Author Topic: buyer wanting "raw" file (Read 13345 times)

stockastic · « **on:** June 04, 2012, 16:06 »

DT tells me a buyer wants the "raw" file for one of my images. I've asked DT for clarification but I'd like to know if anyone here has handled such a request.

I don't really want to give out the original Nikon .NEF. There was a lot of post-processing in PhotoShop and I'd rather offer a full-size TIFF. Would a buyer really want the NEF and if so, why?

fotografer · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2012, 16:26 »

Be careful as I have read that they often then come in and buy it as a sub sale.

cathyslife · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2012, 16:29 »

I've had requests before but always declined. For the same reasons you mentioned. Plus, I think of that raw file as proof that I have taken the photo. Another raw file floating around seems like asking for trouble. IMHO. I'm not sure why people want the raw...

Tabimura · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2012, 17:11 »

I never give the raw file and I always recommend the same for everyone who asks.

stockastic · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2012, 17:52 »

See, that's how naive I am: I assumed I was being offered some premium price for the raw file. Didn't even think to check.

Interestingly, the email from DT said the buyer "needs" the raw file. Not "wants", "needs". I'll give DT a chance to respond, but no, I'm not interested in selling .NEFs for 30 cents.

Thanks people.

noodle · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2012, 18:02 »

they can say whatever they like - in a way it sounds like a bit of coercion.
But you also can say whatever YOU want ...

stockastic · « **Reply #6 on:** June 04, 2012, 18:11 »

Can't imagine why someone would "need" a raw file. For all they know, there might not even be one - I might be someone who just shoots everything as jpg.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** June 04, 2012, 18:15 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 04, 2012, 18:11

Can't imagine why someone would "need" a raw file. For all they know, there might not even be one - I might be someone who just shoots everything as jpg.

Someone asked me specificially for a pdf file. I thought it was odd, and I had to look up how to do it

, but the customer is always right. So I sent it, and she got back to me and said (apologetically) that it was a .jpg she wanted.

dbvirago · « **Reply #8 on:** June 04, 2012, 18:36 »

I get those from time to time. First request I asked DT how much more it paid. When I was told it is a 'normal' sale, I declined. After that, just said no.

Doesn't need to be an EL, but should be at least 15 credits

grp_photo · « **Reply #9 on:** June 04, 2012, 18:43 »

Quote from: Tabimura on June 04, 2012, 17:11

I never give the raw file and I always recommend the same for everyone who asks.

+1

MatHayward · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2012, 19:47 »

No way, don't do it! They can change the metadata and claim the image as their own. That is a shocking request in my opinion.

luissantos84 · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2012, 21:10 »

Quote from: MatHayward on June 04, 2012, 19:47

No way, don't do it! They can change the metadata and claim the image as their own. That is a shocking request in my opinion.

it may be shocking but its available on DT for a long time..

tab62 · « **Reply #12 on:** June 04, 2012, 21:32 »

$10,000 USD

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #13 on:** June 04, 2012, 22:47 »

I've always turned those requests down.

I would absolutely consider (for a price) handing over a layered 16 bit PSD file (probably would modify my own version somewhat) but none of the agencies want to tackle those.

In addition to the price, for me the issue is that my image is not the RAW file - that's rather like the underpainting for the finished work. I am not handing over unfinished stuff.

stockastic · « **Reply #14 on:** June 04, 2012, 22:50 »

Yeah I turned it down. Asking me to upload the raw file for no extra money is just dumb.

Carl · « **Reply #15 on:** June 05, 2012, 06:11 »

If they're stupid enough to pay a ridiculous amount of money for it (measured with at least five zeros), then I'm willing to part with the raw file. Otherwise...

sharpshot · « **Reply #16 on:** June 05, 2012, 06:25 »

What DT should do is ask us how much we are willing to sell the raw file for. There should also be an option to never offer raw files. They do this with image buyouts, so why not for raw file requests? It must get annoying when buyers are constantly told they can't have the raw file. It also gets annoying for us to receive this request when there is no benefit in offering the raw file.

stockastic · « **Reply #17 on:** June 05, 2012, 10:07 »

This is one of the most puzzling things I've encountered in microstock. There's just no reason a buyer would "need" the raw file. They're not going to improve on my post-processing in any significant way, and they don't need the extra dynamic range - the histogram is well contained within the JPG. There's just nothing to gain by having the camera raw file.

And there's no reason we should make it available without being paid extra.

I uploaded a TIF, and a couple hours later I got a second, duplicate request for the raw file. I clicked on the 'no' link, and they never bought the JPG or the TIF. Is this a scam?

