What the heck is "native format"?

[pbromaghin]

This summer I quite unexpectedly received press credentials for a regional rodeo. Part of the agreement was that they would own the images I took (while I own the negs) and require that I produce a thumb drive full of images. Well shit, I shoot film. They outlaw exchangeable lenses for the public and I only asked if I could use a a1940's vintage press camera (my Speed Graphic). The reply, 2 days before the event, and after I had decided to skip it, was that they were giving me these press credentials with all sorts of rules, all very specifically oriented to digital shooters. Oh, and free entry, a $20 value.

So now they are pressing for me to produce and all I came away with was a bunch of crap because a Rolleiflex and a Speed Graphic do not at all work for me at this kind of assignment and it was so damned hot I gave up halfway through. I'm scanning the 6x6 film and will scan the 4x5 contact sheets to give them what they want because I really, REALLY want to have the credentials again next year. I'll go back with much more appropriate equipment and film and be ready for fast digital turnaround.

To make a long story even longer, they require that the files on the thumb drive be in "Native Format" and unedited. WHAAATTT are they talking about? What is "Native Format"? What I have scanned so far is all in jpeg format. I have edited in Photoshop Elements 15 to remove dust, properly crop, and let it go through auto-contrast, as I figure they are all not part of the photo, but artifacts of scanning.

 

[F4U]

You are talking film and they are talking digital. Native format may mean RAW. Therefor by definition, it would be unedited.

 

[gbroadbridge]

To make a long story even longer, they require that the files on the thumb drive be in "Native Format" and unedited. WHAAATTT are they talking about? What is "Native Format"? What I have scanned so far is all in jpeg format. I have edited in Photoshop Elements 15 to remove dust, properly crop, and let it go through auto-contrast, as I figure they are all not part of the photo, but artifacts of scanning.

Scan the film with no corrections and send the TIFF's

 

[thinkbrown]

Scan the film with no corrections and send the TIFF's

Yeah, I think this is the correct answer, or the raws if you're macro scanning

 

[koraks]

I'd give them files that will look OK if they decide to publish as-is, with not too much editing applied otherwise. In other words, I'd interpret their requirement (which indeed doesn't apply literally to this case) in a somewhat creative way so that they can be expected to have something usable for their purposes.

I expect what they don't want is heavily edited files where crucial image information is obliterated by heavy-handed local contrast adjustments or cropping etc. What you as a photographer probably don't want is that they end up publishing something so bland as to be unrecognizable or at least unappealing in case they decide to publish some of the stuff you send without any optimization for the publication channel. So I figure you'd want to steer clear of providing them with actual camera/scanner raws based on B&W or color negative digitizations as those won't be in a 'viewable' form.

When in doubt and it's really important, just ask them and maybe send an example file to illustrate what you can give them. In the end all of us can only second guess at what will work best for this organization.

 

[Chan Tran]

What happens if you give them nothing? So I guess you owe them a thumb drive full of images? So how many? I would give them some scans but that's all If they don't like it can they sue you?

 

[Cholentpot]

They ain't getting my RAWs.

When I have a company try this I'll pass my stuff through lightroom and export as a TIFF. They're not getting stuff straight out of camera, film or RAW.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I think I understand the technical part of this discussion, but not the legal part.

Part of the agreement was that they would own the images I took (while I own the negs)

? If they own the images, I am trying to imagine what benefit is retained by owning the negatives.

 

[retina_restoration]

I will not work with anyone who makes ownership of the images I produce a requirement of the job. No way.

 

[Nopo]

I agree with those who recommend TIFF, but I would be a bad boy and give them a couple of rolls of Rolleiflex film and say, “This is the native format of my cameras.”

 

[DaleHCook]

They ain't getting my RAWs.

Any digital camera RAW format generally includes a great deal of embedded information, such as the name of the photographer, camera and lens, and location if the camera is GPS enabled. Most image processors will convert that to embedded EXIF information when exporting to a standard image format. If I wanted to pass images somewhere out of my control I would strip most or all all of EXIF information identifying myself, my camera, and other info that I would not want to release.

 

[pbromaghin]

While we're at it, does RAW contain exactly the data generated by the sensor, or is it after your in-camera preferences such as white balance, etc., are applied to the data?

 

[DaleHCook]

While we're at it, does RAW contain exactly the data generated by the sensor, or is it after your in-camera preferences such as white balance, etc., are applied to the data?

With my Pentax K-70 it contains preferences such as white balance. That data is generated by the camera body and embedded in the data fields of the image. I can open the RAW image in the Pentax Digital Camera Utility 5, which is a Pentax proprietary build of Silkypix Developers Studio. I use DNG as my RAW format because it is readable by other programs, in contrast to the Pentax PEF RAW format, which is not readable by my other image editors. In DCU5 I can override or modify the data embedded by the camera body.

 

[MattKing]

One likely reason for the request for Native Format is a RAW file helps establish the veracity of digital images - if you share the RAW files from a digital camera there is less likelihood that you will present something where you have edited rider A to appear that they were on bull B.
So you probably need to talk to them about how you should deal with scanned film.
Them "owning" the images is kind of imprecise. Are they prohibiting you from making any future use of them yourself, or are they merely claiming the right to make whatever use they want to make of them? The latter is fairly normal.
They probably don't want you, for example, selling them to any organization that opposes rodeos.

