CInematographers should not be paid... What?

[Satsuki Murashige]

Sure, but isn't that the whole idea? Don't we look at what other people say and try to figure out how their words fit our own situation?

 

This makes no sense to me. Someone shares their opinion, and rather than consider that information within the context that they have established, you flip that context to something else entirely and then yell at that person for not making sense. Like, whaat?? It's as if you're not actually interested in what this person has to say.

 

What makes you so certain those freebee's will work vs shooting your own stuff with friends?

I can't be certain of anything. I simply see career opportunities and take calculated risks that the payoff will be worth my investment of time.

 

What I know is that I'm a cinematographer and not a writer, director, or producer. I'm not able to pull together a project from scratch with the kind of production value that would take my reel to the next level. I need to team up with a director for that. I choose my freebie projects very carefully for exactly the right opportunity that I can't make for myself.

[Dom Jaeger]

It's not the DP's who I'm frustrated with, it's the filmmakers who feel entitled enough to post online looking for free help. It's one thing to help your friends, it's another for a random person to ask for help and expect you to do it for free.

 

 

The problem is the paradigm today is free help. Doesn't matter what position you're in, whether it's audio, editing, gaffing, cinematography, acting or even writing/directing. Everyone wants something for free and it's the reason this industry has fallen apart.

 

In a recent thread you were castigating film camera technicians for not freely sharing their years of accumulated knowledge, for keeping it all "a secret".

 

You said things like: "People who wish to make money, they can focus on other aspects like lens repair or maybe retiring from the industry all together."

 

And: "at the end of the day happiness outweighs money. I'd rather be the guy who helps people, then the guy who has the big house and fancy car."

 

You contemptuously dismissed the entire profession and its worth by saying: "I have yet to work on a film camera and found it difficult in any way." Yet when pressed on actually what work you had done, you didn't have the first idea about real camera servicing.

 

But now you're championing the rights of film workers to be remunerated, and decrying the culture of giving away one's skills for nothing?

 

Something of a double standard?

[Tyler Purcell]

People are simply not 'hired' for $100+ dollar a day jobs in any great quantity.

Landon, the vast majority of people "work" for some sort of compensation.

 

Also, do you really want some random guy working on your project that is so desperate for work, they'll do it for free? That same guy will spend his own money on gas to get there every day. That same guy will work 12hr+ days, with a bunch of other "crew", none of which are getting paid. That same guy is expected to show up every day on time and do a job they may have never done before?

 

Also, it depends on what you want to do. Filmmakers - those who are involved in making the movie (Producers, directors, etc.) would be wasting their time as a PA. To ever work your way up from that position is just not that common. Yeah, it happens - but PA tends to lead to other technical jobs. Just because someone can handle a grip cart does not mean they have any creative ability. So for a filmmaker, you're much better off doing your own things or helping other friends do their own things.

Here is the reason why almost every filmmaker at one point in their life, from Spielberg to JJ Abrams, has been a PA...

 

- You learn what it's like to be on set right away, learning all the terminology required for working on films.

- Most PA's are just like you, they want to be "filmmakers" and tell stories of some kind.

- You will bond with other PA's in your group and do projects outside of work together.

- The PA community (especially commercial) is ever evolving, so you'll always meet new people, even if you're called to work with the same group.

- Most PA's are paid $125 - $150/day, so even though it's long days, you WILL get income, without having a specific skill set.

- Being on set, means you're literally right next to the jobs you may want to do in the future.

- If you can become friends with UPM's or production coordinators, they will help you get up the ladder in whatever position you want.

 

I have seen set/production PA's moved to camera PA and eventually to assistant camera. Heck, I've seen PA's move to directors assistants. Being a PA is a great doorway into being on set and building your chops. Yes, it will take a few tries to get onto a decent paying long-term project with like minded individuals. However, once you do... sky is the limit!

 

If you're interested in technical jobs like crane ops, gaffers, grips, camera ops, etc - you're probably better off going to film school to get a base understanding and then looking for entry level PA or related jobs to gain experience and network.

Film school is a waste of time today. Today, it's far better to attend college for a backup career, one that makes money and spend your off-time making little films and working with a local film community of students. I know many people in college who were in different programs, who wanted to be part of student filmmaking, it happens.

 

Then there is a whole other group of people that seem to be left out, and possibly even downright degraded by some here - those who do it for fun.

poop man, if you've got a full-time job and you make movies for fun, who cares what you do, who cares if there is any money. The point of this thread is to discuss career-minded people not being paid for their hard work. If you're just out having fun with friends, money generally doesn't fall into the equation.

[Tyler Purcell]

But now you're championing the rights of film workers to be remunerated, and decrying the culture of giving away one's skills for nothing?

 

Something of a double standard?

And please show me where I said technician's should give away their labor time for free?

 

Don't bother looking because it was never said.

 

My point in regards to service technicians is that they charge too much money for both labor and parts because they expect to make a living off dinosaur technology. Today, the equipment value is less then the service required to keep it running.

