Royce Allen Dudley

Why oh why does the edit function not work on this forum ? Alas That's interesting. It would also account for the ridiculously low annual salary ranges listed in the same governmental statistics that are easily googled ( employment by profession and state ). Apparently full time employees make less than the average part timer. Series work IS regular full time employment on payroll, as is feature work; I am not sure how you think otherwise. Multiple employers is still employment. Please clarify your accounting. How can they differentiate between short term full time and long term full time ? And if Roger Deakins is unemployed, it's also like saying George Lucas is an indie filmmaker; which of course he is, but it paints a useless analogy. As for E V E R Y O N E doing this thing now; I did not make Los Angeles the mecca for film, it simply still is ( if in ICU and on a ventilator of state-funded tax bribe initiative ), and if you are here you will find massive unemployment among film crew; that is 1) vetted film and video crew who more years than not file tax returns as a film crew person, not a barrista; may be union may not - tons of SAG / non IA work at good livable salaries accross the industry 2) "filmmakers" ; self -titled equipment owners who occasionally see income from producing, editing, cinematography, wedding films, etc but are otherwise reliant on a day job, trust fund, girlfriend, etc to survive 3) The rest ; wedding cinematographers, web videographers, media blogger/ consultant / whatevers Not just L.A - go to Oakland and hang at my friend's cafe... several filmmakers on the couch all day on the computer sulking. How many coffee shops full of sulking filmmakers ? Boston, Omaha,... I have no "hatred" for DSLRs or their users ( I own / use them ); I have an observation about the watering down of all creative professions since the simultaneous perfect storm of the maturing internet / digitaI technology / global economic change; I can guarantee most of these mass of freelance people were not trying to do the movie thing before 2008. It has all changed forever. Fact. It has affected the way I do business and with whom I do it to be certain. Won't say what I do differently now because it works,and what used to be colleagues are in fact mostly competitors now; that's the sad part. In any case- back on topic- unless it is USC or UCLA or NYU and you are a superb writer director producer candidate and a superb player of human politic among peers, film school is largely overpriced for what you get out of it. And on top of that...to add an about-face ... I myself occasionally shoot thesis films , because it's great for a working pro to get the benefit of positive creative energy and " no limits" thinking from talented young filmmakers, albeit before they as a group mostly give up and become clock punchers outside the business. Yes, the energy of film school has some value, it just may not lead to work.

That's interesting. It would also account for the ridiculously low annual salary ranges listed in the same governmental statistics that are easily googled ( employment by profession and state ). Apparently full time employees make less than the average part timer. Series work IS regular full time employment on payroll, as is feature work; I am not sure how you think otherwise. Multiple employers is still employment. Please clarify your accounting. How can they differentiate between short term full time and long term full time ? And if Roger Deakins is unemployed, it's also like saying George Lucas is an indie filmmaker; which of course he is, but it paints a useless analogy. As for E V E R Y O N E doing this thing now; I did not make Los Angeles the mecca for film, it simply still is ( if in ICU and on a ventilator of state-funded tax bribe initiative ), and if you are here you will find massive unemployment among film crew; that is 1) vetted film and video crew who more years than not file tax returns as a film crew person, not a barrista; may be union may not - tons of SAG / non IA work at good livable salaries accross the industry 2) "filmmakers" ; self -titled equipment owners who occasionally see income from producing, editing, cinematography, wedding films, etc but are otherwise reliant on a day job, trust fund, girlfriend, etc to survive 3) The rest ; wedding cinematographers, web videographers, media blogger/ consultant / whatevers Not just L.A - go to Oakland and hang at my friend's cafe... several filmmakers on the couch all day on the computer sulking. How many coffee shops full of sulking filmmakers ? Boston, Omaha,... I have no "hatred" for DSLRs or their users ( I own / use them ); I have an observation about the watering down of all creative professions since the simultaneous perfect storm of the maturing internet / digitaI can guarantee most of these mass of freelance people were not trying to do the movie thing before 2008. It has affected the way I do business and with whom I do it to be certain. Won't say what I do differently now because it works and what used to be colleagues are in fact mostly competitors now; that's the sad part. In any case- back on topic- unless it is USC or UCLA or NYU and you are a superb writer director producer candidate and a superb player of human politic among peers, film school is largely a waste of money.

