The road to being a DP

Cris Moris · September 16, 2004

Hello all,

I got to thinking today about my options and what the best way to become a DoP is. Currently I'm trying to get work as juicer and ocasionally I gaff.

A couple of years ago I was faced with the decesion of weather I wanted to go the Set Lighting route or the AC route. I chose the Set Lighting route. I chose this primarily because I think that a good DoP has to know every light and each lights characteristics. Its advantages and disadvantages. A good DoP has to be able to communicate with his/her gaffer without asking for unresonable miracles from him.

However, the drawback that I have started to encounter is that I'm not all too familiar with the camera. I'm constantly reading about cameras, and trying to educate my self about each camera's pluses and minusis, but I feel like I'm light years away.

So here is the question:

Do I continue working as a gaffer and start shooting occasionally?

Or Do I try to start ACing and work my may that way?

This may have many answers and I just want some people's personal experiences...

Thanks

Greg Gross · September 16, 2004

I quote Mr. Conrad Hall cinematographer/director(May god bless him).

Quote is from interview in "Masters of Light" by Schaefer and Salvato.

INTERVIEWER

You're one of a growing number of cinematographers who wants to direct?

Mr. Conrad Hall

"Filmmaking is like a compass; it's a circle with a lot of points. Each one of

those points are the crafts that make up the whole film. I feel that once you're

inside that circle, you can be drawn to any one of those points and still stay in

the business. They're all interesting points and you hit as many as you want to

hit and have time to hit in a lifetime".

I hope these words of Mr. Hall will be an inspiration to you, as they have been an

inspiration to me. Best regards, best wishes for you're success in filmmaking.

FADE OUT

Laurent Andrieux · September 16, 2004

Very beautiful words !

It's true that a dp has to know about lighting, but if you didn't follow in course, it's best to know about exposing, wich is not the same as lighting. You have to know how the different stocks behave, how to play with F-stop and contrast...

You also have to know about filters (I don't mean only gels), about lab procedures, color timing etc...

Another point is to handle the camera business itself. For this, there is no better way than "ACing"

I know a brilliant DP who learned mainly with the gaffer job, not ACing much, but he also was at Louis Lumière school first (and the most brilliant student of our promotion).

One of the gaffer he used to work with was trying to do the DP job. He was looking for a cameraman to work with on a shooting, and I got the job. The guy didn't understand anything about measuring, setting the stop, and I was feeling desperate on the set as I had to do the stop setting myself if I didn't want the image to be totally overexposed. Once he wouldn't let me do. Then we were crying wiht the editor at the editing, 'cause he really wouldn't understand nothing about image making, wich is defenetly not the same job as setting lights.

How many gaffer became DPs ? How many DPs were ACs before ?

Do you feel comfortable talking and settings things up with a director ?

Maybe these are questions to ask yourself.

Anyway, the gaffer job is a very respectull one, why do you feel like changing ?

Adam Frisch FSF · September 16, 2004

I come from an AC background. But I actually wish that I'd come from a gaffer background since I do think that's more valuable in the field of cinematography. Film IS light. All the technological aspects of which camera to use, which lenses and so on is also important, but not THAT important. That can be learned from a book, lighting can't.

One could argue that composition is better learned being an AC, and there might be some thruth in that.

Actually, all you have to do is to rent a film shot by Willis or Storaro or see anything shot by Leni Riefenstahl to learn about composition, but that's our little secret... :D

DavidSloan · September 17, 2004

This is an interesting post.

I think that instead of asking yourself which is the better road to take, you should ask yourself which job you are more tempramentally inclined, towards. Personally, I don't like gaffing much because of the back breaking work. And AC turns me off because there is no way to leave a personal thumbprint on the film. Right now, I am inclined to direct my own films, and to DP others. I learn a lot by reading books, watching films, stills, and speaking with cinematographers. Let's face it, if you have the talent to become a DP, it doesn't matter what road you take, you will get there.

Just my 2 cents.

Michael Nash · September 17, 2004

You have to know lighting, you have to know camera, you have to know visual storytelling, and you have to know how to get along with a lot of different personalities. No single job position or department will teach you all of that. You just have to try every way you can think of to build up that experience.

I started off mostly lighting for corporate video, then went on to shooting, then directing and editing -- and then onto directing, lighting, shooting and editing complete projects. I did that for about 10 years and basically got tired of doing it all, when I knew my heart was in the cinematography.

I packed it up and moved to LA and started all over again. In the 5-1/2 years since then I've AC'd, gaffed, operated, been 2nd-unit DP and DP. And I STILL do a variety of jobs. Sure, I'll be happy when DPing features pays all the bills, but until then I'm happy to be working and learning at a variety of projects.

The downside to this approach is that it's hard to build up momentum and a reputation in any single position. As a DP you can go a long time between decent projects, but as soon as I wrap gaffing one feature is when I get calls to gaff 3 more. Sometimes it's hard to turn down paying gigs to go back to shooting, but it's all part of the biz.

David Charles · September 22, 2004

You can always try DPing low budget shorts. Then at least you get your name on them as the DP. If you find someone working with 35mm that would be especially good. But a DV feature or short is always better than nothing.

Look on www.mandy.com there are always people looking for a free DP on there.

DC

Phil Rhodes · September 22, 2004

Hi,

> But a DV feature or short is always better than nothing.

I dunno, the extreme low end can be a complete waste of time. There does come a point where you're not really learning anything.

Phil

Dan Salzmann · September 22, 2004

I think gaffing is a fine way to start. Still photography can teach you alot about exposure and something about composition and depth of field (of course using film and a horizontal format).

Downloading camera manuals and talking to rental house personnel and AC's will add enormously to your knowledge. Shooting in miniDV will help more with composition in a lower pressure context.

David Charles · September 22, 2004

Actually Phil I tend to agree with you about DPing a DV feature :-)

But last time I suggested that film was superior to DV the folks out here wanted to hunt me down and skin me!

Certainly it's tough to learn about exposing film, for example, if you're shooting video. I don't think any one can argue with that.

DC

Laurent Andrieux · September 22, 2004

Honestly, I think video is more difficult to light than film. It's got less latitude, the highlits are a nightmare, black suddenly fall in the shade areas, nothing like the typical S shape H and D curve and gamma of film !

also, it's not easy to give video a elegant look unless you desaturate colors, filter, and spend time and anxiety in post !

and no way you have a good definition for large screens, unless you are in HD !