Photogs: don't submit RAW files!

[mark8189]

I am an Art Director working only with freelance photographers. About half of these send me files and say: "Gee, I hope you can read .NEF (or some other RAW) format?" Am I the only one annoyed by this? (A) I have enough work do without trying to decipher these files. (I'm sure many will say "Oh, I can show you how to do a PSD action that will do that easily" well, I just wasted hours on that and it still won't work.) and (B) Why would a photographer trust someone to convert these files? Aren't they aware that RAW conversions involve user settings that can totally change the look of the shot? Thats like handing me their roll of film and saying: "Yep, develop
and print these any way you like, my artistic vision plays no role here". I feel it should be standard practice for the photographers to make your own RAW conversions and submit as TIFF or JPEGs, unless directed otherwise. What are your thoughts?

[fredrich]

I agree. You as an art director have little or nothing to do with the editing of the pictures in my opinion, therefore you should not receive unedited RAW-files, these should be finished JPEG/TIFF-files provided by the photographer.

[fredrich]

On the other side:

I just got another one from my least favorite client. They always send a crappy jpg file, 8 x 12 inches at 300 dpi, with massive jpg compression artifacts, and want it made into a 9 x 15 foot mural. Every time they do this, I explain that I need a file 180 inches wide at a minimum of 150 dpi, and preferable not a jpg. So what do they do? Someone at their office opens it in Photoshop and sizes it up and saves it as a tiff. And it's still the wrong aspect ratio...

But then again, if you call yourself a freelance photographer, you wouldn't do this.

[mojoprime]

the photogs we work with send both, raw files and then a converted tiff. the reason is that on the same side as you not wanting to spend time touching up a photo that they send (which can be a long, laborous process i know), that if you're just going to convert a photo to a duotone (which still requires post-production work) and cutout the background or whatnot, then why should they spend the time as well?

before someone says anything, i know, i know; because they're paid too.

well, in a sense, so are we.

just my 0.02.

[captain spanky]

personally i wouldn't send anyone one of my RAW files unless i really had no time to convert to tiff or something...
but then i know a couple of photographers who separate the 'taking of the pic' from the 'printing of the pic' if you know what i mean? it's like they see their job ending with the press of the shutter release.

[PrintDriver]

If that's the way the see it, they should be using film.

But then again, maybe not.

[Silence04]

I don't know... I'm an art director too, sometimes i prefer raw for total control over the image, there is nothing worse finding a great shot for an ad and there are artifacts everywhere, looks pixilated, or some levels are completely blown out.

however, that type of extra work is almost like tying a anchor to your foot when your trying to get a job out...

more times than none, i'm sent a converted tiff or jpg...

[SurfPark]

I think when a photographer gives an art director RAW files, they should fully expect their image to be altered due to conversion issues. Its your responsibility to inform all photographers that you want files in specific formats and that if they're submitted in a non-specified format they could expect some changes to their images.

It is the photographer's responsibility for the end result of their photo to thes best extent of their abilities. I think that many come from a mindset where they assume what they see on their screens will be the image when printed. That is where designers need to educate them.

Do photographers normally print out their images from the RAW file formats? I'm not sure if anyone here would know this because we're all designers, but I'd be interested to know if this problem exists because of their industry's typical procedures or laziness.

[urstwile]

Depending on the planned scenario for the results of a photo shoot, the photographers we work with either:

a) submit raw files to us, because the creative direction for the final result is to stylize them in a way that basically renders the photographs in a way that is far from the original shoot (i.e., applying high contrast or other effects). In those cases, the RAW files are best, as there's more data to work with.

b) submit final, color corrected TIFFs.

What we get from the photographers depends on what we plan on using the images for in the end. In some cases, we want the color to be spot on, in other cases, we're planning to alter the photographs in some way. The photographers we work with know this from the get go, and supply us the files that are appropriate for how we're going to be working with the images.

[PrintDriver]

^that is how to work with Photographers.

It isn't up to Graphic Designers to 'educate' anyone, even Photographers. If the Photog isn't professional enough to enquire format and usage, the designer isn't professional enough to provide specs, or the photog doesn't read said specs, it's no use whining about it.

The OP says he is working only with Freelance photographers. In what capacity? And at what skill level? Photography has become much like Graphic Design. Anyone can go out and buy a digicam and call themselves a photographer...