QuesoBlanco

Haha, I was wondering about this - I enjoyed it, too. It was worth the time if only to see Chris Evans having so much fun playing a psychopath.

If I'm hiring you to photograph me not to be my digital artist. Or at least offer both.

This is what I meant by “specific circumstances.” This might end up as something of a long answer, I’m not sure. But fair warning in advance.

I can really only speak to my experience, which encompasses myself and the photographers with which I’ve met and interacted during the past eight-ish years. Keep in mind, I’m a family portrait photographer - families, couples, etc. - and I don’t know anyone who operates in the manner you’re suggesting here. Frankly, my life would be much easier if that were the case. I’d much prefer an environment where my job ended at the shoot. Lightroom/Photoshop work is the majority of a photographer’s time spent on any given project by a ridiculous margin.

So, my contracts offer both services by default. I give my clients the choice between selecting their contracted number of images from a digital proofs gallery - essentially all the RAW images in a digital album they can mark favorites on, but can’t download for themselves - or leave it up to me as “photographer’s choice.” Almost all of them opt to let me do it.

You describe a RAW image as pure, and I think that’s great. Most photographers, however, would probably describe it as unprocessed. Or unfinished. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be wary of that being the side of your work being shown to the public, in today’s social media obsessed world. It’s like most artists not wanting a work of theirs being shown halfway through, when they know the final product will look so much better.

If that’s manipulative business practice, I mean…I truly don’t see it. The RAWs are available to purchase for an additional fee, for all my clients, with the signed addendum to their contract they will never be posted in their RAW form anywhere online. If editing is done by anyone else, attribution is to given to them when an image is posted, or I will request the image is removed. Just because I run a small business doesn’t mean I don’t have a brand, a style, or a standard of quality to protect.

It’s not about showing off Photoshop skills or being withholding. It’s about - again, as a portrait photographer - people seeing your work, and wanting to hire you because of that work. Because it looks a certain way and evokes a certain style.

I hope that better explains it. Or helps clarify it to some degree.

I’ve been working as a portrait photographer in business for myself for almost a decade, and in my experience the overwhelming majority of photogs aren’t giving access to their RAW files except in very, very specific situations.

I really don’t think this is a new trend. I think it’s just smart business. They’re not the client’s RAW images, they’re the photographer’s.

Holy fuck!

Edit: I mean that in a, “That’s extremely specific, and one I haven’t heard before!” kind of way. Just to clarify. Rowling can EABOD.

Pretty cool you gave her a chance!

I’m a middle aged guy, and I grew up primarily on a mix of 60s-70s-80s rock that my dad fed me, great folk artists my mom loved, and the music of my own formative years (probably most impactful was the grunge scene and its most famous children).

I don’t identify with much modern music, but she’s someone I’ve always respected for some reason. There are obviously other exceptions as well, she’s just the biggest thing going right now.

I feel like this is kind of a trap question. Everything about this entire thread feels that way - I don’t want it to seem as if I’m attacking you here - and it’s a microcosm of why discussion of Swift is so polarizing. For some reason, she, more than any other artist I can call to mind, is discussed in black and white terminology. There’s almost no middle ground. You need to either love her or hate her.

Does she possess the lyrical genius of, like, Leonard Cohen? I mean, I don’t know. I think she’s pretty great, but back in the day I’d have been stoned to death on r/Music for suggesting they were in the same league.

What I will say is I think she’s as honest as Cohen was, and that’s something the best songwriters all have. I think she writes from an extremely authentic place, and I respect the hell out of that. In recent years, I think co-writing with Jack Antonoff has only further unlocked her potential.

Some examples of hers I think are great - You’re On Your Own Kid, Champagne Problems, and My Tears Ricochet.

Her pop stuff has some great lyricism as well, but pop music as a genre is generally under appreciated for its lyrics. Obviously, not in all cases; there’s a shitload of manufactured garbage out there. But most of the 1989 album is borderline - if not outright - excellent in this regard. It didn’t get any serious attention though until that shitbag Ryan Adams covered the whole thing, and got people to hear the lyrics in a different way.

It must be area dependent in the US then, because I’ve lived in suburbs or small towns most of my life - the rest was spent on military bases overseas when I was a kid. The previous poster’s description of “no sidewalks” left me wondering just how far away from the city this suburb was. I mean, I could see specific subdivisions, I guess, but if it’s a true suburb of a major metropolitan area, I guess I always think of those as being thoroughly developed.

That’s been my experience, anyway. Not with public transport or anything, certainly, but fully paved and all that.

For reference, I live in a suburb of a midwestern city right now.

It was like a 45 minute walk to the "main Street", with no sidewalks for most of it.

It doesn’t sound like you grew up in the suburbs, man. It sounds like you grew up in a fairly small town.

Holy shit, “bananus,” I am crying from laughing right now. Phew, I needed that!