cinematographer or videographer

[Brian Wells]

There are currently Still Photographers and Motion Photographers. I suspect that will change as soon as we have cameras that perform both functions well. Then, there will only be Photographers once again.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Here's the concern I have about including video shooters in with Cinematographers. David and Brian wisely point out that there are some seriously talented people shooting on digital. No doubt about it. I agree whole heartedly. But despite what Brian says, the vast majority of digital shooters are NOT like that. The talent is a minority in the digital realm. Go to youtube and look at some "Cinematographer" reels. You will shutter at the number of hacks that have the nerve to call themselves Cinematographers. Also, as a test, I decided to email one of them and ask what their rate was and they replied with $500.00 a day! Can you imagine paying that kind of money for someone who looks like they've only used a camera for less than a year? Look at your sites like Youtube, DVXUser, DVtalk, Indie forum, and etc and see just how many digital shooters are calling themselves DPs and Cinematographers, yet their work is extremely subpar.

 

Big deal? I wish I could be so cavalier about dropping a hundred grand. Might as well buy two, eh? ;)

 

That was hilarious!

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

 

Just a thought, but videographer's shoot in fields, when they choose to shoot in frames they become cinematographer's.

 

Stephen :D

[Keneu Luca]

VIDEOGRAPHER

responsible for the technical operation of a video camera

 

CINEMATOGRAPHER

responsible for the artistic visual design of any motion picture that incorporates elements such as lighting, camera placement & movement, lenses, filtration, etc.

 

 

I think this is pretty simple.

[Guest]

Well it seems the debate over what to call what is not limited to the film industry.

 

Pluto just got demoted, now it's not a planet. But I'm sure many will insist that it is one.....

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060824/ap_on_sc/planet_mutiny

[Justin Hayward]

But obviously many people that shoot video get offended when they are told they can't use the term cinematographer to describe themselves.

 

Are you offended when people who shoot video disobey you're rule and call themselves cinematographers? It sounds like you?re talking about children.

[Guest]

Are you offended when people who shoot video disobey you're rule and call themselves cinematographers? It sounds like you?re talking about children.

 

Reality is I don't give a flying *blank* what people call themselves. How does it effect me? It doesn't.

 

R,

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

Reality is I don't give a flying *blank* what people call themselves. How does it effect me? It doesn't.

 

R,

 

You've spent a lot of time on this thread proving your feelings to be the opposite.

[Guest]

You've spent a lot of time on this thread proving your feelings to be the opposite.

 

 

Exactly, but it's pointless trying to point out that the sun shines at noon to some people.

 

R,

[Joe Taylor]

When you're stuck shooting low end projects like I am still doing (even though I deserve better, but that's the nature of the beast) being a "cinematographer" and "videographer" goes with whatever project you happen to be "filming" at the moment. My film and video work are about 50/50 right now. My resume and vitae reflect whatever position I was hired for. My last footage was purchased by Warner Bros. for their new movie, "The Reaping." I was hired out for several desert shots that I filmed with my beater of an Arri IIC. For that job I proudly considered myself to be a "cinematographer." Next I am shooting DV for a dreaded infomercial. I'll take just as much pride in my work for that job, but then I'll be a "videographer."

 

If you're really a cinematographer who shoots features and highend commercials, then you'll probably want to call yourself a "cinematographer." If you're just scaping by, you're just happy to be working.

 

that's my .03 cents.

[gordon liron]

I know I don't frequent this site much but I have always been a big advocate for film. After I shot my first roll of 16mm 9years ago...I swore I would never shoot video again.

 

I've always been irritated by inexperienced students who immediately buy into the digital world of cinema and without any experience...they tell me how superior DV is over film :(

 

Unless you have used both formats...keep your oppinions to yourself please. I give two shits about what rodriguez and lucas have done.

 

At the same time...these students who are so proud of the format they are using but they still use film terms like "we're filming" instead of taping.

 

And if they are so confident over the quality of their format...why do they spend endless hours in post effecting it to look like a format that they don't consider superioir anymore.

