Jump to content

Am I the only one here that cringes when...


Dan Salzmann

Recommended Posts

So what's a DOP that only uses one camera ?

 

I feel the opposite. I find DOP the far more pretentious and grandiose title. I've always been wary of bestowing that title on myself. Cameraman or camera person has ENG / TV studio or news crew connotations for me (i do more drama). Cameraman for me also implies that they do not light, nor do they design coverage, something that a DP or Cinematographer would do. Hence then the other permutation.... Uk expression i guess... lighting cameraman.

 

 

jb

 

 

A "Director of Photography" is directing the photography...meaning he/she has a crew to "direct" toward a common goal. Regardless of how many cameras are in use, one is and should be referred to as a Director of Photography when he acts as more of a "manager" who is "directing" the operations of the crew who use various tools to accomplish the task.

 

A Cameraman or Cinematographer or Videographer suggests a singular person who does not typically have anyone else to "direct" in order to achieve the goals for the shots. When autonomous (transporting, setting up, using, putting away... your own gear) then you're not "directing" anything or anyone else therefore the term "Director of" wouldn't really apply very well.

 

I cringe when I'm referred to by a Producer as the "DP" when it's just me and the Sound Guy with my camera and lights for a simple interview or what have you. On the days that I am in charge of multiple cameras plus the crews to use them and Grip and Electric, THEN the title "DP" is appropriate.

 

Perhaps if I ever shoot an art film in Italy with a handheld Bolex, I might think about crediting myself as a Cinematographer. :P But that's just me. Ultimately, whatever keeps the checks coming in. It's all just marketing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A "Director of Photography" is directing the photography...meaning he/she has a crew to "direct" toward a common goal. Regardless of how many cameras are in use, one is and should be referred to as a Director of Photography when he acts as more of a "manager" who is "directing" the operations of the crew who use various tools to accomplish the task.

 

A Cameraman or Cinematographer or Videographer suggests a singular person who does not typically have anyone else to "direct" in order to achieve the goals for the shots. When autonomous (transporting, setting up, using, putting away... your own gear) then you're not "directing" anything or anyone else therefore the term "Director of" wouldn't really apply very well.

 

I cringe when I'm referred to by a Producer as the "DP" when it's just me and the Sound Guy with my camera and lights for a simple interview or what have you. On the days that I am in charge of multiple cameras plus the crews to use them and Grip and Electric, THEN the title "DP" is appropriate.

 

Perhaps if I ever shoot an art film in Italy with a handheld Bolex, I might think about crediting myself as a Cinematographer. :P But that's just me. Ultimately, whatever keeps the checks coming in. It's all just marketing.

 

I also cringe when people mention that they are using DOF adapters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you should be aware of is that different names can have different meanings world wide. When you call yourself something you may be defining or limiting yourself in the eyes of a client.

 

To me a Videographer does weddings or school non broadcast type productions.

A camera operator is a studio based position.

A Photog does News.

A Shooter does news and or more reality based stuff.

A DOP can light, does higher end productions and drama.

A Cinematographer does features and high end ad's.

 

As for a cameraman, well they do a bit of everything.

 

While you shouldn't get hung up on a label make sure you understand what others think you are calling yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

One thing I find interesting is that in the US, we abbreviate Director of Photography as "DP". whereas other places such as Europe say "DOP". Anybody else notice this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He/she who records images with a camera can be whoever he/she wants to be..

 

you can call yourself a supercalifragalisticexpealadotious for all it matters..

 

Cause as we all know.. Titles are for Books.. Labels are for Jars.. its what you do with your time that makes you who you are..

 

I happen to love the term... I also love the title of "Big Time Shooter"

 

Cinematographer = Photographer of Moving Images

Director of Photography = Photographer of Moving Images

Videographer = Photographer of Moving Images

Cameraman = Photographer of Moving Images

Shooter = Photographer of Moving Images

 

except..

 

Big Time Shooter = Photographer of Moving Images on a grandiose scale.. (use your imagination)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
He/she who records images with a camera can be whoever he/she wants to be..

 

you can call yourself a supercalifragalisticexpealadotious for all it matters..

 

Cause as we all know.. Titles are for Books.. Labels are for Jars.. its what you do with your time that makes you who you are..

 

I happen to love the term... I also love the title of "Big Time Shooter"

 

Cinematographer = Photographer of Moving Images

Director of Photography = Photographer of Moving Images

Videographer = Photographer of Moving Images

Cameraman = Photographer of Moving Images

Shooter = Photographer of Moving Images

 

except..

 

Big Time Shooter = Photographer of Moving Images on a grandiose scale.. (use your imagination)

Well, you might be on your own regarding those thoughts. Sorry, but a videographer is not the same thing as a cinematographer. They're different words for a reason. They mean different things and they make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously if you put Videographer on your card you are telling most of your potential clients that you do weddings and kids events to DVD and sod all else.

I know some very good Videographer's that I would recommend for any wedding but I wouldn't hire them for anything else.

Just like I wouldn't book a camera operator for a field shoot.

