Wedding photos

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Perhaps part of the problem is that lay people see the final product as beautifully effortless. You flip through an album full of wonderful wedding pictures without realizing the dozens and dozens and dozens of hours required to produce those stunning images. Because of this, I think that photography is the least-understood of all the wedding services in terms of what goes on behind the scenes.
And because DSLRs are cheaper and cheaper, people with DSLRs believe that they, too, can produce stunning wedding images with a simple click of a button. (if only it were that simple)
I think that great artists make their craft appear deceptively simple. You don't realize how hard singing actually is until you try out for "American Idol". You don't realize how hard photography is until you get burned buying cheap wedding pictures.
One last thought. Is photography (and videography?) the only aspect of weddings where non-professionals dare try their hand at? For example, everyone knows how to bake a cake. Yet, no one offers to create the wedding cake. Who doesn't have flowers in their yard? Yet, no one offers to provide the flowers for the wedding. I think photography is very misunderstood.
Just my 2¢. Please don't flame me too hard.

Being on the performing arts side of things I can tell you that one of the things I tell people who work for me is that we make it look simple. We make it look easy. That's our job. Everyone out there thinks they can be better than the next American Idol and everyone wants to be a critic thanks to American Idol.
I think the mentality that drives people to ask a non professional to shoot their wedding is the same mentality when someone asks, "OMG, what camera are you using? It takes such awesome pictures!" I know I'm guilty of it, I asked everyone what kind of camera they were using when I was thinking a DSLR would transform me into a great photographer. We all know, (I am just a hobbyist and I know this) that it's not the equipment. A crappy drummer is still going to sound crappy even if he's on the most expensive drum kit. A great drummer can get on a crappy drum set and make that baby sing. It's the years of practice and investment of time and education and more practice, that separates the pros from the wannabes.

 

[WDWFigment]

1.although most photographers are shooting digital now, picking a photographer really shouldn't be any harder than it was 30 years ago,,, recomendation from friends and family, and asking to see examples of the work done in the past..

2. most pros don't give away digital files, for the same reason film photographers didn't provide negatives,, loss of revenue//

I'm not following your thought that it is a legal liability to not provide digital files..

1. Not everyone gets married in a location where they can easily get recommendations from friends and family. My fiancee and I attend school away from home. We are the second of our friends to marry here. Our first friends who married here recommended a photographer who I found to not be that good. Some photographers may have great portfolios but still not be that good (I know that I could go to a wedding and come back with some great shots...I might miss 80% of the shots I should get, but if I only show the 20% I nailed, who is the wiser?). Your point is certainly valid often, but there always will be some circumstances where the couple aren't situated to make

2. In my opinion--and this could just be my opinion, the average lay person can do a lot more with a digital file than he can a film negative. People had no reason to have the negatives in most circumstances, and if they did get them, and lost them, that's it. Digital files on the other hand, people like to put online on social networking sites, like to email, etc.. That's why I think it's an outmoded business practice to retain the digital files and continue to make the money on prints. In our digital society, people want the digital files much more than they wanted the film negatives. Photographers may not like this, and may think it harms their craft or art, but ultimately they will have to cede to the marketplace. In my opinion, the wedding is about the customer--the people getting married, not the photographer--regardless of whether the photographer agrees with the couple's reasoning for wanting the files, that's the couple's prerogative. If photographers are concerned about the loss of revenue from prints, charge more to compensate.

I know many vehemently believe they should retain the files. That's fine. The free market others have discussed will kick in to a degree here. Couples who have the knowledge that some photographers will provide the digital files will use that knowledge and gravitate towards those photographers. If I had a crystal ball, I would bet that the market will move even more towards providing digital files in the next 10 years.

As for the legal liability, I have heard countless stories about photographers who retain the files either losing them because they aren't properly backed up. If you pass the files on the customer, they lose them, and you don't have a back-up, you have a lot stronger argument that you are not liable. If you retain the files and give no option, there is greater liability, even if you throw some boilerplate hold harmless language into your contract. I'm not getting into another legal debate here, so I'll leave it at that. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me.

