I shot a wedding in March and have delivered the product to the client and they are very happy with it. The run time is about 70 minutes. Now I’m being asked more than once to supply them raw footage shot with the Sony EX1 so they can relive the whole day. The client wants this downloaded to their hard drive which they will supply and I will not receive any fee for this. (Friends of family)
Now the farther of the groom is keen on video and I know he wants to re-edit this and also play around with footage shot with the EX1 (If I was starting out I would like to do the same thing) and now I’m torn in this moral dilemma to do the right thing by my own morals, rights and what is right to the client.
My style of shooting at run and gun functions is all over the place at times and my ratio between what is kept and chucked is un watch able to the average person until it’s in is correct edited form.

I think I should say NO to this footage but then what will it matter if I give in.
I only want the best to be viewed not the stuff where I’m running to another location and forgot to turn the camera off or over, underexposed footage before CC, levels also two channels of audio that needs fixing, the list goes on……
I have read some old posts on this subject but can’t find anything new for this year.

My saving grace could be that because it’s XDCAM EX shot @ 720/50P the client might give up badgering me about this.

Thanks
w

Just say no. There are many reasons not to provide this. But the main reason would be your professional image. I can't see how putting raw footage in the wrong hands without your ability to defend /explain yourself to the average viewer of these tapes can possibly enhance your professional image. Your professional image is your life! Don't give it away!

I have to agree, I would give it away. Especially knowing you have things in there that you wouldn't normally want to be out in the eyes of your audience.

A key here is that you stated you "think you should say no"... then go with that. GL!

Hi,

Do what I do CHARGE THEM for it . Take out some of the real rough spots and your good to go. We usually charge $500 for the raw. If they want it that bad at least make something off it.

I would say don't GIVE it away no matter what. Don't ever get in the habit of GIVING your time/work/product away because it's bad business practice. So I would suggest that you consider a sizable fee for the raw footage and present that figure to them ($500-800 is reasonable I think). If they make the argument that all you have to do is copy the footage to a hard-drive, remind them that the footage you have required YOUR time and skill for "X" hours on the wedding day, and that you aren't willing to just give that away for free.

If that conversation makes you too uncomfortable since there is family involved, then simply say the raw footage is unavailable. Don't start listing your reasons because that will just open up room for arguments. Just say "I'm sorry, I've edited the footage already and given you the best result. The raw footage is unavailable. We don't release that."

Good luck!

Just tell them you deleted the raw files, and you're left with final version only.

Giving away raw it's like asking magician to give away his tricks.

I have been giving the raw footage for free all these time. Never had the nerve to sell them for a price. Didn't think the market I'm serving would be willing to pay for it and I didn't want this to be a deal breaker. But lately, we find it that more and more clients are requesting the raw footage. Just yesterday when I revised the 2009 price list, I decided to charge a fee for it. Personally I don't mind if clients don't BUY them. Because like many of you, we shoot to edit using multiple angles/camera. Unedited version of one angle is not the most appealing thing to watch.

Simon, you can't lie to them now. Any of your clients can google your name and pull up this conversation from now until forever.

Go google.....Anyway thanks for all your input. I have gone with my gut feeling and said no to raw footage as I was hired to shoot and edit the days event into a wedding DVD. Had I been hired as a shooter only then I would have handed over the rushes.

This is what I'm thinking.

Rule one: I do not hand over raw footage if I'm hired to shoot and edit into a package.
Rule two: If the client is becoming a problem due to this situation then I will offer raw footage at a premium price but this will be edited by me, "to quote Walt" the real rough spots taken out. And this footage will be rendered back out to XDCAM EX.

I have never encountered this situation before and this is a great learning curve to put my business rules in place one and for all.

Regards

I don't see why you can't give them the raw footage. Its their video, not yours. They paid you to shoot the wedding and they paid you to edit the wedding. I would understand if you were paid to shoot a commercial or something more public that the raw footage could be poorly edited and shown to the world. But, trust me nobody wants to see Ben and Jill's freakin unedited wedding video except Ben and Jill. So whats the harm? Even if Jill's dad wants to edit the thing, nobody will see it because nobody likes watching wedding videos. Jill's dad will only have more respect for you as an editor and colorist and vfx guy after he tries to do himself.

If there is additional time and expense then you should charge accordingly. I would think the raw footage would only showcase your editing and coloring skills all the more and everyone would like your edit that much more having seen the raw stuff.