Film school is more about meeting people and getting rudimentary experience... the degree doesn't mean much to people who'd employ a DP. Now that the age of Digital Revolution is in full swing, the things film schools once offered exclusively ( knowledge and equipment ) are accessible anywhere. Save your money and get a job at a camera rental house or a lighting company- learn the gear, meet crew while getting paid, and you will work your way onto sets. It's a time proven route. Or buy a camera and become an overnight self -taught hero; not as smart if you intend to work for other people, but everyone is doing it these days. E V E R Y O N E. A quick googling of " worst college degrees" will get you lists on salary.com, forbes and elsewhere that all put Filmmaking and photography degrees about second from the worst return on investment and employment prospects. See for yourself.

Oh boy... I dread this kind of discussion and have sidestepped it for the past decade whenever possible BUT I must point out... First of all, gas or electric, you must know how to drive a car. Sudden access to any car does not make you a skilled driver. So it is with the democratization of cinematography through digital, wherein anyone with any recording device and a vimeo account is now a DP. If you ask them. OK... at this point in the game, digital capture can be ( not "IS", but "can be") indiscernible from film capture if done in the hands of a skilled DP and properly finished. It's a moot conversation, anyone who chooses to shoot in film and gets to must be studio elite or self funded indie auteurs, it's simply no longer a choice for most working DPs answering to a producer, period ! A point that is usually getting lost in this conversation which I find far larger than the shift from negative to chip itself was mentioned in the round table video and I am aware of it profoundly; the autonomy of vision and trust once afforded the DP through the need to wait for dailies is now gone. The paradigm shift in procedure, video village for everything, DIT on set, truly undermines many a DP's best potential work on the day by serving to continually water down or deviate his intention by group think. Aligning vision with the director who has the stones to let the DP be the Director of Photography and not merely the camera dude, that is now the focus for a DP, more than the medium itself. We are in a transitional time where there is much sound and fury... you know the rest of the quote.

From a 2013 Boston Globe article : "The major US multiplex chains (Regal, AMC, Cinemark, and Carmike are the “big four,” with about 17,000 of the country’s 39,500 screens) have for the most part already converted their theaters. Says John Fithian, head of the industry trade group the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), “32,000 of the total screens in the US are now digitized.” According to Variety , 75% of the screens globally are digital. Studios are helping to finance conversion in large markets foreign and domestic.

There are large wedding specialist companies who have a "presence" in major US cities. At the time I did a couple of those gigs to investigate the market, the going rate was $450 to the shooter. The company charged the client $1850 to book the job, receive the hard drive, handle the transaction and deliver the raw footage to client. It's a business model now widely accepted for all manner of shoots and spwaned of / entrenched in the digital revolution and the internet; interviews, small corporates, white cyc or green screen presentational videos... a goodly percentage of these are serviced by the new internet model where the wide masses got to a few sites to reach their local shooter ( hired by a similar wide net thrown out by the work broker ) and pay through the nose, often more than they'd pay locally. Ethical or not, I don't know. Crew brokerages used to take a small percentage of a high volume of work. No one complained. The only way to complain now is to not take the call. And when I didn't answer the phone again, some kid who thinks $450 was a score took the job. There is no way I was going to see more of the $1850, and the irony is that it's someone else's demos on the website that drew the client to the job in the first place. ( Brides see a pretty couple with pretty family and friends in slo motion in an Italian oceanside villa, and they hire that company. Never mind they are plain looking and getting married in Fresno). The money is no longer in the service, it's in the aggregation of service. Look at eLance , fiverr .... I suspect in another decade creative commerce and careers are unrecognizable.

George, everyone's own experience has anecdotal qualities. As for weddings and depositions; weddings have been a specialty for some videographers, and the rate per operator has been up to $1000- I have done them ( and a few where the rate was $450 although I was billed to bride at $1850 . I quit that nonsense) However, in recent years, again, everyone with a camera is doing them, so now the norm is chump change. Depositions are not really a professional videographer's work; that's a court reporting / stenography job and court videographers push a button and announce the time for the record. As far as no hack projects in the Bay, I understand your opinion, as it is a general truism that The Bay Area hates Los Angeles whereas L.A. has no beef with The Bay at all and in fact love to come up regularly and spend L.A. $ ;) That said, there are both scheister and hack filmmakers who live and work there, that is, among the minority who actually do anything as opposed to sit in cafes ordering free waters who call themselves filmmakers and harp about how everyone else isn't actually a filmmaker. Amusing scene there once you get outside the small circles of actual, working local crew. Not sure where your experiences are coming from, I respect them of course, they are your observations, but we must experience a different market on the same streets.