A lot of professional photographers don't shoot raw. It's personal work flow preference when you get to that point in the industry. I only shoot raw because my graphic designer prefers the file type for the large album layouts that we do.

Additionally, what is the point of having the raw file anyway? So you can make edits to it? Most photographers who do provide digital files have very strict copyright infringements written inside of wedding contracts that the couples sign. Specifically stating that there is a print release given to the couple for reproduction of prints, but files may not be altered, changed, manipulated, submitted for competition or cropped in anyway. I also know quite a few photographers who have gone after couples who have violated these agreements and won.

I am certainly not naive enough to think that my digital files aren't manipulated upon release to the couple. I'm sure it happens although I haven't actually seen it personally. But again, that is why I charge what I charge... to make up for any lost revenue that I may not get in residual sales after the wedding. I've purposely structured my business in a way that fits with the digital revolution. Is it my preference? Absolutely not. I'm an album-production based studio, so I want people to walk away with these gorgeous albums that we do - not a bunch of digital files that end up sitting on discs in a closet long forgotten about after the wedding (Whoops... 7 years later that is exactly where my wedding pictures are. My husband and mother have never even seen our wedding pictures.).

Anyway... I leave you with one parting thought on the subject...
Each wedding that I do, I spend approximately 80-100 hours working for that particular client. I hope and believe that my couples hire me because they love my work and they love my style. If you hire a photographer based on those qualities, why would you want the raw files to edit later yourself?

I have absolutely no intent to do anything with the RAW files, and I certainly hope I won't ever need to touch them. Like your last paragraph indicates, we hired our photographer because he's awesome. However, this is my wedding, I want them if I ever need them for any reason. I doubt I will, but I still want them. You never know what might be possible or a 'cool new editing style' in 5-10 years. My only real rationale, though, is 'just in case.'

We altered our contract to remove the boilerplate 'no altering' language. The 'no competition' and the rest of the photographer's copyright protections are still there.

 

[bazzanoid]

We altered our contract to remove the boilerplate 'no altering' language. The 'no competition' and the rest of the photographer's copyright protections are still there.

We did the same - as a completely amateur photographer and extremely experienced graphic designer, i wanted the freedom to alter my final shots as i wanted to do so. We had an agreement that i would send a digital copy to our photographer so they could retain it on their files with the rest of our shots. BUT, we did have to pay extra for the 'digital license' for the files.

It turned out to be extremely useful. We had a couple of B&W shots as part of the package and found a beautiful antiqued pewter frame that holds 6 photos of varying sizes, and we found that while pure B&W looked ok, background B&W with colour on the subject made the shots pop out dramatically and look amazing - without the license i wouldn't have been able to do it. Just had a look at my online photo storage accounts, i don't have them online to show unfortunately!

 

[MICKEY88]

As for the legal liability, I have heard countless stories about photographers who retain the files either losing them because they aren't properly backed up. If you pass the files on the customer, they lose them, and you don't have a back-up, you have a lot stronger argument that you are not liable. If you retain the files and give no option, there is greater liability, even if you throw some boilerplate hold harmless language into your contract. I'm not getting into another legal debate here, so I'll leave it at that. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me.



.

a pro that doesn't have multiple backups is asking for trouble.. good insurance covers loss of files or pictures..

and if the contract is for prints only , and the customer hasn't ordered prints in a reasonable perios of time, they wouldn't have much to sstand on in court..

as for RAW files, I personally do not know any pros who will give those, they will give high resolution jpegs, but never raw files,

I don't doubt that you know what to do with raw, but if a bride doesn't know how to pick a photographer, I doubt that she knows what raw files are..

 

[webshark3]

Anyways..........

kaffinito: Can we help you with anything else today?

 

[Chikabowa]

a pro that doesn't have multiple backups is asking for trouble.. good insurance covers loss of files or pictures..

as for RAW files, I personally do not know any pros who will give those, they will give high resolution jpegs, but never raw files,

I don't doubt that you know what to do with raw, but if a bride doesn't know how to pick a photographer, I doubt that she knows what raw files are..