The heck with it.

dirkr · « **Reply #18 on:** June 05, 2012, 10:53 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 05, 2012, 10:07

This is one of the most puzzling things I've encountered in microstock. There's just no reason a buyer would "need" the raw file. They're not going to improve on my post-processing in any significant way, and they don't need the extra dynamic range - the histogram is well contained within the JPG. There's just nothing to gain by having the camera raw file.

Maybe they don't want to improve on your pp, but just try something different. Maybe something like processing the image with a radically changed white balance. I can imagine that something like this is a lot easier when starting from a raw file than from an 8-bit jpg. Just speculating....

Quote from: stockastic on June 05, 2012, 10:07

And there's no reason we should make it available without being paid extra.

Fully agree to that part. If I should ever sell a raw file, it must be a completely different price tag...

jbarber873 · « **Reply #19 on:** June 05, 2012, 12:19 »

Supplying raw files is a standard procedure in assignment work, where the agency will be taking the file to a retoucher who will be able to use the full range of data available and purpose the file to the intended output in the best quality available. Many photographers consider themselves masters of photoshop, but few are really experts at the intricacies of cmyk printing, and routinely over process the files.
Having said that, these are situations where the photographer is getting paid a high dayrate and a buyout on top of that, so the 5K photo fee and all expenses paid for the shooting is fair compensation for the file. To be asked to supply the raw file to someone paying the pittance of a microstock purchase is absurd. I always reject the request.
It's really a symbol of how dreamstime is so out of touch with the rights of contributors. They bend over backwards to keep the buyers happy with no thought to the contributor who may be duped into supplying the raw file.
It's annoying to get these requests, and I agree that it would be nice to globally opt out of this farce. While opting out of that, I'd also like to opt out of the ridiculous "comments" function that always comes up with a stupid keyword flag, usually with the keywords being the specific to the subject of the image, such as "flag" for a photo of a flag. And it would also be great to opt out of the requests to put 4 images of the same subject in one file- a dreamstime special that drives down the value of all files.

stockastic · « **Reply #20 on:** June 05, 2012, 16:20 »

Quote from: jbarber873 on June 05, 2012, 12:19

It's really a symbol of how dreamstime is so out of touch with the rights of contributors. They bend over backwards to keep the buyers happy with no thought to the contributor who may be duped into supplying the raw file.

And the really funny thing is, for an extra 10 bucks and a few words of explanation, I'd have given them the .NEF. But apparently nobody at DT has time to put such complex mega-deals together. So, no sale.

gillian vann · « **Reply #21 on:** June 18, 2012, 19:12 »

why don't they call it what it is: the digital negative. That's a very easy concept to grasp: photographers don't give away their negs.

Perry · « **Reply #22 on:** June 18, 2012, 19:16 »

Quote from: vannphoto on June 18, 2012, 19:12

why don't they call it what it is: the digital negative. That's a very easy concept to grasp: photographers don't give away their negs.

Your analogue is faulty. If you give the negative away, then you don't have the negative any more. If you give away a raw-file, you still have the file.

lisafx · « **Reply #23 on:** June 18, 2012, 19:37 »

Quote from: Perry on June 18, 2012, 19:16

Quote from: vannphoto on June 18, 2012, 19:12
why don't they call it what it is: the digital negative. That's a very easy concept to grasp: photographers don't give away their negs.

Your analogue is faulty. If you give the negative away, then you don't have the negative any more. If you give away a raw-file, you still have the file.

Well, it's an analogy that's commonly made, whether or not it's a perfect fit. And it IS the negative in the sense that it is a way we can categorically prove we took an original image, if the copyright or ownership is ever in question.

disorderly · « **Reply #24 on:** June 18, 2012, 20:16 »

Quote from: lisafx on June 18, 2012, 19:37

Quote from: Perry on June 18, 2012, 19:16
Quote from: vannphoto on June 18, 2012, 19:12
why don't they call it what it is: the digital negative. That's a very easy concept to grasp: photographers don't give away their negs.

Your analogue is faulty. If you give the negative away, then you don't have the negative any more. If you give away a raw-file, you still have the file.

Well, it's an analogy that's commonly made, whether or not it's a perfect fit. And it IS the negative in the sense that it is a way we can categorically prove we took an original image, if the copyright or ownership is ever in question.

Being pedantic, it doesn't prove that we took it; it only proves that we have possession. And I'm not afraid to make a RAW file available for a reasonable price. After all, I can provide dozens if not hundreds of RAW files of the same subject if ownership were to become an issue. That should put the matter to rest.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: buyer wanting "raw" file (Read 13345 times)

stockastic

fotografer

cathyslife

Tabimura

stockastic

noodle

stockastic

ShadySue

dbvirago

grp_photo

MatHayward

luissantos84

tab62

Jo Ann Snover

stockastic

Carl

sharpshot

stockastic

dirkr

jbarber873

stockastic

gillian vann

Perry

lisafx

disorderly

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors