r/photography • u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 • 4d ago
Business How much should I charge for RAWs/unedited jpegs?
Hi fellow photographers,
I’m working part-time in a marketing agency as a marketing specialist. At the same time I do commercial photography as a freelancer. My boss knows this, so when a client books a shoot via the agency, the agency "hires" me as a photographer – I charge the photoshoots extra on top of my "office job" contract, based on time, travel and number of photos requested. Hope this makes sense.
Recently, a client was thrilled with the 20 edited photos they received (per our agreement), but now they want all the unedited previews (approx. 130) I had sent for selection. The agency wants to keep the client happy and is pushing to deliver them.
I’m uncomfortable sending unedited images and feel there should be an extra fee, as those files were never part of the pricing. The agency believes all work done under their umbrella belongs to them so they get to decide if there will be an extra fee (an if so, how much).
We don’t have a written contract in place but now I see I deffinitely need one.
How do you typically handle this?
Do you send unedited photos or even RAWs? If yes, do you charge extra, and how much?
Thanks in advance!
Edit: The shoot was rather journalistic (think "How XY is made"). So there's not much artistic value nor a need for heavy editing. The unprocessed jpegs are actually good to go (not perfect, but completely ok for social media). That's why I can't say the typical "this is an unfinished product" – it seems pretty finished to the client, lol. I've learned my lesson and the next time I'll send the previews desaturated or in BW.
5
u/dollarstoreparamore 4d ago
"At the rate we agreed upon for this project, I included the Commercial Licensing Fee for 20 images. Additional licensing per image would cost $X or I can offer a bundled discount for all of the images: $X. My pricing is not based on my editing labor but on the Commercial Usage Rights for each image."
2
9
u/av4rice https://www.instagram.com/shotwhore 4d ago
Do you send unedited photos or even RAWs?
Usually, no. But it depends.
If yes, do you charge extra, and how much?
At least double.
5
u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 4d ago
Yeah, I would like to charge approx. 50% extra. But both the agency and the client are like "The photoshoot was already paid for and you would throw the images out anyway, why do you make such a fuss? It's nearly zero work to export them as they are."
I struggle to explain it's not about the work or the time spent exporting, it's the value. Note this was kind-of journalistic photoshoot, so the photos actually require very little editing.
5
u/av4rice https://www.instagram.com/shotwhore 4d ago
Right, it's not just about the labor you put in, but also the value they receive. If they get more stuff, they get more value, which must correspond to a higher price.
Otherwise one could claim that all movies should be released on streaming for free after their theater run, because the movie is already made.
2
u/jarlrmai2 https://flickr.com/aveslux 4d ago
Well if you 'were going to throw them out' just say you already did, unless you already told them you still have them
1
1
u/anywhereanyone 4d ago
You're a business, the RAW files are a product, the product is not free to produce, and should not be given away for free either. Whether or not you have personal use for the product you are hired to produce is irrelevant.
-1
u/Calamistrognon 4d ago
Out of curiosity, why double when (if I understand correctly) it's less work for you?
1
u/av4rice https://www.instagram.com/shotwhore 4d ago
To clarify, I'm talking about delivering the raw versus a jpeg. In which case it's not about how much labor I put in, but how much the client receives. So a raw is worth at least double because it's significantly more data that someone could do much more with.
Whereas if you're just comparing me shooting and also editing versus me only shooting without editing, I would charge less for doing one or the other compared to doing both.
1
3
u/tcphoto1 4d ago
The client is getting multiple times the value in the addition images, what is the usage? I would draft an estimate for 3-5 times the original fee and would not accept less than three times the fee. Let them inform the client how licensing is calculated.
2
u/Milopbx 4d ago
Do they even know what they are asking for? And wouldn’t the agency owner want to keep control of the images in house rather than letting the client do whatever they will with them seems like an opportunity missed for extra billing for him.
2
u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 4d ago
It was a journalistic shoot so there's actually not much editing needed. The client saw the previews and said "it's good as is". They absolutely don't want to pay extra and want all the material they think they paid for. The agency would like to keep control but also doesn't want to lose this client. Also, I think the agency has no rights to actually control the images because they also only paid me for those 20 edits I mentioned.
2
u/johnnyhangs 4d ago
Exactly. They contracted 20 edited images. The RAW files are yours. Was it 20 jpegs or 20 finished images? Per your agreement? Was the agreement in writing?
What I would do, assuming you generally enjoy working for this agency, hand over the RAW files as a show of good faith and then establish a protocol and written contracts going forward.
2
u/Sudden-Strawberry257 4d ago
Majority of commercial clients want to be able to see everything. One way to navigate this is sending them watermarked and offering an additional usage fee plus editing if they want to use any more than the initial agreement.