Ditto - Point #1. Any real professional has a multiple back up system and will not loose files. Personally, when I shoot a wedding (since I have two card slots in my camera), I shoot back up on my second card. That way, I keep one finished card in my pocket, one finished card in my camera case. When the wedding is finished, one set of complete cards goes home with me. One set goes straight to my graphic designer that night (via my assistant). I download and back up on an external hard drive. He downloads and backs up on two external hard drives (a redundant system). He also downloads weekly onto a 3rd hard drive which is kept in a secure, earthquake/climate controlled off-site server storage. Additionally, we archive closed accounts on Blu Ray discs for storage. We've spent $10k+ in back up systems and are fully insured in terms of any loss as well.

Ditto - Point #2. I've never heard of any professional giving their raw files out to a customer. And I've never heard of any professional allowing clients to alter their files. Again... to stress the point... If you are hiring a photographer because you love their work, you've spent thousands of dollars on their services, why would you want to change it??? Do you not trust them?

Ditto - Point #3.

 

[GrillMouster]

Believe me, it does happen that brides are asking for RAW files, because they read on wedding sites and in magazines, like The Knot that they're "supposed" to ask for them. It's not the norm, as most brides have no idea what RAW is, but with more consumer-level photo editing software and websites capable of reading RAW, this could change in the future. Clients are usually satisfied with high resolution JPG files, which is what I provide as "digital negatives". As a photographer and artist, my finished product is the post-processed image. If all you want is a RAW file, then you've hired a camera operator, not a photographer, not an artist. Asking for the RAW file is like asking the chef at a gourmet restaurant for the raw ingredients. What a fine dining establishment provides you is more than just those raw ingredients...you're paying for the training and talent of the chef, the visual appeal of the finished dish, the ambiance of the restaurant itself, the extraordinary service of all the staff, the entire experience.
Most wedding photographers do offer JPGs on disc now. Some include it in all their packages, some only include it in their higher cost packages, some provide jpgs of only the images for which prints are ordered (or included in an album), some only hand over the disc after a year or two (after which point the client is less likely to order prints), and some offer a disc of images as an add-on to packages. Most brides want to share their images via email and social networking sites, so they want the electronic files, but if that's all you provide, some brides just never get around to actually printing them or creating an album, which is a shame.
High rez images on disc still isn't the norm for portrait photography, but it's getting there. For portraits many togs offer low-rez watermarked images for email and social networking, and that usually satisfies folks. However, more "weekend warriors" and department store studios (Sears, JC Penny, etc) are now including images on disc. Pros must adapt, provide the clients what they want or find a way to satisfy them, and (here's the important part) charge accordingly.
Whether the customer receives her images on disc or as prints, I, as the photographer, still had to do the same amount of work and creativity (and overhead), and deserve at least the same amount of compensation. Some customers think that a disc of images should only cost a little more than the cost of a blank disc. Regardless of how the image is delivered, digitally or on paper, the value lies in the image itself, not the delivery medium. A CD of ten songs costs $10 at the mall. Those same songs cost $.99 each on iTunes, roughly the same cost as if you bought the CD? Why? Because the value is in the intellectual property itself, not the delivery medium. Next time you buy a Britney Spears CD try asking her for the raw audio tracks. )
On reason many togs resist giving RAW files is that they believe clients will do a horrible job of processing and printing them and ruin the reputation of the photographer when other people see them, thinking that's the final product of the photographer. Clients could just as easily process jpg files-- with less leeway than RAW, but if you're a pro, your exposure should be near perfect on images you deliver. I know of one internationally known celebrity wedding photographer who gives only RAW files, not jpg to his clients along with their albums and prints. Then again, he earns tens of thousands of dollars per wedding, and his elite clients are more likely to pay him for albums and large prints than bother trying to send jpgs to the corner drug store for 4x6 prints. I'm more likely to include RAW files for a fellow photographer, but, again, I would charge accordingly for potential lost revenue.

 

[webshark3]

Ditto - Point #3.

I find it sad that brides hear key words like "digital" and wonder why others charge so much for outdated film (i.e. Medium Format). Many insist on digital. So out comes the Canon 10D, and a confident bride who thinks their getting the superior "digital".