 

[Cholentpot]

Any digital camera RAW format generally includes a great deal of embedded information, such as the name of the photographer, camera and lens, and location if the camera is GPS enabled. Most image processors will convert that to embedded EXIF information when exporting to a standard image format. If I wanted to pass images somewhere out of my control I would strip most or all all of EXIF information identifying myself, my camera, and other info that I would not want to release.

I always strip the EXIF. I've had clients that insisted on RAW and told me everyone supplies them with the RAW files. I said ok and sent them a PNG

 

[benderscameracorner]

I've got some unused, fogged and kinda musty 70+ year old 4x5 sheets I found in my grandfather's Speed Graphic backs you can have to send them. Definitely native format! ;-)

Ownership and exclusive licence are two different things - I'd be very carefully looking into what they've asked. Handing over RAW files of anything is usually a no-no for any pro or semi pro photographer, unless you're a payrolled staff photographer for a company/news gathering org etc.

I don't know how how serious all this is, but half an hour of an IP lawyer's time might be worth your while.

Also bear in mind a lot of media/PR people will say things like "original files" or "native format" with near-zero understanding of what they're talking about ;-)

 

[pbromaghin]

As far as selling images, I really don't give a rip. I'm just an old-fart retired guy who wanted to photograph the 2nd rodeo I've ever been to and make some prints in my darkroom. All I did was ask if a nearly 80 year old camera Speed Graphic would fit in their rules and they gave me these credentials with rules that don't make sense with that level of technology. So I got in free. I would like to photograph it again next year with more suitable equipment and film.

Here's the credentials request form on their website: https://www.cowboyupinkiowa.org/f/59?pType=2&pID=881

After all this scanning and dust clean up, I am remembering why I wanted so badly to build my darkroom.

 

[gbroadbridge]

Honestly, in your position and as you're not trying to make a buck out of it, I'd just tell them (if they follow up) that none of your photos worked out.

Too much trouble.

 

[benderscameracorner]

Honestly, in your position and as you're not trying to make a buck out of it, I'd just tell them (if they follow up) that none of your photos worked out.

Too much trouble.

Agreed. Those conditions sound kinda ridiculous. "Original" "native files" but "with watermark" is, umm... yeah.
Thank heavens our local rodeo isn't like this... taken with my own DSLR from the stands, reproduced in the local paper the next day. Didn't even wear a western-style hat

 

[pbromaghin]

Agreed. Those conditions sound kinda ridiculous. "Original" "native files" but "with watermark" is, umm... yeah.
Thank heavens our local rodeo isn't like this... taken with my own DSLR from the stands, reproduced in the local paper the next day. Didn't even wear a western-style hat

OhMyGod!!!! What I wouldn't give to get a shot like this!

 

[koraks]

While we're at it, does RAW contain exactly the data generated by the sensor, or is it after your in-camera preferences such as white balance, etc., are applied to the data?

It contains the actual sensor data. As-shot settings like white balance are recorded and added as metadata to the file so the image data can be rendered as it would have been intended originally, but the actual pixel values are not adjusted for this white balance. This has to be done as the file is being viewed.

Btw, as to image ownership - I assume they don't get to actually own the images; just the rights to use, distribute, resell etc. the images. That's a thin line, but it implies ownership wouldn't be removed from you as the photographer. The 'legalese' they used for their disclaimer probably won't hold water if it were to be subject of a court case. Besides, their claims on photographers' works are quite honestly utterly ridiculous. Moreover, they're inconsistent; they require native format (implying raw, but perhaps they just mean pixel dimensions) and that you do not edit, yet at the same time require that a visible watermark is embedded. How are you supposed to put in a watermark without editing the images? Relevant areas like how to deal with the rights of the people depicted apparently aren't covered.

These people are clueless on how to deal with photography. They've just jotted some random stuff down that looked good to them and their purposes without considering what's legally possible, let alone ethically permissible. Photographers would do well to indicate to this organization that their requirements are ridiculous and that it's effectively a waste of time photographing there under those conditions.

Who the heck do they think they are, the Ministry of Defense or the NSA?

 

[gbroadbridge]

Who the heck do they think they are, the Ministry of Defense or the NSA?

Worse than that , cowboys. err, persons.

 

[reddesert]

This is getting over interpreted. When they say native format, they just mean they want the picture file as it came off the (presumed digital) camera, not a down-sampled or highly processed version. They don't want a RAW file - they want a JPG that they can use for publicity or reproduction or whatever. People who run rodeos aren't in the business of spending time in front of computers trying to debug whatever RAW to jpg converter is needed to process your file, and dinking around with color profiles. That's the photographer's job. If you shot film, they would want whatever JPG or TIFF came off your scanner.

In both cases, again "native format" likely just means the full pixel count, you could do contrast correction if you really wanted to. Where the credentials form says "Do not sort or edit your photos," they clearly mean give them all the photos, don't hold any back. It's not saying "Do not edit your photos but contradictorily put a watermark on them."

Owning the image rights is typical for work-for-hire arrangements. If you're a newspaper photographer, the paper usually owns the rights to the photos that you do on assignment. In this case, you aren't getting paid, which is bogus. The entire credential form is a little ridiculous and seems to be driven by paranoia that some photographer is going to make a lot of money selling photos of THEIR rodeo, but what do I know about the rodeo-photography market?