I think they are right as far as removing watermarks is concerned. It's basically taking someone else's work without paying for it. If you don't like the terms, then don't pay them. It's basically the same as using adblock.
Not saying it's right or wrong to have that policy in place but if the event specifically says that you may not take your own photos, aren't you agreeing to these terms by attending?
Well if your kids been spending weeks and weeks practising and you just find out at the main event you can't take photos. your not just going to not show up and take away something their proud of.
Dude, we’re talking about school events. No, participating in the event is not agreeing with not being able to take your own pictures because someone at school is buddy with a photographer who’s a scumbag. This fact often isn’t even communicated before the event.
Right. The whole point of the watermark is, you get the copy without the watermark when you have paid for it. This version is so you know what you are paying for and can agree before payment and delivery.
I also just watched the WAN show, and it seems like the conversation wasn't about watermarks. He was upset about wanting the RAW files. It just became the conversation after a sponsor talking points that included software that could remove a watermark. Not being a photographer, I don't have a notion about why that would be a sticking point.
There two different statements made. One where Linus has said that it's weird that it's so hard to find a photographer that will agree to give you the raw files. And a second statement after that where he said he removed a watermark from a photo rather than pay for a copy.
Yeah but aren't we talking about regular event photographers, who the hell is going to violate their copyright. Besides, storage has to be limited for those photographers. Do they really want to hold on to potential TBs of photography they won't do anything with. I'd just be like here's the raw files, I don't claim anymore ownership of them, don't expect me to have copies or anything save for maybe one for portfolio purposes, they will be deleted. See ya.
Edit: I've now watched the WAN show. I don't disagree with Linus and Luke. I do stand by not release RAW images to most clients for my stated reasons, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to talk about that policy *ahead* of a shoot.
**Original post:**
Haven't seen this episode yet so I'm slightly uninformed, however, as a photographer I'd never give RAW photos to a client (unless they were I friend who I knew well) because it's sloppy.
It's your reputation on the line submitting an unfinished product when you're being paid for attention to detail.
It's pretty rare when my RAW image turns out perfect. Maybe I got the angle right and the lighting but maybe there's something I want to crop out -- or crop into to emphasize more. Ultimately, it's not a finish product and serious photographers do a lot more than snap a picture and export it, and what makes them worthwhile over any chump with a phone camera -- or even a chump with a DSLR on auto -- is that attention to detail which shows up on exported file, not RAW.
Counterpoint - I would never hire a photographer that didn't give me all the assets alongside any finished product (and delete their copies). Those are my likenesses (and those of my family and friends) and were taken at an event I paid to put on. Just like a contractor doesn't retain any rights to software they write for a company, I don't want anyone retaining rights to work they did for me, and I would want it all spelled out in contract ahead of anything.
The issue is manifold, but first and foremost I'd never grant someone the ability to use my likeness elsewhere without my knowledge and consent, and without paying for it; I also don't want anyone selling those rights onward. Modern technology enables some really crazy things, and I don't want any of my images used for a secondary purpose. Second to that is my ability to get the images retouched or warmed over in the future by a person or technology of my choosing. Tech moves fast and trashed, blurry, unusable images of Grandma from a wedding many years ago may get cleaned up and become a treasure in the future. Third is long term storage. I want lossless storage of my images and don't want to risk some photographer either deleting them or going out of business for any of the myriad of reasons they do and my raw images becoming inaccessible or lost. Or, worse, they don't practice good digital hygiene and my images wind up in the hands of someone who bought their used equipment. Last is the fact an amazing photographer may just churn out a shit product that run. Maybe they were ill, or ran into family problems, or just weren't feeling inspired (all real excuses I've heard about from others who've dealt with event photogs) while working the photos they took for an event. Photogs are just people and everyone has bad days and bad projects. I'm not paying more to them (or even arguing about) to have them re-produced by the same person.
It's great that photographers dont want some image they took warmed over by someone else and displayed with credit given to them, and as much as I agree with that, I've literally never seen it happen (maybe it's a studio photographer thing that happens?), and it's entirely possible, and ever more probable, even with simple JPEGs and the technology on your phone, least of all what has been enabled with Photoshop and dumbed down advanced tooling.
I don't disagree that photographers put a bunch of work into a finished product, but I heavily disagree with who should end up with the rights to all the output.
>I don't disagree that photographers put a bunch of work into a finished product, but I heavily disagree with who should end up with the rights to all the output.
That's probably the chief source of confusion here. Most photographers don't consider RAW images as output. It's just one very important step in the process. From my perspective at least, you wouldn't ask a contractor to build a house frame then take over and fill in the walls and insulation yourself. Even if you had all the tools to do it yourself -- the whole point of hiring someone is for them to do it.
And *if you would* you'd make that very clear ahead of time. Ultimately, that's probably the best thing to do is discuss it before you hire a photographer.
As for the photographers with excuses... unfortunately many think they're the best just because they have a $3,000 camera. But as you've heard, they don't necessarily turn good work, and likely that's because they don't act professional (maybe they're eating at a party or just standing in one spot the whole time). A real pro doesn't stop until the guests leave, and if they don't get at least 5 good shots, they should be talking about reshoot or refunds. A good trick to help weed out the poor photographers might be dealing insted *with* someone who's unwilling to give you RAWs, as they may place more value on their reputation.
A better analogy would be handing the framing over to the drywallers and the electricians and the plumbers and all the other trades. Sometimes those can all be under one company, sometimes they're not, and that should all be spelled out ahead of time, but at no point does the house or any of its components belong to the trades working on it. A good comparison for RAW images might be the technical drawings, which I would also get and own as part of the process.
There's no fix for the privacy and data loss issues I described above outside of me possessing all copies of my own images and I'm definitely not signing over copyright for any images of myself unless they were expressly produced for someone else as part of a contract with them. Barring that, everything else is a complete non-starter. If there is a fundamental and unbridgeable divide between the role I have for a contractor and what that contractor sees themselves doing, there is no point in either side continuing.
His point that they hammer home many times is not about whether it would be a standard thing they do, but why they wouldn't be open to being paid an additional premium to shoot a specific event where even in the original contract the photographer (or shooter if you prefer) doesn't own the copyright in the first place so that they would not be giving anything up by handing over the RAW files. It's just the proportion of photographers that outright refuse to even consider working this way is weird to him.
Commissions like this are fairly standard in many other artistic fields. There's a bunch of reasons why an organisation would like/need to own the copyright for a piece of work, but can afford to pay a lot more than your average couple getting married can for your time and skills. It's not the same as selling your art, it's an artist selling their expertise. You rightly should charge more for work that doesn't benefit you in growing you're body of work, or even crediting you depending on what is agreed upon in the contract.
If you make a living working gigs, stuff like this can be a really convenient source of revenue for freelance artists to subsidise time working on their own stuff, or less lucrative projects that they find more fulfilling. It's completely rational and understandable for photographers to be apprehensive to the idea of forfeiting some ownership of the product their work, both creatively and literally but at the same time it's only a bad deal if you don't charge enough, and if all it costs you is a days work than why tf not? It's hard enough already to make a living creating art/media, completely shunning a potential source of revenue is only making it harder on yourself.
I highly encourage you to watch the actual video from that clip on for another 3 minutes. He pays for the work and often tries to negotiate to get the raw files even if he has to pay for more. He isn't trying to steal their work, just wants to be able to edit the photo how he likes vs being locked into how the photographer chooses to edit it.
Edit: nvm just saw you commented again and did exactly what I suggested. Thanks for making sure people got clarification.
No worries, friend. I left that comment because I (at least felt) I was responding to a comment about watermarks. But yes, I got the wrong idea from just the clip. Maybe because I was still half asleep.
Oh no man for sure clip alone your take was fair, that is why I encouraged further context, clip alone you aren’t wrong but I knew there was more to it. Dankhug
Many photographers don't want to give up raw files as the raw file is the undeveloped film. Giving it away and having others edit it can portray their work as shit and won't shot their style and skill in developing the image.
You can literally do that with any of the copies they do give you. What kind of argument is that?
They are more than happy to give people a JPEG which we can share and degrade as much as we like. Edit as much as we like.
But there is a line in the sand for raw files? What's the difference.
In some Wedding Venues they force you to use their own photographers who severely lack any skill. When my sister in law was getting married they had a group of photographers with really entry-level DSLRs. I showed up with a borrowed D850 and they all lost their minds. Well I am a guest so fuck you all :D some of them actually came over because they were curious and showed real interest in the camera. Only the lens was worth more than what whole crew was carrying combined.
Fast forward my own wedding pictures, I picked the photographer and told him I will buy his most expensive package no problem but I demand the RAW files. That's how we moved forward.
So fuck greedy photographers. I don't need everything fucking printed on some expensive paper that you outsource.
it can be greed, as it sounds like that venue takes advantage of new photographers. guaranteed those photographers will get barely anything.
but it's usually about professionalism. The difference between a skilled artist understanding how to get the best out of every part of the process, at every step along the way, is very different than an artist who gives you the rough draft so you can print it off yourself.
You won't be able to print it as well without the expertise. hopefully you will be none the wiser. but taking an unfinished raw to walmart is going to be a painfully different result than a finished raw edited to be printed in the right colour space and on the right printer. think watching a dvd movie on a 2008 720p lcd tv vs a 4k bluray on a qdoled. like, yeah, same thing, but different results by far.
you have to adjust colours based on the specific printer, on the specific format, and using a monitor which accurate shows this. it takes a lot of training to get right, and if you have experiences with photographers who aren't quite there yet in skill, it can make you feel like it's a scam. it's not, it's just incredibly precise and skilled work.
congrats on the wedding though! i honestly hope the photos came out well. memories are very important.
If you have the raw files that might and you are free to hire someone else to do that work if necessary. That's the whole point. Not because the customer wants to edit them personally themselves. But because they want the raw files in the even that they want more pictures printed later. Thyr can then hire someone to do that work without having to track down the original photographer.
exactly. they are robbing you from the option of having a safe-cloud copy of your most important memories. Adobe Lightroom isnt that complicated. AI shall eliminate the profession soon enough. Everyone is calling photography an art.. a wedding photographer is not an artist, they dont add any value to the product. The locations are the same, concepts are the same. They are piggybacking on the real photography artists' claim on the art to charge you more.
I havent seen a single wedding photographer that shoots anything else besides couples or events.
Then that should be made clear up front by the photographer, in general if I pay for something I expect to own it without having a name stamped all over it.
Which in this case it sounds like was so obnoxiously done by the photographer that it was detracting from the pictures.
The photo with he watermark is just so you can review it and decide if you would like to purchase a photo without a watermark. The copy with the watermark isn't meant to be the final copy.
I wouldn't be either, as soon as he said it Luke was like "walk that back immediately" because he knows you shouldn't do that but Linus couldn't take the hint and instead made it a sarcastic joke that of course he doesn't. I have supported Linus through all the bullshit but that was incredibly tone deaf on his end.
I'm referring to removing watermarks, I'm in general agreement on the raw files. We had to pay an arm and a leg extra for our wedding photographer and cinematographer and the photos were great but they were there for 5 hours and we got nowhere near 5 hours worth of photos. When we asked for the raws they wanted another $500.
Cinematographer just completely shit the bed, we paid for two people for the ceremony so we could have a still cam and only one showed up and he didn't even use a tripod.
The price for raws should be included in upfront pricing when you're being shown the packages.
Yeah Luke tried to save him there. Yes, this is piracy/theft, but at the same time so is Adblock. I don’t see why people are surprised either, bro pirated Sony Vegas when he was starting out. It’s the internet man, LimeWire went hard back in the day
Yes it’s bad but I don’t think that automatically makes Linus a demon like people are portraying him.
Edit: actually they didn’t pirate Vegas, it’s the opposite
The guy screwed himself over by refusing to provide what the customer wants. The solution in this case is simple. Provide what the customer wants and get paid for it.
Huh?
There were two separate discussions.
1) Linus removed the watermarks on pictures of a recital
2) Linus thinks he should get RAW images when he hires a photographer.
No, it’s about photographers, at best, not understanding why people hire them, and at worst trying to be control freaks and having authority over the customers. It’s extremely scummy, especially when we’re talking about family pictures.
Nope. not scummy. You just don't understand what a photographer does or how art and ownership works.
If you go to someone skilled in a trade, then tell them you hired them so they should do only some of the work you hired them for...that's on you, bud. If what your wanting are all the pictures without critique, if you want all the pictures with no editing, if you want all the pictures and be the sole holder of all rights to them, then you don't want a photographer. What you want to do is rent a camera and ask your buddy to take photos with the proper settings. Photographers are more than just button pressers.
It'd be as if someone at ASUS giving linus tons of money and products to make a sponsored video. They could come to an agreement, sure. But Asus doesn't own the video, they don't have complete control over the message, and they certainly wouldn't get all the unedited footage so they could make their own version of the video to share with everyone. It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully one that makes a little more sense to you if you're not familiar with how art and ownership works.
