Was asked, one time, four years ago or something, to provide the RAW
files for the actual printing. The client hired the crew on independent
basis, so I never met the ones responsible for the rest of the job. All
I did was take the photos, deliver the proofs so they could select, then
deliver the raw files of the selected images.
I accepted simply because the photos had no interest for me other than
get paid - I worked under a very strict guideline, the subject was no
good, the client received my comments with a polite "thanks but that's
what I want precisely", paid a fair surcharge so I would release the
copyright and agree to look at the finished product as if it was
completely unknown to me - and soon after full payment I received (his
idea) yet another bonus to destroy any files left (wich I did).
They did call some weeks later, since a very close copy of their product
was being marketed by someone, and they needed assurance I had nothing
to do with the fact - simple to prove since I never retained the sample
and the photos had the artifacts to prove the competitors just scanned
the original folders and did some PS.
Yes, I ramble - this IS old age. the point is, the moment I assume to
get paid for some job I also assume the fine print (if any). The guy who
wants me to provide some photo with all rights and full contents of the
camera at the end of the session is just paying me an extra. No, I'm not
touching the legal or moral content of the session. No, I don't get that
kind of deal often and I simply won't sell off my projects like that.
But I have no interest of being known as the guy who took some so-so
product photo because the client wanted and paid for exactly that photo.
I'm paid for those photos, but I don't take them as art. Just the job at
hand.
LF
[email protected] escreveu:
----- "John Sessoms" <[email protected]> wrote:
From: "William Robb"
----- Original Message -----
From: "Timbah!"
Subject: Toughts... Pentax and Professional Photography
One of the main problems is I've Pentax. Not kidding. An agency
will never
talk with someone who has Pentax. The minimum is Full Frame,
which Pentax
not planning to release. With a Nikon D700 or Canon EOS 5D (MK1)
I could
start with luck :)
I take it that agencies no longer care about the quality of the
photographs
so much as some of the less than important aspects of the technology
of
taking them?
William Robb
Most of 'em never did.
I've been told they don't care what kind of camera I use, as long as I
provide the images in either Nikon or Canon RAW format.
The biggest advantage of shooting Cakon is third party support. Plus,
if
you don't have exactly the lens you need, you can rent it just about
anywhere.
The availability of rental equipment is an obvious plus for Canon and Nikon
shooters. But in regard to providing RAW files in those formats, that's a
non-issue. I work for a lot of different pubs, agencies, stock houses and other
clients, and no one has ever requested RAW files. If they did, I'd tell them
no. Controlling the transition from RAW to tiff is part of the photographer's
job, his signature if you will. I would never turn over the coarse data that is
a RAW file. And I know of no working pro who would.
Paul
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
Luiz Felipe
luiz.felipe at techmit.com.br
http://techmit.com.br/luizfelipe/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