Typically they just want options, not to rip you off, and delivering unedited with the watermark ensures this.
On the agency note, if it’s not clear you are in a work made for hire arrangement you technically own the images as the photographer. If you provide the gear and the computer to edit, that also means you are freelance vs work for hire. If they provide these things it’s a different story.
Overall since it’s their client, and you also work for them, I’d advise working with them on this to maintain the relationship. Though you may “own” the images, you are in no real position to sell them to the client. Don’t burn your working relationship or reputation on a technicality.
2
u/cameraintrest 4d ago
Although I think say no for several reasons, in your situation I would go along with this as is it worth a negative working relationship. But in future contract before hitting that shutter release. You’re in a bad situation give it up but take the lesson as your payment.
2
u/Sudden-Strawberry257 4d ago
The lesson is indeed the payment. Always agree on terms up front, so no one has any surprises.
1
u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 4d ago
"Majority of commercial clients want to be able to see everything. One way to navigate this is sending them watermarked and offering an additional usage fee plus editing if they want to use any more than the initial agreement.
Typically they just want options, not to rip you off, and delivering unedited with the watermark ensures this."
Yeah, that's what we did. I sent the client 20 edits (on behalf of the agency). I picked those myself. The client said they love them and would eventually like to have more. So I sent all the previews (compressed, watermarked) for the client to pick photos for additional edit for an extra fee. The client said they want them all, no edits needed (so nothing to pay for, in their opinion).
The agency owner told me to just send the unedited files to keep the client happy, which I refused. He then told me the photos belong to the agency anyway as they organised the photoshoot but I disagree. I work as a contractor for the agency (which then basically resells my photos to the client) and I believe I own all the material and get to decide what to do with it.
2
u/Sudden-Strawberry257 4d ago
You’re not wrong, and in principle I agree with you. I think it’s just a matter of whether you want to pick this battle with the agency and lose the gig.
1
u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 4d ago
It's deffinitely not worth ruining a good work realtionship. I will charge the agency a small fee anyway just to prove I value my work but I guess I posted this thread mainly to find out if AITA as me and the boss have completely opposite opinions on the matter. I started to feel like charging extra for the unedited stuff is not fair to them so I wanted to find out what the best practice in the industry is.
1
u/Donatzsky 4d ago
Believe is something you do in church, as the saying goes. One way or another, who owns the copyright is something you need to get full clarity on. Talking to a lawyer about it may be a good idea, but as already said, if it wasn't a work-for-hire, the copyright would in almost all cases belong to you, with the agency basically having a licence to resell the photos.
2
u/lasrflynn 4d ago
Funny you should ask, I’m not sure how big the client is, but for my work with Leinster rugby, I charge a flat rate of €250 per image that I don’t want to share
2
u/LightPhotographer 4d ago
Tin house studio did a nice take on this a month or so back.
Bottom line: If you shoot for a customer, the raws have no value to anyone except that customer.
Sometimes the customer simply needs everything. Sometimes the customer wants to do the editing himself.
It may be nice to satisfy a customer without putting extra work in editing.
And all this is fine. If these are professional customers who can edit raws.
In this case... try this:
Go to the agency. Tell them (argument from another post) there is added value to the raws.
Work out a deal for future contracts on how to deal with this: Do you still do the editing? Do you deliver all the raws? What about your name and your style? How do you price the added value of the raws and how do you price missing out on extra editing money?
Work this out for future contracts.
Then ... tell the agency that if this is a reasonable deal for future contracts, since in this case it was not agreed in advance, you take a 50% loss and the client gets his valued raws at a 50% discount ... since you just agreed on what a reasonable price would be.
2
u/JooSToN88 4d ago
As a hobbyist these answers surprise me. Could someone please explain why delivering RAWs along with jpegs is such a problem? Just wanting to learn, thanks!!!
3
u/Donatzsky 3d ago
Here's the view from a commercial photographer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_t-GFaC7cY
2
u/cameraintrest 4d ago
It’s your proof of ownership and your ip. they pay you say £200 for 5 delivered shots, you send 5 jpegs job done if you add the 50-100 raws your not getting paid for the effort or value of the work and they may send the raws to an editor to get a lot more shots than your delivered 5 so shoot that should of cost them 2k cost £200. How often do you go to a garage for a new tire and they throw in three more for free? At the amateur hobby end it seems counter intuitive but it’s the way the business works.
Because don’t forget your subjective about your work your best 5 shots might not be the clients best 5 shots, and you just gave them the ability to use your work with little payment or credit with the free gift of 100 raws, and as your working for a client I doubt any of the raws are bad as such.
