Filmmaker vs Videographer

[Mike Washlesky]

I don't think a director needs to really have a visual sense, so long as they know how to elicited the performances necessary for the piece.

 

 

A Director has to have visual sense, otherwise he would be making films for blind people. It is totally a visual medium. Whether that sense is good or not depends on that Directors talent. Some Directors have zero visual style and rely on the people they hire to do it for them. Some Directors are have a high sense of visual style, i.e. David Fincher with all his macro-dolly shots like going through the handle of a coffee cup for no other reason that it looks cool.

[Xavier Plaza]

They definitively need to have an imagination, of some form, but I'm not sure it needs to be so much so visual. What of directors who say, I think this scene should be warm, or I want a sense of freedom etc and leave it at that?

I just shot with a director who knew very much so what she wanted from her actors, but visually, all she told me was, "womb-like," for one scene. Then I did what I thought that was.

It depends a lot on the type of director you are, and your background. But that's just my .02

 

 

Adrian I understand you perfectly, i don't wanna be a jerk, i just wanna explain what i think and discuss that, for that it is exactly the forum... :P . When you collaborated as the word say, you interchange visions, point of view and knowlegde... what i think in this collaboration both have to keep a minimun level of knowlegde in both sides (visual sense) to do what ever the director want... Obviusly i don't want a second DP at the set :lol:

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Adrian I understand you perfectly, i don't wanna be a jerk, i just wanna explain what i think and discuss that, for that it is exactly the forum... :P . When you collaborated as the word say, you interchange visions, point of view and knowlegde... what i think in this collaboration both have to keep a minimun level of knowlegde in both sides (visual sense) to do what ever the director want... Obviusly i don't want a second DP at the set :lol:

 

Oh I never thought you a jerk! If there was any sense of that at all in my posting I'm terribly sorry :( . I do get it that a director has to have some sense, I just don't specifically think it needs to be visual. But then again, that's just me and granted most directors do have a sense of visuals (which is sometimes a big pain in my :blink: . . . :lol: )

[Xavier Plaza]

Oh I never thought you a jerk! If there was any sense of that at all in my posting I'm terribly sorry :( . I do get it that a director has to have some sense, I just don't specifically think it needs to be visual. But then again, that's just me and granted most directors do have a sense of visuals (which is sometimes a big pain in my :blink: . . . :lol: )

 

 

Don't worry I know you never say that... I only want to explain my point of view I do not want to be an obstinate one.

 

Again in the subject: I guess anyone who has the ability to see when someone read a history, script, or tale, they imagine how they think it could be this world adding elements, obviusly youre imagination run free searching in a huge references fit in that history...

I think if anyone have this ability to add colors, moods, eviroments, to different histories. I think that the director has the function to add visual elements (how it looks warm or cool, how it feels creepy or shine, what you see a part or a hole scene) that help to count their histories and that it helps them to add greater emotions to his histories through different visual senses.

 

 

Xavier Plaza

[Brian Dzyak]

I agree with you with the standard definition. Typical videography gigs tend to have smaller crews (3-5) and each crew member usually does more than one job. I am not debating that, nor budget.

 

Now just cause I have a minimal budget doesn't mean I am gonna sacrifice quality. I've worked on numerous low budget projects where the director had minimal experience but had tremendous passion, vision and respect for the more experienced crew members. Perhaps I have been unfair by using 'videographer" and generalizing the term. Then what would be a better term to describe these type of "filmmakers"?

 

I concur with Mike's reply. If a Director is bad, why would you even consider labeling him as a Videographer? :blink: That's pretty random terminology. Why not choose the word "hamster"? Just call him a "bad Director" and go find someone else to work with!

 

Of course there are less than stellar productions that are acquired with videotape. I can point to just as many poor productions acquired with film stock. Why you would ever choose to use the word "Videographer" as an insult is illogical and, well, insulting to those of us who do use video cameras primarily in our work. Doing what I do, I am expected to light A list movie stars just as well, if not better, than DPs on major features. If this was thirty years ago, I'd be shooting them with film. But technology and economics have changed so now I shoot the same people and projects mostly with HDCAM at 4:2:2. The technology, money, and business don't allow for film... but the job is the same.

 

Seriously, our work and professional perception is difficult enough without unfounded and illogical insults being applied to our careers. Please be more careful in how you choose to word things in the future. Thank you!