 

So how is that a sustainable industry? If I break my little $200 computer speakers, do you think it's worth it for me to send it to a service facility who will charge me $500 to fix them? No, I will fix them myself OR buy another set of speakers.

 

There are two options to sustain camera service... one is to charge less money. The other is to train everyone how to do it themselves, which could be a "paid" website.

 

Nobody would ask a camera technician to repair their camera for free and likewise, a filmmaker shouldn't ask a director of photography to work for free either.

 

I don't see any double standard at all, just people confused as ever on what I mean.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

The point of this thread is to discuss career-minded people not being paid for their hard work.

I didnt realize career-minded people got involved in filmmaking at all? Seems investment banking is more in line with career-mindedness.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sure, there are career-minded filmmakers -- "career-minded" just means that they want to support themselves financially by working on films... rather than have another primary job and doing films on their spare time, or having to be lucky enough to have inherited wealth. And even among professionals in the film business, some are more business-minded than others.

[Carl Looper]

I do free work all the time. And in between that I get paid jobs. The free work is on projects I love doing (as a creative person). The paid work I do, I would not do if I wasn't being paid. The paid work is typically work that must satisfy a large number of constraints beyond one's control. And it's typically a lot of pain involved (along with the pleasure). The free work - it's all pleasure (almost all). There's no real business logic in the free work. It's just purely for fun - if that's the right word. I get to make something with a bit more freedom about it - or at least something close to it. But in practice the free work does help out with the paid work. Someone sees my free work and says to themselves: well if you can do that then perhaps you are the person who can also do this (their task).

 

There is always a bigger picture in play. Bigger than any particular project.

 

C

Edited July 16, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Mark Kenfield]

The internet is really spotty over here in India, so I haven't had a chance to watch Matt's video yet, but I suspect it's safe to assume that he's echoing the same thoughts on unpaid work that he's espoused on his podcasts and other videos. Which is that it provides a means to build your reel and develop working relationships with Directors and Producers (which is probably the single-best way to advance your career as a cinematographer- as those relationships are the key to everything). And on those points, I'd have to say I agree.

 

We work in a creative, portfolio-based field. Personally, I've been doing this stuff for eight years now (the last four years full-time), and not once, in almost a decade, has a single producer who's hired me shown the slightest bit of interest in my university qualifications. What they have cared about is my reel, and the visual quality of the body of work that I've done. That's the thing that's landed me jobs, and as the scope of my reel has increased, so to has the scope of the work I'm offered.

 

Investing time into projects that will let you expand the scope and appeal of your portfolio, is an investment in yourself and your business as a freelancer.

 

Now, obviously, that doesn't eliminate the risk of making bad investments of your time. But as you grow and develop in this profession you learn better how to pick the wheat from the chaff when it comes those investments.

 

The important thing (I think) is to never forget that it is an investment, and to treat it as such. You're putting in your own resources, so you have to be wary of making sure that it pays off for you - in the form of worthwhile portfolio material (at the least), and meaningful working relationships (at best).

 

A week of your time (that may have been unemployed otherwise), is paid back extremely quickly if it leads to just a day or two of paid work down the road.

[Phil Rhodes]

A week of your time (that may have been unemployed otherwise), is paid back extremely quickly if it leads to just a day or two of paid work down the road.

 

Theoretically - but it overwhelmingly won't. There are almost certainly several million people worldwide making short films on a vaguely-serious level. Perhaps as many as several of them will become working directors at the level where they can reasonably offer employment to a director of photography - and that is very unlikely to be the people they worked with on freebies.

 

All of this talk about building a career, whether that's based on working for free or not, is representative of a tiny, tiny subset of the world. Outside the USA and possibly China, there are no careers. There is no employment. There is no money, because this stuff just is not pursued as a business. Yes, of course, you can point to the two or three exceptions, but good grief - at what point is it actually reasonable to have these conversations? Is there not a point at which it becomes a complete waste of time, and a danger to impressionable beginners who are likely to waste a lot of effort on trying to capture magic in a bottle under circumstances where there is no magic?

 

Even beyond that, there's no practical way to build a presentable showreel out of low-paid work. Cheap stuff looks cheap, and ability is almost irrelevant in any case. Given basic competence, anyone is hirable if the director says so.

 

P

[Satsuki Murashige]

It's reasonable to have these discussions on this board at the very least, because there are a bunch of us here to whom it applies...

[Phil Rhodes]

This website has something like 23,000 members.

 

If three or four of them ever become worthwhile directors of photography, you may paint me purple and sell me as modern art.

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

I guess that depends on how you define "worthwhile".

[JD Hartman]

Even beyond that, there's no practical way to build a presentable showreel out of low-paid work. Cheap stuff looks cheap, and ability is almost irrelevant in any case. Given basic competence, anyone is hirable if the director says so.

 

P

 

The same people that want you (and your equipment) to work for free, for art's sake, for good Karma; networking; etc. rarely come through with their promise of: copy of the finished film; clips for your reel; paying work later; etc.

