My girlfriend is a wedding photographer so I have something of an insight into why you might be having this experience.

The RAW files are the (as the name suggests) raw, unedited versions of your photographs. Photographers are generally unwilling to provide these files as there is often a huge difference between the RAW image and the final, edited image. There is a 'branding' concern here - if you take the RAW files and start showing them to people, then in the photographer's mind you are showing them an unfinished product. Nobody wants anything but their best work out on display - so if you are intending to do this, then the photographer wants to be reimbursed for the potential damage you may be doing to their brand. Whether you feel that this is justified or not is irrelevant, if that's how the photographer feels, then that's how they feel. Deal with it.

Additionally, part of the package you buy is the editing process that the photographer undertakes. The RAW file is the raw material, and the JPG is the end result. Demanding the RAW files suggests that you are unhappy with the final result, and would like to re-edit the photos to suit your liking. This is likely to be perceived as an insult to the photographer's skill. I'm guessing you have at least some level of confidence in the photographer's editing abilities otherwise you wouldn't be going with them in the first place - but you have to understand that there is a significant amount of work involved between the RAW input and the JPG output - the photographer isn't just doing a straight file conversion.

Finally - access to the RAW files puts the photographer at risk of you publishing the images with different editing and similar (or higher) quality. The increase in the copyright licence fee is aimed to offset this risk.

To summarise:

1: The photographer provides a full-day of foot-work (being at the wedding), and then up to a few weeks of editing the RAW images to make your special day look as fantastic as you remember it being.

2: The photographer needs to protect their brand - surrendering the RAW images means you are free to add lens flare and other shitty editing to their raw materials, and thereby doing damage to their brand.

3: RAW files = copyright risk in general.

4: A personal use licence is the norm unless you're willing to pay a premium. The photographer needs to blog the photos, to use them in promotional materials, and to always have those photos connected with his brand. He doesn't need (or want) you plastering them all over the place and using them for god-knows-what purpose.

I would suggest the following:

1: Properly define what exactly both of you mean by 'personal use'. What do you actually want to do with the photographs? If it's anything other than 'make copies for my family', then you're probably asking too much for the licence you're negotiating. It is normal to put things like disaster recovery as part of the deal, so that if you ever need to recover copies of the photographs then you can do so. Don't expect to be able to sell the photographs on, though.

2: Negotiate on the resolution, but not the format. You are buying edited photos, not RAW images. Remember the process. Your RAW images will NOT look the same as the JPG end product, and in fact many photographers feel that the RAW images are bad. Imperfections, poor lighting etc are the whole reason that an editing process exists in the first place. The photographer needs to protect their brand.

3: If you are only concerned about resolution and not the quality (i.e composition, style etc) of the image itself, then re-negotiate your contract to remove the editing work. Your photographer will probably run a mile.

> Am I wrong in approaching this as a case where I hire a man for his skill and artistry and expect to keep the work product?

Yes, you are - because that's not what you're asking. You're asking to keep the product, the raw materials, and all of the rights to use that product for any purpose whatsoever.

In my honest opinion, you're being a little too forward. Some photographers are just very protective of their work (it is their art, remember) - and the whole RAW thing is likely to push a few buttons because you are effectively voiding the hard work that goes into the editing process. YMMV with other photographers, but that's why there's a market: if you like this photographer's work, then stick with him and drop the RAW thing. If not, then find somebody else who'll provide the RAW files.

What you need to do is outline what it is you intend to do with the photographs. When this is clear your photographer may be more accommodating. I would fully expect him to charge you more, though.

EDIT: Removed the suggestion that the 'customer is not right'. Apologies for including this in the first place, but what I meant to suggest is that your expectation of the service is in conflict with the photographer's perception of the service they provide. Until you can come to some agreement around this, you will have issues. For the photographer, this is a business and their art form. Asking them to put their art in the hands of somebody who may alter it or otherwise 'damage' it is a risky and emotional prospect for them. If you don't care about this, then you're probably best finding another photographer who will give you exactly what you want without questions.