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I think I just found my new term for directors whom irk me. . . hamsters.

[Jess Haas]

I think I just found my new term for directors whom irk me. . . hamsters.

I like it. The new official term for a bad director is a hamster. Spread the word and stop using that videographer crap.

 

~Jess

[Mike Washlesky]

I like it. The new official term for a bad director is a hamster. Spread the word and stop using that videographer crap.

 

~Jess

 

 

Yeah but if you use that term, the American Society of Rodent Friends ( also known as the ASRF) will start yelling at us for demeaning their little furry snake food pals. But hamster it is, screw the ASRF.

[David Rakoczy]

I am a DoP and CamOp but only shoot on HD. Does that make me a videographer?

 

The definition from the extremely accurate Wikipedia:

 

"Strictly speaking, a videographer is a person who works in the video medium ? recording moving images and sound on tape, disk, other electro-mechanical device, broadcasting live, or even on actual celluloid film in some cases".

 

The word videographer is a term to describe a role. Not an adjective describing the quality of work.

 

_____________________________

 

Yes, I believe it does make you a Videographer. You are recording onto Video Tape.. whether HD or SD. The Wikpedia definition you posted is very flawed. They include FILM w/ Videography (?)! See the definition posted.

 

It is our responsibility to clear this up. I just wrapped a piece for the Discovery Channel and everyone on the crew kept talking about what we were 'filming'.. we weren't 'filming'.. we were taping in HD. Looks like us 'Film' DPs will have to go back to the old school 'Cinematographer' title to define what we do. As it stands, a search for a DP will get you many many Videographers who rarely (if ever) shoot or have shot Film.

Edited February 17, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Brian Dzyak]

_____________________________

 

Yes, I believe it does make you a Videographer. You are recording onto Video Tape.. whether HD or SD. The Wikpedia definition you posted is very flawed. They include FILM w/ Videography (?)! See the definition posted.

 

It is our responsibility to clear this up. I just wrapped a piece for the Discovery Channel and everyone on the crew kept talking about what we were 'filming'.. we weren't 'filming'.. we were taping in HD. Looks like us 'Film' DPs will have to go back to the old school 'Cinematographer' title to define what we do. As it stands, a search for a DP will get you many many Videographers who rarely (if ever) shoot or have shot Film.

 

DP = Director of Photography. DP does not infer what equipment is being used to acquire images. It does suggest however that the person is actually "directing" something in regard to the photography.

 

Given that (and there's squishy area in here), I'd suggest that a Cameraman who is shooting with one camera and lighting the set by himself with no Assistants, additional cameras, or a "full" Grip/Electric crew is not "directing" anything, therefore it would not be accurate to title him as a DP for that specific project.

 

If there are two or more cameras, it generally indicates that there are two or more Operators and possibly Assistants and likely a crew of Grips and Electrics to help light the set/scene/whatever. In that case, the Cameraman in question is "directing" something (that something being people as well as supervising the proper settings of the camera, filmstock, videotape, consistent lighting, shot composition across multiple cameras, etc.) So in this specific case, the Cameraman could be titled accurately as a DP.

 

For the one-camera project Cameraman who is not technically a DP on that project (because he's not really directing anything except himself), then we get into the technicality of calling him a Cinematographer (if shooting filmstock) or a Videographer (if shooting electronically).

 

The bottom line though is that "DP" is not merely an alternate term describing someone who shoots film. At least it shouldn't be.

 

 

For myself, on normal days when it's just me and a sound guy, I put "Videographer" on my invoice. That has it's own day rate. On special days, when there are multiple cameras and a crew for me to "direct," I put "Director of Photography" on my invoice and that has its own day rate (which is obviously more).

 

Titles are more than vanity plates for a business card. They translate into how someone perceives you, the kinds of work you do, and into actual dollar signs.

 

And for what it's worth, I detected a bit of that "film superiority" in the post above, as if to imply that shooting film is somehow more difficult than shooting electronically thereby making Cinematographers inherently better. I'd disagree. While certainly the projects that are shot on film tend to be more "prestigious," from a purely technical standpoint, shooting electronically can be far more difficult as the technology is more complicated to learn and the parameters can be more limiting (ie, controlling depth-of-field, limited latitude, etc.). On the other hand, filmstock tends to give Cameramen far more latitude and flexibility so you don't have to entirely "perfect" when shooting. You really have to be on your game to shoot video well. For film, you can "miss" a little and still be ok.

[Brian Drysdale]

You're right Brian but if you want to tell or communicated something to your DP, you have to know what you want, or what you need, perhaps you don't know a specific lens, or specific filter, but you have to know a basic thing to explain your self better...

 

They can use storyboard drawings and other reference material like painting and photographs. They can have ideas from films and television, but it's not vital that they know the nuts and bolts of setting up a camera or a light, only that they are aware of the limitations of the resources that the budget allows them. Sometimes these directors are more interesting to work with than the ones who are very "hands on".

[David Rakoczy]

Given that (and there's squishy area in here), I'd suggest that a Cameraman who is shooting with one camera and lighting the set by himself with no Assistants, additional cameras, or a "full" Grip/Electric crew is not "directing" anything, therefore it would not be accurate to title him as a DP for that specific project.

 

Titles are more than vanity plates for a business card. They translate into how someone perceives you, the kinds of work you do, and into actual dollar signs.

 

And for what it's worth, I detected a bit of that "film superiority" in the post above, as if to imply that shooting film is somehow more difficult than shooting electronically thereby making Cinematographers inherently better. I'd disagree. While certainly the projects that are shot on film tend to be more "prestigious," from a purely technical standpoint, shooting electronically can be far more difficult as the technology is more complicated to learn and the parameters can be more limiting (ie, controlling depth-of-field, limited latitude, etc.). On the other hand, filmstock tends to give Cameramen far more latitude and flexibility so you don't have to entirely "perfect" when shooting. You really have to be on your game to shoot video well. For film, you can "miss" a little and still be ok.

 

 

The first paragraph is inaccurate. I, and many others, have shot smaller set ups such as table top.. some even by myself... now, that does not take away from the Director of Photography essence. The size of the crew (or lack of crew) does in no way adjust the title of the DP.

 

The last paragraph is based on your own insecurity. I made no condescending comment. I did not imply what you have stated. I am simply trying to help us and those who hire us use proper definitions. Why are Videographers so uptight about what they do and their title? I have seen loads of beautiful HD and SD images from talented Videographers that blow away lots of Film DP's... or 'so called' Cinematographer's.

 

That is why I said as a Film DP... I will use Cinematographer

 

But since you have brought it up, please do not deceive yourself.. shooting Film with Light Meters only and no monitor demands more discipline than standing in front of a HD monitor lighting by what you actually see.. not what you know the Film will do. I believe your last comment will only fan the flames of debate on this issue.

 

.

Edited February 17, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[Sam Wells]

Fortunately for them she's a pretty good pitchwoman and does a good job of selling.

 

Some of us on the NYC-Philly axis will never forget Luba Potamkin or Ben Krass <_<

 

-Sam

[Brian Dzyak]

The first paragraph is inaccurate. I, and many others, have shot smaller set ups such as table top.. some even by myself... now, that does not take away from the Director of Photography essence. The size of the crew (or lack of crew) does in no way adjust the title of the DP.

 

Well, in your opinion, it's inaccurate. :) But for the sake of clarity, I think when most people hear the word "DP," there is an implication that there is a relatively sizable project happening with multiple cameras perhaps over multiple days where the someone (the DP) is "in charge" of overseeing multiple elements of production. That's quite different than one guy with one camera doing something fairly contained on one day. See the difference?

 

 

The last paragraph is based on your own insecurity. I made no condescending comment. I did not imply what you have stated. I am simply trying to help us and those who hire us use proper definitions. Why are Videographers so uptight about what they do and their title? I have seen loads of beautiful HD and SD images from talented Videographers that blow away lots of Film DP's... or 'so called' Cinematographer's.

 

Not based on my own insecurity at all. I explained that I use the title when appropriate and don't when it isn't. If anything, I've seen "basic" Videographers calling themselves "DPs" as a kind of pretentious way to pump up their own resume.