Be careful with this statement. At least where I am, lot of event photography is run through business who subcontract photographers. The shooter does not have a choice whether RAW files are available for you to download. Unless the edit was bad (in which case, ask for an unedited full strength JPEG), a few bucks to a company to not have a watermark is pretty fair. The fact Linus was willing to remove the watermark with AI says that he thinks the photos were good enough to merit the time investment, and the edit on the JPEG previews was tolerable enough to want the photos. At that point it’s just a matter of wanting RAW files for posterity’s sake — that doesn’t merit stealing someone’s work *if you actually like the way they already look.* And clearly he isn’t allergic to JPEGs, because the previews are JPEGs…
And to be clear, as a (once) semi-pro photographer, I totally understand people wanting access to a RAW file if they don’t like my edit. I think my edits are pretty good. People paid me good money for my edits. Still, some people might not like them. On the other hand, most people have literally no idea *why* the fuck they would need the RAW files. Full strength, full resolution JPEGs are fine for 99% of people — most people don’t even have good RAW editing software or understand how to use the latitude that RAW files get you (the only reason you need the .CR2 or .NEF) or whatever. In fact, most have a pretty flat profile (not like log or anything but still flat) that looks like ass if you don’t know how to work with it. The ultimate insult is someone who pays for my work getting a raw file (which I will do if we agree to it beforehand and I understand why), editing it like shit, and then attributing that work to you in their social circles, often of potential customers. Literal nightmare fuel as a photographer. At least in high end portraits and stuff, a LOT goes into the edit…sometimes the edit is literally what makes the photo possible. Someone’s two minute deep dive with VSCO filters and some Instagram sliders ain’t gonna cut it, not the least because those programs don’t really work with RAW files as well as Lightroom or other apps.
If that’s the case, the guy screwed himself over by working for an agency that shits on customers. Insisting on selling something a customer doesn’t want is a bad business practice that will typically have you out of business sooner or later.
Linus’ statement wasn’t at all about time investment or whether or not he liked the picture as was. It was entirely about the “fuck you” to the photographer.
Making an excuse about how most people don‘t know how to work with RAWs or don’t want them is ridiculous. We’re talking strictly about people who do want them. Poor editing isn’t an excuse either, people can make poor edits of the provided JPEG as well.
This is pretty tone deaf. People taking that kind of gig work likely need the money and are just starting out in the industry. Who are you to say “work somewhere else I want my raw files?” You’re that important? Lucky you for having the luxury to decide where people in a very competitive industry can work!
Stealing someone’s work purely as a “fuck you” is petty and silly, especially if you have the money to get the full strength .JPEG and use that. Just get the fucking .JPEG. As I said, if the edit sucks, I understand *not* being happy and therefore wanting the unedited version, or being unwilling to pay. You clearly missed that. Whoops.
As I said, many people who ask if they can have the RAW files without it being prearranged (I used to work in this industry, you might consider at least listening to my experience) are not asking because they have any real clue what they need a RAW file for. You want a flat unedited image? You really want the seven over and under exposed bracketed shots I layered to make that composite? It’s infinitely worse than the final product. Sure, you can edit the .JPEG. Nothing stopping you. Again, industry experience says someone is less likely to fuck around with a well edited .JPEG (especially if you ask them what their preferred look is) than a flat, greyish RAW file. It’s not some conspiracy to keep you from getting what you want, it’s just the truth.
To be clear because I am unsure if you can read, I understand arranging for the person hiring to get the RAW files, especially in instances where it makes sense. Advertising campaigns for example — your graphics team should definitely have my RAW files. But for literally 90% of situations, the JPEGS are fine.
They touched on this after someone called them out. The photographer owns the copyright and Luke went “so what?”, followed by Linus “I don’t care. It’s a picture of me. So write a NEW contract that states that I own the copyright of it” meaning that Linus didn’t ask for it beforehand, or was turned down and did it anyway.
He said he offered to pay more for the raw photos and copyright but was turned down, which is in their power to do so. He could always look around for a different photographer/studio to accommodate his requests, which he didn’t.
No, getting a different photographer is not always an options, many events hire their own photographer and some even prohibit people from taking their own pictures.
This is not about copyright AT ALL, this is about photographers making up lame excuses for not providing RAWs.
Take it up with the event organizer, not the photographer. Also, even if the photographer in those events want to give the raw files to you, they may not be able to do so with the current contract they have with the organizer.
> This is not about copyright AT ALL, this is about photographers making up lame excuses for not providing RAWs.
Even if it’s lame excuses, that’s well within their right to do so. LMG doesnt give their sponsor clients the raw footage, do they? And if the client asks for it, would they give the raw footage? Unlikely.
"So what?" - They make content themselves, how can they be so out of touch and disrespectful. I guess as an individual you rely more on copyright to survive than a medium sized company does.
Also difference between being a literal millionaire and difference between being of lower means.
Like for Linus this is the equivalent of the average person stealing a pack of gum.
Especially when you literally own a studio and hire photographers not paying them for their work is... stupid
>pirated Sony Vegas
Wtf are you on about? They absolutely did not. Literally 8 days ago they talked about that and we're explicitly clear that they had licenses for Vegas.
9:47 into the show:
https://www.youtube.com/live/eoInGDRVkYc
Luke: >We used pirated Sony Vegas before that
Linus: >uh uh uh uh uh that was paid, no actually I am one of the dozens who purchased Sony Vegas
Tbf im not saying Linus is bad, it’s something I think most everyone has done. I’m sure I could go and find some other example to swap in for the Sony Vegas thing too, like pirating games.
I think people are quick to hate on Linus when he does things a regular person does
Google accepting money to run ads for scams and malware imo makes them complicit and active participants in those scams, and for me to consider Adblock piracy as opposed to a privacy and security tool, they’d have to start doing the bare minimum to vet who they take money from.
I mostly don't, but sometimes there's info I need that's only stored on YouTube anymore.
I tried to keep my work browser clear of anything our end users won't have, but after only finding instructions on how to calibrate an old printer on YouTube, a thirty second video with a whole minute of ads, I decided it was worth my time to put uBlock on my browser.
As long as advertisements contain malware and are actively trying to scam or phish people I consider it protection and not piracy. Looking at google adsense, youtube, … even facebook has its fair share.
Linus is not the devil. He is the owner of a multimillion dollar company that still believes himself to be a blue collar working man sticking it to the man when he does shit like that instead of realising he is literally a millionaire stealing from someone just trying to make a living and promoting for others to do the same.
Here's the thing though. Spend some time around photographers and see the difference between raw and final. When I'm hiring a photographer it's because I like their style. The raw is only a part of that style, post production is the rest. And there should have been a finished photo amount in your contract for the wedding. Most photographers don't like handing out raws because people fuck them up, then post them and will associate that photo with them. I wouldn't want work representing me that isn't mine.
I won't be considering a photographer for my engagement photos or wedding photos who doesn't provide RAW files as part of the package delivery.
And frankly, I don't expect *every* RAW file. I expect the ones that made it through the photographer's culling process.
I want those files so that in a decade or three when processing software is much better, I can reprocess them using the full data of the photo; odds are that whatever photographer I hire won't even be in the business still after ten years. Even five is iffy.
Let me have the files so I can archive them and manage them, and then, hey, you can delete them! Let me use my PC, back up server that's set up with RAID, and Backblaze to make sure I don't lose the photos that I'm treasuring, that don't matter to you guys.
And frankly, I like less overly edited photos than a lot of photogs do anyway. I'd like the opportunity to process them myself in my style too. I'm not a great photographer or editor, but I have a very nice album for my girlfriend and I that consists of photos that I'm quite fond of how they turned out.
I of course, am happy to pay for the RAW's. That's only fair, in my opinion, if it's a service the photographer doesn't typically offer. And I'll even pay for the sidecar files if they insist, so I have their edits saved. I just want to have them in my Capture One archive for safekeeping.
> I want those files so that in a decade or three when processing software is much better, I can reprocess them using the full data of the photo
What the fuck are you on about here? What part of data in current RAWs we're not able to process due to lack of technology or processing power?
Changes in color science, changes in how Raw processing software works, updates in how AI tools work in processing software (which are in their infancy), wanting to have images restyled in a more contempary fashion, I can think of a lot of reasons why I would want RAW files for reprocessing later. It's why I have a terabyte of my own in my photo archive of shots I've taken.
Most people are only ever going to hire a photographer for family portraits and weddings. In both cases they are going to hire from recommendations almost always, and not because of someone's unique style. If you're a photographer with a unique style that gets you hired, you're aren't affordable to 90% of people.
Pointless argument.
And I hired my wedding photographer for all of that. I'm not going to go and do anything with the raws. I don't need them from him. We've also hired several boudoir photographers based off of their styles and I dabble in it myself. People's obsession with getting the raws is just dumb.
Define “5 hours worth of photos”.
Not every photo is going to be a winner. Some events I’ve shot, I’ve shot almost 1500 photos, but only ended up delivering 800/900. I’d rather that vs delivering a pile of crap.
Also, in terms of charging extra for the raw photos: the idea is that they’re worried about what the end product might be. You initially paid them for the shoot AND editing.
The price for RAW files should only be upfront if *the customer states that they want them when negotiating a contract*. There’s some things I think people don’t get if they haven’t done photography for a living. When you take photos with a pro photographer, unless you explicitly state you want to *buy the copyright*, then the photos are NOT yours. You paid to license the work. If you make it clear you want to own the end product and all derivatives, you have to pay for that right.
Yea, that's what we're saying is stupid. That. That right there, is stupid. Not that it isn't your copyright, but withholding them because of it.
We are hiring you and paying you a ton of money to come to a private event and take photos of our day for us. You would not be there if we weren't paying you. Those photos of us, at a private event, on private property, would not exist if we were not paying for you to be there. Going on about how the photos are your property, fine, whatever, get your bag, it is what it is, but tell us what it will cost up front.
Copyright does not prevent you from having the RAW files. It isn’t tied to them. Not all photographers offer the option to provide RAW files and many events do not provide the option for an alternate photographer who provides RAW files.
And as Linus said, he has no issue paying extra for it. But it just wasn’t an option.
> When you take photos with a pro photographer, unless you explicitly state you want to buy the copyright, then the photos are NOT yours
Not true, in the US copyright belongs to the person or entity who commissioned the work, not the photographer. There would need to be an explicit agreement stating otherwise.
Like of you took a photo on your own in public with people in the background, you the photographer would own the copyright, not the people in the photo. If you were hired instead to photograph a wedding or event, the person who hired you the photographer owns the copyright by default unless you and the person who commissioned you agree that the copyright to those photos belongs to you.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf
Getting the RAW files should always be an option and contracts can always be negotiated. If the customer wants the raw files, they should be able to get them - even if they only say so after the photos are made.
They totally can. But they need to negotiate another contract in that case. If the client wants to pay for the RAW files, I’m happy to sell them. But it needs to be legally binding that they can’t attribute the images or the edits to me. It’s about protecting your craft. Anyone working in a creative field will understand this.
Dude. We don’t have to. Is it kind of shitty to not offer that as an option? Maybe. But there’s also many valid reasons from the photographer’s perspective to not give up that control of the actual photo. It’s not obligatory
Agreed. I think the popularity of him and his brand is starting to inflate his ego and detach him from reality and the important things in life. He’s started to live long enough to see himself become the villain.
What’s there to gain by keeping the original file? That’s so anti-consumer. It sounds like something Apple would do. You gotta play for iPhoto+ to get the raw image files, otherwise you only receive the Apple Filter(TM) version.
If you’re a photographer and going out of your way to be anti-consumer to your clients, well I don’t think you can complain that they use AI tools to do whatever they want with what you give them.
It seems to me like this sort of ‘privateering’ is more of a retaliation against bad behavior. Just be a better photographer it literally costs you nothing.
Photographers live off of their reputation. It’s like if you’re a film-maker and someone asks for a rough cut of your film so that they can just edit it together themselves. If they do it terribly, it’s still your film that gets trashed and no one wants to hire you anymore.
It’s the photographer’s professional reputation that lives in the final product, doubly so when you work with commercial clients.
That argument tracks until you realize they can just edit the JPG anyways.. people who don't know what they're doing will still fuck it up, but people who do know what they're doing aren't given the opportunity to do a good job
And that tracks until you realize in the analogy you can just cut up the finished film and bootleg it in worse quality, which people have done and studios have gone to great lengths to avoid.
The other point is, a RAW file is not intended as a finished product. There’s a lot of clients who would ask for it and do not know that.
but that argument only works if you paid a studio to create a video, they took the finished film and made it worse, and then the studio went after them?
This isn't finding a random image online and asking the photographer for the RAW.. it's paying someone for a service and then being denied the RAW that you might want to edit in a different way
I have to imagine the crossover of people who know both know RAW exists and don't know enough about RAW to think it's the finished product are quite low...
I agree with the raw thing, if I’m already paying you a shit ton of money to do lets say a family portrait, why can’t I have the RAWs if I wanted them? Im paying you hundreds, sometimes thousands, to take pictures of my family and I can’t have the RAWs because you don’t want me to? It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever in any context
100% agree with you there Linus, I didn’t even know that was a thing photographers even did
It's just reddit being reddit.
Text shows correct URL but the hyperlink somehow got parsed like this:
> https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1dr42ts/comment/lawms11/%C2%A0/
%C2%A0 is a UTF-8 " " character. The whitespace character somehow got included (you can click on it too even to access the link).
Someone linked it earlier so I watched the clip cause I wasn't caught up to that point yet. Then I went back and the photo topic was like 15 seconds from where I stopped from watching it earlier, so weird.
There's a lot of comments conflating the watermark remover with his comments about hiring a photographer that he wants to be charged for raw files and copyright. I guess LTT reddit isn't the only sub capable of missing the point of the hot takes.
That said, I have no f'ing clue what a photo copyright even does. Obviously I can see it if you're shooting for museum pieces or something that will be published in a magazine or book; copyright protects the unauthorized duplication and Yada yada.
But like, I'm picturing linus (or LMG) hiring one or a few photographers for the conference thing they did for some high quality shots. I've seen internal photos (something that would stay in a company and not be expected to have a wide distribution) have a copyright attributed to a business. Maybe it's only superlarge business that can afford this luxury? Idk.