Names matter. Labels sell.

I haven't needed a reel for years because people know who and what I am: Stephen "Cameragod" Press :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Count me in, I don't like the term. I don't "shoot" anything. If anything the camera captures, nothing comes out.

 

When most people ask, I usually say I work in television.

 

The trick is that I do different things different days. Sometimes I'm out shooting more documentary style b-roll, what am I that day? Sometimes I shoot larger scale spots with ac's and grip trucks and dolly tracks, occasionally a seperate operator. What am I that day? That's why it's hard to give a blanket title to what I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously if you put Videographer on your card you are telling most of your potential clients that you do weddings and kids events to DVD and sod all else.

 

 

That's interesting because in the twenty years I've been making a fairly decent living as a Videographer, with most of the past ten years working for studios in town, not one of them assumes that I do weddings and kid events. I suppose if I lived in bum-fu** nowhere USA, then I might be able to see how that could possibly maybe sort of apply. :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's interesting because in the twenty years I've been making a fairly decent living as a Videographer, with most of the past ten years working for studios in town, not one of them assumes that I do weddings and kid events. I suppose if I lived in bum-fu** nowhere USA, then I might be able to see how that could possibly maybe sort of apply. :unsure:

 

 

...And yet you have Director of Photography on your profile here for this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia

Typically, videographers are distinguished from cinematographers in that they manage smaller, event scale productions (weddings, short documentaries, short fiction pieces, simple commercials, simple training videos)

And the first thing under Videographer I google is:

Professional Videographer

www.hippoproductions.co.nz/weddings Stunning, professional videos, remember your wedding day forever.

 

Think how much more work you may have had if you hadn't sold yourself short? ;)

Edited by Stephen Press
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and just while I'm at it New Zealand is another country and not part of bumf*** USA which is why I originally said

What you should be aware of is that different names can have different meanings world wide.
Edited by Stephen Press
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really care what I'm called as long as they spell the name right on the check...

 

but, if we're splitting hairs...

 

personally, I can say with 99% certainty that I will never shoot with film, not because I am biased one way or the other...I just have zero experience with it and I can achieve the same results (to the end viewer) with a far less expensive process overall, now that digital cameras are becoming available at a reasonable price point. So I use the term Digital Cinematography or Digi-Cin when I'm in a hurry, to describe what I do.

 

 

remember, to the viewer, it's the content that's important, not how it was acquired. I've never heard someone not in the business say that they wouldn't go see a movie because it wasn't shot with Kodak film or there was substandard grip equipment...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I don't really care what I'm called as long as they spell the name right on the check...

 

but, if we're splitting hairs...

 

personally, I can say with 99% certainty that I will never shoot with film, not because I am biased one way or the other...I just have zero experience with it and I can achieve the same results (to the end viewer) with a far less expensive process overall, now that digital cameras are becoming available at a reasonable price point. So I use the term Digital Cinematography or Digi-Cin when I'm in a hurry, to describe what I do.

 

 

remember, to the viewer, it's the content that's important, not how it was acquired. I've never heard someone not in the business say that they wouldn't go see a movie because it wasn't shot with Kodak film or there was substandard grip equipment...

 

 

You're reopening a can of worms that has been opened several times on this forum. There was an extensive discussion on how the audience perceives what a cinematographer does. So what if the average viewer can't tell. Many people can't tell the difference between oil and acrylic paint. Does that mean that artists should always choose acryllic because it's cheaper and most people wont notice the difference. I believe someone already said this, but it's not the audience's job to be thinking about image acquisition. But it IS our job as cinematographers to think about this stuff so the audience doesn't have to. We are hired to create the most visually compelling story possible, not to see what we can get away with. I am not going to make a film versus digital argument, but I will say this. Film looks different than digital. Not all stocks look the same and not all digital movie cameras look the same.

 

As far as content goes, cinematography is part of the content. It affects how the story is told. Lawrence of Arabia is an example of this. The experience of seeing a 70mm print of that film is breathtaking. Could you imagine how that film's impact would change if it had been shot on an EX1. It would not be the same movie. (I feel dirty even suggesting such an impossible atrocity).

 

I don't think it is fair for you to make a judgment against shooting film if you haven't tried it. It's like saying you don't want to try halibut because you've only had salmon and one of your friends said it tastes the same and costs more. (Sorry, kind of a crappy analogy) I can understand if its simply a matter of budget or the production choosing digital, but I think its only fair to shoot both film and digital before making a qualitative assessment. Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Shooter" feels like a fast and easy term to me. "To heck with the permits, just get me a shooter and some talent!!" To me it implies one-man-band type low budget productions.

 

I find I use Director of Photography and Cinematographer almost interchangeably. Although, I'd say a Cinematographer is more likely to be operating the camera (in the context of a big budget film).

 

When I was in film school there was great confusion over the slate. The slate clearly read "cameraman," to which we wondered "Why should we put the name of the camera operator on the slate, and not the Director of Photography?" After a couple of amusing blunders we were corrected. We were told that "cameraman" is a hold over from the early days of film when you had some a actors, a director, and that other guy that made the movie. A term which stuck, apparently, until recently.