 

 

just my 2cents

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I know I don't frequent this site much but I have always been a big advocate for film. After I shot my first roll of 16mm 9years ago...I swore I would never shoot video again.

 

I've always been irritated by inexperienced students who immediately buy into the digital world of cinema and without any experience...they tell me how superior DV is over film :(

 

Unless you have used both formats...keep your oppinions to yourself please. I give two shits about what rodriguez and lucas have done.

 

At the same time...these students who are so proud of the format they are using but they still use film terms like "we're filming" instead of taping.

 

And if they are so confident over the quality of their format...why do they spend endless hours in post effecting it to look like a format that they don't consider superioir anymore.

just my 2cents

 

Amen!

[Thomas James]

When I think about George Lucas who by the way happens to be one of the worlds greatest futurists I think of this quote from his movie THX1138. " It is a technology that you cannot understand" I have pondered the meaning of this quote and I came upon this verse " I will take you captive and carry you off to a people whos language you can not understand". And I think that people reject new technology for the same reason why most people reject having to learn a new lanquage in order to communicate with foreign people.

[Chad Stockfleth]

There seems to be a lot of animosity towards people, usually beginners who are using DV cameras and trying to pass themselves off as cinematographers, and to a point, I can understand it.

 

However, much like dolphin caught in tuna nets, people using higher quality "video" and shooting it in a cinematic style are being lumped into the same group and that is where I think some are taking offense.

 

No one is arguing the superiority of film, but the use of the word "cinematographer" which as has already been pointed out is not determined by choice of format. Painters use many different brushes, if any at all. Some are beginners and others are masters. They are ALL painters.

[Joe Taylor]

No one is arguing the superiority of film...

 

 

What is baffling is how most still photographers do consider digital superior to film. You can argue the merits of either forever.

[Guest]

When I think about George Lucas who by the way happens to be one of the worlds greatest futurists I think of this quote from his movie THX1138. " It is a technology that you cannot understand" I have pondered the meaning of this quote and I came upon this verse " I will take you captive and carry you off to a people whos language you can not understand". And I think that people reject new technology for the same reason why most people reject having to learn a new lanquage in order to communicate with foreign people.

 

You seem to be implying that film is old technology?

 

This baffles me when HD/Video people say this, because they have no idea how much technology and R&D go into making modern film stocks. The film camera itself uses the same basic design that Edison and the Lumiere Brothers came up with. But the technology behind the film stocks is as futuristic as it gets. Just ask John Pytlak from Kodak on this site.

 

Then there's the incredible technology that has been advanced to scan film to tape or HD.

 

People that stick with DV and video miss out on seeing this incredible technology in action. Video just isn't 1/100th as exciting as working with film.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

When I think about George Lucas who by the way happens to be one of the worlds greatest futurists I think of this quote from his movie THX1138. " It is a technology that you cannot understand" I have pondered the meaning of this quote and I came upon this verse " I will take you captive and carry you off to a people whos language you can not understand". And I think that people reject new technology for the same reason why most people reject having to learn a new lanquage in order to communicate with foreign people.

 

I dont reject digital technology because I always edit using digital intermediate. I just reject digital as an origination format for narratives. BIG DIFFERENCE!

 

As far as the "good ones" getting lumped in with the bad as far as digital goes. I realize that it happens, but I don't think the "good ones" realize or admit that there are bad ones. Seriously, many good digital shooters will not accept that they are a minority against all the hacks out there. If they would admit it, and distance themselves from that, I would regard them higher. Maybe they think by admitting it that it degrades digital as an origination medium, but whether you admit it or not, it is there.

 

No one is arguing the superiority of film, but the use of the word "cinematographer" which as has already been pointed out is not determined by choice of format. Painters use many different brushes, if any at all. Some are beginners and others are masters. They are ALL painters.

 

Is a tagger with a spray paint can a painter? Catch my drift?

[Nathan Chaszeyka]

Is a tagger with a spray paint can a painter? Catch my drift?

 

A tagger with a spray paint can is very broad. Similar to a person with a camera in his hands who is capturing motion.

 

 

There are many many "taggers" out there who paint large, detailed and ornate murals. While what they are doing is illegal most of the time, it does not stop these specific works from being art, and the artist behind them from being painters, in my opinon.

[gordon liron]

And I think that people reject new technology for the same reason why most people reject having to learn a new lanquage in order to communicate with foreign people.

 

 

I think its important to not group some of us pro film people and the pro digital people in groups. People like film for very different reasons. sure, there are some film elitists out there but there are also plenty of artsy non-establishment prentious film students out there that make pure poop and act like they know what the hell they are taking about via commentary track. Anyways..I happen to prefer film because ultimately...it looks better in many ways. I don't feel like I am rejecting video because it's not film. I do get excited with video advancements but i still see the difference. The show I work on just did a side by side test with an arricam, Genesis, and D20. Gotta say Video has come a long way but I still chose the look of film. As soon as video looks as good as film...I'll say i'm in. Also, its one thing to be using an hvx200 with an M2 adaptor but it is a whole other beast to be using a genesis. I freakin guarentee that its possible to budget a feature with 35mm over renting a genesis. If it costs the same amount...I'm shooting film. I care about the best images...not whats new. I'm not interested in being a pioneer in the format war. I'd rather be a pioneer in my ability to make good looking images.

[Guest Alexandre Lucena]

It seems the term videographer is not used through out the world. I particularly like the word cinematographer which has a latin origin and means writing with movement. Is that enough

for material originated in any media? Photographer in latin is someone who writes with light.

Very poetic. In Brazil Cinegrafista would be a cinematographer. A Diretor de Fotografia is

a DP. The lesser qualified jobs are done by a cameraman or a operador or simply the camera.

[Justin Hayward]

I dont reject digital technology because I always edit using digital intermediate.

Seriously, many good digital shooters will not accept that they are a minority against all the hacks out there. If they would admit it, and distance themselves from that, I would regard them higher.

 

It's funny you say you would regard digital shooters higher if they would admit the good ones are a minority compared to all the hacks when you refer to editing as "using digital intermediate".

[Brian Dzyak]

I dont reject digital technology because I always edit using digital intermediate. I just reject digital as an origination format for narratives. BIG DIFFERENCE!

How so? Just saying it doesn't make it true. Besides, lets say someone acquires images using digital technology then has those images scanned onto film. Now the images have the qualities of BOTH media, digital first, then film. Is the "Videographer" in that instance now a "Filmmaker" being that his final product is being exhibited on filmstock? Or the reverse, if a "Filmmaker" originates on film, then dumps to digital and the final product never sees filmstock again, what is he now?

 

As far as the "good ones" getting lumped in with the bad as far as digital goes. I realize that it happens, but I don't think the "good ones" realize or admit that there are bad ones. Seriously, many good digital shooters will not accept that they are a minority against all the hacks out there. If they would admit it, and distance themselves from that, I would regard them higher. Maybe they think by admitting it that it degrades digital as an origination medium, but whether you admit it or not, it is there.

 

? Sure, there are hacks in video, but the same goes for those who shoot film too. I'm not sure I see the point. It's as if you're demanding that all the "pros" in video add an asterisk to every comment we make that indicates that "most of the video shooters out there are hacks." We could simplify the process by instituting some kind of Scarlet Letter system in which hacks of all kinds (film and video) could earn the right to remove the letter from their shirt if they prove that they are capable according to your own personal standard of quality. Or maybe a ranking system, like the Army. :P

 

As far as "admitting" that digital is inferior, that's your personal subjective opinion. You don't prefer it. Great. Don't use it. However one feels about film vs video is up to them, but the only fact that exists is that they are two separate mediums with different ideosyncrasies. I could just as easily apply your "inferior" argument to the lens issue by suggesting that Panavision lenses are clearly superior to Zeiss and anyone who uses anything other than Primos is a hack because they don't care to admit it. See how silly that is? My own opinion doesn't make something a fact.

 

Is a tagger with a spray paint can a painter? Catch my drift?