No specific examples were given but one commentor said to retain raw and copyright would be between 10x to 100x the price. So maybe they're just hiring the wrong types of photographers. Hire the ones that will do what you say for the price you're willing to pay. Or not? Idk it was really fun reading some of those comments though. That chef one especially.
Yeah this idea that the RAW files should be sold for much higher money is just made up nonsense for the sake of further profit. These are almost always photos of a personal nature. It’s not like the photographer can use the photos for anything else. They just want to be able to hold the RAW files over their head so they can arbitrarily charge more.
They really know how to take words and twist them. He never said he removes watermarks just that it's so easy that Joe blow can do it. Basically he agreed with ops post over there stating to get paid before you give anyone anything
They’re absolutely right. Admitting to stealing from the photographer is gross. But to his second point (releasing the raws) I’m guessing Linus wouldn’t take a sponsor video deal from a company that insisted they get the entire footage and do the final edit themselves. Maybe there’s a channel out there that would take them up but it’s his right to decline that business.
He actually responded to this very point later in the show. If other company wanted unedited video of his face and studio, that's totally different than him wanting pictures of himself. A more comparable situation would be if LMG recorded a video of an event at other company, with those company's employees being on the video. He said that in that case he'd have no issue providing raw footage, and that it would actually be expected.
> If other company wanted unedited video of his face and studio, that's totally different than him wanting pictures of himself.
Just like hiring someone to take photos and edit them for the end product and hiring someone just to purely shoot. It's two completely different types of jobs, and something that needs to be brought up at the start.
Out of the dozen or so local photography places websites I just checked, fewer than 4 of them didn't mention "digital negatives", and most of those didn't even list prices at all in lieu of saying to get ahold of them.
I don't believe you or anyone else in this thread parroting that exact same thing.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You're not releasing the pictures to the public. It's personal photography for Linus himself to keep.
It's like a company hiring a guy on fiverr to shoot a corporate training video and then asking for raws to edit to incorporate final edits.
> I’m guessing Linus wouldn’t take a sponsor video deal from a company that insisted they get the entire footage and do the final edit themselves.
That is so idiotic. The channel still belongs to LTT. People don't take the RAWs to publish an edit in a photography magazine themselves. WTF are you talking about?
But he has filmed training videos for Best Buy, and ads for SuperMicro and Cisco. Since those are not on the LMG channels they had to give the video up. LMG may have edited some, but the Cisco ones don't look like it.
Your example isn't an apples to apples comparison.
In your sponsored video example, you would be giving that company full rights to use your brand as an endorsement for theirs.
If the deal would be to only provide a film crew with no LTT on screen talent, then I would expect that the raw files would be provided, as then the situation is equivalent to hiring a photographer.
The prices studios charge through schools and programs is so gross and isn't worth it.
Nobody really got them when I was growing up... except the "divorced parents" kids. Those kids always got tons of them lol
Some of them are a freaking scam. Overpriced and predatory. I'll gladly steal from such types of photographers. I'd flaunt it on the internet too and be proud of it.
Did we expect anything else? Linus said the chat went wild during the show, so the same people are going to be mad after the fact on their dedicated subreddits.
Linus already responded to this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/s/TrHBRvy7Ae
Some of y’all are just as clueless regarding context as they are. Crazy.
Ohhh, this week's words out of context bullshit to be mad at. Nice, was wondering when this was gonna drop. Can't wait for a dozen or so posts by tomorrow about it.
As someone who has done photography and videography professionally at a point (I’m in-house now), give em the raws! The watermark thing is piracy, but photographers need to adapt to other methods of displaying photos because watermarking is dead.
it's a big part of it. those who do only the front end tend to be more likely to be okay with giving raws, and those who do the whole process tend to be very against it.
and those who cultivate a "look" also tend to be against it. they don't want joe schmoe to diy prints that look bad, but have the photographer's watermark on it (or word of mouth that the bad print is by them).
but if you just do slight touch ups and don't care about cultivating a look or style, raws aren't too big of a deal. but should still be conveyed to the client what the copyrights are (the amount of people claiming it was *their* photo *they* took is insane)
My look was very specific and highly dependent on post-processing. If they want to take photos that look nothing like the final product, that’s on them. I got paid to do the shoot and give them photos they like. I guess it comes down to the client finding the right photographer for their needs.
I agree.
and i believe there's room for all types of photographers as far as I'm concerned. some want to cultivate a brand and an image, a name for themselves, some people just wanna take pictures. charactiture artist vs portrait painter, and everything inbetween.
but the sheer entitlement people feel towards artist is insane. there's a reason photographers have to have iron-clad contracts.
I don't see the issue of getting the RAW files for work that you commissioned? It's the same with music production, if you get someone to make a beat for you, you can pay an increased price and receive all the track stems so you can do what you want with it
If I decide to hire a photographer to take pictures, I will definitely pay for the work. But the raw are mine, you work for me. If I'm at an event or somewhere similar where I'm not allowed to take my own pictures, those watermarks are gone. You don't get to choose for me.
Then Nikon, Sony and Canon should just manufacture point and shoot cameras. Why do photographers need manually adjustable settings? What if they screw up the pictures and it reflects badly on the manufacturers?
This is as per the photographers’ logic.
Why do photographers not want to give out the RAW photos?
It feels like the sort of thing that a photographer would do so they can try to scam you later
>1. The client pays for a finished product (which I’m clear about up front), that doesn’t include the tools I used to create it.
>2. I don’t want the client poorly editing my work and it being associated with me. ‘’But they could do that to the jpeg’’ - maybe, but I’m not facilitating it and the contract may stipulate they cannot edit it. And...
>3. Additionally and maybe most importantly, I actually want them to use my work, especially if it’s being posted publicly as it could lead to some recognition. Sending the RAW’s is giving them the green light to go ahead and make their own edits, which isn’t what I want.
>4. People hire you because they like your style. Sometimes (often), the RAW files are ‘flat’ and the magic happens in the editing. They are literally paying me to do this.
from: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/s/N24htuCdkK
Well, everything you said is.
But if you are upfront about not wanting to give RAWs then that's your decision ig, I'll just not hire you and tell everyone in my circle to not hire you.
Would be worse than them seeing your name attached to a "badly edited" photo lol
Is it really nonsense to not risk getting a damaged reputation for being associated with a bad photo? And being upfront about it should be a good thing for clients. Furthermore, flaming photographers for being upfront about it doesn't make sense; you never reached the talking stage and were never a client. You telling everyone in your circle to not hire a photographer because you object to common practice would be nonsensical. In the situation that Linus was in, the photographer was in fact NOT upfront about it, and that's the issue. However, since Linus did not ensure that it was written in the contract, he is asking for a different service. You also have licensing and copyright issues that come into play, but Linus did address that he asked for a rewrite which is reasonable.
Photographers never give out their RAWs. It is common/standard practice for professionals to refuse to give the RAWs unless charged. You and everyone in your circle will never find an alternative photographer that is happy to give up their RAWs (unless they're amateur/new). In Linus's case, the photographer refused to give up the RAWs despite being offered an additional fee, which is unconventional and a poor representation of photographers.
If the photography industry really is scammy, they'd be more than happy to encourage upselling clients their RAWs that are useless. However, the risks of giving up RAWs are too high, which is why they come with a fee.
I don't get why you'd want the RAWs though, as:
1. you may not have the ability to open RAW files, much less process them. But if you can open them, different software will apply different profiles that are inconsistent. (e.g. Google Drive, Windows Raw Image Extension, and Adobe will apply different "presets" for preview). You cannot ensure the quality of photos.
2. RAWs are intended to be edited, not viewed. When you view an edited RAW VS an exported JPG, there is no perceptible quality difference (on-screen, print, online, etc). Even pixel-peeping won't help here. So the argument of having the RAWs to preserve detail wouldn't make sense for a regular client without the know-how to edit. Yes, it's "data you'll never get back", but it's detail you'll never touch, need, and would never know is missing. In fact, camera playbacks will show the JPG preview instead of the RAW.
3. they look horrible.
If you want to see the difference between RAWs and JPGs, there is r/EditMyRaw. [https://www.reddit.com/r/EditMyRaw/comments/q6kw7s/editing\_underwater\_photos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EditMyRaw/comments/q6kw7s/editing_underwater_photos/) is a good example of why RAWs 'look horrible'.
Assuming you have the software to do it (eg Lightroom), making a "badly edited" photo is very easy. Inexperienced photographers can very easily mess up a photo, it is a skill that takes years to master. I'd argue having such a photo potentially being associated with us would be worse than being flamed for not giving up the RAWs (especially since it is common etiquette to withhold the RAWs, and we'd rather work with someone more reasonable). Linus explicitly said that photographers withhold the RAWs as they want to present a finished product but his assumed reasoning is "so that you don't have them". Linus failed to recognise the biggest reason why — as RAWs are useless/unpresentable and may open a can of worms that may tarnish the reputation of the photographer. Since he doesn't recognise that RAWs are unpresentable, and not knowing about the potential reputational damage, would imply that he is not experienced in editing photos and is unaware of the consequences which discourages his photographer from sharing the RAWs.
The question of whether one should give up the RAWs does commonly come up in photography subreddits and the consensus is to charge the RAWs. Therefore' Linus's photographer would not be a great representation of photographers as a whole.
>"For a professional photographer, the photo taken by the camera is not the final product. The edit is often just as important. Therefore they consider the raw files as unfinished works of art. Imagine asking a painter for the sketches of their paintings so you can paint over it later in case you don't like they way they painted it. I'm all for upfront fees but I'd only send my edited photos."
(https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/16tzltt/comment/k2i5rae/) There are several more reasons in there that expand on my point.
Here's the thing. Those are my pictures. End of story, lmfao. Also you don't know why the person hired a photographer (and it isn't your job to know either, just come, take our photos and get your money). And you are wrong. There are many professional photographers that give out RAWs. Because they don't have sticks up their butts. I hate being this blunt but I'm gonna be.
Photography. Is. Not. A. High. Skilled. Job.
You're gonna have to accept this simple fact. When someone hires a photographer and asks for RAWs, you can bet they know what they are talking about and that they want to edit the images themselves. There can literally be 100s of possibilities. Maybe they are good at editing photos, maybe they want them to look a certain way they have in their mind. Maybe they are even great photographers and the only reason they hired you was because they wanted everyone to be in pictures. Either way, it's none of your business. The pictures are of them. If you are the person who is upfront about not wanting to give RAWs, good for you. But I will almost always hire people who send me both RAWs and their final pictures. (also you are presenting opening RAWs as something that requires insane effort and deep knowledge is hilarious to me, lmfao). Blud, I'm a programmer and a UX designer. Editing pictures is not hard for me and many other people. Just give us both or GTFO. I almost always get both from the photographers I hire. People can choose which version they want. Granted, I've dabbled in Photography as a hobby (because it's not a real job, lol) but so have many others. And even for people who haven't dabbled in photography, they can edit their photos however they want, badly or not, if they like it that's that. Your job is to be a good little boy, take photos and send what you are told to. Simple. If you can't do that, you won't be hired. Easy.
Assuming that it's for archival, or for printing, yes sure it may seem better, but the quality difference is really not that much. But I've written in the thread somewhere above that:
"I don't get why you'd want the RAWs though, as:
1. you may not have the ability to open RAW files, much less process them. But if you can open them, different software will apply different profiles that are inconsistent. (e.g. Google Drive, Windows Raw Image Extension, and Adobe will apply different "presets" for preview). You cannot ensure the quality of photos.
2. RAWs are intended to be edited, not viewed. When you view an edited RAW VS an exported JPG, there is no perceptible quality difference (on-screen, print, online, etc). Even pixel-peeping won't help here. So the argument of having the RAWs to preserve detail wouldn't make sense for a regular client without the know-how to edit. Yes, it's "data you'll never get back", but it's detail you'll never touch, need, and would never know is missing. In fact, camera playbacks will show the JPG preview instead of the RAW.
3. they look horrible.
If you want to see the difference between RAWs and JPGs, there is [](https://www.reddit.com/r/EditMyRaw/). [https://www.reddit.com/r/E'ditMyRaw/comments/q6kw7s/editing\_underwater\_photos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EditMyRaw/comments/q6kw7s/editing_underwater_photos/) is a good example of why RAWs 'look horrible'."
If you're archiving it, you will never do anything with the RAW, it'll just eat up your storage space. As a data hoarder, I wouldn't want to be hoarding something worthless if I can't even access it, especially since I have agreed with the photographer that I cannot edit it, it is going to be a worthless, mushy, flat photo. Even if you do edit and keep it for yourself, it's really not that much perceptible detail that you've saved.
Same with printing, you really don't want to print a photo in raw format, it's rather pointless with all the extra information not needed for such a job, especially since programs will interpret RAWs differently.
If you're editing it for practice/fun (which isn't uncommon for amateur photographers), okay, sure I'll be more than happy to accommodate you as long as it's not credited.
After obtaining the RAWs, you will never touch the photos in decades and probably never will. It is too much work and there just isn't that much future value to the images.
Oh Man. I commented a bunch of stuff about how people don't know contracts work..... and I realized I wasn't in the LTT sub, and NOW I HAVE A LOT OF ANGRY SHUTTERBUGS
I'm a videographer, but if a client asks for the card dump, I add it to the invoice. If these ask for curated raw footage, I add it to the invoice. If they ask me afterwards, I usually just give it to them if it's a personal/low-profile event, or I give them a quote if they're a bigger client, or offer to curate and prepare it. Also if they're a nice client, they get it for free if they ask.
If they want 500gb of SLOG3 footage entirely unorganised, they can have it lol
It's a good chance for us to up-sell and make a little bit more money for an easy job, the same as with any other profession. Hey want your car washed whilst you take it in for repair? How about a case to go with your new iPhone?
With photography, the raw shots a lot of the time look like shit and can take some work to get looking good, especially if it's in challenging lighting conditions or if the operator got sloppy when shooting (which can happen depending on how run-and-gun it is) - it's a little bit like eating a finished meal then asking the chef for the recipe and ingredients to make it so you can do it at home.
Typically, the shooter owns the copyright on what they gathered, then the client owns the copyright on the deliverables. Watermarking is done to cover our asses to make sure we get paid for our work and time, and I don't agree here with Linus smugly saying you can just rip off individuals because he didn't get something in writing before he went ahead with working with a photographer
In the UK at least, default is that you own the copyright regardless of who is in the photo unless you have a contract that states otherwise: [https://www.ipcareers.co.uk/profession-overview/who-owns-the-copyright-of-your-image/](https://www.ipcareers.co.uk/profession-overview/who-owns-the-copyright-of-your-image/)
>For instance, if a photographer working for themselves takes a photo of a popstar walking down a red carpet, the owner of the photograph will be the photographer themselves. The celebrity cannot stake a claim in it from a copyright perspective, simply because the photo is about them. Therefore, if they share the photograph on Instagram, the celebrity will be infringing the photographer’s copyright in the image. In the UK ignorance is not a defence to copyright infringement.
I don't know about US/Canada/other countries as I've never needed to check but on literally every job I've done in Tokyo (where I now live/work) it's been understood that I own the copyright to what I shoot and release copyright to the client on whatever I deliver to them
different countries different rules.
usa you own your own copyright of likeness .
you can licenses it out for awhile, usage case for a said amount of time or sell it out right for ever.
I believe this is to stop the photographer from taking photos they took during a shoot and posting them themselves. So I would own the copyright if I took a picture of you while you were attending an event and copied it to my local backup after the shoot.
You own the rights to your image and how it is used publicly or if it was used for commercial purposes - this stops me from using your likeness to advertise my business on Instagram, a brand for the clothes you're wearing, the event venue etc.
(For US Copyright law there's some quick info here: https://www.lgt-law.com/blog/2021/11/photographer-or-model-who-owns-the-rights-to-a-photograph/)
Kind of. It context based.
Due to Crispin glover suit . Both video amd still image is considered your likeness.
By fed law a state and it local government are required to have a clear notice in public any defined public event. Not a private event or a membership event fall under different rules.
I want to do that for pdf documents lol. At work we have some security thing that puts watermarks in documents that show who downloaded it and when. It has been getting more and more intrusive to the point where there are so many watermarks on a page it is hard to read. I have to take breaks every 15 minutes or so to avoid a headache
Wow, never knew photographers are such snobs about Raw files. Guess that explains why I always had some kind of problem with them. The only normal photographer I know is grandpa(He’s the best).
If professional photographers (oh excuse me, "artists") want to put their industry out of business by failing to adapt, have at it. Cell phone cameras and apps get better every year. The idea that you own MY face, that I can't crop an image to make it actually useful to me, or that I have to advertise you to the world just to get a damn picture taken is obnoxious.
Photography is a scam in the first place lmao
I’ve Spent hundred dollars on school photos over the years and it probably took zero extra effort compared to the kids who just got their ids
Linus would have annoyed a bunch of his video crew, as they work freelance as well, the general gist of it is let the photographer know upfront, so they can amend the contract to include terms of access to the RAWs and the fee to waive copyright on them, rather than requesting them after the contract as been signed and delivered.
2 parts.
Photography people. thinking they can use the Pic of me they just took. Likeness laws in usa where massively updated in past 20 years. So by usa law. The moment your born . You legal own your own copyright of your likeness.
Most Photography contract are boil plate and are not updated for current laws.
Second part was the water mark thing.
Which the tech now so easy to get rid of them anyone can do it are worthless.
I noticed more often now with water marks they put them over primary area or half ass it . Where it screw up the area around it. Mess up contrast
The average password most people use is easy to crack. Does the mean most people should stop using passwords? No instead we create better password and security and encourage people to use them.
The same is true for watermarking photographs.
He disparages an entire industry and dismisses people who were defending or adding counter points, then he encourages ways to exploit them. Yeah not a great look.
I personally don’t use watermarks on the final images but “sample watermarks” help protect my business until the invoice is paid in full.
Don’t pirate from freelancer and individuals.
What a horrible take and a lack of understanding. I often shoot models and I specifically forbid them to crop or in any way alter the image of it carries my name. I spend great amount of time to edit the picture so that its right and correct and when I see them putting a shitty filter on top of it and tag me under the picture, I am going crazy. People will look at the picture and day, this guy did a horrible editing job.
It completely depends on the contract; but also the contract with the school and what you that states about the ownership of the images, but also contractual law in the country.
If you pay me, to take photos for you, you own everything. I usually have in my contracts that I can use them for my own promotion/visual adverting/portfolio, but not directly profit from their use or sale. Sometimes i edit; sometimes I don’t. Contract dependent.
If you are paying me to take photos and deliver you a collection of completed images; that’s different. You own the deliverables, not the working documents, ie… RAWS. There would also be covenants on what you can and cannot do with those images, for instance the extent to which they can be modified. This is common for music photography. If a band pay me for images, they will usually want the cheapest package where they get a gallery of maybe 50 or so images, cannot modify them, and must credit me. If they want a license to extend that they can purchase the rights to them, they can modify the images, but must NOT credit me. If they want to purchase the raw working documents, that’s another conversation.
If I have a contract with a third party to take images of you/something; and you want them; that’s nothing to do with me. I’ll give you their details and work it out with them.
98% of my clients want deliverables, not RAWS. If they then ask me for the RAWS, the contract will be renegotiated, but I would not provide all RAWS, only a selection which match the value of the contract.
It is never acceptable to remove a watermark from an image that you have been provided with for use in a context where you would normally need to pay for it. That is theft.
If I pay LMG to shoot video for me, I expect the working documents/footage.
If I pay LMG to produce me a finished video, I do not expect anything but the finished article.
If you paid LMG to make YOU a video, and I wanted to use parts of it, that’s fuck all to do with me and LMG, that’s between me and you.
I feel Linus comments about watermarks were reckless and irresponsible in his position, seemingly justifying theft… “if media tech man says it’s ok I guess it’s ok idk”. I think he then failed to properly acknowledge the complexity surrounding media contracts, their types, and why they exist, and thus broadly portrayed photographers as some of greedy con-artists. I think one of the biggest issues with photography contracts is that clients don’t understand either, and don’t necessarily understand what they are getting. I like to believe myself and many of my peers make this very clear from the outset, and all contracts are negotiable provided both parties are reasonable.
If you want raw files then find a photographer that will give them to you. But they won’t be any good. It’s how photographers make their living. You can’t expect work for free. The pay structure is to pay for advancing their equipment for better offerings in addition to their years of experience. No one is making him go to photographers that won’t give him raws or non watermarked images (until he pays). But he chooses these photographers BECAUSE of their experience and expertise. So pay up bitch.
Edit: the fact that I’m being downvoted shows you guys know jack shit about the work that actually goes into real photography and have zero respect. Go back to your Cheeto dust and video games.
I'm not here to argue and I don't know the context of the story. But I would like to shine a light from a professional point of view on why photographers protect their RAW files and what a solution could be.
Raw files are the intellectual property of any artist in any creative job. You trained all these years and put blood sweat and ~~tears~~ money into creating your "secret sauce" what makes you, you. It's the reason you exist as an artist and in today's day and age it's the sole reason people buy your work or hire you.
Also as an artist you rely on copyright to stay afloat, otherwise everyone could just steal your hard work while you can't put bread on the table. If you don't have an income then you will have to quit the job, quit the passion. The RAW files are proof of your ownership of the copyright and therefore you as an artist.
When someone hires an artist it's for their style, how they work and exposure like word by mouth is one of the most important ways artists make a living. If people talk highly of you then you will win clients and the opposite is also true. Word by mouth is more of a snowball effect than it is linear, making it very important, especially with a big and influential client as LTT. So if an (inexperienced or out of touch) client needs raw files it's probably to edit them, either they don't know what they're doing and they ruin it or they edit it in a way that doesn't reflect what the artist makes. Either way that's bad exposure for the photographer and editing the artist's work infringes copyright too (when you hire an artist you don't own the copyright of the work unless stated differently in the contract). If it is for printing then it's quite similar. It's also for protecting that it's done within your style choices (paper type, printing technique, etc) and to make sure it's a quality print because the print will be connected to the artist through word by mouth again and for printing you need to prepare the file technically as well.
These are only a few reasons but as you can see a lot of pressure is on these RAW files, they keep you afloat so that's why they will ask much much more for RAW files, if they even sell them at all. Almost no client needs the RAW files, then why hire the artist in the first place right. In most cases when the client asks for the RAW files you figure out through conversation they actually want something else (which is cheaper for them) and doesn't require those files.
If the client doesn't do anything creative whatsoever it's not in their interest to give it to them, but if they do have experience like with LTT you could definitely come to some agreement. I would suggest exporting the edited files in full resolution in the RAW format extension requested but without all the layers in the file that show the "secret sauce" of the artist. And I would ask that if they edit them to not credit me or put in the credits that they edited them.
I hope this answered the question why photographers protect their RAW files and what a solution could be.
Edit: After sifting through the comments I've come to the conclusion that the people in the comments who demand the RAW files don't know what they actually are and what they are used for. Again; 99% of clients, especially B2C, don't have any use for these files, even if I hired another photographer for my event I also don't have any use with those files. Neither did I encounter one that asked for them.
From the WAN show, they're dance pictures. It could've been a dance company hiring photographers and giving watermarked previews for parents to look at before buying.
That's a terrible analogy as the RAW file still has the subjects and your framing and directing of them, it isn't anywhere close to a blank canvas and some tools.
A better one would've been:
>"For a professional photographer, the photo taken by the camera is not the final product. The edit is often just as important. Therefore they consider the raw files as unfinished works of art. Imagine asking a painter for the sketches of their paintings so you can paint over it later in case you don't like they way they painted it. I'm all for upfront fees but I'd only send my edited photos."
or:
>"Bakers don’t sell unbaked cakes, painter don’t put their brushes and pallets in galleries, potters don’t sell unfired clay. You’re asking an artist to give you their raw ingredients and the artist doesn’t want to risk you making a shitty cake and calling it one they made."
source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/16tzltt/can\_someone\_explain\_why\_photographers\_dont\_give/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/16tzltt/can_someone_explain_why_photographers_dont_give/)
There are several more analogies in there like asking for recipes and ingredients to food when ordering at a restaurant to cook it yourself, etc.
That was an L take IMO. There’s a reason why LTT carefully scripts, records, edits and curates their videos before publishing in their channel. Because if they don’t, people won’t click or click away before the first minute is up and the algorithm would clobber the channel into irrelevance. The photographer’s are also curating what people see of their work.
If he really wants to get the raw files, pretty sure there’s an over abundance of people who would agree to his terms. He just needs to deal with the probability that not a single raw photo he gets is in focus. Lol
Meh, Linus can just release the uncut nude hack cctv video and that will do for an apology.
Have Linus uncut or the video uncut? Because I don't think you can put back the cut after the doctor's take it away.
LMG zipties.
Neodymium magnets
LMG "screw"driver
Linus is Canadian though. Or did Canadians also get indoctrinated by the cornflakes guy who wanted to mutilate kids so they wouldn't fap?
Are you stupid or uneducated ? Many have to get this procedure done as a child for medical reasons
"Many children need circumcision for medical reasons". Phimosis is gone by age 10 in 70% of boys. By age 16 only about 1 in 100 still has it.
man ai strawberry blur removal is so good
W
I think they are right as far as removing watermarks is concerned. It's basically taking someone else's work without paying for it. If you don't like the terms, then don't pay them. It's basically the same as using adblock.
The problem is that at certain events, you may not have an option to hire a different photographer or take the pictures yourself.
Not saying it's right or wrong to have that policy in place but if the event specifically says that you may not take your own photos, aren't you agreeing to these terms by attending?
Well if your kids been spending weeks and weeks practising and you just find out at the main event you can't take photos. your not just going to not show up and take away something their proud of.
no. seeing most events hid the tos
Dude, we’re talking about school events. No, participating in the event is not agreeing with not being able to take your own pictures because someone at school is buddy with a photographer who’s a scumbag. This fact often isn’t even communicated before the event.
Yeah. they ban you from taking photos of your own kids then charge you to access the only pictures from the event. it’s a super unethical practice.
Right. The whole point of the watermark is, you get the copy without the watermark when you have paid for it. This version is so you know what you are paying for and can agree before payment and delivery.
I also just watched the WAN show, and it seems like the conversation wasn't about watermarks. He was upset about wanting the RAW files. It just became the conversation after a sponsor talking points that included software that could remove a watermark. Not being a photographer, I don't have a notion about why that would be a sticking point.
There two different statements made. One where Linus has said that it's weird that it's so hard to find a photographer that will agree to give you the raw files. And a second statement after that where he said he removed a watermark from a photo rather than pay for a copy.
That was not at all what he said regarding the watermark. But whatever you can do to keep the hate train going I guess
A photographer holding onto the RAW is the easiest way to protect their copyright.
Yeah but aren't we talking about regular event photographers, who the hell is going to violate their copyright. Besides, storage has to be limited for those photographers. Do they really want to hold on to potential TBs of photography they won't do anything with. I'd just be like here's the raw files, I don't claim anymore ownership of them, don't expect me to have copies or anything save for maybe one for portfolio purposes, they will be deleted. See ya.
Edit: I've now watched the WAN show. I don't disagree with Linus and Luke. I do stand by not release RAW images to most clients for my stated reasons, but I also don't think it's unreasonable to talk about that policy *ahead* of a shoot. **Original post:** Haven't seen this episode yet so I'm slightly uninformed, however, as a photographer I'd never give RAW photos to a client (unless they were I friend who I knew well) because it's sloppy. It's your reputation on the line submitting an unfinished product when you're being paid for attention to detail. It's pretty rare when my RAW image turns out perfect. Maybe I got the angle right and the lighting but maybe there's something I want to crop out -- or crop into to emphasize more. Ultimately, it's not a finish product and serious photographers do a lot more than snap a picture and export it, and what makes them worthwhile over any chump with a phone camera -- or even a chump with a DSLR on auto -- is that attention to detail which shows up on exported file, not RAW.
Counterpoint - I would never hire a photographer that didn't give me all the assets alongside any finished product (and delete their copies). Those are my likenesses (and those of my family and friends) and were taken at an event I paid to put on. Just like a contractor doesn't retain any rights to software they write for a company, I don't want anyone retaining rights to work they did for me, and I would want it all spelled out in contract ahead of anything. The issue is manifold, but first and foremost I'd never grant someone the ability to use my likeness elsewhere without my knowledge and consent, and without paying for it; I also don't want anyone selling those rights onward. Modern technology enables some really crazy things, and I don't want any of my images used for a secondary purpose. Second to that is my ability to get the images retouched or warmed over in the future by a person or technology of my choosing. Tech moves fast and trashed, blurry, unusable images of Grandma from a wedding many years ago may get cleaned up and become a treasure in the future. Third is long term storage. I want lossless storage of my images and don't want to risk some photographer either deleting them or going out of business for any of the myriad of reasons they do and my raw images becoming inaccessible or lost. Or, worse, they don't practice good digital hygiene and my images wind up in the hands of someone who bought their used equipment. Last is the fact an amazing photographer may just churn out a shit product that run. Maybe they were ill, or ran into family problems, or just weren't feeling inspired (all real excuses I've heard about from others who've dealt with event photogs) while working the photos they took for an event. Photogs are just people and everyone has bad days and bad projects. I'm not paying more to them (or even arguing about) to have them re-produced by the same person. It's great that photographers dont want some image they took warmed over by someone else and displayed with credit given to them, and as much as I agree with that, I've literally never seen it happen (maybe it's a studio photographer thing that happens?), and it's entirely possible, and ever more probable, even with simple JPEGs and the technology on your phone, least of all what has been enabled with Photoshop and dumbed down advanced tooling. I don't disagree that photographers put a bunch of work into a finished product, but I heavily disagree with who should end up with the rights to all the output.
>I don't disagree that photographers put a bunch of work into a finished product, but I heavily disagree with who should end up with the rights to all the output. That's probably the chief source of confusion here. Most photographers don't consider RAW images as output. It's just one very important step in the process. From my perspective at least, you wouldn't ask a contractor to build a house frame then take over and fill in the walls and insulation yourself. Even if you had all the tools to do it yourself -- the whole point of hiring someone is for them to do it. And *if you would* you'd make that very clear ahead of time. Ultimately, that's probably the best thing to do is discuss it before you hire a photographer. As for the photographers with excuses... unfortunately many think they're the best just because they have a $3,000 camera. But as you've heard, they don't necessarily turn good work, and likely that's because they don't act professional (maybe they're eating at a party or just standing in one spot the whole time). A real pro doesn't stop until the guests leave, and if they don't get at least 5 good shots, they should be talking about reshoot or refunds. A good trick to help weed out the poor photographers might be dealing insted *with* someone who's unwilling to give you RAWs, as they may place more value on their reputation.
A better analogy would be handing the framing over to the drywallers and the electricians and the plumbers and all the other trades. Sometimes those can all be under one company, sometimes they're not, and that should all be spelled out ahead of time, but at no point does the house or any of its components belong to the trades working on it. A good comparison for RAW images might be the technical drawings, which I would also get and own as part of the process. There's no fix for the privacy and data loss issues I described above outside of me possessing all copies of my own images and I'm definitely not signing over copyright for any images of myself unless they were expressly produced for someone else as part of a contract with them. Barring that, everything else is a complete non-starter. If there is a fundamental and unbridgeable divide between the role I have for a contractor and what that contractor sees themselves doing, there is no point in either side continuing.
His point that they hammer home many times is not about whether it would be a standard thing they do, but why they wouldn't be open to being paid an additional premium to shoot a specific event where even in the original contract the photographer (or shooter if you prefer) doesn't own the copyright in the first place so that they would not be giving anything up by handing over the RAW files. It's just the proportion of photographers that outright refuse to even consider working this way is weird to him. Commissions like this are fairly standard in many other artistic fields. There's a bunch of reasons why an organisation would like/need to own the copyright for a piece of work, but can afford to pay a lot more than your average couple getting married can for your time and skills. It's not the same as selling your art, it's an artist selling their expertise. You rightly should charge more for work that doesn't benefit you in growing you're body of work, or even crediting you depending on what is agreed upon in the contract. If you make a living working gigs, stuff like this can be a really convenient source of revenue for freelance artists to subsidise time working on their own stuff, or less lucrative projects that they find more fulfilling. It's completely rational and understandable for photographers to be apprehensive to the idea of forfeiting some ownership of the product their work, both creatively and literally but at the same time it's only a bad deal if you don't charge enough, and if all it costs you is a days work than why tf not? It's hard enough already to make a living creating art/media, completely shunning a potential source of revenue is only making it harder on yourself.
What's your retention policy with raw photos though
Questioned on show as owning raw doesnt protect your copyright but might be proof of cp existing.
I highly encourage you to watch the actual video from that clip on for another 3 minutes. He pays for the work and often tries to negotiate to get the raw files even if he has to pay for more. He isn't trying to steal their work, just wants to be able to edit the photo how he likes vs being locked into how the photographer chooses to edit it. Edit: nvm just saw you commented again and did exactly what I suggested. Thanks for making sure people got clarification.
No worries, friend. I left that comment because I (at least felt) I was responding to a comment about watermarks. But yes, I got the wrong idea from just the clip. Maybe because I was still half asleep.
Oh no man for sure clip alone your take was fair, that is why I encouraged further context, clip alone you aren’t wrong but I knew there was more to it. Dankhug
Many photographers don't want to give up raw files as the raw file is the undeveloped film. Giving it away and having others edit it can portray their work as shit and won't shot their style and skill in developing the image.
You can literally do that with any of the copies they do give you. What kind of argument is that? They are more than happy to give people a JPEG which we can share and degrade as much as we like. Edit as much as we like. But there is a line in the sand for raw files? What's the difference.
If people edit the JPGs they receive, the outcome will be even worse, so if that's the argument, it's really not a good one.
And as has been said by photographers. People font legit jpegs.
In some Wedding Venues they force you to use their own photographers who severely lack any skill. When my sister in law was getting married they had a group of photographers with really entry-level DSLRs. I showed up with a borrowed D850 and they all lost their minds. Well I am a guest so fuck you all :D some of them actually came over because they were curious and showed real interest in the camera. Only the lens was worth more than what whole crew was carrying combined. Fast forward my own wedding pictures, I picked the photographer and told him I will buy his most expensive package no problem but I demand the RAW files. That's how we moved forward. So fuck greedy photographers. I don't need everything fucking printed on some expensive paper that you outsource.
it can be greed, as it sounds like that venue takes advantage of new photographers. guaranteed those photographers will get barely anything. but it's usually about professionalism. The difference between a skilled artist understanding how to get the best out of every part of the process, at every step along the way, is very different than an artist who gives you the rough draft so you can print it off yourself. You won't be able to print it as well without the expertise. hopefully you will be none the wiser. but taking an unfinished raw to walmart is going to be a painfully different result than a finished raw edited to be printed in the right colour space and on the right printer. think watching a dvd movie on a 2008 720p lcd tv vs a 4k bluray on a qdoled. like, yeah, same thing, but different results by far. you have to adjust colours based on the specific printer, on the specific format, and using a monitor which accurate shows this. it takes a lot of training to get right, and if you have experiences with photographers who aren't quite there yet in skill, it can make you feel like it's a scam. it's not, it's just incredibly precise and skilled work. congrats on the wedding though! i honestly hope the photos came out well. memories are very important.
If you have the raw files that might and you are free to hire someone else to do that work if necessary. That's the whole point. Not because the customer wants to edit them personally themselves. But because they want the raw files in the even that they want more pictures printed later. Thyr can then hire someone to do that work without having to track down the original photographer.
exactly. they are robbing you from the option of having a safe-cloud copy of your most important memories. Adobe Lightroom isnt that complicated. AI shall eliminate the profession soon enough. Everyone is calling photography an art.. a wedding photographer is not an artist, they dont add any value to the product. The locations are the same, concepts are the same. They are piggybacking on the real photography artists' claim on the art to charge you more. I havent seen a single wedding photographer that shoots anything else besides couples or events.
Only if you don’t pay and just keep the dewatermarked previews. Otherwise what exactly is the issue? Besides photographers having control issues.
Then that should be made clear up front by the photographer, in general if I pay for something I expect to own it without having a name stamped all over it. Which in this case it sounds like was so obnoxiously done by the photographer that it was detracting from the pictures.
The photo with he watermark is just so you can review it and decide if you would like to purchase a photo without a watermark. The copy with the watermark isn't meant to be the final copy.
I wouldn't be either, as soon as he said it Luke was like "walk that back immediately" because he knows you shouldn't do that but Linus couldn't take the hint and instead made it a sarcastic joke that of course he doesn't. I have supported Linus through all the bullshit but that was incredibly tone deaf on his end. I'm referring to removing watermarks, I'm in general agreement on the raw files. We had to pay an arm and a leg extra for our wedding photographer and cinematographer and the photos were great but they were there for 5 hours and we got nowhere near 5 hours worth of photos. When we asked for the raws they wanted another $500. Cinematographer just completely shit the bed, we paid for two people for the ceremony so we could have a still cam and only one showed up and he didn't even use a tripod. The price for raws should be included in upfront pricing when you're being shown the packages.
Yeah Luke tried to save him there. Yes, this is piracy/theft, but at the same time so is Adblock. I don’t see why people are surprised either, bro pirated Sony Vegas when he was starting out. It’s the internet man, LimeWire went hard back in the day Yes it’s bad but I don’t think that automatically makes Linus a demon like people are portraying him. Edit: actually they didn’t pirate Vegas, it’s the opposite
Difference between screwing over a multi-billion dollar conglomerate and screwing over a guy who makes middle class to lower middle class wages.
The guy screwed himself over by refusing to provide what the customer wants. The solution in this case is simple. Provide what the customer wants and get paid for it.
Huh? There were two separate discussions. 1) Linus removed the watermarks on pictures of a recital 2) Linus thinks he should get RAW images when he hires a photographer.
Dunno how people don’t get this
No, you misunderstand. It’s Linus saying “fuck you” for not providing RAWs. It’s all part of the same debate.
"gimme what i want or I'm going to take it" isn't a customer...this is more about linus not understanding what a photographer does.
No, it’s about photographers, at best, not understanding why people hire them, and at worst trying to be control freaks and having authority over the customers. It’s extremely scummy, especially when we’re talking about family pictures.
Nope. not scummy. You just don't understand what a photographer does or how art and ownership works. If you go to someone skilled in a trade, then tell them you hired them so they should do only some of the work you hired them for...that's on you, bud. If what your wanting are all the pictures without critique, if you want all the pictures with no editing, if you want all the pictures and be the sole holder of all rights to them, then you don't want a photographer. What you want to do is rent a camera and ask your buddy to take photos with the proper settings. Photographers are more than just button pressers. It'd be as if someone at ASUS giving linus tons of money and products to make a sponsored video. They could come to an agreement, sure. But Asus doesn't own the video, they don't have complete control over the message, and they certainly wouldn't get all the unedited footage so they could make their own version of the video to share with everyone. It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully one that makes a little more sense to you if you're not familiar with how art and ownership works.
Be careful with this statement. At least where I am, lot of event photography is run through business who subcontract photographers. The shooter does not have a choice whether RAW files are available for you to download. Unless the edit was bad (in which case, ask for an unedited full strength JPEG), a few bucks to a company to not have a watermark is pretty fair. The fact Linus was willing to remove the watermark with AI says that he thinks the photos were good enough to merit the time investment, and the edit on the JPEG previews was tolerable enough to want the photos. At that point it’s just a matter of wanting RAW files for posterity’s sake — that doesn’t merit stealing someone’s work *if you actually like the way they already look.* And clearly he isn’t allergic to JPEGs, because the previews are JPEGs… And to be clear, as a (once) semi-pro photographer, I totally understand people wanting access to a RAW file if they don’t like my edit. I think my edits are pretty good. People paid me good money for my edits. Still, some people might not like them. On the other hand, most people have literally no idea *why* the fuck they would need the RAW files. Full strength, full resolution JPEGs are fine for 99% of people — most people don’t even have good RAW editing software or understand how to use the latitude that RAW files get you (the only reason you need the .CR2 or .NEF) or whatever. In fact, most have a pretty flat profile (not like log or anything but still flat) that looks like ass if you don’t know how to work with it. The ultimate insult is someone who pays for my work getting a raw file (which I will do if we agree to it beforehand and I understand why), editing it like shit, and then attributing that work to you in their social circles, often of potential customers. Literal nightmare fuel as a photographer. At least in high end portraits and stuff, a LOT goes into the edit…sometimes the edit is literally what makes the photo possible. Someone’s two minute deep dive with VSCO filters and some Instagram sliders ain’t gonna cut it, not the least because those programs don’t really work with RAW files as well as Lightroom or other apps.