 

Videographers in general are "uptight" (as you put it) because on the whole, there has been a superiority complex by "film people" over anyone who shoots video. It's not entirely unfounded as video began as a news gathering device where not too much concern was placed on quality. But as you yourself have pointed out, the field of electronic image acquisition has progressed to the point where the skill level of a "Videographer" often must meet or exceed that of a "Cinematographer." Even so, "Videographers" still have to contend with occasional condescending attitudes from "traditionalists" who aren't embracing HD and who don't truly understand what Videographers really do. I've been on more than a few sets with a Digibeta or F900 and had Camera Assistants actually ask me if the camera had autofocus! And I've been asked who "lit" for me. :blink: Even though these are professional grade cameras being used by professional Cameramen, because it's a "video camera," they think that it's just a larger version of the thing they have at home and all we know how to do is "point and shoot." That's the kind of nonsense that causes Videographers to get so "uptight."

 

 

 

But since you have brought it up, please do not deceive yourself.. shooting Film with Light Meters only and no monitor demands more discipline than standing in front of a HD monitor lighting by what you actually see.. not what you know the Film will do. I believe your last comment will only fan the flames of debate on this issue.

 

I'm not deceiving anyone. I've shot both and have worked extensively in both the film (movie/tv) environment as well as in EFP production. And the truth is that filmstock has traditionally had a lot more latitude than video technology (unless you're shooting reversal film for some reason). Lighting for HD is more than just standing in front of a monitor and adjusting things. If you're doing that, there's a big problem. I generally have my "set" lit before I ever plug a monitor in without ever pulling out a meter or looking at the viewfinder. It's about knowing the parameters and limitations of the technology so that you are actually lighting in the limited time you have instead of fixing it once all the switches are turned on, which is what your statement above implies. There isn't time for that in most cases. I have to know what I'm supposed to achieve, and then make quick choices on where to put the camera and which lights to use and where to place them. Exposing film well takes the same skill and experience, but there is more leeway built into that technology in case there is a problem. Video isn't so forgiving, so the Cameraman has to show up on set with the proper equipment and skillset instead of lamenting that he isn't shooting film.

 

But of course, some of what "Videographers" do is indeed "point and shoot" event coverage. There's no getting around that. It's just part of the "business" of being a Videographer. But as I said before, if this was 30-40 years ago, I'd be throwing an Arri on a tripod and this wouldn't even be an issue. Point being, the equipment doesn't define the title...the work does.

[Mike Washlesky]

But of course, some of what "Videographers" do is indeed "point and shoot" event coverage. There's no getting around that. It's just part of the "business" of being a Videographer. But as I said before, if this was 30-40 years ago, I'd be throwing an Arri on a tripod and this wouldn't even be an issue. Point being, the equipment doesn't define the title...the work does.

 

 

Amen. The term at least from my stance is the Director of Photography is just that, the Director of all that is captured with a camera. Doesnt matter what camera is used. On the recent Sprint commercials that are essentially animated digital stills that move, according to David, the DP of that shoot doesnt even fall in any type of role or title. They used digital still cameras to capture the images. So what is that person called? Does that mean there wasnt a DP on that crew? I wouldnt think so.

[Danny Lachman]

In short,

 

I could understand the term videographer being a dirty word - because the word has associations with weddings, news, porn, etc. Most of those practices are mainly run by money and not artistic vision.

 

However, I believe that stereotype will fade in time when the general idea of video becomes associated with artful film as it is starting to do.

 

I don't like being called a videographer, it's just not as classy as calling yourself a film maker.

[David Rakoczy]

Amen. The term at least from my stance is the Director of Photography is just that, the Director of all that is captured with a camera. Doesnt matter what camera is used. On the recent Sprint commercials that are essentially animated digital stills that move, according to David, the DP of that shoot doesnt even fall in any type of role or title.

 

 

I never said that.. never implied that. The Director of Photography is the person who is in charge of the Photography whether that be Film, Video or Stills. The issue is that (until recently) Dp has referred to 'Photo-Chemical Photography. That is why as a Film Dp I refer to myself as a Cinematographer and Video DPs as Videographers and Still DPs as Still Photographers... tho ALL are Directors of Photography in their own right.

 

I believe Mr. Lachman's comment was very honest.

Edited February 18, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[David Auner aac]

That is why as a Film Dp I refer to myself as a Cinematographer and Video DPs as Videographers and Still DPs as Still Photographers... tho ALL are Directors of Photography in their own right.

 

That's the one issue I have to strongly disagree with you. Being a Cinematographer or not being one has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what you are shooting. Whether it's film, tape, disk, flashdrive or pure CGI.

