"GIve me your raw files!"

[480sparky]

Take the raw files, resize them to 200 pixels along the long edge, then save 'em as a JPEG. Then rename the files back to their original proprietary raw format.

 

[bogeyguy]

I have to agree with albertaclipper. Unless you had permission, you did wrong.

 

[Ballistics]

I guess I'm looking at it in another prospective. Did she ask you to photograph her child,or give you Permission to photograph her child. If not then she has the right to Confiscate all photos. I would give them to her and don't photograph her kids again without permission and then in that case put your water mark on them and signature. Also charge a fee even if its family. Sometimes family can be the worst to deal with. Always cover yourself no matter what or who it is.

She does not have the right to confiscate anything lol.

OP - There has to be more to the story then you are telling.

 

[Ballistics]

I have to agree with albertaclipper. Unless you had permission, you did wrong.

I'm sure everyone here gets written permission to photograph a family member right? You all have model releases for every shot you've ever taken of your family?

 

[ronlane]

I guess I'm looking at it in another prospective. Did she ask you to photograph her child,or give you Permission to photograph her child. If not then she has the right to Confiscate all photos. I would give them to her and don't photograph her kids again without permission and then in that case put your water mark on them and signature. Also charge a fee even if its family. Sometimes family can be the worst to deal with. Always cover yourself no matter what or who it is.

She does not have the right to confiscate anything lol.

OP - There has to be more to the story then you are telling.

I agree there is more to this. I don't think she has the right to confiscate anything either. You were babysitting her kids, so in a since, it was a public location, so wouldn't that factor into your favor.

I've never had a family member or friend be like that for taking pictures of their Child. I send them the jpeg file and for some of them post them to their facebook page, if they have a habit of posting pictures of their own kids.

 

[LuckyShot]

Maybe it's because I'm a complete noob, but I honestly don't see the big deal about giving her the RAWs. It is rather insulting if she actually said that she wanted them so her husband could fix the processing (whether it's true or not), but they are still pcitures of her children and if she didn't like how they came out and wants to play around the processing, I'd tell her to have fun. I understand not giving unedited images out if you are a professional since any image floating around out there with your name on it reflects on you even if you didn't make any of the editing choices, but if your not making money doing this and it's just a hobby then I really don't understand what the problem is.

 

[Alex_B]

I do give out the RAWs, no problem as long as the recipient is a photographer (not necessarily a pro) and knows what he is doing. All others only get JPG.

 

[Ilovemycam]

OP...I only care about things that go in my portfolio or have a chance at a museum.

 

[MK3Brent]

I do give out the RAWs, no problem as long as the recipient is a photographer (not necessarily a pro) and knows what he is doing. All others only get JPG.

I don't understand this.

It's not like you're giving someone materials to build a bridge, and you have a concern that if you give them something without direction they'll produce something that hurts someone. In the end, it's an edit of a photo you composed and actuated.

What's the difference between someone butchering your JPEG vs. the RAW? (Skilled photographer or unskilled photographer)

 

[Overread]

How would you respond if someone told you to hand over your raw files?

Depends who they are (and sometimes how much they are willing to pay)

In this case, it's a relative asking for the raw versions of pictures that I took of her kids while babysitting

Eh just hand em over and have done with it. It's not worth having a family feud start up over a handful of child photo negatives/RAWs. Really it isn't and I doubt that there is anything so special about them that:
1) they'll become prize winning photos in any serious competition or market

2) that you could not repeat or recreate in a staged scene if you wanted to have them for work/promotional material (and assuming you can't just get permission for that from your relative.


Seriously as much as we like to protect our RAWs and such this just a few family photos its nothing worth getting worked up about.

 

[BrandonLaw]

Honestly nobody is going to burn family bridges over a couple of damn pictures. Just calmly explain to your relative that you do not give your RAW files out to anyone and that includes family. Your work is your work and if you don't want other people editing photos that you took then that is completely understandable. There is a good way to go about this just talk like rational adults and everything will be fine. If she has a problem with the photos you took then tell her she is more then welcome to buy a camera and spend the time learning how to use it so she can take the kind of pictures she "wants" lol. This should be a non-issue either way it goes you guys are family!

 

[Designer]

Honestly nobody is going to burn family bridges over a couple of damn pictures.

Both sides have been adequately expressed, but under which scenario would burning family bridges be more likely?

It seems to boil down to generating and escalating family strife or turning over some electronic files, copies of which will still exist with the OP.

 

[Majeed Badizadegan]

Nobody sees my unedited raw files, touches my raw files, or would EVER get copies of my raw files. If they want raw files of their child, (since they are not happy with your edits), then they need to purchase a camera, learn how to use it, and then do their own damn crap with it.

Kathy gimmer all yer rawr files, orrr elsE~!

 

[vintagesnaps]

Did the relative ask you to take photos of her kids? Maybe it would be better to look outside your family (or at least some of your relatives) to find ways to practice your photography skills. It sounds like they wanted the photos to look differently than what you took, so it might be better for the husband to take and edit his own pictures of their kids - or they could consider going to a photo studio, or whatever they choose to do to have photos of their family.

I'd probably consider maybe if there are particular ones they want and provide them some hi res copies of those. Then as someone mentioned, maybe do the babysitting without your camera. Or if you're at a family function take photos just for your own personal use and let them do their own thing.

 

[bratkinson]

In re-reading the original post, their asking for the raw images automatically indicates they have some facility to process them as such. Presuming further, they downloaded some free software such as GIMP and expect to do whatever they would like to do with the pictures. If they come back and want a copy of your post processing software, advise them that is a violation of the End User License Agreement for the software, regardless of its being paid or free.

So they go and process your raw files. Do they have a clue about white balance? Noise correction and whatever else may be necessary? I'm beginning to wonder if they even have a clue of what to do with the raw files? Or that their software can even process them? I'm guessing they will give up in frustration and simply 'go with' the JPGs you provided them.

Perhaps, a couple of days/weeks from now, casually ask how did their processing of the raw files go? (if you provided them to keep the family happy). Inquiring minds want to know!