Just a quick comment about your last post about "avoiding questions like the plague." It is certainly not avoiding the questions if certain professional photographers haven't been on this site for two months. Holiday season is a very busy time for photographers, needless to say I haven't been able to even check this site in quite some time. I'm sure the other photographers will tell you the same.
I logged on today to find your reply and was quite disheartened to know how someone couldn't give people a least a little credit.
I take pride in being a professional photographer. It is busy work and helping people on these site is totally voluntary for me and all other photographers. It is in good cause. I'm tired of seeing brides ripped off. So in response to your questions here are my insights.
1. When a photographer says they furnish processed, or unprocessed jpg files, raw files (.cr2), what does that exactly mean?
In most cases a photographer furnishing "processed" jpg's means it is a jpeg that can be ready on any computer. "Processed" is a very loose term because it varies from photographer to photographer. I for one, consider processed images as images that are ready to print. (at a pro lab of course). They are images I've color corrected (rarely need to), minor blemish removal, and post processed enhancements. Images with vignettes, advanced photoshop manipulation, and major blemish removal are considered specialty items. Basically, a Jpeg that is ready to print is processed.
Now if a photographer is giving Raw images, it is the highest image quality you can get. The kicker is that you will only be able to read the image with special software, and in most cases your everyday lab won't be able to print them. You will have to convert the images to jpegs or tiffs with Photoshop or Raw Conversion software to see them on your computer. Raw images are NOT digitally enhanced, i.e. blemish removal, etc.
2. When a photographer says some of the files he will give you are 'ready to print', is that a flag? Shouldn't they ALL be ready to print?
Yes and no. It shouldn't be a flag. Yes because if the image is a jpeg it is ready to print.
No, because if the image is a jpeg, but certain elements like blown highlights and loss of detail in blacks (both of which can be improved post production) may not have been edited.
3. If you do choose to print your pictures later, and forgo purchasing them from the photographer, what is the difference in resolution/quality?
Only if you purchased full resolution images, will the image quality be the same. Again, the lab you use will highly reflect on the photographers work. If you order from the photographer it will always be on the highest resolution.
If you purchased full resolution images and have the DVD/CD it shouldn't matter.
4. Will most photographers sign a release so you may have full ownership of your own pictures? If not, why? I can't imagine hiring an artist to paint my portrait, then paying him $$$ only to have him declare he still owns MY portrait and I must get his permission to do with it what I want.
Depends on the market you are in and the photographer. Many photographers now a days will shoot and give a CD. A practice that is in my opinion hurting professional photography. This is a balancing act because a photography is a business. Merely giving the CD away is certainly shortchanging a gifted artist. If you pay an artist to paint a portrait of you, fine. But I don't know any artists who forgo their copywrite on any single painting. Especially to reproduce it. Photography is art, and reproducing the artist's work has a price. Even if you paid for the service, the creator has the rights to his work.
I do offer "digital negatives" with one package, but for a price, and for certain stipulations. It's not fair to the creator to reproduce an image he/she created without at least some compensation. For a professional photographer, this is important, because we too, must put food on the table. You aren't merely buying a 10c CD. It is a "right" to reproduce art while risking the artist's reputation. I've seen work printed at subpar kiosks for 19c that distort color and provide a very bad image. This reflects on the photographer.
It seems that with the dawn of digital all artists are taking a loss in the long run. Now people want their CD's, want to download free music, pirate movies, etc. In the long run the artist's suffer, and quality goes down.
Feel free to respond. I'd love to hear comments, but it may be another two months before I have "time to check back." Thanks!
"The Photographer"
Www.CgProPhoto.com
Message was edited by: WeddingArtist
), here's his website:
