How much has a DOP to say in film-production?

Thomas Buelens · January 16, 2005

Hi,

i guess that all of us think about this once in a while, now I do and I would like to know what you think !

It's a fact that the DOP works for a director in the sence that he makes his vision become reality. He decides over the lighting, but how much does he have to say about the framing?! Choices of camera position, lenses and camera movement. Does a DOP also have a final say about this or is this totaly the job of the director. I know that we always work together with directors, but how much are we boss of our photography?

Max Jacoby · January 16, 2005

How much influence a DOP has over the framing really depends on the director and if the DOP is also operating the camera himself. Some directors set up the shots themselves or work closely with an operator. Stanley Kubrick and Michael Mann come to mind as people who do not really rely on the DOP for the framing. On 'Ali' for instance Emmanuel Lubezki wanted to leave the production at one point because he wasn't consulted about the framing. On the other hand you have directors who just work with the actors and leave the framing up to the DOP. Richard Attenborough is someone who works like that.

Matthew McDermott · January 16, 2005

On the other hand you have directors who just work with the actors and leave the framing up to the DOP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I feel that either method can yield a good result but the working method needs to be thoroughly discussed and decided upon before production starts. There's nothing worse than going into a shoot thinking you're in charge of framing only to find that it isn't the case.

Landon D. Parks · January 16, 2005

I bet it also has a lot to do with how powerfull the DP is compared to the Director.

January 16, 2005

The way I see it, the DP is the artist, the director has the vision. As a DP I'd give director right of way, but really I'd prefer to do things my own way. Thing is the director doesn't have as much experience behind a camera, so I can't see how he could make a better job of framing than the DP.

My ideal job would for the director to tell me what?s going to happen in the shot, we rehearse it, and then I shoot it the way I want. That's what's happened in my previous films, it works.

The only suggestions I'd ever want from the director is how he wants it look in macro wise. i.e. a handheld shot, slightly underexposed shot e.t.c.

Edited January 16, 2005 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

Matthew McDermott · January 16, 2005

The way I see it, the DP is the artist, the director has the vision. As a DP I'd give director right of way, but really I'd prefer to do things my own way. Thing is the director doesn't have as much experience behind a camera, so I can't see how he could make a better job of framing than the DP.

My ideal job would for the director to tell me what?s going to happen in the shot, we rehearse it, and then I shoot it the way I want. That's what's happened in my previous films, it works.

The only suggestions I'd ever want from the director is how he wants it look in macro wise. i.e. a handheld shot, slightly underexposed shot e.t.c.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I work with a number of directors who are quite capable behind the camera. They may not know all the ins and outs of the camera department or all of the technique, but they certainly have a very good idea how to compose a shot. In the larger world, there are quite a few directors who are good photographers: Kubrick was a photojournalist first and Wim Wenders has several books of photos published, just to name two.

Mark Sasahara · January 17, 2005

Heh, and then there was the time in West Virginia, where Mat became the Director, sorta. :blink:

Yep, good times, good times...

January 17, 2005

I work with a number of directors who are quite capable behind the camera. They may not know all the ins and outs of the camera department or all of the technique, but they certainly have a very good idea how to compose a shot. In the larger world, there are quite a few directors who are good photographers: Kubrick was a photojournalist first and Wim Wenders has several books of photos published, just to name two.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, if they are capable I have no problem. But, a lot aren't.

J. Lamar King IMPOSTOR · January 17, 2005

Personally I could do it either way but I prefer a director that has a solid idea of what he wants. I don't like directors who just say, "Ok lets go in for some singles.." without any explanation, there are many, many kinds of singles and close-ups. I'm confident I could shoot the proper ones on my own but I don't like to hear later on that some of the angles were "missing."

The best way is when you and the director can look at the blocking with a viewfinder and discuss the general angles and how that will lead into the medium and close shots. Then it's up to you (and good to consult the operator if you have one) to pick the precise framing in relation to the characters, architecture, lighting etc.

Max Jacoby · January 17, 2005

Working with directors who have no idea what they want or who have too many ideas and can't make up their mind is a real pain. As overheard on a set last year, a director told an operator who just wanted to make a suggestion: 'Just do your thing, rely on your instincts'

January 17, 2005

Working with directors who have no idea what they want or who have too many ideas and can't make up their mind is a real pain. As overheard on a set last year, a director told an operator who just wanted to make a suggestion: 'Just do your thing, rely on your instincts'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd kinda like it if the director didn't exactly know what he was doing, because that then gives me a chance to take control and make it the way I think looks good.

Although yeh if he started complaining afterwards that things were missing e.t.c then I'd be annoyed.

Matthew McDermott · January 17, 2005

Heh, and then there was the time in West Virginia, where Mat became the Director, sorta. :blink:

Yep, good times, good times...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, you've got to do something to preserve your sanity on a shoot where the director's completely lost control...

DavidSloan · January 17, 2005

Like a lot of you have already mentioned, it all depends on the director. There are some directors that bring a solid vision to the film and everyone is there to realize their vision: Kubrick, Mann, Tarkovsky, Angelopolous, Hou Hsiao Hsien, Kiarostami, etc... then there are directors that rely on the DP to create the visual pallete for them while they concentrate on the script and actors: Neil Labute, and there is everything in between.

Max Jacoby · January 17, 2005

I'd kinda like it if the director didn't exactly know what he was doing, because that then gives me a chance to take control and make it the way I think looks good.

Nothing is more annnoying and time consuming than a director who doens't know what he wants because he didn't do this homework. Making a film is not about 'taking control', you are supposed to work with your director. DOPs who like to do their own thing don't last very long. See: Bush, Dick.