geogphotos

What about offering clients RAW files?

Recommended Posts

NB ) This is a discussion point, not a proposal.

 

These were from this morning: 

 

I0000DaDLLNisHxY.jpg

 

It might be 2-3 weeks before these are processed as JPEGs, clear QC, have metadata and go on sale.

 

Or alternatively I could add a brief caption upload them NOW and have them on sale this afternoon. 

 

I assume that most Alamy clients know what RAW files are and about post-processing. 

 

These pics are not news but wouldn't it be better to offer shots of the garden taken today rather than 2-3 weeks old.

 

Remember please - this is for discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you not do the same with jpgs?   If you shot RAW and jpg, you could automatically upload the passable jpgs and then process and reupload later. 

 

I don't think I would want to offer unprocessed images.  It would be nice if you could do an automatic deletion, so you could upload unprocessed jpgs quickly, and then once processed, have the originals removed and replaced with the processed ones.

 

Jill

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jill Morgan said:

Could you not do the same with jpgs?   If you shot RAW and jpg, you could automatically upload the passable jpgs and then process and reupload later. 

 

I don't think I would want to offer unprocessed images.  It would be nice if you could do an automatic deletion, so you could upload unprocessed jpgs quickly, and then once processed, have the originals removed and replaced with the processed ones.

 

Jill

 

 

Wouldn't uploading JPEGs limit the client's post processing?

 

I'm thinking that offering images 'fresh from the camera' would be a possible selling point and attraction that other agencies don't offer?

 

And instead of sitting at the computer we could be out taking more photos. As I am just about to do after my afternoon nap :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

I assume that most Alamy clients know what RAW files are and about post-processing. 

 

 

 

That's quite an assumption. I wouldn't like to guess at a %age who would know how to post process?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Wouldn't uploading JPEGs limit the client's post processing?

 

I'm thinking that offering images 'fresh from the camera' would be a possible selling point and attraction that other agencies don't offer?

 

And instead of sitting at the computer we could be out taking more photos. As I am just about to do after my afternoon nap :)

 

I don't think most buyers want to do post processing.  And when sifting through images, if your RAW file has not been processed to its optimum, then would it even be chosen in the first place?  And would they want a discount if they have to do the work that they think the photographer should have done it the first place? Competition is stiff in the stock game, so do we want sub processed images even offered to clients?

 

I think most buyers want to buy and publish, especially if you are talking about time sensitive image that would benefit from being online fast in the first place.

 

Jill

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Jill Morgan said:

 

I don't think most buyers want to do post processing.  And when sifting through images, if your RAW file has not been processed to its optimum, then would it even be chosen in the first place?  And would they want a discount if they have to do the work that they think the photographer should have done it the first place? Competition is stiff in the stock game, so do we want sub processed images even offered to clients?

 

I think most buyers want to buy and publish, especially if you are talking about time sensitive image that would benefit from being online fast in the first place.

 

Jill

 

 

Interesting comment. 

 

In the days before digital it was the client who did this work.  The photographer just provided the slide with a brief caption on the mount. Much asI suggested for a RAW file with brief caption. 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Sultanpepa said:

 

That's quite an assumption. I wouldn't like to guess at a %age who would know how to post process?

 

Possibly matched by the % who don't notice or care if it is done anyway?

 

Maybe Alamy could offer an optimised bespoke processing service for RAW files to guarantee absolutely tip-top professional files. i.e.) expend energy on selected files rather than everybody expending energy on every file. 

 

And buyers get to see the condition of the original exposure.

 

 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I know it isn't going to happen but my perfect agency would be one that left me to only think about one thing - sending them photos - and they did ALL the rest because they had the expertise to do it.

 

Who was it that described their perfect agency relationship as: 'I send them pictures, they send me money' ?

 

Any agency who made that happen would be extremely popular with photographers, probably even to the extent of getting exclusivity. 

 

Day-dreams! 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more they have to do the less money you'll receive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always think of raw images being like the original slide or negative, but this may be my conservative view. 

So do prefer sending in the JPG, but would also be happy to carve a deep-color image in, say, PNG with 16bit per color (48bit/3 colors). 

PNG uses lossless compression and when using the 16bpc mode, there should be hardly any degration - apart from 'destructive' postprocessing -  compared to the 14bit (Canon) raw format. 

This should allow the client to re-edit the picture as they see fit.

 

 

Appears that the lossy JPG format with 8bit per color is still a standard, despite better formats already exist.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jpgs are universal. RAW files are often proprietary and not all clients have the latest software to support them.

Raw files may have dust and other defects that QC checks for. Jpgs are also smaller and faster to download.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sultanpepa said:

The more they have to do the less money you'll receive.

 

The other side of that is the more pics I have on sale the more sales I make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, fotoDogue said:

Jpgs are universal. RAW files are often proprietary and not all clients have the latest software to support them.

Raw files may have dust and other defects that QC checks for. Jpgs are also smaller and faster to download.

 

Yes accepted that images might have minor defects. Three stars QC record and solid sales record a prerequisite for acceptance onto Premium RAW 'Fresh out of camera' collection?

 

Client could opt for RAW or JPEG download. Or possibly only offer JPEG for downloads?