You're an editor. You wouldn't ask the editor of your favourite paper to supply the first draft of a newspaper article, junk and all. You wouldn't ask the carpenter who made your kitchen table for all the offcuts, bent nails and sawdust.

Raw materials are needed for any finished product. If they see how much useless stuff you shot (not a criticism - we all do this) your image would be severely diluted in their estimation.

tom.

I want to disagree with you whole heartedly as someone's wedding video is not a piece of wood or a story that was written, those aren't good comparisons. Although my carpenter, who built my kitchen cabinets, did leave me extra knobs, hinges and an extra cabinet... which I will one day hang in the garage, maybe.

I'm editing a video for a friends wedding and I don't see a problem giving them an uncut version. I do like the idea of taking out the absolute bad shots, like a shot of the ground while the camera is still running or what ever, but any shots of the bride and groom that don't make my edit are still valuable to them and at no harm to me.

So I disagree for the most part, but I know there are some pretty dumb and naive people out there who could be turned off by bad footage. They don't understand the craft. However, good footage hits the cutting room floor too. But, then I think wedding videos should only be short films not feature length.

I don't see why you can't give them the raw footage. Its their video, not yours.

Actually, it's NOT their video. If the client is paying for an edit according to their contract, then THAT is all they have the right to. If providing the raw footage is not part of the contract then the client has no right to that footage. It's pretty simple.

As for whether or not to give the client the option for the raw footage, that's a personal decision each videographer must make. I used to not offer the option, then started offering it for a minimal price, and now I offer it for a substantial price.

Some reasons to charge for raw footage:
- it's something you're providing in addition to what the contract promises
- if you're transferring it to DVD first then that takes valuable time
- you're giving someone else full access to all of the original footage
- you may want to discourage the release of raw footage because of questionable content

I have it in my contract that I will not provide raw footage of the event.
There's just no way people are getting their grubby little hands on EVERYTHING that was shot that day!
Have you ever had a shot where the camera is squarely focused on a womans tits or arse while you're looking around for your next shot etc? LolZ.

I had a client that wanted the raw footage to get photos out of it (they had a bad Photographers :), they have no photos during the ceremony) so they paid me $500 for the tapes and they were very happy with it !!!!!
What was I going to do with the tapes after my final edit :):)

I can't imagine going through 6 hrs of tapes to cut out all unwanted shots, and then burn on dvd's. That's like another whole project. I also tell my customers that they are getting everything on their copy anyway. My customers usually want to get full-length production.

Hey Simon.
Go with your gut instinct, and the majority view of most here, and that is to say NO. I've been shooting weddings since 1979 (now i'm showing my age). and have never been asked for original camera footage.

There are a lot of conversations at weddings that can get inadvertantly recorded, sometimes in the background, that you don't even notice on the tape without careful listening, that you really wouldn't want to get out and cause conflicts and unhappy situations for guests. You don't need to be a contributor to that kind of "invasion of privacy" situation. In the end, situations like this caused by completely unedited tapes will just give another reason for guests to scorn the videographer.

I'd like to throw in my two cents here too. I mentioned to a photog once that this bride requested the raw footage, and he was shocked. He said that no one has ever asked him for the shots he didn't include in the proofs, and he would never release them anyhow, for any price.

I too am a crazy shooter, starting recording before needing to, ending it way after needing to, and leaving the camera running in between shots a lot. That's a lot of crazy movement that would require some Dramamine to watch. I personally will agree to it for a fee, but I only release the footage they might care about, and they know this ahead of time. So, I give them only the leftover shots from prep, guests entering the church, uncut ceremony and fast dancing (of which it edit down drastically). The dancing footage with ambient audio is 90% of what my clients want to see anyhow, NOT every detail from every tape. I'm thinking about just adding that as a feature, uncut dancing and communion. I bet with that, nobody would ask for raw footage again.

My two cents.

Good points Dan about cutting the uncut to something extra.
My client wants it all, every second that I shot.

I shot my friends wedding video a while ago, as a wedding gift(aka free)...Got them the final dvd, which included 2 highlight videos, wishes to the bride and groom and the ceremony. Now they are asking for the raw uncut footage to be burned to dvd... I have cleaned my hard drive and would have to re-ingest footage, and go through the whole process again( 3 hours worth of tape). just to get raw footage on dvd.

Should I ask for a fee in this situation? Should I just say no..