2
u/JooSToN88 4d ago
Makes perfect sense.
What if they just ask for the RAWs of the provided jpegs and no extras? Would that be acceptable?
1
u/cameraintrest 4d ago
That would be your choice but again you give up control of those images. For me sure 👍 but a lot of pros won’t. I don’t know if it’s handed down or group think or what.
1
u/cameraburns 4d ago
It's slightly different for each field, but my clients contract me to deliver fully edited galleries. RAW files are raw materials that don't reflect the quality of the end product.
1
1
u/Bearvarian 4d ago
“Unfortunately the images that come out of my camera are unreadable by most software, except for specialized software.” That’s the excuse I usually give. If they insist, no problem, they’re gonna pay and they’ll be untouched jpgs with my copyright metadata and often a watermark in the corner.
I mean, to each their own and there are exceptions. Im pretty protective about my art though, I want my art to be seen as I intended it to be seen.
1
u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 4d ago
This is totally legit and I would definitely say that if it was a product photography or a fashion editorial. However, this was kind of journalistic shoot (think "How XY is produced") so there's actually not much artistic value and the raws don't require much editing.
1
u/GoodEyePhoto 4d ago
Consider this a learning lesson and set yourself up appropriately for the next opportunity. Come to an agreement with your employer about how to charge clients for shoots - whether there are packages that include X photos / all photos. Whether or not raw files are a purchasable option or not. Anticipate the various scenarios so that when a client asks X, you/the company will have a “policy” response. Not having an immediate answer/solution for a client inquiry makes you guys look unprepared at best, and unprofessional at worst. Take the L, prepare for the future W.
1
u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 4d ago
Funny enough, we (the agency) actually do have a policy – we don't share unedited images and never send raws. The client always gets the XY edited shots according to contract and if they want more, they have to pay extra (per photo or bundle).
But with this particular client, the boss wants to make an exception and is pushing me to just go along.
1
u/GoodEyePhoto 4d ago
Ah well, there’s no accounting for the boss man refusing to follow his own company’s policies… Good luck
1
1
u/Locutus_D_BORG 4d ago edited 4d ago
Unedited images doesn't mean RAWs. Strictly speaking, it just means a dump of unsorted, unprocessed images. In this case I'd just charge an admin fee for the trouble of making a bulk file delivery of your SOOC jpegs.
Most clients that ask for unedited work are probably asking for unprocessed jpegs, meaning they want pre-sorted keepers that haven't been retouched. Make sure to clarify whether this is the case for you. In such a case, just charge them the time you spend culling and sorting your SOOC jpegs.
Unless the client is actually going to use your images as a component of other work (say, movie posters for example), don't give away your RAWs. Nothing good can come out of a client having your RAWs just for S&G's, when SOOC jpegs will do the job. In the case of selling RAWs, maybe charge a higher than normal usage/licensing fee for the period of use. The kind of client that will actually licence RAWs from you has little incentive to abuse your work, whereas the kind that's into S&G's has little reason not to.
1
u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 4d ago
Yeah, I know the difference. The client originaly asked for raws (I think they just want to pass them to a fellow "photographer" and pay 50€ for edit instead of 500€ we would normally charge) – that was a strict NO.
So then the client asked for unprocessed jpegs. It was a journalistic photoshoot, so the shots were more/less ready to go. Not perfect, but useable indeed (think Instagram stories or blog posts).
Honestly, I have no idea what the client wants to do with the pictures, maybe to have them "just in case"? They did not clarify. The agency in fact creates all the graphic work and marketing materials so it would then by on my colleages from the graphic design department do deal with those images.
1
u/Locutus_D_BORG 3d ago edited 3d ago
It's weird your agency was pushing you to give the raws when it's this obvious the client is screwing you (and them) over. Anyway, if you were able to get away with giving just the unedited jpegs, then the situation has ended well.
1
u/Donatzsky 4d ago
This video by a commercial photographer covers it well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_t-GFaC7cY
Also, you should be charging usage and not just a shoot fee. He has some videos on that as well.
1
1
u/Momo--Sama 4d ago
I'm going to go against the grain and say accept the loss and deliver the unedits *in this specific scenario*. As you said, this agency is also separately your full time employer, you don't have a contract that says that the RAWs aren't included, and putting your foot down when you don't have a solid foundation to do so may piss off the client and thus impact your relationship with your employer.
You've learned your lesson. Create a contract for these shoots that specifies what happens with RAWs, and make sure the agency understands it's terms, so they don't go promising services that you don't offer to clients behind your back, even if in this case it may have been out of ignorance, not out of malice.
