Dreamstime message

Eco

« on: November 06, 2006, 02:18 »

#link

Hi all

Just joined the group and this is my first post.

Today I received this message from Dreamstime:

Dear Nico,
This notification was sent by a potential buyer, who is interested to download one of your files in an additional format. If you are able to provide such format please use the following link in order to upload it:
http://www.dreamstime.com/modify.php?imageid=824150
Buyer needs the RAW image.

Did any of you receive such a request before? I am not sure what to do Huh

. I don't feel too comfortable to send out my RAW files. As it appears there no additional compensation for doing so.

Thank you for your advice.


	Ignore \| Logged

CJPhoto

« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2006, 02:48 »

#link

I received a similar email when a buyer wanted an EL. So enabled EL for all and got the sale.

Many people aren't comfortable uploading RAW so that is a decision you will need to make. Search on the DT forum and you should find a thread discussing peoples thoughts and concerns on uploading RAW.

Someone here might alos pipe up too.


	Ignore \| Logged

GeoPappas

« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2006, 05:25 »

#link

There is a slight compensation (RAWS cost more for the buyer), but I don't think that it is enough to compensate for selling an original.

IMO, if they want to buy the RAW, then they need to pay me MUCH more...


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #3 on: November 06, 2006, 06:38 »

#link

how much more will you be getting?


	Ignore \| Logged

GeoPappas

« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2006, 06:46 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on November 06, 2006, 06:38

how much more will you be getting?

According to the DT website (@ http://www.dreamstime.com/sellimages.php) , you receive $2 for the sale of an additional format (which includes RAW).


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #5 on: November 06, 2006, 07:05 »

#link

yeah.. i would hold out for more.

I haven't uploaded any raw files and i don't think i am going to.


	Ignore \| Logged

Bateleur

« Reply #6 on: November 06, 2006, 11:51 »

#link

The RAW file is effectively the original. It's almost like sending the buyer the film negative (in the pre-digital days).

I'd hold out for a load more money if you're going to do that.


	Ignore \| Logged

dbvirago

« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2006, 15:07 »

#link

I haven't seen this, but i'm a little confused by the reaction. How is sending out the raw different from a jpg? If you don't shoot in raw, the original is a jpg. If I don't modify my jpg, I am always sending the original. It's not like sending the negative, because you still have the raw file and own the rights.

Maybe I'm missing the point.

On the other hand, if they are going to let buyers specify a non-standard format, you should be able to set the price. Had someone on FeaturePics want one of mine in B&W. I charged them triple the price, converted the file and made the sale.


	Ignore \| Logged

madelaide

Premium Member

« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2006, 15:52 »

#link

I understand the point about RAW being "the original", but in the end isn't it the same as selling a EPS/AI vector file instead of the JPG generated from it?

Regards,
Adelaide


	Ignore \| Logged

GeoPappas

« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2006, 16:10 »

#link

Quote from: madelaide on November 06, 2006, 15:52

I understand the point about RAW being "the original", but in the end isn't it the same as selling a EPS/AI vector file instead of the JPG generated from it?

Yes, I believe that it is.

And that (IMO) is why vectors sell much better than JPGs (because they are the original and can be modified at will to create other images).


	Ignore \| Logged

GeoPappas

« Reply #10 on: November 06, 2006, 16:20 »

#link

Quote from: dbvirago on November 06, 2006, 15:07

Everyone works differently, so mileage will vary.

Some people take a photo and then send it to the review queue. These type of people typically believe in quantity. They also believe that they shouldn't be editing files, because time is money and they would rather be shooting more images to upload. So these people might take 100 photos and send all 100.

Other people want to only send the best images. So they will wade thru the 100 photos and pick a few that they believe are the best. They will also post-process them to see if they can make them "better".

Personally, I do the second. I edit each image. I believe in quality (at least in my eyes). (And please don't take that the wrong way. I am not saying that my images are better than others).

I don't believe that I have ever sent an original. And if I have it was by mistake. Every file that I send, I post-process. I will modify the levels, contrast, hue, saturation, noise reduction, etc. to make a file the best it can be. So even though I might shoot in JPG mode, the image that I send can be very different from the original.

This also protects me in case of any sort of ownership/copyright issue (since I have the original).


	Ignore \| Logged

dbvirago

« Reply #11 on: November 06, 2006, 18:03 »

#link

I don't disagree with any of that, and honestly, I have rarely sent an original. Almost always adjust lighting and colors, a bit of sharpening etc. My point was that I didn't understand the difference between sending the original or the post-processed one from an ownership/rights issue. We post-process to make it easier to sell and market, but if someone wanted to buy the original, I wouldn't have a problem with that.


	Ignore \| Logged

Bateleur

« Reply #12 on: November 07, 2006, 06:31 »

#link

Not knowing what an 'EPS/AI vector file' is, I couldn't say.

But some of the difference between a RAW file and a JPG file are:

1) You can alter exposure (to a certain extent) white balance and other things with a RAW file which can't be done so easily with a JPG file.

2) Every time you work on a JPG file and save it you lose a little quality.

RAW is what it says it is, the raw data, un-tampered with, that was collected from the camera's sensor.

And I do the same as Geopappas - select my images carefully and work on the RAW files to 'improve' them (at least, I think its improvement Wink

). I guess, on average, I only submit 10% of the pictures I take.


« Last Edit: November 07, 2006, 06:35 by Bateleur »	Ignore \| Logged

yingyang0

« Reply #13 on: November 07, 2006, 10:28 »

#link

I agree with dbvirago. It is not the same thing as sending negitives/slides. It's like sending a duplicate of a negative. If someone else wants to mess around with the raw file I see no logical reason to not let them.