The P & A doesn't cause the budget to drop or cut into budget money ; (they rarely come from the same place), but rather the P&A is something that cannot be dropped as much as production because P&A are hard costs where production on micro indies can be deferred or simply interned-away. You are quite right they are making money in VOD TV and discs sales; absolutely. Even more than you may think... I know first hand it's very common for distributors to inflate the "estimated budget" on IMDb for a number of reasons related to their own sales (and often filmmakers do it pre-sale thinking the distributor will pay more, which is usually major delusion about the value of their work ); I shot a $16,800 film listed there as $100K that has brought the distributor almost a million, and another with a bunch of names made for $100ish-K that is listed as $500K. If you acknowledge those budgets as deferred owing or assigned value or whatever, it's all the more alarming that so little cash trickles back down, since a lot of newbs in Hollywood work for free to staff these films, and it buys homes and cars for others.

That's an idea which pre-supposes people would want it or care about it. When "good enough" has become the new "good" and everyone perceives they are just as good as the next, I don't think most people will care.

In the olden days, hiding a camera and crew behind solid black ( or white ) or the like carefully placed to the reflection can work. I did it a couple times in the ancient era of last August. Showcard and duvetyne is a lot cheaper than post work. I learned to light and shoot super reflective objects long ago, studying door hardware brochures. You could look at all the carefully placed refelctions in the photo of a doorknob and often find a little black square with a lens in it. Less is more, often

That is used for essentially for webisodics, and it is used as a way for non union actors to join SAG. Talent is another arena completely overrun ( polluted? ) and watered down. People try to produce features under it but the minutiae makes them unsellable as such just as did the old SAG Experimental agreement. My first 35mm feature with names was done under that, and then when Miramax wanted it, the deferred talent fees and required approvals killed the deal. See also: film in the garage, on a shelf forever. Plenty of ways to waste money and make a film that goes nowhere... amazing how people think they are smarter than the lawyers retained by the unions and guilds and studios. A friend and mentor of mine in the 90's was the late director Larry Buchanan. A shlockmeister, but very smart and reasonable gent, and not jaded or cynical in the least ( he has a wonderful autobiography called IT CAME FROM HUNGER, chronicling an earlier era in indie cinema ). I asked him how to succeed in filmmaking. He said the only sure way, and it was a 100% guarantee, was to become an entertainment lawyer.

I would agree with Chris's observations. It would be hell to be starting out right now, and I am always mystified by crew members new to me who openly share they are DPs, but sparking or gripping for the week, or who color and edit as well as shoot. I also just saw an ad for DP who can edit and compose a score and mix. Now obviously this is an uninitiated producer, but it shows the mindset of the new melange of efforts that seem to be acceptable. I fear the crafts dumb down and we lose the skills as a group. It's like homeowners who watch remodeling shows and decide they are contractors. They screw up their house and the actual contractor cannot feed his family. But Lowe's and Home Depot are making a killing off it. in the past 10 years DPs have gone from getting day rate plus kit fee to all in for one price and then that rate has eroded to the ridiculous. It is often the camera package getting hired at less than market rate, and the DP is thrown in. The preponderance of people who have become DPs overnight by buying a camera is mind boggling. I would not say they are as a whole professional but among them there are those who went a similar route to mine decades ago, doing their damndest to learn and be mentored and to achieve. Today the learning curve to basic abilities and basic shooting is shortened because of mass access and we know how this business likes the young... there is also a perfect storm timing with Millennials being the ones who value dollars less than job satisfaction, and are choosing to freelance in this way. Their values are different, they do not respect or appreciate experience, only results, and hence the idea of true apprenticeships is an obstacle not an opportunity. I have told sound mixers that no sound mixers with kit would touch an indie for under $500 a day in 2000 with Nagra and boom, and they look at me like I am from Mars- they have the cart and the 4 wireless and ComTechs and all the proper kit and are getting $175 in 2014. The camera situation is similar. I have also seen a serious disempowerment of the cinematographer to the point many projects do not have one per se, and the DP / camera owners go along with it and come on as cam ops, or the production dispensing with DPs entirely... 2 features this week I watched trailers for that looked all over the map and had no DP credit but several operator credits and director as A -camera operator. There is something to be said for barriers to entry to a field. With the democratization of film making, perhaps a bigger barrier to quality and success will exist for those same masses. Strange Days , indeed.