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hdh said:

I always think of raw images being like the original slide or negative, but this may be my conservative view. 

 

 

 

 

In the pre-digital age we had no choice but to send in the original slide or negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 12:09, geogphotos said:

NB ) This is a discussion point, not a proposal.

 

These were from this morning: 

 

I0000DaDLLNisHxY.jpg

 

It might be 2-3 weeks before these are processed as JPEGs, clear QC, have metadata and go on sale.

 

Or alternatively I could add a brief caption upload them NOW and have them on sale this afternoon. 

 

I assume that most Alamy clients know what RAW files are and about post-processing. 

 

These pics are not news but wouldn't it be better to offer shots of the garden taken today rather than 2-3 weeks old.

 

Remember please - this is for discussion. 

 

It feels to me that possessing the original RAW file is a useful tool to prove my ownership when chasing copyright infringements. So I wouldn't want to be uploading them.  Maybe I'm misguided. :unsure:

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

 

It feels to me that possessing the original RAW file is a useful tool to prove my ownership when chasing copyright infringements. So I wouldn't want to be uploading them.  Maybe I'm misguided. :unsure:

 

Mark

 

 

Surely you still have the original RAW file even if you upload a copy somewhere else. The date the RAW files was taken will be prior to the date of any download. And clearly it is the photographer rather than the Alamy client who owns copyright. I should think it hard for them to argue that you obtained a copy from them! 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

Surely you still have the original RAW file even if you upload a copy somewhere else. The date the RAW files was taken will be prior to the date of any download. And clearly it is the photographer rather than the Alamy client who owns copyright. I should think it hard for them to argue that you obtained a copy from them! 

 

Good point. But I still have a fear that if someone else gets hold of my RAWs they might claim (to a third party) they have the original RAWs so the image is theirs. It just feels like "giving away" too much to me. How would a third party know where the "someone else" got the image from from or when they downloaded it, they could just claim it's theirs as they have the RAW file. I might never even know anything about it in order to contest it.

 

It just makes me feel uneasy.

Probably totally irrational. :unsure:

 

Mark

 

Edited by M.Chapman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lossless 16 bit TIFF could be a good alternative, since the user can do so much with the image in releation to JPG.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

OP on April 19th. Carried on taking pics for a few more days, around 450 in total. Have just finished processing, captioning, uploading them. Fingers crossed for QC on  a large final batch.

 

Now May 6th. 

 

My dream agency ( which I know will never exist) would have encouraged me to carry on shooting and sending in by ftp every evening.  I would have easily sent them 4500 pics by now. And an expert Photoshop technician and an expert keyworder would have made easy work of these straightforward illustrative shots. An expert editor would tighten things up and they would all be on sale by now. And I'd be out shooting more.....

 

And then I woke up......:lol: 

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's about service? We're selling images -and creating thos eis part of the service. Would you take a wedding and then give the raw files to the bride and say "get on with it"?

Would you expect your plumber to leave the bits for you in the bathroom and say "get on with it?"

 

Take out the creation, you could shoot with traffic cameras and not need us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Stephen Lloyd said:

Surely it's about service? We're selling images -and creating thos eis part of the service. Would you take a wedding and then give the raw files to the bride and say "get on with it"?

Would you expect your plumber to leave the bits for you in the bathroom and say "get on with it?"

 

Take out the creation, you could shoot with traffic cameras and not need us.

 

Also about speed to market and maximum flexibility. Very often the file downloaded is not the end product as it is. 

 

Would a house-building tell a buyer that they had no choice about how it was to be decorated? Or possibly offer the choice. 

 

I don't do weddings or plumbing. But please don't take me quite so literally. :)

Edited by geogphotos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2018 at 20:39, geogphotos said:

 

I assume that most Alamy clients know what RAW files are and about post-processing. 

 

 

 

Umm possibly. Ive noticed some buyers on microstock sites have no idea how to resize images to a smaller size. I remember one client who accidentally purchased an image size that was too large for his project and he didn't have a clue how to rectify the issue. The only solution he came up with was to get a refund and then use credit to buy a smaller version of the same image. 

 

Back in the film days with traditional stock agencies, I guess photographers could have had dupes made of their transparencies and send those to the companies, keeping the original slides in their possession. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/19/2018 at 15:48, geogphotos said:

Wouldn't uploading JPEGs limit the client's post processing?

 

Not really, no. Lightroom and Photoshop ACR can handle JPG's almost as well as RAW files these days. Unless there is a need for major digital manipulation of the image then I don't think JPG's are a problem.

I'm a committed RAW only shooter (since I went digital from medium format film cameras in 2005), but I have recently been setting my cameras to JPG and RAW especially for news shots as the LR phone app only uses JPG's. This also work well for on-the-spot none news uploads via my phone. I had 3 accepted by QC only yesterday. 

Edited by Steve Valentia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 16:35, geogphotos said:

 

Also about speed to market and maximum flexibility. Very often the file downloaded is not the end product as it is. 

 

Would a house-building tell a buyer that they had no choice about how it was to be decorated? Or possibly offer the choice. 

 

I don't do weddings or plumbing. But please don't take me quite so literally. :)

Pity - plumbers are in demand more than photographers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now