The comparision to a vector is silly. Vectors are popluar because you can adjust the size of the image without effecting the quality. It is also easier to get isolated things from the vector, whereas jpgs/raw you have to do more work.

I honestly don't know what people would be worried about? There are no actual downsides to providing the raw file.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #14 on: November 07, 2006, 10:42 »

#link

Quote from: yingyang0 on November 07, 2006, 10:28

yeah well perhaps i would have to agree. It is more like providing a copy of a film negative. Not sure there should really be a problem.


	Ignore \| Logged

phildate

« Reply #15 on: November 08, 2006, 19:48 »

#link

I have had two requests for RAW files but to be honest, the $1 commission is not worth the time it will take me to find the RAW files on an external HDD. For $10 I might consider it.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #16 on: November 13, 2006, 06:17 »

#link

well curiosity killed the cat.

I was given a request for an additional format, so i decided to upload my raw file for one image to see how i like it. I think i agree with phildate though... $1.00 is pretty measly for the extra work, and probably no future sales on that one raw file. Give me a few more $$ and it might be allright to do.


	Ignore \| Logged

kkart

« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2006, 07:47 »

#link

Quote from: Eco on November 06, 2006, 02:18

. I don't feel too comfortable to send out my RAW files. As it appears there no additional compensation for doing so.

Thank you for your advice.

Uh uh, not me. They want a RAW file they better be prepared to shell out the cashola for it. I am not giving my negatives to anyone for under a couple 100 bucks at least. That is where I draw the line.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #18 on: November 13, 2006, 09:22 »

#link

how about if you took the image in jpg format. then THAT would be the negative... and there are lots of jpgs floating around.

It was a copy of the negative by the way, not THE negative


	Ignore \| Logged

GeoPappas

« Reply #19 on: November 13, 2006, 10:49 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on November 13, 2006, 09:22

It was a copy of the negative by the way, not THE negative

I have seen a few people say that sending a "copy" of the negative is not the same.

That is incorrect.

Sending the RAW file is sending the original. Although it is a "copy", it is also a digitally exact duplicate, which makes it the "original" as well.

If someone then uses your RAW image to create another image and sell it on a stock site, you will be hard-pressed to prove that you have the "original copy" since you both now have the same exact file.

This is one of the reasons that I refuse to upload the original (whether it is a RAW or JPG) - so that I can protect myself in the event that someone "claims" that an image is theirs.


	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #20 on: November 13, 2006, 10:59 »

#link

well if it comes down to proving who has the original, i think i should be able to prove it by having the oldest file......

just playing devils advocate here though... i am not really sure what i think about this all. I agree that it IS an exact copy of the original basically making it the original, but it is also not like just handing over your film negatives.

And making this akin to jpg's, if you took the image in jpg format, how are you ever going to prove anything if this was a concern.

Another option on the other hand is converting the canon raw file into a DNG file. Since it is in a dng file it is still a raw format, but it is not the ORIGINAL format so they could not claim the image was theirs.


	Ignore \| Logged

Bateleur

« Reply #21 on: November 13, 2006, 12:00 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on November 13, 2006, 10:59

And making this akin to jpg's, if you took the image in jpg format, how are you ever going to prove anything if this was a concern.

Another option on the other hand is converting the canon raw file into a DNG file. Since it is in a dng file it is still a raw format, but it is not the ORIGINAL format so they could not claim the image was theirs.

My head's spinning.

I'm gonna hang on to my RAW files. Why should anyone else want them anyway? I can only think of 2 reasons.

1) They want to take copyright for the picture. Fair enough. Then they can pay me handsomely for it.

2) They want to make their own modifications that are best done (or can only be done) in RAW. No thanks. I'll keep as much creative control over my pictures as I can. Yes, I know changes can be done in JPG and TIF ... I have to live with that.


« Last Edit: November 13, 2006, 12:07 by Bateleur »	Ignore \| Logged

leaf

Premium Member

« Reply #22 on: November 13, 2006, 12:28 »

#link

commenting on your second point.

Isn't that the whole point of stock photogrpahy. Creating imagery that people can cut up and paste and making into something they can use to advertise or illustrate something. I think if you want to control the final look of your images fine art, or portrait photography is more the way to go.


	Ignore \| Logged

GeoPappas

« Reply #23 on: November 13, 2006, 18:07 »

#link

Quote from: leaf on November 13, 2006, 10:59

well if it comes down to proving who has the original, i think i should be able to prove it by having the oldest file......

And how would you be able to prove that? The date/time of the file is easily modifiable...

Quote from: leaf on November 13, 2006, 10:59

just playing devils advocate here though... i am not really sure what i think about this all. I agree that it IS an exact copy of the original basically making it the original, but it is also not like just handing over your film negatives.

Yes, IMO it is like handing over your film negatives.

Imagine there was a way to make an exact duplicate of a film negative in such a way that they were indistinguishable from each other. Now imagine handing over one of those "copies" to someone. They would have EXACTLY what you have. That is essentially what is happening when you hand over a RAW file.


« Last Edit: November 13, 2006, 18:11 by GeoPappas »	Ignore \| Logged

3pod

« Reply #24 on: November 14, 2006, 00:26 »

#link

I only work with 3d designs but in IMO selling RAW format is like giving your client a 3d scene file and not just a render still.

I wouldn't recommend selling RAW unless you get what you deserve to be paid for it and that is probably more than $2.

Cheers

Konstantinos


	Ignore \| Logged

Pages: [1]

« previous next »

MicrostockGroup

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Topic: Dreamstime message

Microstockgroup Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results