 

[GrillMouster]

I find it sad that brides hear key words like "digital" and wonder why others charge so much for outdated film (i.e. Medium Format). Many insist on digital. So out comes the Canon 10D, and a confident bride who thinks their getting the superior "digital".

Until recently, a lots of brides thought film was superior to digital, and were willing to pay more for a tog who shoots film exclusively or film alongside digital. However, more and more brides want digital images for email, cellphone and computer wallpaper, myspace/facebook, and digital frames. They think that those things aren't possible with film.

 

[MICKEY88]

If all you want is a RAW file, then you've hired a camera operator, not a photographer, not an artist. .

I agree with almost everything you've said, this line I can't agree with. although raw yields more leeway than a jpeg, it still takes a photographer to get a good raw file., modern cameras are good, but it still takes the photrographer to get a good composition, good exposure in the difficult lighting situations found in a lot of wedding settings.. etc...

 

[WDWFigment]

Believe me, it does happen that brides are asking for RAW files, because they read on wedding sites and in magazines, like The Knot that they're "supposed" to ask for them. It's not the norm, as most brides have no idea what RAW is, but with more consumer-level photo editing software and websites capable of reading RAW, this could change in the future. Clients are usually satisfied with high resolution JPG files, which is what I provide as "digital negatives". As a photographer and artist, my finished product is the post-processed image. If all you want is a RAW file, then you've hired a camera operator, not a photographer, not an artist. Asking for the RAW file is like asking the chef at a gourmet restaurant for the raw ingredients. What a fine dining establishment provides you is more than just those raw ingredients...you're paying for the training and talent of the chef, the visual appeal of the finished dish, the ambiance of the restaurant itself, the extraordinary service of all the staff, the entire experience.
Most wedding photographers do offer JPGs on disc now. Some include it in all their packages, some only include it in their higher cost packages, some provide jpgs of only the images for which prints are ordered (or included in an album), some only hand over the disc after a year or two (after which point the client is less likely to order prints), and some offer a disc of images as an add-on to packages. Most brides want to share their images via email and social networking sites, so they want the electronic files, but if that's all you provide, some brides just never get around to actually printing them or creating an album, which is a shame.
High rez images on disc still isn't the norm for portrait photography, but it's getting there. For portraits many togs offer low-rez watermarked images for email and social networking, and that usually satisfies folks. However, more "weekend warriors" and department store studios (Sears, JC Penny, etc) are now including images on disc. Pros must adapt, provide the clients what they want or find a way to satisfy them, and (here's the important part) charge accordingly.
Whether the customer receives her images on disc or as prints, I, as the photographer, still had to do the same amount of work and creativity (and overhead), and deserve at least the same amount of compensation. Some customers think that a disc of images should only cost a little more than the cost of a blank disc. Regardless of how the image is delivered, digitally or on paper, the value lies in the image itself, not the delivery medium. A CD of ten songs costs $10 at the mall. Those same songs cost $.99 each on iTunes, roughly the same cost as if you bought the CD? Why? Because the value is in the intellectual property itself, not the delivery medium. Next time you buy a Britney Spears CD try asking her for the raw audio tracks. )
On reason many togs resist giving RAW files is that they believe clients will do a horrible job of processing and printing them and ruin the reputation of the photographer when other people see them, thinking that's the final product of the photographer. Clients could just as easily process jpg files-- with less leeway than RAW, but if you're a pro, your exposure should be near perfect on images you deliver. I know of one internationally known celebrity wedding photographer who gives only RAW files, not jpg to his clients along with their albums and prints. Then again, he earns tens of thousands of dollars per wedding, and his elite clients are more likely to pay him for albums and large prints than bother trying to send jpgs to the corner drug store for 4x6 prints. I'm more likely to include RAW files for a fellow photographer, but, again, I would charge accordingly for potential lost revenue.

Obviously it is the intellectual property on the CD, and not the CD itself that is of value. Anyone who doesn't see that is fairly ignorant. We paid quite a bit extra to have our photographer provide digital files.