[Peter Bitic]

 

All of this talk about building a career, whether that's based on working for free or not, is representative of a tiny, tiny subset of the world. Outside the USA and possibly China, there are no careers. There is no employment. There is no money, because this stuff just is not pursued as a business.

I live in Slovenia, which has probably one of the worst movie/video industry in Europe, yet there are people who earn relatively good money by DP-ing on various commercials/music videos etc, and they do that as a career. There are also production houses that have people employed full-time. If somebody wants to become a career DP, there are options for him to do that (not saying that he will necessarilly suceed of course). I assume situation is similiar or better in european countries with much more developed industry, like in France, Germany, Czech etc.

[Phil Rhodes]

here are people who earn relatively good money

 

How many?

 

In the UK it's probably ten or twelve.

 

Brian, the only reasonable definition is the ability to pay a mortgage and a pension and send two kids through reasonable education. The number of people who are doing that on the basis of working in film or TV in the UK is perhaps a few hundred at best.

 

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

I suspect if you're talking about the film & TV industries as whole. not just DPs the figure is higher than a few hundred. after all the BBC alone employs more than that.

[Phil Rhodes]

Really? What do they produce that really needs one?

[Brian Drysdale]

They do produce a number of in house dramas, also programme promos, which do have pretty high production values.

 

Given the tendency to devalue the DP term these days, almost every cameraperson on a TV programme could call themselves one. In the UK it used to be only those people working on the higher end dramas, feature films and commercials used the term. .

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Given the tendency to devalue the DP term these days, almost every cameraperson on a TV programme could call themselves one.

 

Well, quite so, hence my cautious use of the term "worthwhile."

 

In terms of the sort of work young people actually see themselves doing and aspire to, we're talking about half a dozen people, nationwide. To drag this thing back on topic - no, nobody should be doing free or low-paid work with the idea it's going to get them a spot on the next Transformers. It isn't going to happen. These people would be much better served by being given the simple truth that it just isn't a career path that's available.

 

P

[Brian Drysdale]

Get paid work in the industry first, then do these practice pieces as and when they come along, it means you don't have to spent the money, but be selective. By the very nature of things you do need to build up contacts in the mainstream industry (helps if you've got relatives) and that usually means working in the lower grades, which allow you to work for more people, As they say, it's not what you know, but who you know.

[Tyler Purcell]

Even beyond that, there's no practical way to build a presentable showreel out of low-paid work. Cheap stuff looks cheap, and ability is almost irrelevant in any case. Given basic competence, anyone is hirable if the director says so.

Very accurate and important statement Phil. I've never been on a low-paid shoot with top of the line equipment. Most of the time it's older stuff the filmmakers get for free and without paying for decent/proper lighting equipment, how can you really make a scene look good?

 

Also, as JD pointed out, it's ultra rare people come through to give you better/paid work after you helped out on their no-budget project.

 

I've also spent months, sometimes years, trying to get copies of projects. I have copies of about 1/10th of what I've shot and most of those are my own projects.

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

without paying for decent/proper lighting equipment, how can you really make a scene look good?

 

Honestly it's not even that stuff, really - it's just that near-zero-money stuff is so often badly organised in poor locations with atrocious production design and no skilled crew.

 

Cameras capable of world-class results are now very cheap and lighting can, to an extent, be improvised. Yes, very large setups can be a challenge, but otherwise it ain't about the toys. Toys help, sure, but not to the extent that I consider it a huge barrier to good work.

 

The problem is that it's so often a white-walled apartment and iffy performances. About this I can do not much.

 

P

[Mark Kenfield]

Huh? There's only one thing you need to do with those white-walled apartment shoots Phil...

 

Don't take them.

 

As basically everyone who's arguing in favour of these occasional freebie jobs has said - you should only be doing them if they're worthwhile.

 

If they're not, you're literally throwing your own time away and have no one to blame but yourself.

 

I see so many otherwise sensible and talented crew I know getting nowhere in this business because they just don't know when to say 'no'. It can be hard sometimes when you're sitting around without other work to do, but you have to be selective. If you won't make a stand for a certain level of quality in the work that you get involved with, bigger players are never going to take you seriously enough to allow you to step up.

 

I've seen this with my own eyes.

 

And ALWAYS take a copy of the footage. The producer takes the primary drive and I take the backup for safe-keeping/grading purposes. I explain that to them from the very first meeting on these sorts of projects, and never run into any resistance.

[Satsuki Murashige]

This website has something like 23,000 members.

 

There are not 23,000 people actively participating in these discussions though. It's really more like the same 20-30 folks, so it's a bit silly to tell us not to talk about issues that directly affect us because there some other people to whom it may not apply who might be listening...

[Phil Rhodes]

 

 

Huh? There's only one thing you need to do with those white-walled apartment shoots Phil...

Don't take them.

 

Couldn't agree more. I don't - which is why I shoot very little these days.

 

There is nothing else here.

 

And Satsuki, yes, fine, the point I'm making is that if there's any group of 23,000 people and 2.3 of them on average end up working in the sort of filmmaking jobs they'd ideally like, we're probably doing far better than average.

 

P