The term Cinematographer is derives from kinesis (Greek: movement) and graphō (Greek: to write, or, even more literally, to scratch). So you're a Cinematographer when you write with movement, no matter what you write on. Period.

 

Regards, Dave

[David Rakoczy]

That's the one issue I have to strongly disagree with you. Being a Cinematographer or not being one has NOTHING whatsoever to do with what you are shooting. Whether it's film, tape, disk, flashdrive or pure CGI.

The term Cinematographer is derives from kinesis (Greek: movement) and graphō (Greek: to write, or, even more literally, to scratch). So you're a Cinematographer when you write with movement, no matter what you write on. Period.

 

Regards, Dave

 

You most certainly are entitled to your opinion. May I suggest if you ever Produce a Feature Film or Commercial shot on 35mm or S16mm.. you contact a Videographer to do your 'Cinematography'....

Edited February 18, 2008 by David Rakoczy

[David Auner aac]

You most certainly are entitled to your opinion. May I suggest if you ever Produce a Feature Film or Commercial shot on 35mm or S16mm.. you contact a Videographer to do your 'Cinematography'....

 

Hi David,

 

you got me wrong. What I meant was that you can be a Cinematographer if you shoot video. Not that a videographer can shoot film.

 

Cheers, Dave

[Mike Washlesky]

You most certainly are entitled to your opinion. May I suggest if you ever Produce a Feature Film or Commercial shot on 35mm or S16mm.. you contact a Videographer to do your 'Cinematography'....

 

 

Ouch.

[Michael Lehnert]

I think there seems to be a hidden issue throughout this discussion that came through so far, namely the lack of pride that the term 'videographer' seems to bear for those who are actually most cleary falling into the videography definition: people shooting movies (and not 'films', then, if one were to be consequential) with video cameras.

 

I agree that the categories are no longer clear-cut, and people who might fall into one are also not particularly willing at upholding those, particularly when associated with the 'video' part which indeed brings associations as Mr Lachmann postulated ? irrespective whether they are actually correct and applicable or not... it's about what people associate with it and less what they should know it is.

 

Nevertheless, when I shot video, I preferred the title videographer; when I shoot cine-film, I use the term cinematographer. As someone holding overall managerial responsibility for the camera & lighting, Director of Photography it is (though this term really is ill-matched and outdated in every etymological and technical sens!). And when I make a film of my own, a private production, then filmmaker is an honest way of description what you do, especially in the documentary areas I like to work, such as Direct Cinema and Cinéma Vérité (in its original sense) where you can work on a small (or even smaller :) ) team.

 

Now thinking about it: I actually also differentiate between shooting a video or a film, with movie or motion picture being the overarching supra-format terms. The English language allows these terms, whereas German - for example - only know the word 'Film' for all of it.

So much for linguistic troubles and language-based problems that can arise... or not.

[Rick Dawes]

As a person new to this site and new to cinematography/videography, I find this discussion interesting. Some friends and I are in the preproduction stage of making our first movie. After a discussion one night our director decided I would be his DP and after purchasing a Canon XHA1 handed it to me to learn. Now before finding this site and this particular topic, I always considered myself the production cinematographer because we weren't shooting an event or news footage but rather a narrative story form. It never mattered to me what we were shooting with but instead, what we were shooting. I have alot to learn of course but, it seems to me that anytime you are primarily shooting for a "cinematic" effect you are acting as a cinematographer where as if you mainly attempting to document an event you are something else, whether that be DP, documentary cameraman(person), or whatever else might be more appropriate.

 

So speaks the truly uniformed.

[Mike Washlesky]

As a person new to this site and new to cinematography/videography, I find this discussion interesting. Some friends and I are in the preproduction stage of making our first movie. After a discussion one night our director decided I would be his DP and after purchasing a Canon XHA1 handed it to me to learn. Now before finding this site and this particular topic, I always considered myself the production cinematographer because we weren't shooting an event or news footage but rather a narrative story form. It never mattered to me what we were shooting with but instead, what we were shooting. I have alot to learn of course but, it seems to me that anytime you are primarily shooting for a "cinematic" effect you are acting as a cinematographer where as if you mainly attempting to document an event you are something else, whether that be DP, documentary cameraman(person), or whatever else might be more appropriate.

 

So speaks the truly uniformed.

 

 

Thats actually a pretty good point there Rick. Even though you are new, you see things through fresh eyes.