Again, I didn't want the RAW files because I ever plan on doing anything with them or because I don't trust the photographer. They are just something I wanted to have. Given the economy and the market saturation of good photographers in our area, I knew I could find a great photographer who would do it. I had the time to go to several wedding shows and do research about other photographers, so I wasn't too worried about my time cost.

I'm not saying an ignorant bride knows what RAW files are--the points about photography knowledge being a transaction cost that prevents a truly free market (and thus how cheap-o unskilled photographers harm professionals) and the argument that I wanted RAW files provided are mutually exclusive.

I don't see the argument based on providing JPGs and not RAW files in regards to harming the photographer's reputation. I guarantee I can open both a RAW file and a JPG file in Photoshop and make them look equally bad. In fact, the editing of a JPG file can be more destructive to the image, I could probably make the JPG look worse. I just see this as a hollow argument if the photographer is providing the JPG files anyway.

In any case, I don't see the issue with providing the RAW files on a discretionary basis. When I asked for the RAW files, our photographer asked if I was a photography enthused, and said he would be interested in seeing some of my images. At the time, I thought he was genuinely curious, but maybe he was asking to determine whether he'd provide the files. After I sent him a a link to my Flickr site, he said he had no issues providing the RAW files.

 

[GrillMouster]

I agree with almost everything you've said, this line I can't agree with. although raw yields more leeway than a jpeg, it still takes a photographer to get a good raw file., modern cameras are good, but it still takes the photrographer to get a good composition, good exposure in the difficult lighting situations found in a lot of wedding settings.. etc...

I agree with what you said. Even with the flexibility of RAW, it still takes a good photographer to get a good shot. What I meant was sort of in line with what Susan said in one of her posts, that if a bride spends thousands for a particular photographer, it's most likely because she prefers "the look" of the images that photographer's portfolio. That photographer's signature look is often the result of fine-tuning, and in some cases extensive post-processing. If you're only getting RAW files, you're not getting those finishing touches, and, thus, you're not getting the full benefit that you paid for.

 

[WDWFigment]

Believe me, it does happen that brides are asking for RAW files, because they read on wedding sites and in magazines, like The Knot that they're "supposed" to ask for them. It's not the norm, as most brides have no idea what RAW is, but with more consumer-level photo editing software and websites capable of reading RAW, this could change in the future. Clients are usually satisfied with high resolution JPG files, which is what I provide as "digital negatives". As a photographer and artist, my finished product is the post-processed image. If all you want is a RAW file, then you've hired a camera operator, not a photographer, not an artist. Asking for the RAW file is like asking the chef at a gourmet restaurant for the raw ingredients. What a fine dining establishment provides you is more than just those raw ingredients...you're paying for the training and talent of the chef, the visual appeal of the finished dish, the ambiance of the restaurant itself, the extraordinary service of all the staff, the entire experience.
Most wedding photographers do offer JPGs on disc now. Some include it in all their packages, some only include it in their higher cost packages, some provide jpgs of only the images for which prints are ordered (or included in an album), some only hand over the disc after a year or two (after which point the client is less likely to order prints), and some offer a disc of images as an add-on to packages. Most brides want to share their images via email and social networking sites, so they want the electronic files, but if that's all you provide, some brides just never get around to actually printing them or creating an album, which is a shame.
High rez images on disc still isn't the norm for portrait photography, but it's getting there. For portraits many togs offer low-rez watermarked images for email and social networking, and that usually satisfies folks. However, more "weekend warriors" and department store studios (Sears, JC Penny, etc) are now including images on disc. Pros must adapt, provide the clients what they want or find a way to satisfy them, and (here's the important part) charge accordingly.
Whether the customer receives her images on disc or as prints, I, as the photographer, still had to do the same amount of work and creativity (and overhead), and deserve at least the same amount of compensation. Some customers think that a disc of images should only cost a little more than the cost of a blank disc. Regardless of how the image is delivered, digitally or on paper, the value lies in the image itself, not the delivery medium. A CD of ten songs costs $10 at the mall. Those same songs cost $.99 each on iTunes, roughly the same cost as if you bought the CD? Why? Because the value is in the intellectual property itself, not the delivery medium. Next time you buy a Britney Spears CD try asking her for the raw audio tracks. )
On reason many togs resist giving RAW files is that they believe clients will do a horrible job of processing and printing them and ruin the reputation of the photographer when other people see them, thinking that's the final product of the photographer. Clients could just as easily process jpg files-- with less leeway than RAW, but if you're a pro, your exposure should be near perfect on images you deliver. I know of one internationally known celebrity wedding photographer who gives only RAW files, not jpg to his clients along with their albums and prints. Then again, he earns tens of thousands of dollars per wedding, and his elite clients are more likely to pay him for albums and large prints than bother trying to send jpgs to the corner drug store for 4x6 prints. I'm more likely to include RAW files for a fellow photographer, but, again, I would charge accordingly for potential lost revenue.

