Author Topic: buyer wanting "raw" file (Read 11750 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.

stockastic · « **Reply #25 on:** June 18, 2012, 20:37 »

Really, I have no issue with selling the .NEF, it's not like there's some magic in there that I need to keep secret. I just wasn't going to even bother uploading it for a sale that might have netted me 25 cents. For 10 dollars, sure. But that wasn't going to happen.

A while back DT informed me that a buyer wanted to purchase the rights to an image. It's a good photo, and I named a price. Never heard another word. Maybe the buyer would have made a reasonable counteroffer. Maybe the buyer would even have paid for some additional, similar work. But DT can't be bothered with anything like that - i.e. the basic functions of a real "agency". None of the other micros are any different, of course. They're just vending machines on the web.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #26 on:** June 19, 2012, 02:38 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 18, 2012, 20:37

They're just vending machines on the web.

Excellent analogy.

bizair · « **Reply #27 on:** June 19, 2012, 02:47 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on June 19, 2012, 02:38

Quote from: stockastic on June 18, 2012, 20:37
They're just vending machines on the web.

Excellent analogy.

Yep. But what do you expect for the prices you get?

Ken

Phil · « **Reply #28 on:** June 19, 2012, 04:52 »

Last time I had a request for a raw it was for an illustration

(after I finished laughing it made me wonder if you cant see that it is an illustration, do you really need raw?

Anyways I always decline, for a traditional priced $300ish sale on alamy if they wanted the raw, no problem, but not for that price, not worth the time in me reading the email, finding the file and uploading etc for what will probably be a once off sale.

viorel_dudau · « **Reply #29 on:** June 19, 2012, 05:10 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 18, 2012, 20:37

Really, I have no issue with selling the .NEF, it's not like there's some magic in there that I need to keep secret. I just wasn't going to even bother uploading it for a sale that might have netted me 25 cents. For 10 dollars, sure. But that wasn't going to happen.

But DT can't be bothered with anything like that - i.e. the basic functions of a real "agency". None of the other micros are any different, of course. They're just vending machines on the web.

Hi, these are the royalties for additional formats (vector or RAW files- NEF in your case):

Additional Format (credits) (vector/RAW): double the royalties for the largest size available for download
Additional Format (subscription) (vector/RAW): standard subscription royalties

So, if the buyer is a credit buyer, you get a lot more than a standard sale for a RAW file. If the buyer has a subscription, well, the price is standard for subscription. You can't know what type of buyer wants your RAW file, and this information can't be provided by the agency, because there are simply too many sales and additional format requests daily.

And the lost is only for the contributor, because buyers usually buy other photos with additional format available from somebody else, instead of waiting for that requested raw to become available or not.

The same with selling the rights of an image: most probably the buyers will choose something already available (there is a search option to search only files available for selling the rights) instead of waiting for the emails and see if the negotiations turn out well.

When I was a buyer, I needed every image in a matter of minutes. Of course, it's your images and your decisions, I just wanted to share from my experience as a buyer.

stockastic · « **Reply #30 on:** June 19, 2012, 15:56 »

Quote from: viorel_dudau on June 19, 2012, 05:10

When I was a buyer, I needed every image in a matter of minutes.

So you need exclusive rights to an image, have only minutes to make your decision, and have a fixed budget. Assuming I believe that, I think the sensible thing would be to make an offer. And no, 10 dollars isn't enough.

With regard to requesting the raw file for a sale that might bring 30 cents, it's like Phil said above - not even worth reading the email.

Quote from: viorel_dudau on June 19, 2012, 05:10

You can't know what type of buyer wants your RAW file, and this information can't be provided by the agency...

Sure it could, and in an automated way. Without that information the buyer is asking the photographer to provide an additional service, while declining to say what he'll be paid for it. No thanks. Call me old school if you want.

WarrenPrice · « **Reply #31 on:** June 19, 2012, 17:05 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 19, 2012, 15:56

Quote from: viorel_dudau on June 19, 2012, 05:10
When I was a buyer, I needed every image in a matter of minutes.

So you need exclusive rights to an image, have only minutes to make your decision, and have a fixed budget. Assuming I believe that, I think the sensible thing would be to make an offer. And no, 10 dollars isn't enough.

With regard to requesting the raw file for a sale that might bring 30 cents, it's like Phil said above - not even worth reading the email.

Quote from: viorel_dudau on June 19, 2012, 05:10
You can't know what type of buyer wants your RAW file, and this information can't be provided by the agency...

Sure it could, and in an automated way. Without that information the buyer is asking the photographer to provide an additional service, while declining to say what he'll be paid for it. No thanks. Call me old school if you want.

@stockastic; I'm pretty sure Dudau is a DT admin.

gillian vann · « **Reply #32 on:** June 20, 2012, 01:52 »

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.

thanks, it's not perfect but most people seem to get the point... I often use the term 'digital negative' with customers, rather than 'file', so they understand why it costs more to "own" a copy.