Didn't mean to hikack the thread.

thanks,

Mike.

If it's for a friend, then there's no question of payment. You could say you've binned the junk. But for a three hour load-up, and hour to cut out the very worst and another 2 hours to MPEG encode to DVD I'd have thought they'd be delighted.

Should I ask for a fee in this situation? Should I just say no..I would be frank and tell them exactly how much time and work it would entail. If they were my good friends, I'd probably do it in my spare time and at no cost. If they were casual acquaintances, I'd probably say no.

In the case of a customer, I couldn't see charging less than $500 for the raw footage. That's because I'd have to sit and watch every minute to make sure I didn't make an offensive remark to my assistant, myself or anyone else. I'm actually a solid professional when I shoot and not profane in any way, but I might let a remark slip out like "those bridesmaids dresses are not very flattering..." or something like that.

I want to disagree with you whole heartedly as someone's wedding video is not a piece of wood or a story that was written, those aren't good comparisons. Although my carpenter, who built my kitchen cabinets, did leave me extra knobs, hinges and an extra cabinet... which I will one day hang in the garage, maybe.

I'm editing a video for a friends wedding and I don't see a problem giving them an uncut version. I do like the idea of taking out the absolute bad shots, like a shot of the ground while the camera is still running or what ever, but any shots of the bride and groom that don't make my edit are still valuable to them and at no harm to me.

So I disagree for the most part, but I know there are some pretty dumb and naive people out there who could be turned off by bad footage. They don't understand the craft. However, good footage hits the cutting room floor too. But, then I think wedding videos should only be short films not feature length.


Tom:

I think the answer might be for us to do what Spielberg would do, and that's to provide a "Deleted Scenes" section on the DVD.

I've done this for three clients in the past. Short, 10-20 minutes. Good shots, that didn't make the cut. Nice audio that opens ups scenes, that otherwise don't fit into the context of the story you're trying to tell.

No bad footage, embarassing language, or boringly long scenes.

I, or course, charge more for this additional feature.

Clarence

I do not give raw footage to a client unless they request and pay for it before the wedding. This way I know that the raw footage will be going to the client after the edit and instead of shooting the floor when I move I might keep the focus on the bride and groom only it gets shaky. This way while they are watching the raw, they still have something to look at. Also, you never know what somebody will say near you that might get them in trouble with the bride if she hears them talking on the raw footage (I've heard the DJ's complain about the client more times than I can count).

I'm with ya Clarence.

This has been a good discussion. It seems which ever way you go with it, whether you give the whole "raw" footage, all shots that are of the bride and groom, or nothing at all, you should have this worked out before the shoot. That will save you a lot of time and headache in the end... You could filter your own comments and maybe pass on warnings to others that you will be rolling the whole time and the couple may hear any and everything. And really save time as you edit.

When I edit for our shorts I always delete the footage thats a total loss that way when I go back and do extras for the dvd I already have some stuff in mind and I don't have to sit through all the garbage footage again.

I don't see why you can't give them the raw footage. Its their video, not yours. They paid you to shoot the wedding and they paid you to edit the wedding.

Wrong on all counts. It's their wedding. It's my footage. My wedding clients pay for a professionally crafted film of their wedding day. The raw footage belongs to me and I never provide it to clients, at any price. I'm an artist - not an ENG shooter.

I want to disagree with you whole heartedly as someone's wedding video is not a piece of wood or a story that was written, those aren't good comparisons. Although my carpenter, who built my kitchen cabinets, did leave me extra knobs, hinges and an extra cabinet... which I will one day hang in the garage, maybe.

Wrong again, Tom. A good wedding video IS a story. The raw footage is merely a collection of materials that a talented editor uses to assemble something greater than the sum of the parts.

'The raw footage is merely a collection of materials that a talented editor uses to assemble something greater than the sum of the parts.' Good point and well said Lance.

I shoot a few weddings where I simply hand over the raw footage to an editor and I'm always fascinated to see what he /she makes of it. Of course I always try and 'shoot for the edit' but even so it's interesting to note that all my hard work is only seen as a bucket of raw from which to draw.

Shots that I may have worked long and hard at get binned - others that I might have erased at the time get used. The fresh eyes of the editor can certainly see a different film in there.

tom.