Thanks Greg. I wish the two threads could be merged. Great discussion all-in-all. LLP is Larry Levinson Productions- they shoot I believe a lot of Hallmark movies. As far as I know they have yet to be organized but I could be mistaken. In any case... I have said for some long time now if I had it to do over I would have been sweeping out a camera truck in 1980 and never looked back. The independent route is simply not a way up and in for most from what I have seen, and it has only gotten exponentially more so. Cheers

There are far more that are not, trust me. Indie budgets are usually based on cast, and therefore the SAG contract they fall under. It used to be common to see films made under the Modified Low Budget - under around $650K; all these I have seen or heard of or been involved in never started IA but I think one flipped around 2005... cannot name it. There is a tremendous amount of business done under the SAG ULB contract which is under $200K. You can find recognizable actors in these films working at $100 per 8 hour day. Rather than point out the great life available under IA, can you explain what makes IA perk up and organize a show ? Also, why do the semi-permanent crews of companies like LLP constantly refuse to organize ? Mr Irwin you are truly among Hollywood's elite crew members ( your resume reads like a multiplex marquis). As such you may have a tinted view of the bigger city full of film folks around you, and I get from the gist of your posts that you suggest everyone join the unions... even though you also used the word " competition"... at what point do colleagues become competitors? I'm all for the good life.... but I suspect there would be far less work available and that few crew could maintain the hours needed for benefits. It would never happen, but maybe the industry in L.A. could use a good, grinding halt.

Satsuki, I work SF as well... I think it's safe to say $1000-2000 per day for DP non union labor only is near the upper end in the market, surely not the average. Good corporate gigs can be $650-800 per , maybe plus gear. But I am certain a good volume of work there is under that, with no extra pay for kit. I don't want to name companies but let's say major hi tech companies and others have discovered " tiers of service" and pay very poorly for some gigs. We also have DPs being replaced with the new terms "junior shooters " and " corporate film makers".

George, SF non union rates are always far better than LA from what I see and what my SF crew tells me ( I work the Bay often ). Total aside- I used to shoot for a prod. co that had as a client ATT U-Verse. That stopped for me a couple years ago; some internal regime change. Then recently I had 2 emails from some company in Seattle telling me they liked specific clips on my website ( which means they watched my material and are crawling the web for DPs ), and would I like to SHOOT A SPOT FOR A CONTEST for ATT U-Verse --- If I won, there was a cash prize available. This is where the ridiculousness of our business has arrived. It is here now.

It would sure be great to see some others step up and discuss what's actually going on with rates and expectations... Bueller ? Anyone ?

I am talking about non-IA work in Los Angeles. I have been on the 600 eligibility roster as DP on and off for years. No idea what that realm is like; it has eluded me entirely. Not sure if you want to call it "indie" or what- but don't forget even IA has a Tier Zero contract with lousy rates. Now tell me this, how many local 600 members are fat and happy and employed as well as they were 10 years ago ? I bet the spiral in budgets is affecting them too.

Belly of The Beast; Hollywood.

This was your opportunity to offer step in as an equity investor and leverage a substantive value on the camera rental and your labor if you believe in the project- contract as a producer for backend participation. You offer your services for a first-paid $12,500 including pre production, shoot, and color grade supervision plus the C300 package and a full producer credit. One of a couple things happens at that point; they jump on it, and you are in, with $100 a day to cover your fuel and laundry bills, or more likely you learn that not only don't they have fair money available up front, but are greedy and will not break you off a fair piece of the potential... it costs them nothing to do so, but they just want the free camera - that is the real no-brainer. They do not value YOU. So you should not want that job, regardless of the script or potential. The latter is sadly the most likely scenario. The problem today is that so many are buying their way into shooting by subsidizing the project with a camera they buy and provide to production for free ( I am not talking DSLR's, I am talking EPICS and C300s and the lot, FOR FREE )... that, plus charging an under- valued rate. The supply and demand of DPs today is simply overwhelming, and it's a " glamour industry" so it attracts many people willing to do anything to get in. It always has, but there used to be a barrier to entry that exceeded having a camera.... the first dailies would reveal any lack of ability very quickly. With digital, very little learning curve, knowledge base or expertise are needed to fumble through a mediocre, passable job... so many eyes on the monitor, so many opinions, so much "collaboration" that really is the pure undermining of what a DP is historically supposed to be in charge of. As producer, I have been on the receiving end of DP submissions for a few projects. It is shocking how many people now have decent reels and will submit for projects with smaller than ever budgets. Among those are a few who even aggressively solicit to UNDERCUT a posted day rate with their high end gear free... so how does one compete with that ? (Cue the sound effect of crickets)

