EXPORTING RAW FILES WITHOUT DEVELOP DETAILS?

[singalis]

A private client has asked for a RAW file and I'm happy for him to purchase this, but I don't want the modifications I made to date to be visible to him.  I have a feeling that might be impossible, or is it?  I don't want to give him the original completely unedited RAW file.

[AxelMatt]

If you have made some developments to the appropriate RAW file you can create a virtual copy. For this copy you can reset all your modifications that you have done in the development modul. Then you can export this file.

Axel

[singalis]

Many thanks Axel - so I've just given this a try and the export creates an XMP file separately which contains all the changes.  If I give my client just the CR2 file, does he get access to the XMP file details?

It's all a bit beyond me!  When I create a virtual copy, the picture on the screen is the edited RAW version, but you can't see the history of the changes I've made.  I thought that once I developed the file in RAW, LR attached my edits to the file and then when I create a jpeg from both those bits of information it's like a final edited picture and I always choose not to include any metadata with the jpeg file.  I assumed I can't do that with the RAW file if I'm sending them the edited version?

[AxelMatt]

When you develop a photo in Lightroom the original RAW file will be leave untouched. Lightroom put the steps and settings that you made in the catalog and (when you have marked) in an XMP.

If you create a virtual copy the picture shows all the steps you have made, but when you reset the developement for this copy it will shown the original photo. If you export this to a JPEG you'll get the undeveloped picture that you can give to your customer.

Axel

[richardplondon]

You can check the file modification date (of the Raw): only if Lightroom has been writing back changes to the Raw file itself, will that have changed to reflect this. Most commonly, even if LR HAS been writing back changes, that will have been not into the Raw file but into an accompanying sidecar (XMP) file.

You would then simply avoid sending that accompanying file; the recipient will only have the untouched Raw that you send.

The only possible exception, is if the Raw file is in the form of a DNG whereby edit changes may have been written directly into the file by LR (or else not). Again, the file modification date and time will tell you for sure.

You may then be faced with a DNG to which edits have been written, which you now want to clean back out for sending purposes.

A DNG can contain two forms of edits: latest settings - just those, no prior History - and Snapshots.

You should remove any Snapshots if it's a DNG, AND if those have been written to file, AND if you mind the recipient seeing these. Virtual copies could (if desired) be first made which contain the specific editing involved in those snapshots. And you'd need to write back to file the "removal" of these Snapshots.

As to the current editing, one way would involve making a Virtual Copy, resetting the editing of that virtual copy, switching Copy and Master, writing edits to file, then later switching things back.

Probably easier to make a virtual copy, reset the editing of this virtual copy, then Export this unedited image version choosing "Original" as the filetype option. This will save a new copy of the Raw file, within which the "latest" editing shown, is in fact the reset state of the image with all your individual edits effectively wiped.

[john beardsworth · Accepted solution]

singalis  wrote

A private client has asked for a RAW file and I'm happy for him to purchase this, but I don't want the modifications I made to date to be visible to him.  I have a feeling that might be impossible, or is it?  I don't want to give him the original completely unedited RAW file.

There's a conflict here - you don't want to hand over the unedited file, but you don't want the "modifications" (LR slider values?) to be visible. You just can't do both.

[singalis]

This is what I suspected I just hoped I was wrong!  So I can't let him have the edited version of the raw file without the client seeing the steps I took to get there (including LR presets etc).  I don't usually give RAW files, so this is an unusual request from a client who likes photoshopping, so wants to have that possibility I guess.  It's not like it's a commercial photo shoot, just a family shoot.  I'm just being a little oversensitive to my work!  Or  I could just say he can only have a hi-res jpeg.  Which is what I should have said I guess.  Clients don't understand why you don't want to give original files, or why you make them pay so much for digital files!

Thanks everyone for your input. 

[dj_paige]

singalis  wrote

So I can't let him have the edited version of the raw file without the client seeing the steps I took to get there (including LR presets etc).

As far as I know, this is totally wrong. There is NO edited version of your RAW. Your RAW never changes. It never contains your edits.

If you send a copy of the original RAW file to the client, that meets his needs, and your needs of not sending your edits. Every other solution mentioned is unnecessarily complicated.

[richardplondon]

"If you send a copy of the original RAW file to the client, that meets his needs, and your needs of not sending your edits. Every other solution mentioned is unnecessarily complicated."

That's been mentioned. But that's only provided the Raw file concerned, is not in DNG format... which some cameras shoot natively, or which an image may have been converted to at some point.

Lightroom will sometimes write back a changed capture date and time, directly modifying a Raw format other than a DNG (not just putting stuff into an XMP sidecar, in this exceptional case). But presumably allowing something like that through, would not be objectionable to the OP.

One practical advantage of exporting rather than sending the originals, is that you may already have a Collection or something all ready to go which selects these images. And then you can label or keyword these particular images as having gone - and they will show the Export in their History too.

Otherwise you'd have to locate each image in the file system by name, and then do some separate recordkeeping as to which files had been sent or not sent.

[Just Shoot Me]

If he wants RAW files just send him a copy of the originals. It doesn't matter whether a modified date shows in them. Any and all adjustments you have done are stored in the LR Catalog file and without that specific catalog file none of the adjustment will show up. And even if you write change to XMP and you send them with the files he would need the same version of LR and or ACR to see what edits you did.

