Need advise - Bride is asking for RAW proofs

I just got a call from a bride from a wedding that I shoot 3 months ago. She is asking for all the RAW proofs. Now about 2 weeks after the wedding I had delivered nearly 500 images to her and her husband. They both were very happy with the images. But now this request has be on the fence, should I pass on all the RAW files? If I do that, then I have to worry about my watermark, the editing that I've done on many already and whether they will have my same signature look and feel. How would you deal with this?

I'm sure if I do move forward, there should be an additional fee (which I warned her already). What should I charge and would you draft up a new contract?

As a general rule, I don't do weddings but, if I did, it would be a cold day in you know where before I just handed over the RAW images....If I chose to do it, the fee per image would be very, very high.

Even if you were to decide to comply...I would suggest only giving copies of the RAW files, and explain that you will be keeping the RAW's as proof of copyright. In addition, I would explain that any additional work, other than their own personal 'tinkering' would be an infringement. ( I've shot only one wedding, which was for my very poor granddaughter, and it will be my last one. And [ stealing from McBeth's post ] it would be a cold day in 'you-know-where' before I would allow her to even SEE the RAW files, much less have them! )

I agree with what has been posted. Why does she want the RAW files anyway?

I would liken giving her the RAW files to giving away your negatives or Slides.

with everyone. She hired you to photograph, not to hold the camera and snap for her. Your product is not your materials, of which the RAW files are a part, but the edited and selected images you choose to present. She could turn your files into garbage, and present them as your work, not maliciously, but through ignorance. Unless you agreed to it when you were hired (a mistake, in my view), you don't need and shouldn't release those files to her.

Maybe you need to remind her of the terms of the contract... Or is it possible talking to her further to get an idea why she wants them now?

In my job (which was not photography related) sometimes I'd find that what someone was asking about wasn't necessarily what they're really trying to figure out. I think people hear or see something that may seem like a good idea to them, til you find out what they really need or want and can help direct them to something that might be a better choice or solution.

OT - cool avatar!

I'd say no. That'd be the end of it.

I'm blown away with all the responses. I guess that solves that really quickly. Thanks for the advice everyone!

I've always responded with "I don't release the raw files or unprocessed photos", and no one has ever argued with me about it. It's written into my wedding and portrait contracts that raw files are not available, and files will be delivered as jpegs. If someone wanted tiffs instead I could do that.

Scotty wrote: I'd say no. That'd be the end of it.

Pretty much what I would say, just in a nice way.

Henry Peach wrote: I've always responded with "I don't release the raw files or unprocessed photos", and no one has ever argued with me about it. It's written into my wedding and portrait contracts that raw files are not available, and files will be delivered as jpegs. If someone wanted tiffs instead I could do that.

Yeah I could see doing a TIFF for them but RAW files never. It would be like giving them the negatives if you shot film, it would never happen. If they do not like it then make a price so high they will give up, say like $400 a RAW. That should make them choke on their request.

I would be willing to listen to why they thought they would need the raw files. I just can't think of any reasons that they'd be able to convince me that raw files would be better for them. I am definitely not interested in the client doing their own processing. That's why they hired me. If they need processing adjustments then just ask me to do it.

Chances are that this all started with questionable advice from a friend or relative or blog. Someone said "raw is best!", but never explained or doesn't know why. Explain what raw is, and she'll probably understand that she has no use for them.

I don't get requests for raw files except from clients who are into photography. These days I just say "No" (smiling), and they get it. A long time ago I did have a couple who were experienced amateur photographers. I looked at their work, and we discussed processing and raw and such. They wanted me to do the processing, but they also wanted to keep the raw files, and I decided that I was okay with that. They weren't interested in radical re-processing, but wanted the option to go in and do minor adjustments. Years later I ran into them, and asked "Have you ever gone back to the raw files, and done any reprocessing?" He said "Nope. We've never even looked at them or backed up the CD. The jpegs are great!".

I have done work for designers where they have asked for the raw files, but everyone was on the same page from the beginning. I knew when I took the job that they were going to be taking the photos I provided and using them as they needed. When I do copy work for artists I usually include the raw files. Accurate color is such a big issue when photographing artwork. 100% accuracy is probably impossible, and where it's okay to compromise needs to be decided by the artist. I'd rather let them (or their lab) fine tune the color if they need to than make them come back to me to add 2 points of magenta.

I went to my Chevy dealer the other day and requested the car I wanted to be delivered without paint - so I could paint it myself. They said NO!.

No go for me