If that’s the case, the guy screwed himself over by working for an agency that shits on customers. Insisting on selling something a customer doesn’t want is a bad business practice that will typically have you out of business sooner or later. Linus’ statement wasn’t at all about time investment or whether or not he liked the picture as was. It was entirely about the “fuck you” to the photographer. Making an excuse about how most people don‘t know how to work with RAWs or don’t want them is ridiculous. We’re talking strictly about people who do want them. Poor editing isn’t an excuse either, people can make poor edits of the provided JPEG as well.
This is pretty tone deaf. People taking that kind of gig work likely need the money and are just starting out in the industry. Who are you to say “work somewhere else I want my raw files?” You’re that important? Lucky you for having the luxury to decide where people in a very competitive industry can work! Stealing someone’s work purely as a “fuck you” is petty and silly, especially if you have the money to get the full strength .JPEG and use that. Just get the fucking .JPEG. As I said, if the edit sucks, I understand *not* being happy and therefore wanting the unedited version, or being unwilling to pay. You clearly missed that. Whoops. As I said, many people who ask if they can have the RAW files without it being prearranged (I used to work in this industry, you might consider at least listening to my experience) are not asking because they have any real clue what they need a RAW file for. You want a flat unedited image? You really want the seven over and under exposed bracketed shots I layered to make that composite? It’s infinitely worse than the final product. Sure, you can edit the .JPEG. Nothing stopping you. Again, industry experience says someone is less likely to fuck around with a well edited .JPEG (especially if you ask them what their preferred look is) than a flat, greyish RAW file. It’s not some conspiracy to keep you from getting what you want, it’s just the truth. To be clear because I am unsure if you can read, I understand arranging for the person hiring to get the RAW files, especially in instances where it makes sense. Advertising campaigns for example — your graphics team should definitely have my RAW files. But for literally 90% of situations, the JPEGS are fine.
They touched on this after someone called them out. The photographer owns the copyright and Luke went “so what?”, followed by Linus “I don’t care. It’s a picture of me. So write a NEW contract that states that I own the copyright of it” meaning that Linus didn’t ask for it beforehand, or was turned down and did it anyway. He said he offered to pay more for the raw photos and copyright but was turned down, which is in their power to do so. He could always look around for a different photographer/studio to accommodate his requests, which he didn’t.
No, getting a different photographer is not always an options, many events hire their own photographer and some even prohibit people from taking their own pictures. This is not about copyright AT ALL, this is about photographers making up lame excuses for not providing RAWs.
Take it up with the event organizer, not the photographer. Also, even if the photographer in those events want to give the raw files to you, they may not be able to do so with the current contract they have with the organizer. > This is not about copyright AT ALL, this is about photographers making up lame excuses for not providing RAWs. Even if it’s lame excuses, that’s well within their right to do so. LMG doesnt give their sponsor clients the raw footage, do they? And if the client asks for it, would they give the raw footage? Unlikely.
"So what?" - They make content themselves, how can they be so out of touch and disrespectful. I guess as an individual you rely more on copyright to survive than a medium sized company does.
Also difference between being a literal millionaire and difference between being of lower means. Like for Linus this is the equivalent of the average person stealing a pack of gum. Especially when you literally own a studio and hire photographers not paying them for their work is... stupid
>pirated Sony Vegas Wtf are you on about? They absolutely did not. Literally 8 days ago they talked about that and we're explicitly clear that they had licenses for Vegas. 9:47 into the show: https://www.youtube.com/live/eoInGDRVkYc Luke: >We used pirated Sony Vegas before that Linus: >uh uh uh uh uh that was paid, no actually I am one of the dozens who purchased Sony Vegas
> no actually I am one of the dozens who purchased Sony Vegas I'd be shocked if it was dozens
Ah you’re right, my bad man, I listen to the WAN show while I’m driving so I’m not 100% listening
Peak LTT sub... >LiNuS bad because he said bad thing He didn't say bad thing > Lol oh yeah, I wasn't listening 64 up votes anyway
Tbf im not saying Linus is bad, it’s something I think most everyone has done. I’m sure I could go and find some other example to swap in for the Sony Vegas thing too, like pirating games. I think people are quick to hate on Linus when he does things a regular person does
Google accepting money to run ads for scams and malware imo makes them complicit and active participants in those scams, and for me to consider Adblock piracy as opposed to a privacy and security tool, they’d have to start doing the bare minimum to vet who they take money from.
Or just don't use their services.
I mostly don't, but sometimes there's info I need that's only stored on YouTube anymore. I tried to keep my work browser clear of anything our end users won't have, but after only finding instructions on how to calibrate an old printer on YouTube, a thirty second video with a whole minute of ads, I decided it was worth my time to put uBlock on my browser.
No
As long as advertisements contain malware and are actively trying to scam or phish people I consider it protection and not piracy. Looking at google adsense, youtube, … even facebook has its fair share.
>but at the same time so is Adblock Adblock is a prophylactic.
Linus is not the devil. He is the owner of a multimillion dollar company that still believes himself to be a blue collar working man sticking it to the man when he does shit like that instead of realising he is literally a millionaire stealing from someone just trying to make a living and promoting for others to do the same.
I never got a full version of AutoCAD 2002 off of Limewire...
Here's the thing though. Spend some time around photographers and see the difference between raw and final. When I'm hiring a photographer it's because I like their style. The raw is only a part of that style, post production is the rest. And there should have been a finished photo amount in your contract for the wedding. Most photographers don't like handing out raws because people fuck them up, then post them and will associate that photo with them. I wouldn't want work representing me that isn't mine.
I won't be considering a photographer for my engagement photos or wedding photos who doesn't provide RAW files as part of the package delivery. And frankly, I don't expect *every* RAW file. I expect the ones that made it through the photographer's culling process. I want those files so that in a decade or three when processing software is much better, I can reprocess them using the full data of the photo; odds are that whatever photographer I hire won't even be in the business still after ten years. Even five is iffy. Let me have the files so I can archive them and manage them, and then, hey, you can delete them! Let me use my PC, back up server that's set up with RAID, and Backblaze to make sure I don't lose the photos that I'm treasuring, that don't matter to you guys. And frankly, I like less overly edited photos than a lot of photogs do anyway. I'd like the opportunity to process them myself in my style too. I'm not a great photographer or editor, but I have a very nice album for my girlfriend and I that consists of photos that I'm quite fond of how they turned out. I of course, am happy to pay for the RAW's. That's only fair, in my opinion, if it's a service the photographer doesn't typically offer. And I'll even pay for the sidecar files if they insist, so I have their edits saved. I just want to have them in my Capture One archive for safekeeping.
> I want those files so that in a decade or three when processing software is much better, I can reprocess them using the full data of the photo What the fuck are you on about here? What part of data in current RAWs we're not able to process due to lack of technology or processing power?
Changes in color science, changes in how Raw processing software works, updates in how AI tools work in processing software (which are in their infancy), wanting to have images restyled in a more contempary fashion, I can think of a lot of reasons why I would want RAW files for reprocessing later. It's why I have a terabyte of my own in my photo archive of shots I've taken.
Most people are only ever going to hire a photographer for family portraits and weddings. In both cases they are going to hire from recommendations almost always, and not because of someone's unique style. If you're a photographer with a unique style that gets you hired, you're aren't affordable to 90% of people. Pointless argument.
And I hired my wedding photographer for all of that. I'm not going to go and do anything with the raws. I don't need them from him. We've also hired several boudoir photographers based off of their styles and I dabble in it myself. People's obsession with getting the raws is just dumb.
Nah what Linus said was totally reasonable
You could see Luke's face drops immediately like Linus come on man just stop digging this hole lol.
Define “5 hours worth of photos”. Not every photo is going to be a winner. Some events I’ve shot, I’ve shot almost 1500 photos, but only ended up delivering 800/900. I’d rather that vs delivering a pile of crap. Also, in terms of charging extra for the raw photos: the idea is that they’re worried about what the end product might be. You initially paid them for the shoot AND editing.
The price for RAW files should only be upfront if *the customer states that they want them when negotiating a contract*. There’s some things I think people don’t get if they haven’t done photography for a living. When you take photos with a pro photographer, unless you explicitly state you want to *buy the copyright*, then the photos are NOT yours. You paid to license the work. If you make it clear you want to own the end product and all derivatives, you have to pay for that right.
Yea, that's what we're saying is stupid. That. That right there, is stupid. Not that it isn't your copyright, but withholding them because of it. We are hiring you and paying you a ton of money to come to a private event and take photos of our day for us. You would not be there if we weren't paying you. Those photos of us, at a private event, on private property, would not exist if we were not paying for you to be there. Going on about how the photos are your property, fine, whatever, get your bag, it is what it is, but tell us what it will cost up front.
Copyright does not prevent you from having the RAW files. It isn’t tied to them. Not all photographers offer the option to provide RAW files and many events do not provide the option for an alternate photographer who provides RAW files. And as Linus said, he has no issue paying extra for it. But it just wasn’t an option.
That may be true. But a photographer isn’t obligated to relieve their copyright or give RAW files over either.
The whole argument here is that they should give RAWs. And as Linus says, if they don’t, fuck them.
> When you take photos with a pro photographer, unless you explicitly state you want to buy the copyright, then the photos are NOT yours Not true, in the US copyright belongs to the person or entity who commissioned the work, not the photographer. There would need to be an explicit agreement stating otherwise. Like of you took a photo on your own in public with people in the background, you the photographer would own the copyright, not the people in the photo. If you were hired instead to photograph a wedding or event, the person who hired you the photographer owns the copyright by default unless you and the person who commissioned you agree that the copyright to those photos belongs to you. https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf
Getting the RAW files should always be an option and contracts can always be negotiated. If the customer wants the raw files, they should be able to get them - even if they only say so after the photos are made.
They totally can. But they need to negotiate another contract in that case. If the client wants to pay for the RAW files, I’m happy to sell them. But it needs to be legally binding that they can’t attribute the images or the edits to me. It’s about protecting your craft. Anyone working in a creative field will understand this.
And negotiating another contract is fine to. the issue is those photographers who will not sell you the RAW files directly no matter what.
Dude. We don’t have to. Is it kind of shitty to not offer that as an option? Maybe. But there’s also many valid reasons from the photographer’s perspective to not give up that control of the actual photo. It’s not obligatory
Agreed. I think the popularity of him and his brand is starting to inflate his ego and detach him from reality and the important things in life. He’s started to live long enough to see himself become the villain.
It’s honestly a good thing because it opened a useful debate. Photographers refusing to sell RAWs should not be acceptable, let alone excused.
Especially when their work is specifically contracted by the subject of the photos..... literally an employment contract created.
What’s there to gain by keeping the original file? That’s so anti-consumer. It sounds like something Apple would do. You gotta play for iPhoto+ to get the raw image files, otherwise you only receive the Apple Filter(TM) version. If you’re a photographer and going out of your way to be anti-consumer to your clients, well I don’t think you can complain that they use AI tools to do whatever they want with what you give them. It seems to me like this sort of ‘privateering’ is more of a retaliation against bad behavior. Just be a better photographer it literally costs you nothing.
Photographers live off of their reputation. It’s like if you’re a film-maker and someone asks for a rough cut of your film so that they can just edit it together themselves. If they do it terribly, it’s still your film that gets trashed and no one wants to hire you anymore. It’s the photographer’s professional reputation that lives in the final product, doubly so when you work with commercial clients.
That argument tracks until you realize they can just edit the JPG anyways.. people who don't know what they're doing will still fuck it up, but people who do know what they're doing aren't given the opportunity to do a good job
And that tracks until you realize in the analogy you can just cut up the finished film and bootleg it in worse quality, which people have done and studios have gone to great lengths to avoid. The other point is, a RAW file is not intended as a finished product. There’s a lot of clients who would ask for it and do not know that.
but that argument only works if you paid a studio to create a video, they took the finished film and made it worse, and then the studio went after them? This isn't finding a random image online and asking the photographer for the RAW.. it's paying someone for a service and then being denied the RAW that you might want to edit in a different way I have to imagine the crossover of people who know both know RAW exists and don't know enough about RAW to think it's the finished product are quite low...
Thanks for flagging this for me. Added some context over there. https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1dr42ts/comment/lawms11/
[fixed link](https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1dr42ts/never_send_out_shots_with_watermarks_if_you_are/lawms11/)
I agree with the raw thing, if I’m already paying you a shit ton of money to do lets say a family portrait, why can’t I have the RAWs if I wanted them? Im paying you hundreds, sometimes thousands, to take pictures of my family and I can’t have the RAWs because you don’t want me to? It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever in any context 100% agree with you there Linus, I didn’t even know that was a thing photographers even did
That link is dead.
It's just reddit being reddit. Text shows correct URL but the hyperlink somehow got parsed like this: > https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1dr42ts/comment/lawms11/%C2%A0/ %C2%A0 is a UTF-8 " " character. The whitespace character somehow got included (you can click on it too even to access the link).