Phil · « **Reply #33 on:** June 20, 2012, 04:41 »

Quote from: viorel_dudau on June 19, 2012, 05:10

Quote from: stockastic on June 18, 2012, 20:37
Really, I have no issue with selling the .NEF, it's not like there's some magic in there that I need to keep secret. I just wasn't going to even bother uploading it for a sale that might have netted me 25 cents. For 10 dollars, sure. But that wasn't going to happen.

But DT can't be bothered with anything like that - i.e. the basic functions of a real "agency". None of the other micros are any different, of course. They're just vending machines on the web.

Hi, these are the royalties for additional formats (vector or RAW files- NEF in your case):

Additional Format (credits) (vector/RAW): double the royalties for the largest size available for download
Additional Format (subscription) (vector/RAW): standard subscription royalties

So, if the buyer is a credit buyer, you get a lot more than a standard sale for a RAW file. If the buyer has a subscription, well, the price is standard for subscription. You can't know what type of buyer wants your RAW file, and this information can't be provided by the agency, because there are simply too many sales and additional format requests daily.

And the lost is only for the contributor, because buyers usually buy other photos with additional format available from somebody else, instead of waiting for that requested raw to become available or not.

The same with selling the rights of an image: most probably the buyers will choose something already available (there is a search option to search only files available for selling the rights) instead of waiting for the emails and see if the negotiations turn out well.

When I was a buyer, I needed every image in a matter of minutes. Of course, it's your images and your decisions, I just wanted to share from my experience as a buyer.

I think you partly make my point, you need it a matter of minutes.

I used to respond to additional format requests (eps etc for illustrations but not raw) and wonder why it then didnt sell. The customer has hit additional format, and then decided I'm not uploading 2 minutes after they hit the request and gone and bought something else. meanwhile I do the work required and dont get a sale at all...

stockastic · « **Reply #34 on:** June 20, 2012, 10:57 »

A hypothetical buyer is in such a panic that he has only minutes to select and purchase images, but has time to re-process the .NEF in some different way? Not making sense.

disorderly · « **Reply #35 on:** June 20, 2012, 12:08 »

I've had a dozen or so RAW requests on DT. If I have a RAW file ( early on I shot JPEG exclusively) ill upload it. And usually the RAW sells within a couple of days of acceptance. It pays a little more, and in my opinion enough to justify my effort.

A pro photographer friend has told me about clients who bring him in to shoot. When he's done, he hands them the card and leaves. To me, selling RAW is the same thing. If they like their editing better than mine, I won't take offense.

Pixart · « **Reply #36 on:** June 20, 2012, 13:12 »

Then he's billed the client by the hour (or a day rate), plus expenses and has an executed contract in his hand before his day begins. A work for hire is not really a comparison to giving away a negative as someone called it earlier. I think a raw file is worth a little more than $0.27 or whatever DT's cheapest subs are going for.

stockastic · « **Reply #37 on:** June 20, 2012, 13:17 »

Quote from: disorderly on June 20, 2012, 12:08

It pays a little more, and in my opinion enough to justify my effort.

Not if it's a subscription sale. And they won't tell you in advance what kind of sale it is. That was my point. Or are you saying you always upload the raw files for all your photos, instead of waiting for a request?

viorel_dudau · « **Reply #38 on:** June 21, 2012, 03:41 »

Quote from: stockastic on June 20, 2012, 10:57

A hypothetical buyer is in such a panic that he has only minutes to select and purchase images, but has time to re-process the .NEF in some different way? Not making sense.

For a professional, it makes a lot of sense. But I'm only telling you MY experience from the years I worked in publishing companies.

The decision must be made in minutes or tens of minutes or maybe sometimes hours, but nobody expects that's enough time for the agency to see my request, to forward the request to the contributor, to wait for a response from the contributor, to wait for the contributor to come back from his vacation in Thailand and upload the requested file, to wait for the file to be approved and so on. The post processing can be made afterwards, by another person, from another department, but the buying decision is often made in minutes-hours. It makes sense now?

If you want big sales from raw files, you should make your raw files available without any request. Sometimes, those sales could be subscriptions, sometimes credits. You don't know.

If you want big sales from SR-EL and other extended licenses, you should make your files available for such sales without any requests (you can set the price in the first place, during the submission process, you don't need to wait for a request).

And that's because those request may never come, if you just wait for them, because there are search options that allow buyers to find only the files already available for such sales.

PS: if you want a response from a DT admin, you can contact DT or write on DT forum. I was only sharing my experience with fellow photographers. Don't take it as a response from a DT official, cause I'm not paid to write on external forums

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: buyer wanting "raw" file (Read 11750 times)

dbvirago

grp_photo

tab62

jbarber873

lisafx

WarrenPrice

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors