

Ask HN: Tips getting RAWs from wedding photographers? - yajoe

Hello HN.<p>I am going through this whole overpriced madness called the wedding industry in the Seattle area, and I feel I&#x27;ve hit a wall negotiating with my wedding photographer.  No contract is yet signed, but the one he wants me to sign only grants me personal use of the pictures he takes (he retains ownership and does not grant a license) and promises to deliver 2.5 megapixel equivalent quality jpg files.<p>I asked to include the raw files and original (or near-original) 12 megapixel jpgs from his Nikon and offered to hand him a hard drive or memory card so he wouldn&#x27;t have to worry about extra costs.  He refused at first and tried to convince me I was confused and would be happy with what he offered. I read HN, and while not an expert on the specific bit fields I would consider myself aware of image formats and their differences. After a couple days he told me it would be another $1k (25% increase) just for the files, and the copyright license would be another $2k.  I think it is insane to pay him for his skill to take pictures and get the equivalent of camera-phone quality jpgs at the end when higher quality versions exist.<p>Help!  What techniques or success have you had in negotiating to get at the RAW files and 12 megapixel+ resolution jpgs?  Am I off base in thinking this is reasonable to be included in the base price?  Am I wrong in approaching this as a case where I hire a man for his skill and artistry and expect to keep the work product?
======
Jedd
I think your question is actually 'Tips on finding a wedding photographer
who'll provide RAWs', rather than trying to encourage this particular
photographer to sell you what you want to buy.

The flickr thread linked to in another response (
[http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/7215762943...](http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/72157629437099072/)
) seems to be full of photographers explaining why customers are just plain
wrong to want raws, and encouraging each other to never provide a customer
with raws (lest it set off a trend, perhaps).

This presents a fantastic opportunity for any halfway decent photographer who
isn't precious about the 'magic' involved in their work. Haughty self-
comparisons to painters being told to provide incomplete work, and film
photographers handing over 'unprocessed film' do them no service - these are
fatally flawed analogies.

I can think of several compelling reasons for wanting original (raw) as well
as maximum resolution touched up jpegs. None of the reasons anyone has offered
for withholding raw files is compelling.

------
bossfo
Some of the responses in this thread remind me of our experience finding a
wedding photographer willing to provide RAW images. The prospective
photographers just didn't seem to understand that we were hiring them to
provide a service to our specifications, and that we had no interest in
justifying any of our choices to them. It was a very strange and sometimes
frustrating experience.

Ultimately, we posted a detailed ad on Craigslist and (in-between hate mail
and being flagged several times) were contacted by several interested
photographers. The woman we hired did exactly what we wanted, for a fair
price, and did a phenomenal job. We could not have been happier.

My advice is to post an ad on Craigslist detailing specifically what you're
looking for. Prepare yourself for many prickly responses, and prepare to re-
post after it gets flagged. You'll eventually find someone.

As an aside, we also required that the photographer assign copyright in the
images to us, though we did allow her to use any images not containing people
or names for her own promotional purposes.

Best of luck!

------
jakobe
I'd see this as a red flag and look for a different photographer. Some time
ago I've had similar issues with a designer I hired: He wouldn't give me
vector files, only flat PNGs. He said it had to do something with his
reputation.

Obviously, these people want you to come back rather than hire someone else if
you need any changes, or additional prints later on. That's why they only want
to give you low res files. But for the customer, that's a bit troubling. What
if it turns out the photographer makes lousy prints? What if the photographer
closes up shop?

It doesn't matter if this is "standard business practice". This attitude is
typical for people who don't take their customers' demands seriously.

Luckily it turns out there are plenty of professionals who care more about
their customers than about their reputation. In my case, I found a different
designer, who understood my point of view and worked with me, rather than say
"can't be done". Unfortunately, he was way more expensive, but in the end it
was worth it.

------
UnoriginalGuy
Our wedding photographer was great; she gave us an unlimited licence to the
photos (she also retained her rights), and also gave us a DVD of the RAW files
in addition to her mastered JPGs.

The whole thing didn't seem like a big deal to her. In fact her web-site lists
what you'll get, and while we did ask about the RAWs it wasn't a big
negotiation point (we did pay for the DVD at a small markup like you'd
expect).

I don't think RAWs should be a "normal" part of the deal as 99% of people
wouldn't know what to do with them. But I do consider a liberal licence to be
par for the course (in particular as that photographer might go out of
business, and you might need to print your photos again years or decades from
the original event).

So to the OP: Find a different photographer. The licence thing is
unacceptable. The RAW thing is understandable but I bet you can find someone
who is more amenable to that.

PS - If you get the RAW files, don't try to print them 1:1. They exist to be
mastered, not to be used as-is.

~~~
yajoe
thanks. Is there a specific referral you could pass on?

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
If you're in the city of Salt Lake (Utah) I could.

------
powatom
My girlfriend is a wedding photographer so I have something of an insight into
why you might be having this experience.

The RAW files are the (as the name suggests) raw, unedited versions of your
photographs. Photographers are generally unwilling to provide these files as
there is often a huge difference between the RAW image and the final, edited
image. There is a 'branding' concern here - if you take the RAW files and
start showing them to people, then in the photographer's mind you are showing
them an unfinished product. Nobody wants anything but their best work out on
display - so if you are intending to do this, then the photographer wants to
be reimbursed for the potential damage you may be doing to their brand.
Whether you feel that this is justified or not is irrelevant, if that's how
the photographer feels, then that's how they feel. Deal with it.

Additionally, part of the package you buy is the editing process that the
photographer undertakes. The RAW file is the raw material, and the JPG is the
end result. Demanding the RAW files suggests that you are unhappy with the
final result, and would like to re-edit the photos to suit your liking. This
is likely to be perceived as an insult to the photographer's skill. I'm
guessing you have at least some level of confidence in the photographer's
editing abilities otherwise you wouldn't be going with them in the first place
- but you have to understand that there is a significant amount of work
involved between the RAW input and the JPG output - the photographer isn't
just doing a straight file conversion.

Finally - access to the RAW files puts the photographer at risk of you
publishing the images with different editing and similar (or higher) quality.
The increase in the copyright licence fee is aimed to offset this risk.

To summarise:

1: The photographer provides a full-day of foot-work (being at the wedding),
and then up to a few weeks of editing the RAW images to make your special day
look as fantastic as you remember it being.

2: The photographer needs to protect their brand - surrendering the RAW images
means you are free to add lens flare and other shitty editing to their raw
materials, and thereby doing damage to their brand.

3: RAW files = copyright risk in general.

4: A personal use licence is the norm unless you're willing to pay a premium.
The photographer needs to blog the photos, to use them in promotional
materials, and to always have those photos connected with his brand. He
doesn't need (or want) you plastering them all over the place and using them
for god-knows-what purpose.

I would suggest the following:

1: Properly define what exactly both of you mean by 'personal use'. What do
you actually want to do with the photographs? If it's anything other than
'make copies for my family', then you're probably asking too much for the
licence you're negotiating. It is normal to put things like disaster recovery
as part of the deal, so that if you ever need to recover copies of the
photographs then you can do so. Don't expect to be able to sell the
photographs on, though.

2: Negotiate on the resolution, but not the format. You are buying edited
photos, not RAW images. Remember the process. Your RAW images will NOT look
the same as the JPG end product, and in fact many photographers feel that the
RAW images are bad. Imperfections, poor lighting etc are the whole reason that
an editing process exists in the first place. The photographer needs to
protect their brand.

3: If you are only concerned about resolution and not the quality (i.e
composition, style etc) of the image itself, then re-negotiate your contract
to remove the editing work. Your photographer will probably run a mile.

> Am I wrong in approaching this as a case where I hire a man for his skill
> and artistry and expect to keep the work product?

Yes, you are - because that's not what you're asking. You're asking to keep
the product, the raw materials, and all of the rights to use that product for
any purpose whatsoever.

In my honest opinion, you're being a little too forward. Some photographers
are just very protective of their work (it is their art, remember) - and the
whole RAW thing is likely to push a few buttons because you are effectively
voiding the hard work that goes into the editing process. YMMV with other
photographers, but that's why there's a market: if you like this
photographer's work, then stick with him and drop the RAW thing. If not, then
find somebody else who'll provide the RAW files.

What you need to do is outline what it is you intend to do with the
photographs. When this is clear your photographer may be more accommodating. I
would fully expect him to charge you more, though.

EDIT: Removed the suggestion that the 'customer is not right'. Apologies for
including this in the first place, but what I meant to suggest is that your
expectation of the service is in conflict with the photographer's perception
of the service they provide. Until you can come to some agreement around this,
you will have issues. For the photographer, this is a business and their art
form. Asking them to put their art in the hands of somebody who may alter it
or otherwise 'damage' it is a risky and emotional prospect for them. If you
don't care about this, then you're probably best finding another photographer
who will give you exactly what you want without questions.

------
acomjean
I shot a number of Weddings in the past decade (usually 2 per year, not how I
make a living, but I apprenticed so...). I wouldn't worry about getting "Raw"
files. While I always shot Raw I always delivered jpgs, I think at 8 megapixel
equivalent (My Canon 5d is only 13 megapixels.). This will be Fine for most
size prints. 2.5 megapixel is clearly is web only.

I processed the images in lightroom to give them the look I wanted and
delivered a large set of high quality jpegs. The post processing / sorting of
files takes a lot of time, so not having to do that would lower the price.
Digital wedding photographers take a lot of photographs so sorting them can be
onerous. Play that the fact that you'll sort and post process yourself.

Plus some photographers don't want to give you all the photos as invariably
some are Out of Focus or not great.

Your on the right path negotiating before hand. Expect to pay extra for the
rights and images. If you find a photographer that will give those to you,
expect the cost to be baked into the price. Its Still better than having to go
back to the photographer for every print.