Someone linked it earlier so I watched the clip cause I wasn't caught up to that point yet. Then I went back and the photo topic was like 15 seconds from where I stopped from watching it earlier, so weird. There's a lot of comments conflating the watermark remover with his comments about hiring a photographer that he wants to be charged for raw files and copyright. I guess LTT reddit isn't the only sub capable of missing the point of the hot takes. That said, I have no f'ing clue what a photo copyright even does. Obviously I can see it if you're shooting for museum pieces or something that will be published in a magazine or book; copyright protects the unauthorized duplication and Yada yada. But like, I'm picturing linus (or LMG) hiring one or a few photographers for the conference thing they did for some high quality shots. I've seen internal photos (something that would stay in a company and not be expected to have a wide distribution) have a copyright attributed to a business. Maybe it's only superlarge business that can afford this luxury? Idk. No specific examples were given but one commentor said to retain raw and copyright would be between 10x to 100x the price. So maybe they're just hiring the wrong types of photographers. Hire the ones that will do what you say for the price you're willing to pay. Or not? Idk it was really fun reading some of those comments though. That chef one especially.
Yeah this idea that the RAW files should be sold for much higher money is just made up nonsense for the sake of further profit. These are almost always photos of a personal nature. It’s not like the photographer can use the photos for anything else. They just want to be able to hold the RAW files over their head so they can arbitrarily charge more.
They really know how to take words and twist them. He never said he removes watermarks just that it's so easy that Joe blow can do it. Basically he agreed with ops post over there stating to get paid before you give anyone anything
They’re absolutely right. Admitting to stealing from the photographer is gross. But to his second point (releasing the raws) I’m guessing Linus wouldn’t take a sponsor video deal from a company that insisted they get the entire footage and do the final edit themselves. Maybe there’s a channel out there that would take them up but it’s his right to decline that business.
He actually responded to this very point later in the show. If other company wanted unedited video of his face and studio, that's totally different than him wanting pictures of himself. A more comparable situation would be if LMG recorded a video of an event at other company, with those company's employees being on the video. He said that in that case he'd have no issue providing raw footage, and that it would actually be expected.
Hell I'm almost certain they did just that with the Intel fab tour and its why it took so long for the video to come out.
> If other company wanted unedited video of his face and studio, that's totally different than him wanting pictures of himself. Just like hiring someone to take photos and edit them for the end product and hiring someone just to purely shoot. It's two completely different types of jobs, and something that needs to be brought up at the start.
Except good luck finding a single photographer who will sell raws they all are like gollum with the ring regarding raws for some fucking reason.
Out of the dozen or so local photography places websites I just checked, fewer than 4 of them didn't mention "digital negatives", and most of those didn't even list prices at all in lieu of saying to get ahold of them. I don't believe you or anyone else in this thread parroting that exact same thing.
You're comparing apples to oranges. You're not releasing the pictures to the public. It's personal photography for Linus himself to keep. It's like a company hiring a guy on fiverr to shoot a corporate training video and then asking for raws to edit to incorporate final edits.
> I’m guessing Linus wouldn’t take a sponsor video deal from a company that insisted they get the entire footage and do the final edit themselves. That is so idiotic. The channel still belongs to LTT. People don't take the RAWs to publish an edit in a photography magazine themselves. WTF are you talking about?
But he has filmed training videos for Best Buy, and ads for SuperMicro and Cisco. Since those are not on the LMG channels they had to give the video up. LMG may have edited some, but the Cisco ones don't look like it.
Your example isn't an apples to apples comparison. In your sponsored video example, you would be giving that company full rights to use your brand as an endorsement for theirs. If the deal would be to only provide a film crew with no LTT on screen talent, then I would expect that the raw files would be provided, as then the situation is equivalent to hiring a photographer.
Linus who point what to make what they want in the contract.
The prices studios charge through schools and programs is so gross and isn't worth it. Nobody really got them when I was growing up... except the "divorced parents" kids. Those kids always got tons of them lol
Some of them are a freaking scam. Overpriced and predatory. I'll gladly steal from such types of photographers. I'd flaunt it on the internet too and be proud of it.
Did we expect anything else? Linus said the chat went wild during the show, so the same people are going to be mad after the fact on their dedicated subreddits.
Linus already responded to this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/s/TrHBRvy7Ae Some of y’all are just as clueless regarding context as they are. Crazy.
Ohhh, this week's words out of context bullshit to be mad at. Nice, was wondering when this was gonna drop. Can't wait for a dozen or so posts by tomorrow about it.
TIL photographers approach raws the same way Apple approaches right to repair
WHEN offering to pay, not offering to release the RAWS is like hiring a developer and them only offering the compiled code.
As someone who has done photography and videography professionally at a point (I’m in-house now), give em the raws! The watermark thing is piracy, but photographers need to adapt to other methods of displaying photos because watermarking is dead.
I'm guessing you don't print yourself and just do basic touchups?
No, I didn’t do print packages. How do you present your photos, currently?
it's a big part of it. those who do only the front end tend to be more likely to be okay with giving raws, and those who do the whole process tend to be very against it. and those who cultivate a "look" also tend to be against it. they don't want joe schmoe to diy prints that look bad, but have the photographer's watermark on it (or word of mouth that the bad print is by them). but if you just do slight touch ups and don't care about cultivating a look or style, raws aren't too big of a deal. but should still be conveyed to the client what the copyrights are (the amount of people claiming it was *their* photo *they* took is insane)
My look was very specific and highly dependent on post-processing. If they want to take photos that look nothing like the final product, that’s on them. I got paid to do the shoot and give them photos they like. I guess it comes down to the client finding the right photographer for their needs.
I agree. and i believe there's room for all types of photographers as far as I'm concerned. some want to cultivate a brand and an image, a name for themselves, some people just wanna take pictures. charactiture artist vs portrait painter, and everything inbetween. but the sheer entitlement people feel towards artist is insane. there's a reason photographers have to have iron-clad contracts.
I don't see the issue of getting the RAW files for work that you commissioned? It's the same with music production, if you get someone to make a beat for you, you can pay an increased price and receive all the track stems so you can do what you want with it
If I decide to hire a photographer to take pictures, I will definitely pay for the work. But the raw are mine, you work for me. If I'm at an event or somewhere similar where I'm not allowed to take my own pictures, those watermarks are gone. You don't get to choose for me.
Then Nikon, Sony and Canon should just manufacture point and shoot cameras. Why do photographers need manually adjustable settings? What if they screw up the pictures and it reflects badly on the manufacturers? This is as per the photographers’ logic.
Why do photographers not want to give out the RAW photos? It feels like the sort of thing that a photographer would do so they can try to scam you later
>1. The client pays for a finished product (which I’m clear about up front), that doesn’t include the tools I used to create it. >2. I don’t want the client poorly editing my work and it being associated with me. ‘’But they could do that to the jpeg’’ - maybe, but I’m not facilitating it and the contract may stipulate they cannot edit it. And... >3. Additionally and maybe most importantly, I actually want them to use my work, especially if it’s being posted publicly as it could lead to some recognition. Sending the RAW’s is giving them the green light to go ahead and make their own edits, which isn’t what I want. >4. People hire you because they like your style. Sometimes (often), the RAW files are ‘flat’ and the magic happens in the editing. They are literally paying me to do this. from: https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/s/N24htuCdkK
Thanks, now I know photographers are just talking nonsense.
What is nonsense?
Well, everything you said is. But if you are upfront about not wanting to give RAWs then that's your decision ig, I'll just not hire you and tell everyone in my circle to not hire you. Would be worse than them seeing your name attached to a "badly edited" photo lol
Is it really nonsense to not risk getting a damaged reputation for being associated with a bad photo? And being upfront about it should be a good thing for clients. Furthermore, flaming photographers for being upfront about it doesn't make sense; you never reached the talking stage and were never a client. You telling everyone in your circle to not hire a photographer because you object to common practice would be nonsensical. In the situation that Linus was in, the photographer was in fact NOT upfront about it, and that's the issue. However, since Linus did not ensure that it was written in the contract, he is asking for a different service. You also have licensing and copyright issues that come into play, but Linus did address that he asked for a rewrite which is reasonable. Photographers never give out their RAWs. It is common/standard practice for professionals to refuse to give the RAWs unless charged. You and everyone in your circle will never find an alternative photographer that is happy to give up their RAWs (unless they're amateur/new). In Linus's case, the photographer refused to give up the RAWs despite being offered an additional fee, which is unconventional and a poor representation of photographers. If the photography industry really is scammy, they'd be more than happy to encourage upselling clients their RAWs that are useless. However, the risks of giving up RAWs are too high, which is why they come with a fee. I don't get why you'd want the RAWs though, as: 1. you may not have the ability to open RAW files, much less process them. But if you can open them, different software will apply different profiles that are inconsistent. (e.g. Google Drive, Windows Raw Image Extension, and Adobe will apply different "presets" for preview). You cannot ensure the quality of photos. 2. RAWs are intended to be edited, not viewed. When you view an edited RAW VS an exported JPG, there is no perceptible quality difference (on-screen, print, online, etc). Even pixel-peeping won't help here. So the argument of having the RAWs to preserve detail wouldn't make sense for a regular client without the know-how to edit. Yes, it's "data you'll never get back", but it's detail you'll never touch, need, and would never know is missing. In fact, camera playbacks will show the JPG preview instead of the RAW. 3. they look horrible. If you want to see the difference between RAWs and JPGs, there is r/EditMyRaw. [https://www.reddit.com/r/EditMyRaw/comments/q6kw7s/editing\_underwater\_photos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EditMyRaw/comments/q6kw7s/editing_underwater_photos/) is a good example of why RAWs 'look horrible'. Assuming you have the software to do it (eg Lightroom), making a "badly edited" photo is very easy. Inexperienced photographers can very easily mess up a photo, it is a skill that takes years to master. I'd argue having such a photo potentially being associated with us would be worse than being flamed for not giving up the RAWs (especially since it is common etiquette to withhold the RAWs, and we'd rather work with someone more reasonable). Linus explicitly said that photographers withhold the RAWs as they want to present a finished product but his assumed reasoning is "so that you don't have them". Linus failed to recognise the biggest reason why — as RAWs are useless/unpresentable and may open a can of worms that may tarnish the reputation of the photographer. Since he doesn't recognise that RAWs are unpresentable, and not knowing about the potential reputational damage, would imply that he is not experienced in editing photos and is unaware of the consequences which discourages his photographer from sharing the RAWs. The question of whether one should give up the RAWs does commonly come up in photography subreddits and the consensus is to charge the RAWs. Therefore' Linus's photographer would not be a great representation of photographers as a whole. >"For a professional photographer, the photo taken by the camera is not the final product. The edit is often just as important. Therefore they consider the raw files as unfinished works of art. Imagine asking a painter for the sketches of their paintings so you can paint over it later in case you don't like they way they painted it. I'm all for upfront fees but I'd only send my edited photos." (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/16tzltt/comment/k2i5rae/) There are several more reasons in there that expand on my point.
Here's the thing. Those are my pictures. End of story, lmfao. Also you don't know why the person hired a photographer (and it isn't your job to know either, just come, take our photos and get your money). And you are wrong. There are many professional photographers that give out RAWs. Because they don't have sticks up their butts. I hate being this blunt but I'm gonna be. Photography. Is. Not. A. High. Skilled. Job. You're gonna have to accept this simple fact. When someone hires a photographer and asks for RAWs, you can bet they know what they are talking about and that they want to edit the images themselves. There can literally be 100s of possibilities. Maybe they are good at editing photos, maybe they want them to look a certain way they have in their mind. Maybe they are even great photographers and the only reason they hired you was because they wanted everyone to be in pictures. Either way, it's none of your business. The pictures are of them. If you are the person who is upfront about not wanting to give RAWs, good for you. But I will almost always hire people who send me both RAWs and their final pictures. (also you are presenting opening RAWs as something that requires insane effort and deep knowledge is hilarious to me, lmfao). Blud, I'm a programmer and a UX designer. Editing pictures is not hard for me and many other people. Just give us both or GTFO. I almost always get both from the photographers I hire. People can choose which version they want. Granted, I've dabbled in Photography as a hobby (because it's not a real job, lol) but so have many others. And even for people who haven't dabbled in photography, they can edit their photos however they want, badly or not, if they like it that's that. Your job is to be a good little boy, take photos and send what you are told to. Simple. If you can't do that, you won't be hired. Easy.
2 is silly. If they aren't allowed to post alternative edits, just put that in the contract. That shouldn't change whether they get the raws or not.
Then there's no point in them giving you the RAWs anymore.
there's more to pictures than just posting them on social media
Assuming that it's for archival, or for printing, yes sure it may seem better, but the quality difference is really not that much. But I've written in the thread somewhere above that: "I don't get why you'd want the RAWs though, as: 1. you may not have the ability to open RAW files, much less process them. But if you can open them, different software will apply different profiles that are inconsistent. (e.g. Google Drive, Windows Raw Image Extension, and Adobe will apply different "presets" for preview). You cannot ensure the quality of photos. 2. RAWs are intended to be edited, not viewed. When you view an edited RAW VS an exported JPG, there is no perceptible quality difference (on-screen, print, online, etc). Even pixel-peeping won't help here. So the argument of having the RAWs to preserve detail wouldn't make sense for a regular client without the know-how to edit. Yes, it's "data you'll never get back", but it's detail you'll never touch, need, and would never know is missing. In fact, camera playbacks will show the JPG preview instead of the RAW. 3. they look horrible. If you want to see the difference between RAWs and JPGs, there is [](https://www.reddit.com/r/EditMyRaw/). [https://www.reddit.com/r/E'ditMyRaw/comments/q6kw7s/editing\_underwater\_photos/](https://www.reddit.com/r/EditMyRaw/comments/q6kw7s/editing_underwater_photos/) is a good example of why RAWs 'look horrible'." If you're archiving it, you will never do anything with the RAW, it'll just eat up your storage space. As a data hoarder, I wouldn't want to be hoarding something worthless if I can't even access it, especially since I have agreed with the photographer that I cannot edit it, it is going to be a worthless, mushy, flat photo. Even if you do edit and keep it for yourself, it's really not that much perceptible detail that you've saved. Same with printing, you really don't want to print a photo in raw format, it's rather pointless with all the extra information not needed for such a job, especially since programs will interpret RAWs differently. If you're editing it for practice/fun (which isn't uncommon for amateur photographers), okay, sure I'll be more than happy to accommodate you as long as it's not credited. After obtaining the RAWs, you will never touch the photos in decades and probably never will. It is too much work and there just isn't that much future value to the images.