We never use to give away the raw footage. But over time and some 10 years of shooting dozens and dozens of weddings with 2-5 cameras, 4 hour dance recitals with 3 cameras, and 12 hour marching band competitions with 3 or 4 cameras, the miniDV tapes started taking up a LOT of space.

A couple years ago, we started including the unedited footage with our wedding packages.

You could always raise your price, say $100 if including tape, or now days, more than that to do some sort of file transfer from solid state media.

Looking at this from a slightly different angle, if you provide them with an edited DVD and for what ever reason they end up with the raw footage, what would be your reply if they come back to you and say, "Hey, why didn't you include this shot on the DVD?" or "Can you not add these shots?... OK you might say "Well yes I can include them but at a price" they might then decide that they haven't had full value from your editing.

I've just read the above and I think I'm ranting here, must be my age, but you get the idea.

Peter

I certainly do get the idea Peter. When you see the big bag of offucts the carpenter gives you, you might ask why the kitchen table wasn't just made larger.

Tom, slightly off topic here but I remember doing woodwork at school. Wasn't very good but somehow managed to get GCE certificate. Started to make a rectangular tray with obviously mortice and tenon joints. Soon realised that if one of the joints on one side was no good, you had to saw off the opposite joint to keep the thing square. Doesn't take long to make a tray that is only big enough to hold one cup.

So Tom, re your table, I was that carpenter!!

Peter

This is a great discussion and I would like to give my thoughts here as well in general on raw footage. I have recently started including all of the raw footage with my video package. Let me back up for a second... In the past I have always had multiple packages, a long form traditional video, a short form 25 min vignette and a package that included both versions of video. I am sure you know how the pricing escalated with these. I love to put out my best creative work which is obviously the short form vignettes. This year I decided no more long form 2 hour boring videos as a primary option. I decided to go with a one package option that was built around my 25*min vignette video and I include all of the raw footage with that so they get lots of dancing, entire ceremony, etc. etc. Ideally with this one package pricing structure It would be great to include a long form edited video also instead of raw footage. With the economy as is, including the raw footage allows me to lessen the cost of the package and offer the long form edited video as a a la carte add on. I will breeze through the footage and actually do a quick rough cut taking out all glaringly bad shots. This 1 package approach is new to me, so feeling it out. Your thoughts are welcome.

This topic makes for great debate. Twice this year I was asked to provide raw footage of weddings. One, the bride is a coworker at the TV station where I work full time. Because she's a friend, I gave it to her (the QuickTime files at no charge). I shoot with her all the time, she understands the process and isn't going to comeback complaining about the garbage shots - out of focus shots - all the stuff that didn't work and ended up on the virtual floor of my cutting room.

The other, I agreed to reluctantly and only sold it after much begging by the groom. But, I only agreed to give it to him if it was lightly edited. I took out all the crap. It turns out, he didn't really want the raw footage - he was looking for a really long video of the day. It was a 2 camera shoot and an 10 hour day. We shot about 6 tapes/6 hours of video. When he got that tape he calls and asks where the rest of the footage was. He said the day was 10 hours and with 2 cameras we should have had about 20 hours of video. I had to explain we shoot what we need to capture to make our edit. We don't just roll video the entire day.

So, there is no way I would ever again agree to giving up the raw footage again. I'd rather be fed to fire ants than deal with that again.

I don't believe we should let the customers peak behind the curtain at the almighty Oz. Also, as they say, those that love TV and sausages should see neither being made.

i would and have given customers the raw footage, and just like i wouldnt put Nasty junk in the sausage :-) I wouldnt have much bad stuff on the tape.
But i wont give them the raw footage UNEDITED , any more than i would just hand them a pork carcase & intestine tubings :-) I am going rip through and cut out the ground shots, and the complete useless trash, just like the photographer isnt going to make prints or even proofs of blank/ruined negatives, i am not going to hand them blank/ruined portions of tape.

it is still raw because it is everything, the repeats, the run-ons and the booring, anything else has ZERO value to them so they have no call for asking me to give them my errors, they just want everything that was shot.

Mark, I hear what you're saying, and it may be matter of semantics, but even if the video is edited lightly, it's no longer raw footage. I don't mind doing that - if they want to pay for it, but from now on I explain to them what the difference is between raw footage and and edit.

Well i will say this one right here, i LIE, that IS the "raw footage", but of course i will LIE by omission, i will say that was "everything that was shot". the other stuff the camera shouldnt have even been on :-) it was not shot ?
and ripping through and tossing out the complete trash, takes so little time, then its all up to the slow machines after that. If they PAID for the whole thing, what the heck is another hour of work, and 6 hours of the machine going off while sleeping.