~~~
yajoe
I appreciate the value in acquiring rights and have accepted that while unfair
in general, it is the accepted practice for photography.

However, I just don't understand why copying files from a hard drive (whether
the finished lightroom product or originals from DS card) is so hard. I just
wondered if there was something else I was missing.

------
donniefitz2
As a part time photographer myself, I find it very strange that your
photographer will only give you 2.5mp files. That is not standard practice.
Typically, you would get full-rez, processed .jpeg files.

I would never give a client the RAW files, neither do most photographers. RAW
is incomplete and they require processing, which is part of the service
offered. It's like asking a film photographer to provide the negatives.

But you should expect to get the full-rez processed .jpeg files with personal
use rights.

~~~
seremoney
Rather than the negatives, I think it's closer to asking the photographer for
just the film--before any development is done. With a negative, you've already
done some processing with regards to the timing of the film development
(push/pull) that you can arguably accomplish in Lightroom/Aperture/etc. when
processing the RAW file.

------
ronyeh
You need to find another wedding photographer. This is YOUR wedding day, and
you need to have it your way, not HIS way.

Do a broader search for wedding photographers, and ask them to give you quotes
that include:

* >= 12 MP JPEGs from their digital SLR, processed via Lightroom or whatever process they use.

* RAW files for those JPEGs.

* The right to use your photos in ANY WAY you please. This includes printing physical albums and books for your family. This includes the right to post photos to Facebook without the photographer's watermark. (Still, it would be nice for you to post a link to their website from your wedding gallery.)

That's it! If a photographer cannot agree to these three requests, they do not
need your business. This is a matter of good customer service. If they provide
you this great level of service, you'll definitely recommend them to other
people looking for wedding photographers.

I don't understand the other photographers on this thread saying they'd NEVER
give away their RAWs. It would be like a contract web developer only handing
over JPEG screenshots of their final product, instead of the source code.

~~~
ronyeh
For any wedding photographer that reads this:

If YOU were getting married tomorrow and needed to hire someone to be YOUR
wedding photographer, would you accept 2.5MP JPEGs as the final product?

Or would you demand full resolution JPEGs, along with RAWs so that you can
have the full sensor data to play around with forever?

------
adyus
I'll jump in here as I recently started a side business shooting weddings.

You're dealing with an old school photographer who expects to cover his costs
(salary, rent, equipment, etc.) from print and album sales, rather than scare
you away with a large initial cost.

It's true that photographers prefer to withhold RAWs because they're
unprocessed and in bulk, but that's not your photographer's issue.

I also mention upfront that I only provide web-quality images for the quoted
cost, as I believe I can offer my expertise to provide better quality prints
when requested, or any other image processing needs (slideshows, albums,
collages, etc.). This also provides me with another much needed revenue
stream, albeit it's often perceived as greed. I should note, however, that I
charge much much less than $4k, as I am in a different market.

What do you intend to do with the RAW files if you get them?

~~~
yajoe
I'm a pack rat and I will archive these photos along with all of the other
photos I've taken during my life. I currently have a terrabyte (not that much,
but still enough to cause headaches) of such photos that are backed up in 3
locations, yada, yada, yada.

On principle, if I am going to get pictures then I want the highest quality
since one lesson I've learned is that the quality from 10 years is 1/10 the
quality available today. Might as well record and store the maximum quality
today since over the course of the marriage (10s of years, I hope) today's
quality will be just 'average.'

My suspicion is that he plans to make profit on the prints, and he's afraid
I've found a way to bypass him. I just don't understand why he doesn't price
his time and skill and use the prints as add-ons.

~~~
1123581321
If he front-loaded the price you wouldn't have progressed to this point in the
negotiation yet. You would simply think he was an expensive photographer. And
he'd have to average out the money he makes from prints/copies in the up-front
price to stay in business. That would be unfair to those who don't order many.

------
helen842000
As a wedding photographer I can completely understand his reluctance to
provide raw files. We would never do it, not for any amount of money.

First of all, he has no control how the raw files will be processed, so if
your post processing is poor then someone else asks who shot your wedding,
you'll reply with his name. Don't forget you've got the ability to change the
end result of his work with raw files and with that goes his reputation.

Additionally the raw files aren't always great straight out of the camera,
great pictures emerge after cropping, straightening and balancing the entire
image. His perceived skill will be greatly reduced when you see unedited
images that are in need of work.

You are paying for his all-round skills to deliver great images not for
someone to press the shutter & deliver raw files.

It's the equivalent of asking an artist for his practise sketches & tubes of
paint or asking a chef for the raw ingredients, cooking whatever you want with
them and the chef still having his name attached to the quality of dish that
you create. He may have intended to create a soufflé but you may end up
creating scrambled eggs and there's nothing he can do about it.

Personally we find that images at 300dpi are optimised for prints (12x8) we
scale our print files around 3600 x 2400 pixels. This is around 8 to 9
megapixels. We also provide low-res files too for sharing on Facebook,
e-mailing etc.

Perhaps there's some misunderstanding between file size (2.5 megabytes) and
2.5 megapixels - that's more of a sensor size e.g iPhone equivalent.

If you do get raw files, then please prepare them for print correctly, image
labs won't accept them at that size.

Instead of asking for raw files, just ask for a larger size jpg and specify
3600 x 2400 pixels for your high res files, that should make it clear what you
want and it protects his work too.

~~~
Jedd
> First of all, he has no control how the raw files will be processed ...

This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg.

> Don't forget you've got the ability to change the end result of his work
> with raw files and with that goes his reputation.

This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg.

> Additionally the raw files aren't always great straight out of the camera,
> great pictures emerge after cropping, straightening and balancing the entire
> image. His perceived skill will be greatly reduced when you see unedited
> images that are in need of work.

This is either a non-existent problem (the customer's perception can be based
on the pp'd jpeg), or an education problem (the photographer can explain that
often a lot of work is done in post to get just the right look).

> You are paying for his all-round skills to deliver great images not for
> someone to press the shutter & deliver raw files.

No one has suggested the customer _doesn 't_ pay for, and get, skilfully post-
processed jpegs, or that that's not the thing the customer wants most.

The OP is seeking these quality, finished products in addition to raws.

> It's the equivalent of asking an artist for his practise sketches & tubes of
> paint or asking a chef for the raw ingredients, cooking whatever you want
> with them and the chef still having his name attached to the quality of dish
> that you create.

No, it really is not.

If I make a regrettably tasteless meal from a recipe in a cook book, I don't
present it to my dinner guests and blame Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall.

> He may have intended to create a soufflé but you may end up creating
> scrambled eggs and there's nothing he can do about it.

This is equally true for any work done on a jpeg.

> Personally we find that images at 300dpi are optimised for prints (12x8) we
> scale our print files around 3600 x 2400 pixels. This is around 8 to 9
> megapixels. We also provide low-res files too for sharing on Facebook,
> e-mailing etc.

This doesn't materially impact the desire of the OP for raws.

> Instead of asking for raw files, just ask for a larger size jpg and specify
> 3600 x 2400 pixels for your high res files, that should make it clear what
> you want and it protects his work too.

Again the customer is being told that what they want is wrong, and they are
wrong for wanting it.

~~~
helen842000
As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was
being offered. Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't
the best end result for OP. That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws
ready for printing. Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS
wrong. What they should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or
9 mp, perfect for prints & the low res too which are great for web use. Going
all the way back to the raw file just results in them getting a totally
unedited picture.

You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true.
If you receive a nicely cropped jpg image you can't go back to the original
full image with it's rough edges. With jpgs the photographer gets to set the
crop, white balance, sharpening & saturation he is happy with.

It sounds like the photographer wants OP to go back to him for prints. With a
bit of negotiation they can arrange to have the print quality jpgs on a disc.
No need to go back to the start of the creative process and get completely
unedited raws.

~~~
Jedd
> As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was
> being offered.

The OP stated: "I asked to include the raw files and [original] jpgs ..."

> Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't the best end
> result for OP.

Do you mean it won't be the best because the OP is wrong to want these raw
files in addition?

Or it's not the best because it's proving difficult to acquire the files from
this recalcitrant photographer?

> That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws ready for printing.

Really, no one is arguing against this point. It's both true and non-relevant.

> Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS wrong. What they
> should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or 9 mp, perfect
> for prints & the low res too which are great for web use.

You're not big on embracing 'the customer is always right', are you?

I think the customer here is asking for finished higher quality / higher
resolution jpg's _and_ the original raws.

> You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true.

Incorrect.

I said that your stated concern that someone performing poor pp on a photo,
and then being asked who shot them -- exposes the same risk to the
photographer regardless of whether the other person worked on raws or jpegs. I
mean, the answer to the question would be the same.

Arguably low-quality (and 2.5MB jpegs are going to become very poor quality
once you modify them) images would exacerbate this problem. But this isn't the
point.

As I say, there's been no compelling reasons offered to explain why raws
should be withheld from a customer that wants to buy them. Yes, there's a
negotiation to be conducted on what price is appropriate, but the market will
sort that out soon enough. But saying the customer is wrong, stupid or just
misunderstands, or that they may misuse them, or that processed jpegs look
better .. all that is just offensive or irrelevant (or both).

On the other hand, here are three compelling reasons I just came up with for
why you would want to acquire the raw images of _your wedding_ , where you'd
_employed someone_ to take pictures for you.

First, photographers die and/or go out of business, at which point your chance
of recovering these files is massively reduced. Asking your photographer what
arrangements they have in place for such scenarios would be amusing.

Second, photographers are _at best_ as good as everyone else at running
backups and maintaining archives. By which I mean they are likely dreadful. My
photo archive is stored on 4 physical machines, two of which are on RAID
arrays, with one machine in a different country, and I keep two external
drives in sync also. I have mechanisms to ensure file system and media
corruption is noticed and rectified. Quite simply I have profound doubts that
a photographer will care quite so much about my photos as I do, let alone have
a sufficiently comforting level of tech savvy. Again, it'd be enlightening to
ask your wedding photographer what systems and processes they have in place to
protect these files that are so precious you're not allowed to buy from them.

Third, technology changes rapidly. Photography forums are full of professional
photographers talking about how much better their old (5-10y) digital images
can look when they revisit them with slightly more modern versions of pp
software. Again, I doubt that the average photographer will be doing this for
you periodically over the 40+ years of your marriage - whereas that's the
precise set of photos you're most likely going to want to revisit.

~~~
helen842000
I think what the customer 'wants' is always right. What the customer asks for
can be an entirely different thing and a lot can be lost in translation. If
you take the first ask at face value without delving deeper it can result in a
very disappointed customer.

It's not offensive to check you are delivering what they 'actually' want.

I think the photographer is just checking they know what they're actually
getting when they ask for raw files.

If OP is prepared for them to be nothing like the finished version then that's
great, they're on the same page. I think they'll get more use out of higher
res jpegs though.

Why pay someone to produce 2.5mp finished images or raws you need to work on
yourself when you can just have a high res set.