[dj_paige]

I must be misunderstanding some of the answers above.

If you just send the client a copy of the RAW image, none of your edits are contained in this file. (Do not send the xmp file) The edits are never written to the RAW. No virtual copies or exports are needed here.

[Just Shoot Me]

singalis  wrote

A private client has asked for a RAW file and I'm happy for him to purchase this, but I don't want the modifications I made to date to be visible to him.  I have a feeling that might be impossible, or is it?  I don't want to give him the original completely unedited RAW file.

If he is willing to PAY for the original RAW files I see no reason not to give him a copy of them. You have already been paid for the work and I guess you will be getting an extra payment for the unedited RAW files. Even if this request is not for an extra payment. He paid for the work already.

I don't see the problem. As long as you retain a copy of them.

[singalis]

He paid for the photo shoot, not for the files - I offer a digital package but they had not chosen that, so he has to pay for individual files, which is fine.

[Just Shoot Me]

singalis  wrote

He paid for the photo shoot, not for the files - I offer a digital package but they had not chosen that, so he has to pay for individual files, which is fine.

So once he pays for the originals you have no problem sending them to him, correct?

As a Pro I hope you do a backup of original files before you start any editing and even before, or just after, importing them into LR.

Just give him a copy of the backups. That way no edits or modified date will show.

[john beardsworth]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Just+Shoot+Me  wrote

Just give him a copy of the backups. That way no edits or modified date will show.

From the original post "I don't want to give him the original completely unedited RAW file."

[Just Shoot Me]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/john+beardsworth  wrote

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Just+Shoot+Me   wrote

Just give him a copy of the backups. That way no edits or modified date will show.

From the original post "I don't want to give him the original completely unedited RAW file."

So that brings up another question.

Why not.

If the person that paid for the shoot wants copies of the original RAW files and is willing to pay extra for them I personally would have no problem sending them to them.

Why would I care if I got paid for them. It would just save me time for the same amount of money.

[john beardsworth]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Just+Shoot+Me  wrote

So that brings up another question.

Why not.

If the person that paid for the shoot wants copies of the original RAW files and is willing to pay extra for them I personally would have no problem sending them to them.

Why would I care if I got paid for them. It would just save me time for the same amount of money.

Here the OP wants to supply the edited version - but without the adjustment work. It's not really possible without something like a rendered JPEG inside a DNG, which isn't the original which is being request. You can't square this circle.

I happen to agree with you about supplying with the editing instructions and I usually send DNG files whenever this issue comes up. But it's an individual decision and many circumstances might arise where I might not want someone to see my editing work. I'd want the money first before they start questioning details of what I've done.

[singalis]

Yes exactly!  They have to pay online first.  I usually provide small or larger jpegs at 2 different price points - one for small prints and one for printing up to 90 X 60 CM - that's what clients want - either for greetings cards or postcards or small frames, or a wallmounted picture of some sort that requires larger.  This request is from a guy who probably knows how to use photoshop better than me as I tend to not over edit.  However I have LR presets and stuff that I don't particularly want to share, hence not wanting to send the edits.  On the other hand, I like to send something that looks good quality and if the light is slightly off (I do outdoor photography with extremely variable conditions as based in a tropical climate) or I crop to get a better frame, I prefer that the client gets that version and not the original.  Yes, in an ideal world (and with film photography this would have been the case) I would take more time and get the perfect shot, but digital gives more flexibility on shots that aren't technically perfect, but have the perfect smile with open eyes on all family members, so I prefer to give my client the perfect smile and edit the imperfect photos.  Does that make sense?  Am I the only one doing this?

[Just Shoot Me]

All of the above is great but If the client wants all of the original files so he can work on them and he is willing to pay for them I don't see the problem.

So what if you would of cropped or adjusted the lighting or whatever. That doesn't really matter.

Just tell him what you think is a proper price for what he wants, whatever that price is. If he agrees send him the original and call it a day.

[richardplondon]

Perhaps not wanting to "give" the original file just means, preferring to "sell" rather than "give"?

More seriously, perhaps the OP is saying the Raw file that is sent, needs to still show the OP's authorship etc metadata as entered via the Library module; but not the visual edits applied via the Develop module.

That could be achieved in the manner suggested: by making a new virtual copy (which will inherit both sorts of metadata); clicking on Reset in Develop to clear just the visual edits; Exporting this virtual copy to a new location selecting "Original" as the file type. Then sending everything through including XMP (which is where the Library module details will have been saved, for a non-DNG).

As I mentioned, if this image also shows some Snapshots, those would also get included in the metadata though. If any Snapshot reflects the OP's Develop edits, this would probably need to be removed also. Such removal applies to the master version as well as to all virtual copy versions, for a given image in the Catalog.

[singalis]

Yep, just upgraded to a NAS and found out that Lightroom doesn't work with it as I would want, but I work directly from it and it backs up everything.  Anyhow, that's another story!  And I have a separate external hard drive to back just the original files on.

[Just Shoot Me]

Also it's not like you are turning over copyrights to him or your copy of the originals, IE deleting your copy of the original images.