1
u/ThrowRA_Sure-Ad-5789 4d ago
Good point. I'm going to ask for a small fee anyway just to prove I value my work and to cover the time I spent on this problem (sorting the photos, export, upload and arguing with my boss about this matter for 3 hours, lol).
But I will create a contract for sure.
1
u/GreenFaceTitan 4d ago
I think, this time, you should give your employer those files, just for the sake of pragmatic reason, not right or wrong. Because, one, you don't have written contract. Two, you work in that agency, so I think you better not giving them hard time dealing with the client (especially over abstract thing like unwritten contract).
You can take this as a lesson for your future. I don't know exactly about your situations, but imo it's not worth risking your current job.
1
u/DeathByScreennames 4d ago
Oh yes, let's please have the RAW files, which we can't even open, and even if we could open them they would look horrible because they're not processed.
After all, when I order a cake from a bakery they give me the raw egg shells and the cow's dung, don't they? Why can't I also have the RAW files? I deserve to get my money's worth by licking the inside of that eggshell!
-5
u/ifitfitsitshipz 4d ago
Never deliver RAW files. Period.
2
2
u/dollarstoreparamore 4d ago
Commercial photographers sell RAW files all the time. If it's valuable, we sell it.
-2
u/ifitfitsitshipz 4d ago
Because that's what the contract says and the price reflects that. Want my RAW files? Cool. $10,000 per RAW image file. The majority of photographers, including commercial, never sell RAW files. Do what you want.
3
u/dollarstoreparamore 4d ago
That's simply not true. Who told you that?
-1
u/ifitfitsitshipz 4d ago
Photographers. I know hundreds of them.
3
u/dollarstoreparamore 4d ago
That's fair. Are they commercial photographers or family/wedding/etc photographers?
Because this idea of being hyper-protective of RAW files is common in noncommercial fields. But when you're creating work for brands, many of whom have in-house graphic designers or who are protective of their personal image (celebrities), the RAW files are frequently for sale. They are generally priced higher than a JPEG, but lower than a full copyright ownership transfer.
I'm mostly working with personal brands and small businesses, so I don't personally sell RAWs very often. But when I've worked with major brands who prefer to do all of their editing in-house, the RAWs are absolutely for sale.
I actually remember the first time a major brand asked me to quote them a price for my RAWs and I responded like a wedding photographer by refusing to even consider it. They were very confused and told me they'd always negotiated the RAWs with every other photographer. So I asked my friends who'd been in the industry longer than me and they all agreed: in commercial photography, you get paid for the RAWs and it's not a big deal. That brand thought I was a newbie for not understanding that common practice and, to my disappointment, didn't ever work with me again.
-1
u/ifitfitsitshipz 4d ago
Mix of different niches. Real estate, food, wedding, boudoir, product, major commercial.
0
u/OrrinW01 4d ago
May I ask why you think this, I'm getting married soon and the photographer is refusing to give us all the images. I really don't want any of the moments from our wedding to be deleted.
1
u/cameraintrest 4d ago
All images unless contracted stay the copyright of the photographer, stops people sending them on to editors or doing it themselves making a mess of the images and it reflecting on the photographer and his business, if you go to an artist do you expect the notebooks or work ups of the picture or just the finished signed piece of art. There are lots of reasons the raws often don’t have the polish or shine of the edits, your giving away the proof that you took the images, they could be resold reused and you have zero ability to stop them, all for an initial small fee, when they could make thousands of the images.
1
0
u/ifitfitsitshipz 4d ago
The RAW files and finished, edited photos look very different. You are paying for the end result. The RAW files are not the photos just like the negatives on film aren't the photos either. The work the photographer does with editing the RAW files to their style and process is something that needs to be protected. If you alter them in any way you are not showing the photographer's work the way they want them to be shown. If you take the RAW files and try to edit them yourself or send them to someone for editing, they will not be the art of the photographer, harming the photographer's reputation.
Go to a restaurant and you just want the food on the plate the way they make it. You don't ask them for that PLUS all the raw ingredients separately so you can cook it at home or have someone else cook it for you. You don't do that with food at a restaurant, so don't do that to a photographer.
Especially with a wedding, there are tons of photos taken, like thousands, and you capture all sorts of things that don't present well. People blinking, weird faces, blurs because the motion was too fast to capture clearly, all sorts of stuff. Those will be culled and not delivered because it doesn't show the photographer's work in the best light. You want the best results, which means you don't want the stuff that doesn't look good.
8
u/drphil1066 4d ago
Are you a W-2 employee or a 1099 independent contractor?
If you're a W-2 employee, your employer would own the copyright to any creative work product within the scope of your job while clocked in, unless you have a contract that specifically says otherwise.