Photography

I know I'm going to get downvoted here, but I strongly disagree with the photographer's apprehension for providing RAWs. I think it stems from the photographer and the client having a different understanding of meaning and purpose of the photographer -- and frankly, I think it's a case where the photographers should be more willing to give the customer what they want.

For the photographer, the photos are part of their Art. The finished photos say something about their style, etc., and they shudder at the idea of someone editing their pictures in a style they disagree with. I know they also have apprehension about showing the client (used to "unedited" iPhone photos looking bright and vibrant) what a real RAW looks like.

But for the paying client (for any type of family/event photography at least), we don't really care about that. The purpose of hiring a photographer is documentary. Yes, we have chosen a particular photographer (I hope) after looking at their portfolio and deciding that we like their style, but the reason we are paying the photographer is so that we can have a photographic record of a particular moment in time. If we want to showcase that moment differently, or go back years later as technology changes, why shouldn't we be able to? I mean, I imagine that if I had the RAWs from my wedding in 2007, I'd be able to make them look significantly better with minimal effort given the incredible differences in Lightroom since then.

That said, I may be a particular kind of client. Because I'm a (very amateur) photographer myself, I at least understand that an un-culled, un-edited RAW dump does not represent the skill of the photographer. But some sort of arrangement where after we've selected and agreed on final, edited images (and I've fully paid), I get a RAW dump for my own archival purposes should be completely unobjectionable to any family/event photographer.