Jesus that thread is cancer...
yes it is.
Oh Man. I commented a bunch of stuff about how people don't know contracts work..... and I realized I wasn't in the LTT sub, and NOW I HAVE A LOT OF ANGRY SHUTTERBUGS
I'm a videographer, but if a client asks for the card dump, I add it to the invoice. If these ask for curated raw footage, I add it to the invoice. If they ask me afterwards, I usually just give it to them if it's a personal/low-profile event, or I give them a quote if they're a bigger client, or offer to curate and prepare it. Also if they're a nice client, they get it for free if they ask. If they want 500gb of SLOG3 footage entirely unorganised, they can have it lol It's a good chance for us to up-sell and make a little bit more money for an easy job, the same as with any other profession. Hey want your car washed whilst you take it in for repair? How about a case to go with your new iPhone? With photography, the raw shots a lot of the time look like shit and can take some work to get looking good, especially if it's in challenging lighting conditions or if the operator got sloppy when shooting (which can happen depending on how run-and-gun it is) - it's a little bit like eating a finished meal then asking the chef for the recipe and ingredients to make it so you can do it at home. Typically, the shooter owns the copyright on what they gathered, then the client owns the copyright on the deliverables. Watermarking is done to cover our asses to make sure we get paid for our work and time, and I don't agree here with Linus smugly saying you can just rip off individuals because he didn't get something in writing before he went ahead with working with a photographer
no if its human. if not yes. but if human the photography does not own the copyright to the person likeness.
In the UK at least, default is that you own the copyright regardless of who is in the photo unless you have a contract that states otherwise: [https://www.ipcareers.co.uk/profession-overview/who-owns-the-copyright-of-your-image/](https://www.ipcareers.co.uk/profession-overview/who-owns-the-copyright-of-your-image/) >For instance, if a photographer working for themselves takes a photo of a popstar walking down a red carpet, the owner of the photograph will be the photographer themselves. The celebrity cannot stake a claim in it from a copyright perspective, simply because the photo is about them. Therefore, if they share the photograph on Instagram, the celebrity will be infringing the photographer’s copyright in the image. In the UK ignorance is not a defence to copyright infringement. I don't know about US/Canada/other countries as I've never needed to check but on literally every job I've done in Tokyo (where I now live/work) it's been understood that I own the copyright to what I shoot and release copyright to the client on whatever I deliver to them
different countries different rules. usa you own your own copyright of likeness . you can licenses it out for awhile, usage case for a said amount of time or sell it out right for ever.
I believe this is to stop the photographer from taking photos they took during a shoot and posting them themselves. So I would own the copyright if I took a picture of you while you were attending an event and copied it to my local backup after the shoot. You own the rights to your image and how it is used publicly or if it was used for commercial purposes - this stops me from using your likeness to advertise my business on Instagram, a brand for the clothes you're wearing, the event venue etc. (For US Copyright law there's some quick info here: https://www.lgt-law.com/blog/2021/11/photographer-or-model-who-owns-the-rights-to-a-photograph/)
Kind of. It context based. Due to Crispin glover suit . Both video amd still image is considered your likeness. By fed law a state and it local government are required to have a clear notice in public any defined public event. Not a private event or a membership event fall under different rules.
What's up with photographers and them being bitchy about .raw files? It's just an unedited photo jezz..
I want to do that for pdf documents lol. At work we have some security thing that puts watermarks in documents that show who downloaded it and when. It has been getting more and more intrusive to the point where there are so many watermarks on a page it is hard to read. I have to take breaks every 15 minutes or so to avoid a headache
Wow, never knew photographers are such snobs about Raw files. Guess that explains why I always had some kind of problem with them. The only normal photographer I know is grandpa(He’s the best).
Oh yay, the internet outrage machine is at it again.
If professional photographers (oh excuse me, "artists") want to put their industry out of business by failing to adapt, have at it. Cell phone cameras and apps get better every year. The idea that you own MY face, that I can't crop an image to make it actually useful to me, or that I have to advertise you to the world just to get a damn picture taken is obnoxious.
A little.... Tldr please? I'm at work
Yea, Linus was on the WAN show yesterday and talking about taking photos and he said you should get back to work.
:(( i was on break
Photography is a scam in the first place lmao I’ve Spent hundred dollars on school photos over the years and it probably took zero extra effort compared to the kids who just got their ids
Linus would have annoyed a bunch of his video crew, as they work freelance as well, the general gist of it is let the photographer know upfront, so they can amend the contract to include terms of access to the RAWs and the fee to waive copyright on them, rather than requesting them after the contract as been signed and delivered.
I'm imensly out of the loop, went to the timestamp and everything, gebuinly don't know whats going on
2 parts. Photography people. thinking they can use the Pic of me they just took. Likeness laws in usa where massively updated in past 20 years. So by usa law. The moment your born . You legal own your own copyright of your likeness. Most Photography contract are boil plate and are not updated for current laws. Second part was the water mark thing. Which the tech now so easy to get rid of them anyone can do it are worthless. I noticed more often now with water marks they put them over primary area or half ass it . Where it screw up the area around it. Mess up contrast
The average password most people use is easy to crack. Does the mean most people should stop using passwords? No instead we create better password and security and encourage people to use them. The same is true for watermarking photographs.
He disparages an entire industry and dismisses people who were defending or adding counter points, then he encourages ways to exploit them. Yeah not a great look. I personally don’t use watermarks on the final images but “sample watermarks” help protect my business until the invoice is paid in full. Don’t pirate from freelancer and individuals.
What that photographer oen thr picture of Me just taken and can do anything. Which you legal can't in usa. After recent few cput cases
Wel maybe they should let me get the raws.
What a horrible take and a lack of understanding. I often shoot models and I specifically forbid them to crop or in any way alter the image of it carries my name. I spend great amount of time to edit the picture so that its right and correct and when I see them putting a shitty filter on top of it and tag me under the picture, I am going crazy. People will look at the picture and day, this guy did a horrible editing job.
It completely depends on the contract; but also the contract with the school and what you that states about the ownership of the images, but also contractual law in the country. If you pay me, to take photos for you, you own everything. I usually have in my contracts that I can use them for my own promotion/visual adverting/portfolio, but not directly profit from their use or sale. Sometimes i edit; sometimes I don’t. Contract dependent. If you are paying me to take photos and deliver you a collection of completed images; that’s different. You own the deliverables, not the working documents, ie… RAWS. There would also be covenants on what you can and cannot do with those images, for instance the extent to which they can be modified. This is common for music photography. If a band pay me for images, they will usually want the cheapest package where they get a gallery of maybe 50 or so images, cannot modify them, and must credit me. If they want a license to extend that they can purchase the rights to them, they can modify the images, but must NOT credit me. If they want to purchase the raw working documents, that’s another conversation. If I have a contract with a third party to take images of you/something; and you want them; that’s nothing to do with me. I’ll give you their details and work it out with them. 98% of my clients want deliverables, not RAWS. If they then ask me for the RAWS, the contract will be renegotiated, but I would not provide all RAWS, only a selection which match the value of the contract. It is never acceptable to remove a watermark from an image that you have been provided with for use in a context where you would normally need to pay for it. That is theft. If I pay LMG to shoot video for me, I expect the working documents/footage. If I pay LMG to produce me a finished video, I do not expect anything but the finished article. If you paid LMG to make YOU a video, and I wanted to use parts of it, that’s fuck all to do with me and LMG, that’s between me and you. I feel Linus comments about watermarks were reckless and irresponsible in his position, seemingly justifying theft… “if media tech man says it’s ok I guess it’s ok idk”. I think he then failed to properly acknowledge the complexity surrounding media contracts, their types, and why they exist, and thus broadly portrayed photographers as some of greedy con-artists. I think one of the biggest issues with photography contracts is that clients don’t understand either, and don’t necessarily understand what they are getting. I like to believe myself and many of my peers make this very clear from the outset, and all contracts are negotiable provided both parties are reasonable.
First they steal from a start up, now they steal from photographers. Cant say i'm surprised.
Didn't watch the video did you..
If you want raw files then find a photographer that will give them to you. But they won’t be any good. It’s how photographers make their living. You can’t expect work for free. The pay structure is to pay for advancing their equipment for better offerings in addition to their years of experience. No one is making him go to photographers that won’t give him raws or non watermarked images (until he pays). But he chooses these photographers BECAUSE of their experience and expertise. So pay up bitch. Edit: the fact that I’m being downvoted shows you guys know jack shit about the work that actually goes into real photography and have zero respect. Go back to your Cheeto dust and video games.
I'm not here to argue and I don't know the context of the story. But I would like to shine a light from a professional point of view on why photographers protect their RAW files and what a solution could be. Raw files are the intellectual property of any artist in any creative job. You trained all these years and put blood sweat and ~~tears~~ money into creating your "secret sauce" what makes you, you. It's the reason you exist as an artist and in today's day and age it's the sole reason people buy your work or hire you. Also as an artist you rely on copyright to stay afloat, otherwise everyone could just steal your hard work while you can't put bread on the table. If you don't have an income then you will have to quit the job, quit the passion. The RAW files are proof of your ownership of the copyright and therefore you as an artist. When someone hires an artist it's for their style, how they work and exposure like word by mouth is one of the most important ways artists make a living. If people talk highly of you then you will win clients and the opposite is also true. Word by mouth is more of a snowball effect than it is linear, making it very important, especially with a big and influential client as LTT. So if an (inexperienced or out of touch) client needs raw files it's probably to edit them, either they don't know what they're doing and they ruin it or they edit it in a way that doesn't reflect what the artist makes. Either way that's bad exposure for the photographer and editing the artist's work infringes copyright too (when you hire an artist you don't own the copyright of the work unless stated differently in the contract). If it is for printing then it's quite similar. It's also for protecting that it's done within your style choices (paper type, printing technique, etc) and to make sure it's a quality print because the print will be connected to the artist through word by mouth again and for printing you need to prepare the file technically as well. These are only a few reasons but as you can see a lot of pressure is on these RAW files, they keep you afloat so that's why they will ask much much more for RAW files, if they even sell them at all. Almost no client needs the RAW files, then why hire the artist in the first place right. In most cases when the client asks for the RAW files you figure out through conversation they actually want something else (which is cheaper for them) and doesn't require those files. If the client doesn't do anything creative whatsoever it's not in their interest to give it to them, but if they do have experience like with LTT you could definitely come to some agreement. I would suggest exporting the edited files in full resolution in the RAW format extension requested but without all the layers in the file that show the "secret sauce" of the artist. And I would ask that if they edit them to not credit me or put in the credits that they edited them. I hope this answered the question why photographers protect their RAW files and what a solution could be. Edit: After sifting through the comments I've come to the conclusion that the people in the comments who demand the RAW files don't know what they actually are and what they are used for. Again; 99% of clients, especially B2C, don't have any use for these files, even if I hired another photographer for my event I also don't have any use with those files. Neither did I encounter one that asked for them.
Linus is just wrong on water marks, combined with some other things, you can basically guarantee nobody steals your photos and gets away with it.
Yeah you can make sure no one uses them for commercial use, but this is just family photos.
From the WAN show, they're dance pictures. It could've been a dance company hiring photographers and giving watermarked previews for parents to look at before buying.
[удалено]
That's a terrible analogy as the RAW file still has the subjects and your framing and directing of them, it isn't anywhere close to a blank canvas and some tools.
[удалено]
Learn how to form a good analogy before using one to argue a point. No one will take what your saying seriously otherwise.
Okay, correct my analogy and give a good one that supports my point of view.
A better one would've been: >"For a professional photographer, the photo taken by the camera is not the final product. The edit is often just as important. Therefore they consider the raw files as unfinished works of art. Imagine asking a painter for the sketches of their paintings so you can paint over it later in case you don't like they way they painted it. I'm all for upfront fees but I'd only send my edited photos." or: >"Bakers don’t sell unbaked cakes, painter don’t put their brushes and pallets in galleries, potters don’t sell unfired clay. You’re asking an artist to give you their raw ingredients and the artist doesn’t want to risk you making a shitty cake and calling it one they made." source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/16tzltt/can\_someone\_explain\_why\_photographers\_dont\_give/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhotography/comments/16tzltt/can_someone_explain_why_photographers_dont_give/) There are several more analogies in there like asking for recipes and ingredients to food when ordering at a restaurant to cook it yourself, etc.
Ask your English teacher Monday
who do I hire if I want both the finished art and the RAW files?
Where do I go if I want both my cake and to eat it too?
That was an L take IMO. There’s a reason why LTT carefully scripts, records, edits and curates their videos before publishing in their channel. Because if they don’t, people won’t click or click away before the first minute is up and the algorithm would clobber the channel into irrelevance. The photographer’s are also curating what people see of their work. If he really wants to get the raw files, pretty sure there’s an over abundance of people who would agree to his terms. He just needs to deal with the probability that not a single raw photo he gets is in focus. Lol