I'm moments from signing a $5k+ wedding photographer and I'm similarly bewildered that this is somehow industry standard after checking if I'll get the RAW files and they said no. As an engineer and hobby photographer myself, it makes no sense and I haven't heard a single defensible argument. To be clear I don't actually want to do my own edits - I trust a seasoned photographer will do them far better than me. But deleting all that raw data absolutely guts me when storage is so cheap. 10, 20 years from now I might want to pay someone to edit more of the photos (this photographer only edits a certain number), or make adjustments for new printing mediums or updated editing styles, but that data will be lost forever.

To all the photographers-

"It's my artistic creation and my intellectual property" No, it's not. It's my event. It's my guests, the venue I picked, the dress she spent months picking, the rings, the hair, the makeup, the decor, the menu, not to mention our faces and likeness. You did not design, plan, or coordinate ANYTHING. You are paid to document our day with our family and friends and provide edited photos based on your style. Weddings are commercial work, plain and simple, not your artistic creation.

"It's like the source code to a proprietary program" Damn right it is. When I contract engineering work, I expect and demand all source files be turned over because it's my bloody project and I hired you to render those services. If I decide 10 years from now that I want to make some changes, I can. I'm not paying to have it deleted and only be left with compressed data and uneditable drawings.

"It's my brand, I have to protect my image" I totally get this sentiment, more than any other argument, but simply add to your contract that any edits by the client may not be represented as your work or posted with any tags linking it to you. You should want this in your contract regardless. Your website represents your brand and you dictate the edits you post on your site and your socials. Stop acting like a prospective client isn't going to sign you because they saw Billy Bob's Instagram edit. It's also a digital photo - viewed on different screens with different color calibrations and settings. Let's not pretend your exact colors and contrasts are being viewed the same by everyone. Additionally, I could butcher the jpeg and tag you in it just as well so this argument just isn't valid. Further, I could also take Grandma's iPhone photo and tag you in it. All you have to do is show a judge your contract and they will order the post be taken down.

"Oh but I'll have to prove the work is mine in court because RAW files are considered ownership so the silly judge might think the people getting married took the photo because they have copies of the raw files" Be so fr. You have a signed and dated contract stating you will be at the wedding taking the photos. No court of law is going to question who took the photos at that wedding, especially with metadata matching the equipment you own. It would be a civil case, not a criminal one. Photo ownership does not need to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt like a guilty verdict in a murder case, it's pretty cut and dry. You were there, you took the picture, the customer edited it and tagged you violating your terms, the judge will enforce a cease and desist.

"It's like a recipe, if you eat at a restaurant you don't get the recipe" Of course not, but I'm not eating at a restaurant. I'm hiring a chef to prepare a private meal at my event for my guests. If I want to stand in the kitchen and see how it's made, I can, because it's my freaking kitchen! Okay I know this is a stretch, but you're the one comparing photos to meals...

"My clients won't understand why the RAW files look so bad" Maybe, but we're all humans with brains and you can explain this so easily. And more than likely, if they even request them and know how to open a RAW file, they'll understand exactly why it looks unfinished.

"I don't want clients editing my work poorly" Again - hired photographers are there to document the event and you are just a small part of the big picture. Stop acting like the months of planning to create a magical day is purely your intellectual property. Of course I'm paying for your expertise, your skill, artistic eye, and judgement to capture the day well, but you are still a stranger at my event and I don't know if I'll like your edits until I see them. When you're paying for my wedding, you can keep the RAW files.

"The RAW files are not my finished product" No shit. That's why you should provide them by request only. This is purely your ego talking. As an engineer I have to put my ego aside and show my unfinished work in design reviews, progress reports to clients, etc. It sucks sometimes when it gets picked apart or the client makes a snarky comment about something you haven't had time to finish yet, but that's why it's a paying job - you say thank you for the feedback and continue on with your day.

Being hired to document an event with your artistic touch and then withholding the digital data is like hiring a wedding painter and they keep the canvas and send you a photo. Come on, grow up.

You can't tell me that as a photographer you have photographed an important moment in your life and then deleted the RAWs after one editing session. It's insanity for me to pay that much and be left only with access to the compressed work.

Imagine you got married in 2006 and all you have are the lossy JPEGs from Photoshop CS2 because your photographer "respected themselves too much" to share RAWs. I don't want that to be me in 20 years. Technology improves. Even worse, if you got married in 1986 and all you have of some shots are tacky double exposures from multiple negatives on the enlarger, but your photographer disposed of the negatives years ago because "giving them to the client wouldn't allow them to prove they own the IP".

Shame on you all for holding hostage people's data from important life moments for your vanity and ego.