Is the tagger a painter? Yes. He's got paint in his hand and he's applying it to some kind of material either to express himself or to acknowlege his presence in the world. You may not particularly like what he's doing, but that doesn't mean he's not a painter. I personally don't find Rap music all that appealing and think it's a stretch to call it "music," but it is all the same. I'm sure that someone like Mozart would shrug off AC DC as mere noise. Catch my drift? ;)

[Chad Stockfleth]

As far as the "good ones" getting lumped in with the bad as far as digital goes. I realize that it happens, but I don't think the "good ones" realize or admit that there are bad ones. Seriously, many good digital shooters will not accept that they are a minority against all the hacks out there. If they would admit it, and distance themselves from that, I would regard them higher. Maybe they think by admitting it that it degrades digital as an origination medium, but whether you admit it or not, it is there.

Is a tagger with a spray paint can a painter? Catch my drift?

 

 

Does a film cinematographer have to admit that there are a bunch of kids shooting super8 and 16 to be a cinematographer? Do you respect them more once they admit that? Why should I have to distance myself from people I have nothing to do with? And why should someone worry in what regard they are held by snobs?

 

And yes, as has already been stated by a lot of others, taggers are painters, many of them very skilled. Take a trip through Rio or Sao Paulo in Brazil and see the many politically conscious and technically proficient "tags" there are.

 

You are digging a hole by continuing to demean peoples mediums and styles. Throughout history, many "classicists" have scoffed at the new thing: impressionism, surrealism, jazz, rock n' roll, but those things were here to stay and I have a feeling skilled and artistic digital cinematography is too.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Okay, let me give you a scenario...One of the film classes I took in college, I ended up in a group with two guys and a lady who took the class to express their "artistic" side. Time came around for the first project to be done and we had a meeting to discuss how we were going to do this project. Obviously this project was going to be done on digital because of the short turn around time we had to write, shoot, and edit it. Not to mention everyone was too cheap to shoot on film.

The only person that had a digital camcorder was the main artisan, who had a Canon Optura that he bought for around $500. He wrote a short script taking place at night for which he could get a couple of friends to act for. I started to discuss how we were going to light this thing and how we were going to get optimal sound and him and the rest of the group looked at me like I was crazy...no joke.

One guy suggested that we do handheld, because he said there is no point using a tripod or anything to steady the image. The other guy said that we didnt need any additional lighting outside of the natural light that was available at 9:00PM. As far as sound went, they were all down with just using the on cam mic.

When I pressed the issue, I was told that I wasn't "artistically" minded because technical issues are the lowest level of art and not important...according to the group. This wasnt the first time I took the class and experienced this. I dropped and took the class two more times and both times encountered exactly the same attitude and they were all digital shooters. However, the few times we screened shorts of groups that decided to use film, whether 16mm or even Super 8, the production values always looked higher than the groups I had been in and the other DV groups.

 

As far as the person who implied I was a hack because I said digital intermediate, I was trying to point out that I do not reject digital technology because I only edit digitally on NLE platforms. I was trying to make a distinction between that and cutting on film. I don't know why that was so hard to understand?

Edited August 25, 2006 by M.W.Phillips

[Thomas James]

When George Lucas is talking about an advanced technological society he is talking about a society where technology becomes affordable for the masses. For example if a society only builds Rolls Royces which have a lot of hand craftmanship and exotic woodwork we can claim that a lot of technology went into the creation of such a car. But such technology is not affordable. Society only advances when automobiles are mass produced using techniques of automation which drives the prices down to such a degree that the most common man can afford it. Yes this involves compromises but at least the end result is attainable especially if we can find a cheap source of energy.

 

Film stock and processing may be very technologically advanced but it will never be affordable for the masses because it costs thousands of dollars just to process an hours worth of footage. With digital high definition cinematography it costs just a few dollars to process an hours worth of high definition footage soit puts film making capability right into the hands of the masses. And what kills profits is the high cost of film distribution. With film it costs about $1500 to print a reel of film and multiply that by 30,000 movie theatres and you have a distribution cost of 45 million dollars which does not give much breathing room if the film bombs. With digital the distribution costs are negligible once the digital projectors have been paid for.