Author Topic: buyer wanting "raw" file (Read 11739 times)

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 11739 times)

stockastic

BaldricksTrousers

bizair

Phil

viorel_dudau

stockastic

WarrenPrice

gillian vann

Phil

stockastic

disorderly

Pixart

stockastic

viorel_dudau

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors