-5 days… depends on the complexity of the project.
Raw conversion, color correction. Transformation of "raw data" with which both retouching is useful and printing is possible. By time - individually: depends on the method that the author uses - personal, project-based preset, or template (one preset for all projects), and the scope of the project; from a couple of minutes to a couple of hours.
Retouch, if necessary. Only the camera knows: how many hairs and pimples are on the customer's face, pores, and how strong the asymmetry is in general; and if the latter is easy to take into account during photography, optics and light are our tools, then pores and hairs - oh, we thank the cameras for this, they fix everything ... we silently correct so that there are no details on the prints that interfere with the harmonious perception of the photo. Costs for this: from several minutes to several hours of working time.
Final color correction. At the raw-conversion stage, we get desaturated, faded and “gray” pictures (this is a feature of the process, if we want to keep the maximum of significant details, eliminate the errors of the conversion tools), but after retouching, it is necessary to do the final color correction (taking into account the requirements: from the technical task or according to the author's style) so that all the tonal rhythms (which were not visible all this time) began to play. Color coloring, color perception, the play of light and shadow - this work depends on the mental state, eye fatigue; haste - the opportunity to get something wrong, everything has its time - the opportunity to get what you paid for.
Preparing for printing. The technical moment, in many respects - automatic; time costs ... a matter of minutes.
Seal. Most photographers do not print on their own, there are photo labs and they know their business perfectly (depending on what the author has chosen, of course), so the prints are taken ... again time costs: to go and check, receive and deliver; in time ... from several hours to several days.
framing. “The print rolled onto cardboard and signed by the author is a photograph,” Ansel Adams said, “everything else is not!”, he added. Designing and doing it correctly is not an easy task, so do not be surprised that it takes from a couple of hours to a couple of days (depending on the project). I don’t deal with photobooks, it’s also not fast with them: make up a layout, approve it - with you, and print it, with the result - to you, if everything is fine, then it’s good (according to colleagues, so that you know why a photobook is not given in the morning, the next day after photography).
Package. technical moment; time costs ... a matter of minutes.

Still want photos tomorrow morning? 🙂