> As far as I understand it OP wants higher res finished images than what was being offered.

The OP stated: "I asked to include the raw files and [original] jpgs ..."

> Asking for the raw files in addition to the 2.5mp images isn't the best end result for OP.

Do you mean it won't be the best because the OP is wrong to want these raw files in addition?

Or it's not the best because it's proving difficult to acquire the files from this recalcitrant photographer?

> That's a lot of work they'd have to do to get raws ready for printing.

Really, no one is arguing against this point. It's both true and non-relevant.

> Therefore in this instance asking for the raw files IS wrong. What they should be asking for is finished jpgs - high res around 8 or 9 mp, perfect for prints & the low res too which are great for web use.

You're not big on embracing 'the customer is always right', are you?

I think the customer here is asking for finished higher quality / higher resolution jpg's and the original raws.

> You say whatever can be done to a raw can be done to a jpg, that's not true.

Incorrect.

I said that your stated concern that someone performing poor pp on a photo, and then being asked who shot them -- exposes the same risk to the photographer regardless of whether the other person worked on raws or jpegs. I mean, the answer to the question would be the same.

Arguably low-quality (and 2.5MB jpegs are going to become very poor quality once you modify them) images would exacerbate this problem. But this isn't the point.

As I say, there's been no compelling reasons offered to explain why raws should be withheld from a customer that wants to buy them. Yes, there's a negotiation to be conducted on what price is appropriate, but the market will sort that out soon enough. But saying the customer is wrong, stupid or just misunderstands, or that they may misuse them, or that processed jpegs look better .. all that is just offensive or irrelevant (or both).

On the other hand, here are three compelling reasons I just came up with for why you would want to acquire the raw images of your wedding, where you'd employed someone to take pictures for you.

First, photographers die and/or go out of business, at which point your chance of recovering these files is massively reduced. Asking your photographer what arrangements they have in place for such scenarios would be amusing.

Second, photographers are at best as good as everyone else at running backups and maintaining archives. By which I mean they are likely dreadful. My photo archive is stored on 4 physical machines, two of which are on RAID arrays, with one machine in a different country, and I keep two external drives in sync also. I have mechanisms to ensure file system and media corruption is noticed and rectified. Quite simply I have profound doubts that a photographer will care quite so much about my photos as I do, let alone have a sufficiently comforting level of tech savvy. Again, it'd be enlightening to ask your wedding photographer what systems and processes they have in place to protect these files that are so precious you're not allowed to buy from them.

Third, technology changes rapidly. Photography forums are full of professional photographers talking about how much better their old (5-10y) digital images can look when they revisit them with slightly more modern versions of pp software. Again, I doubt that the average photographer will be doing this for you periodically over the 40+ years of your marriage - whereas that's the precise set of photos you're most likely going to want to revisit.