Obviously it is the intellectual property on the CD, and not the CD itself that is of value. Anyone who doesn't see that is fairly ignorant. We paid quite a bit extra to have our photographer provide digital files.

Again, I didn't want the RAW files because I ever plan on doing anything with them or because I don't trust the photographer. They are just something I wanted to have. Given the economy and the market saturation of good photographers in our area, I knew I could find a great photographer who would do it. I had the time to go to several wedding shows and do research about other photographers, so I wasn't too worried about my time cost.

I'm not saying an ignorant bride knows what RAW files are--the points about photography knowledge being a transaction cost that prevents a truly free market (and thus how cheap-o unskilled photographers harm professionals) and the argument that I wanted RAW files provided are mutually exclusive.

I don't see the argument based on providing JPGs and not RAW files in regards to harming the photographer's reputation. I guarantee I can open both a RAW file and a JPG file in Photoshop and make them look equally bad. In fact, the editing of a JPG file can be more destructive to the image, I could probably make the JPG look worse. I just see this as a hollow argument if the photographer is providing the JPG files anyway.

In any case, I don't see the issue with providing the RAW files on a discretionary basis. When I asked for the RAW files, our photographer asked if I was a photography enthusiast, and said he would be interested in seeing some of my images. At the time, I thought he was genuinely curious, but maybe he was asking to determine whether he'd provide the files. After I sent him a a link to my Flickr site, he said he had no issues providing the RAW files.

 

[WDWFigment]

I agree with what you said. Even with the flexibility of RAW, it still takes a good photographer to get a good shot. What I meant was sort of in line with what Susan said in one of her posts, that if a bride spends thousands for a particular photographer, it's most likely because she prefers "the look" of the images that photographer's portfolio. That photographer's signature look is often the result of fine-tuning, and in some cases extensive post-processing. If you're only getting RAW files, you're not getting those finishing touches, and, thus, you're not getting the full benefit that you paid for.

I guess it is worth noting that we are getting the RAW files in addition to fully processed RAW files.

 

[webshark3]

Until recently, a lots of brides thought film was superior to digital, and were willing to pay more for a tog who shoots film exclusively or film alongside digital. However, more and more brides want digital images for email, cellphone and computer wallpaper, myspace/facebook, and digital frames. They think that those things aren't possible with film.

All I know is my MF proofs, put on my all-purpose scanner blow up and look nicer than the digital wedding photos my siblings have. Did it as pure experimentation of course. I bought all my prints I wanted.

 

[GrillMouster]

...the points about photography knowledge being a transaction cost that prevents a truly free market (and thus how cheap-o unskilled photographers harm professionals) and the argument that I wanted RAW files provided are mutually exclusive.

Yes, this discussion has expanded to all sorts of areas. LOL

I don't see the argument based on providing JPGs and not RAW files in regards to harming the photographer's reputation. I guarantee I can open both a RAW file and a JPG file in Photoshop and make them look equally bad. In fact, the editing of a JPG file can be more destructive to the image, I could probably make the JPG look worse. I just see this as a hollow argument if the photographer is providing the JPG files anyway.

In any case, I don't see the issue with providing the RAW files on a discretionary basis...