 

Whatever name we pick, it's a marketing tool and should reflect our experience and job aspirations. And like any marketing tool it is only means what the people who are hiring us think it means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And yet you have Director of Photography on your profile here for this forum.

 

 

For two reasons. The first is that this forum doesn't have "Videographer" as a category. It's interesting because on CML, there is a forum topic that states it is for professionals, "not students, not video." Clearly it is dated as many "professional" and formerly film productions now use video. If I take a BetaCam or a Genesis, it's all still video. So if I take any of those cameras out ON MY OWN to shoot, I am a Videographer that day. If I have a crew to direct, then I am a Director of Photography that day, whether I'm using film or video or some technology that hasn't been invented yet.

 

The tools are only a part of what defines who we are. The other part is what we do during the day with those tools and others around us.

 

The second reason I have DP is because I sometimes do have that title. I could also just as accurately click on Camera Operator as I sometimes only do that on a given day. But running back here to change my category every single day as the job dictates seems a little laborious. ;)

 

It is all just marketing, but I don't see how lying to clients about claiming to be a full time Director of Photography (directing crews) in order to get "more(?)" work does anything to add to my credibility. Claiming to be a "DP" on a day when all I'm doing is lighting and shooting a simple interview is quite pretentious. I've known guys who have done that and it really doesn't impress anyone that I know of. Not too many clients I work for spend time on Google looking for qualified people to hire.

 

But this all misses the most important element of all. The title doesn't sell us as much as our name. I don't get work because of my title. I get it because people know me and what I can do. My own name and my reputation and who I know and who knows me means far much more than whatever title is attached to my name. The best marketing tool is your name, not your title. The world is full of "DPs" and "Videographers" and "Cameramen," some better and some not so good. But there is only one "Brian Dzyak" and only one "Stephen Press" and one "[name]" of whoever else is reading this. Sell yourself and the titles shouldn't matter. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're reopening a can of worms that has been opened several times on this forum. There was an extensive discussion on how the audience perceives what a cinematographer does. So what if the average viewer can't tell. Many people can't tell the difference between oil and acrylic paint. Does that mean that artists should always choose acryllic because it's cheaper and most people wont notice the difference. I believe someone already said this, but it's not the audience's job to be thinking about image acquisition. But it IS our job as cinematographers to think about this stuff so the audience doesn't have to. We are hired to create the most visually compelling story possible, not to see what we can get away with. I am not going to make a film versus digital argument, but I will say this. Film looks different than digital. Not all stocks look the same and not all digital movie cameras look the same.

 

As far as content goes, cinematography is part of the content. It affects how the story is told. Lawrence of Arabia is an example of this. The experience of seeing a 70mm print of that film is breathtaking. Could you imagine how that film's impact would change if it had been shot on an EX1. It would not be the same movie. (I feel dirty even suggesting such an impossible atrocity).

 

I don't think it is fair for you to make a judgment against shooting film if you haven't tried it. It's like saying you don't want to try halibut because you've only had salmon and one of your friends said it tastes the same and costs more. (Sorry, kind of a crappy analogy) I can understand if its simply a matter of budget or the production choosing digital, but I think its only fair to shoot both film and digital before making a qualitative assessment. Just my two cents.

 

 

I though it would have gone without saying that the artist would choose the best medium that is within their budget. I guess I was wrong.

I'm not judging film, I think film is superior to the red or the viper or genesis (i wasn't talking about a film out from prosumer cameras that's ridiculous)...I just don't have the means to afford to learn and shoot with it.

I think you are intentionally looking for an argument. I didn't say digital was better than film.

To clarify my position further. The difference in the final print for projection between the best digital and film is so small after the DI that if the average viewer has time or attention to even notice, then the content probably needs some work.

 

sorry for the confusion.

Edited by monday sunnlinn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But this all misses the most important element of all. The title doesn't sell us as much as our name. I don't get work because of my title. I get it because people know me and what I can do. My own name and my reputation and who I know and who knows me means far much more than whatever title is attached to my name. The best marketing tool is your name, not your title. The world is full of "DPs" and "Videographers" and "Cameramen," some better and some not so good. But there is only one "Brian Dzyak" and only one "Stephen Press" and one "[name]" of whoever else is reading this. Sell yourself and the titles shouldn't matter. :)

Absolutely!

 

Although, I think I may have to go with "aesthetically mindful on set image acquisition engineer, specializing in real and fictitious events, both at home and abroad" as my favorite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I though it would have gone without saying that the artist would choose the best medium that is within their budget. I guess I was wrong.

 

Often, due to budgets AND contract issues, a Producer or Company/Studio will make the choice for which image acquisition technology will be used. The "artist," as you call it, may have a say, particularly if there are specific technical issues that are necessary for the production, but on the whole, a contract (AFTRA vs SAG) may drive a technology choice more than the creative desires of the Cameraman (image acquisition specialist ;) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...