No one wants to talk about this on any forum but they sure want to read about it. Every time the subject comes up there are vague references to rates then.. nada. This very thread is 5 YEARS OLD, resurrected, and HOT right now because everyone is reading it but no one will tell you what the rates are. But I will... In Hollywood 15 years ago up to 7 years ago, DPs got $450-650 per day on indies - features or shorts.. even micro budget indies like the many I shot on film for under $50K.. but the DP still got paid a chunk of that. So did the sound mixer. Maybe with a camera provided ( DVCAM, 16mm, then 24P, then 24P HD), and often without. Maybe with some lights, maybe without. Occasionally there would be lower rates and you'd take them if you needed the $ or dug the project. Seldom higher. But any sort of corporate or professional day-gigs held at twice those rates. Most of us ( there weren't so many then ) could stay real busy most of the year, and would never think of doing a different job- a DP was a DP, you would never go out to gaff. Job ads were 10 a week in BackStage West or DramaLogue, and a few on internet boards. That was enough for who was doing indies... lots of word of mouth too.... ads often said MCC ( Meals, Credit, Copy ) but almost to the ad, they never meant that- they had money and would spend it on the DP and the Mixer. Then it all changed. After the Great Recession hit, people spent less, had less, and the DSLRs and REDs dug in... internet video exploded, and everyone who could became a DP overnight. WTF ? Why not ? No jobs, nothing else to do.... It really has been a massive shift. Today, DPs often take $200 a day, almost always including expensive package up to and including C300's and RED flavors; but not just on indies, they accept this rate for all manner of corporate, interview, etc. There are companies that specialize in providing web content for business, local commercials, and weddings... they pay $100-200 for partial to full days... and an ocean of DSLR shooters are hotly vying for those scraps. I personally generally hold out for the old $500/12 indie rate and rarely ( but do ) get hired on those... the phone still rings for $1000 interview half -days or $4000 corporate weeks (plus gear rental ); but the phone doesn't ring often. More often, it's this " can you help me out and there will be more work later". Um, no, actually, there won't be. Several colleague DPs who own smaller trucks / vans make ends meet by Ghost- DP'ing, or babysitting as some call it - providing the gear and services of a DP without credit as such; doing all the work while the director operates and takes credit for the image. This happens often now with both established still photographers and Momarazzi who are asked to provide their client's web video work... and they won't say no, but they take the credit and will not introduce the babysitter to the client, you can be certain. rates for these gigs are whatever you can leverage... some OK, some just stupid. Cinematographers now spend much more time trying to work than working, I am convinced.. which is why I am now a producer

You may have already shot by now... but the schedule / page count you describe is normal in low budgets; even with action, single camera. I have done dozens of films that fit that mold. Whether they were great or sucked seldom had to do with anything on my shoulders. Actors and director have a tougher job than DP... which is not to say you should not prepare... and also preppare to throw out all your prepartion and punt. Cuz that will happen. Lots of talking heads should make it easy. Ok.. Easier. :) Have fun!

Welcome... you and every other still shooter is becoming DoP :/ The big difference to remember is that stills are time independent when viewed, and stand alone, as a rule. Motion images are tied to time when viewed, and each relates in linear fashion to the images seen before and after each. If you love each shot, you may work slow as molasses. Okay for an ad agency on a budget; otherwise.... not good. Not a big difference; yet massive. The hot light vs speed light thing will come easily. Best of luck.

Half of my career knowledge is built on screw ups... mine or others'. When the screw ups are yours, you remember the lessons. I used to have a policy whenhiring ACs.. I'd ask if they ever fogged a roll of film accidentally. If they said no, I wouldn't hire them. I'd rather they knew how important loading was than learning on my shoot. ( yes, I have totally screwed some film myself). Most film trained people got much of the discipline by the very nature of things like what you just experienced... something lost in the digital realm with it's instant gratification ....except for accidental formatting ;)

"Fake it 'til you make it" is a sure way to build a reputation... possibly a very bad one. In a day when the internet offers a permanent record of your exploits, a little far-sightedness and humility can go VERY far. I have been telling people for 2 full decades that if I had it to do over, I would merely work at a rental house to start. That would have been 1980 had I done it, though a took a less intelligent route; it's even more true today. There are DPs and then there are DPs. Which do you aspire to be ? Another dude with a camera who makes a couple bucks, or the next Roger Deakins ? Digital and DSLRs have created an explosion of interest in cinematography as a career. You can "just do it" and call yourself a DP, but unless you have phenomenal talent ( a gift which cannot be learned or faked) or phenomenal hustle ( and that can work for some ), you are unlikley to rise above unnoticed projects... even if you manage to make a living at it. If your goal is network TV or studio pictures, it's 100% who you know followed by what you know. The ONLY way to get that remains knowing real, working ACs, then DPs, and getting on set with a variety of them. The easiset way to do that is to be a good rental house employee. Rental houses provide a job and a paid education in both real film gear and how it is treated and used, as well as connections to people working on real projects. In my humble opinion, it's a no brainer... as long as you are at a good rental house that serves big clients.