Peter nailed one of my experiences. My boss's (against my recommendation!) offer the raw footage, but only if asked. We had a bride look over the raw and say exactly what Peter is talking about. "What about this person" and "you only had uncle Fred in this shot, why didn't you use the others?". Not exaggerating, she gave me over 3 typed pages of re-edits!!! Now, the reason these shots were not used is that they were NOT GOOD SHOTS! At any rate, we offered to do this (again, against my recommendation!) at our hourly editing rate, but she said we should have shown her the raw before we edited anything so SHE could pick what footage she wanted. Weeks (and considerable frustration) later, we simply agreed to a reduced fee based on our shooting time and gave her the masters to take elsewhere. Nothing we could do was satisfactory. I don't foresee any client standing up for your reputation when their friends say, "Wow, this video is not very good" by explaining that they asked for all of those poor shots to be included. You and I both know that their actual answer will be, "Yeah, you're right".

FWIW, I feel that clients pay for an EDITED WORK. As others have mentioned, there can also be an arrangement that "you will shoot the day and hand over the footage........", but then you can shoot with this in mind.

Kevin, I've run into situations like that. That's why our contract states that all artistic decisions are at our discretion.

That bride would drive me nuts. If I had a bride tell me she wants to pick the shots, I'd say fine. Then I would explain I would charge the same I would charge to sit and edit with producer when I edit commercials - $200/hr. I'm sure as the clocked ticked on, and the bill got fatter and fatter, she would start to see the brilliance of me editing on my own. ;)

so SHE could pick what footage she wanted. .

sounds like a new wedding price plan


The Bridal Director Plan: $45000.00
Direct your own wedding from beginning to end, you decide on the shots, you pick the edit points. Includes 800 hours of edit suite time, with you as the director. Bridal director must be present for all editing sessions.

(after about 2 days, you will never see them again, they will say whatever you want to do is fine)

We had a bride look over the raw and say exactly what Peter is talking about. "What about this person" and "you only had uncle Fred in this shot, why didn't you use the others

Makes you wonder how such a person can bear to read a newspaper. What, only 2 pictures of this earthquake? Where are all the other ten thousand? And what's with this 3 column inches? What about all the draft submissions the editor was sent? I want to see those as well!

Tuck in an extra fee on your pricing and provide the B&G an external hard drive with the raw footage you've transferred from your workstation. Im not sure what you'd do with the footage anyways.. Us, we just delete them after we get the B&G's approval of their final copy.....given that most videogs only provide a 20-30 minute "cinematic" final product im sure that they will appreciate the gesture especially if they paid lots of money for their video...

the bridal director package. I love it. Hey for $45K, i'd be willing to spend a couple months editing one wedding. Ahaha. Do 6 of those a year and you are bringing in about $300K!

I'm wanting to get into the wedding videography business and I also happen to be getting married this year. One of the main things I was looking for in a company was someone that would not only have their editing package, but an option to where I can have the full enedited footage so I can practice my wedding editing skills. I will only use it for personal use and that footage won't be commercially used as an example of my editing skills.

Since wedding lengths are all different, this company charges $50 per disk (either DVD or Blu-ray, depending if it is shot in SD or HD). I would estimate that the cost would be about $50 for every 2 hours, which I consider reasonable. As was mentioned above: If someone had 20 hours of footage, then that would be $500, but if another wedding only had 1 camera and they just wanted their short wedding ceremony recorded, then that would probably fit on 1 disk.

As for the post saying: "Its their video, not yours." Technically, the videographer owns the copyright. Like in the photography world, you just you can't go into a walmart/walgreens/etc and scan wedding pictures taken by a professional photographer because the client does not own the copyright to those pictures. You will be refused service because that company will not want to be held liable for being involved in illegal activity. The same applies for taking any copyright disc to a disc duplication facility.

I have seen photographers turn over the copyright to the client and they usually charge a hefty fee (about 200% - 300% of their print package).

So if a videographer was to give someone their RAW footage, YOU would still own the copyright. If they wanted to copyright to the footage as well, then I would most definately charge about 200% of the normal cost. (If I typically charged $2,000 for a wedding, then the copyright would be $4,000 for a total cost of $6,000).