I can't tell you the number of people that ask for raw when what they mean is
high resolution. I've heard lots of horror stories where photographers deliver
raw files and they get a long furious e-mail back saying "what the hell, these
don't even open on my computer, I asked for the best quality images dammit!"

With wedding photography 80% of customers have never been married before &
it's their first time discussing photography services, a good photographer
will check the customer is fully informed. A bad one will do anything to make
the sale, pop the card out of the camera, hand it over and say "hey that's
what you asked for"

As OP has said, they're not interested in prints so asking for a much higher
res digital finished image makes a lot of sense, ready for the big screen tv,
perhaps a large canvas etc. Prepping the raws ready to share is a big time
investment.

Also be sure to make your own copies of the disc as optical media degrades
over time too. Make as many backups as you can.

Photographers take backups more seriously that you think. We're as precious
about backups as we are the raw files! They're our livelihood.

I think our backup strategy is better than the average user. Dual card slots
shooting raw images, transported separately from the venue at the end of the
day. One is stored off site in a fire proof box in an anti static pouch. The
other is the 'working' card and imported to the working machine with SSD raid.
They're also mirrored to an external hard drive & cloud backup while working.
Exported final jpgs are burned to DVD for the client along with a box of 6x4
proofs and online gallery access.

For our own work archives they are uploaded to our viewing portal which is
paid for several years at a time (e.g if we were no longer around, clients can
still re-download them within that time frame - good luck doing that with raw
file sizes). We also store final jpgs in cloud storage and put an archive of
work on both optical media and sd card with the original raw card in the off
site fire proof storage along with a copy of the customers details.

I think saying photographers are not tech savvy and don't care about their
clients images is equally offensive.

------
wmf
Get a quote from another photographer and use it to negotiate or just find a
different photographer.

------
YoAdrian
Try here (no affiliation):
[http://www.mywedding.com/seattle/photographers](http://www.mywedding.com/seattle/photographers)

Also found this discussion amongst photographers:
[http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/7215762943...](http://www.flickr.com/groups/weddingphoto/discuss/72157629437099072/)

Most don't want to give away RAW files as they aren't the "finished product"
or they aren't a format most people can view. Many just want more money for
them.

~~~
yajoe
thanks, these help

------
5555624
If you think the price is unreasonable (and I think it is), either go
elsewhere or negotiate. Either way, you need to go out and get some other
quotes. If you're going to negotiate, you really need some other quotes as
examples (for leverage).

It was a non-issue when I got married. The photographer printed a 4x6 of each
picture and put it in an album. We got the album and all the negatives. (Yes,
the wedding and the wife were a long time ago.)

------
gesman
Dump the guy and make him feel that he deserves to be dumped. Wear the shit
boot and make sure to leave a footprint on his ass for entertaining story to
tell others.

There are plenty of young and talented photographers around with an excellent
equipment. I'd personally pick the one with Canon 1D* body and L-class lenses.
RAW files and full copyright ownership is mandatory and no negotiable. Make
sure to pay flat, all inclusive decent fee for everything. Pay 25% upfront +
25% upon wedding end, 50% upon inspection of finals. Make sure he carries
external lights and knows how to use them.

------
dylz
Tell him if he doesn't give the raws, you use another photographer.

He's trying to scam you - simple.

~~~
stevekemp
As a photographer giving away RAWs is just not something I'd ever do. No scam
involved.

Sure it sounds like this particular photographer is trying to get more money
for prints, but that's been "standard" in the wedding business for decades,
even before digital photography.

~~~
dylz
As a developer, not giving away RAWs would be like giving them the site but
not giving them the source code

~~~
powatom
Which is a perfectly reasonable business model and one which the vast majority
of developers follow...

If the customer wants the source code, then by all means include it as part of
your package, but along with that comes the complexities of copyright, support
(do you still support code that your customer hired somebody else to mangle?),
and other such concerns. These things come at a price.

Of course, how you do business is entirely up to you - but handing over the
source code as part of the standard deal opens up a ton of questions which you
should make sure you have covered.

------
callmeed
I work with tons of wedding photographers at my company and most don't give
raw files. I'd almost argue that ones who do give them probably aren't the
ones you want shooting your wedding.

You should definitely get the high res jpegs of course.