I agree. On the other hand, because of the flexibility of RAW, some photographers feel that providing RAW files pretty much makes the photographer unnecessary to the customer and reduces their potential future sales. For example, if the photographer provides a jpg image in black and white, if the client later wants that image in color, he/she would need to go back to the photographer. However, if the client had the RAW file, she already has it in color, and may not really need the photographer. I think that's a rare situation. I don't automatically include RAW, because, as I said, I don't see it as a finished product, and I want to give my clients a finished product, equal to what I showed them before they hired me. If someone asks, I won't automatically say "no", but I would try to find out why they want them and how much they're worth to the client. As in the case of your photographer, I'd be more willing to provide them to a client who appreciates their value and my value, especially if they're spending a decent amount. I know that if I were hiring a wedding photographer today I'd likely ask if they'd consider giving me the RAW files after I've purchased prints, albums, and the JPG files.

 

[GrillMouster]

All I know is my MF proofs, put on my all-purpose scanner blow up and look nicer than the digital wedding photos my siblings have. Did it as pure experimentation of course. I bought all my prints I wanted.

Even the new twenty+ megapixel DSLRs, which many are saying are in the Medium Format range in terms of megapixels, can't really compete with true Medium Format (even Digital Medium Format backs of nearly equal megapixel range). Even at high ISO, digital medium format has nearly zero noise, amazing dynamic range and shadow detail. It's the same reason full-frame DSLRs tend to have better high ISO performance than APS-C DSLRs with equivalent megapixels...larger photosites.

 

[disneyboy2003]

Asking for the RAW file is like asking the chef at a gourmet restaurant for the raw ingredients.

This made me smile. It's an excellent analogy.

(although some customers might say that they paid for all the ingredients, so they deserve all the trimmed fat, bones, etc)

 

[Chikabowa]

I don't see the argument based on providing JPGs and not RAW files in regards to harming the photographer's reputation.

Oh... I do! My style in itself is highly stylized, glossy, dramatic, magazine type of styling. I only want my work displayed as I've created it - both in camera and through post-process. It is VERY damaging when people show work of mine that they have processed themselves. It looks horrible - and that is what the viewer then learns of me and my product. It's a very viscous cycle.

But with that said... you will notice that most of the photographers who think like me tend to attract a type of customer that this becomes a moot point, to be honest. Like I've said before, I generally attract customers who don't have any reason to change my files upon receiving them. I personally upload and tag watermarked/websized files for them on facebook, I put together slideshows for them to load up onto facebook, e-mail, etc. Additionally, the clients I have buy albums and enlargements... so by the time they get their discs, it's only for archival purposes and the occasional 4x6 reprint.

 

[manning]

Being on the performing arts side of things I can tell you that one of the things I tell people who work for me is that we make it look simple. We make it look easy. That's our job. Everyone out there thinks they can be better than the next American Idol and everyone wants to be a critic thanks to American Idol.
I think the mentality that drives people to ask a non professional to shoot their wedding is the same mentality when someone asks, "OMG, what camera are you using? It takes such awesome pictures!" I know I'm guilty of it, I asked everyone what kind of camera they were using when I was thinking a DSLR would transform me into a great photographer. We all know, (I am just a hobbyist and I know this) that it's not the equipment. A crappy drummer is still going to sound crappy even if he's on the most expensive drum kit. A great drummer can get on a crappy drum set and make that baby sing. It's the years of practice and investment of time and education and more practice, that separates the pros from the wannabes.

Amen!!

What amused me was the impression that the camera, with many settings, is going to solve everything. Granted I am talking about 30 years ago but the principle is the same. We shot with Leica M3 cameras. What we did was use one shutter speed and that was the flash syn setting and 3 f-stops depending on the distance from the subject for 90% of the shots taken. We used other settings for some of the specialty shots. With that I would use a second camera to ensure the settings were correct on the primary camera. I used an SLR only for specialty shots that required a certain type lense and filter, and there were only about five of those shots in a ten roll shoot.

In other words the mode of operation was
Keep
It
Simple
Stupid

A good photographer will not be noticed during the wedding. I had someone complain to me once that I wasn't taking enough pictures until I showed him the number of exposed rolls I had.