Blog on why you don't always need a DP on a feature

[John Holland]

The main problem with this country is class ,what ever industry [ not that we have anymore ] So we are f---ed

[Dan Parkes]

Had a most interesting time reading this thread started by Karel! As the director of the film and writer of the blog in question I think it would be best to explain that unfortunately Karel has misrepresented the blog with the thread title of "why you don't always need a DP on a feature" and also his clever 'NoDPhere' link he created (which really does nothing but insult the DP Anna).

 

To clarify:

• 
   
  
• The key scenes of the film were lit by a professional and dedicated (not to mention hard working) DP, Anna Carrington. So there most certainly was a DoP Karel!
  
• Some secondary and supplmentary scenes were DPed by myself and the camera team (including two lighting cameramen) mainly due to budgetry reasons. Anna advised us on this and even provided some materials (gels).
  
• The blog is not about Anna, the DP, but about our experience with lighting those secondary scenes ourselves.
  
• Anna was the highest paid member of crew on what was an extremely low budget shoot. She was only contracted for the key scenes, but volunteered to come along to some other shoots of her own free will, because she wanted to, although we were uncomfortable as we would rather have paid her for being on set.
  

 

Freya Black -I hope from the above explanation you can see that we certainly have not been intentionally "nasty" as you describe us. I do love your tip about just closing curtains on windows to reduce light rather than NDs! But what if the window is in shot and the curtains should be open....?

 

Matt Pacini -you wrote "the very next thing they do is list the gear, as if that's REALLY what it's all about" The blog clearly states in its title it is only about the kit and references a second blog, in which some simple techniques will then be discussed. Surely you understand that lighting is a complex subject that cannot be contained in just one blog.

 

Karel, I sincerely hope, for the good of our British filmmaking community, you can take some of your own advice contained in your private e-mail to me and help retract some of the "bad mouthing" going on here, because as you said we are a small community.

 

Ultimately I am sorry that some have taken offense at the blog, but please believe me that it was certainly not the intent, and has in actuality been fostered by those who have jumped to unfortunately negative conclusions, about what really has been a very positive experience for cast and crew.

 

Regards

Dan

[Karel Bata]

You have got to be kidding... :blink:

[Dan Parkes]

You have got to be kidding... :blink:

 

No, not kidding! :)

 

This site is a great resource of information and advice, but as David Mullen urges on his tips for forum members, lets "try to separate fact from opinion".

[Brad Grimmett]

No, not kidding! :)

 

This site is a great resource of information and advice, but as David Mullen urges on his tips for forum members, lets "try to separate fact from opinion".

So, in your "opinion", a DP isn't needed everyday when shooting a movie. In "fact", a DP is quite necessary if you want your film to look good.

Fact and opinion separated.

[Matt Pacini]

Oh jeez, we're going to get into this whole PC thing about why there are less women in the film industry again?

 

Go into ANY store involving anything whatsoever to do with cameras, photography, etc.

It's about 95% men in there.

Is there someone at the door forbidding women from entering?

Are there laws that forbid females from buying cameras?

You could make all the same statements about auto mechanics. How many women do you know who want to work on cars? How about almost zero?

 

NEWS FLASH:

We're into different things, enjoy different career pursuits.

The vast majority of women simply have no interest in this. Barely (if any) more than the number that want to race cars, become bricklayers, etc.

 

Saying that bigotry is responsible for women being under-represented in the film industry, is like arguing that bigotry is responsible for men being so under-represented in the day-care industry.

 

It's mostly a matter of desire, not discrimination.

[Tim O'Connor]

If you believe that " The blog clearly states in its title it is only about the kit ..." as you've posted, above then it seems that you failed to state that clearly enough. If you wanted to blog about your apparent discovery

that lighting is not now as mysterious to you as it once seemed, you could have done that easily enough. I agree with the poster on your blog who commented that your blog seems "disloyal" to you DP.

 

If this many people are saying that what you have written is offensive, perhaps you could consider editing your blog to more clearly express your insights into using a lighting kit on your own. You don't have to

certainly and you may think why should you if you're right and the whole world, or just lots of people, is wrong and doesn't understand you?

 

Your energetic defense of your intentions reminds me somebody who gets arrested for the publicity of a test case. It seems that you didn't have the biggest budget in the world so even if your DP were the highest

paid person on your crew, it's common that in such a case the DP makes a deal and doesn't get the ideal rate. Plus your DP volunteered time and materials to help your film. It seems to me that you could be a lot

more decent in how your behavior is causing her attention, no matter how you feel your intentions are misunderstood.

 

I say to you, fix your blog.

[Dan Parkes]

So, in your "opinion", a DP isn't needed everyday when shooting a movie. In "fact", a DP is quite necessary if you want your film to look good.

Fact and opinion separated.

 

No, in my opinion a DP is absolutely necessary at all times on a shoot. Fact: In our case we had a dedicated DoP for key scenes. For the supplmentary scenes the camera team and director DPed, just as lighting cameramen often do.

[Freya Black]

describe us. I do love your tip about just closing curtains on windows to reduce light rather than NDs! But what if the window is in shot and the curtains should be open....?

 

Matt Pacini -you wrote "the very next thing they do is list the gear, as if that's REALLY what it's all about" The blog clearly states in its title it is only about the kit and references a second blog, in which some simple techniques will then be discussed. Surely you understand that lighting is a complex subject that cannot be contained in just one blog.

 

....Woosh!

[Dan Parkes]

Thanks Tim.

 

The title of the blog is: "Tip #42: Simple and effective lighting kit." So not sure how that can be confusing, it is clearly about the kit.

 

The number of people who are offended about something does not necessarily validate the offence. Karel took an unfortunate stance with the naming of this thread that has predisposed those who have then taken offence. There are just as many if not more who have read it and saw nothing offensive about a kit list and hence have not bothered to reply. The only mention of the DoP in the blog is that they shot "key scenes" and that the blog is based on our experience DPing supplementary scenes. I cannot see how that could cause anyone any offence... other than when within the misleading way Karel presented it.

[Freya Black]

Freya Black -I hope from the above explanation you can see that we certainly have not been intentionally "nasty" as you describe us.

 

I should point out it is very much YOU I am suggesting has been nasty to Anna. I think it's pretty clear this is the case from my posting that you are quoting from earlier in the thread. I don't appreciate your using the word "us" to suggest my comment was directed to anyone other than yourself Dan.

 

As far as insulting the DP, havn't you done this extensively yourself on your blog Dan?

 

For example:

 

A note to those wanting to post a comment: it seems unfortunate to have to resort to removing some messages, but all posts will be moderated and blatantly offensive comments removed.

 

One of the messages posted was from Anna Carrington, your DoP. There was certainly nothing blatantly offensive in her posting, she just posted that she was the DoP on your film and that she worked for a number of days for free. I felt it was clear from her posting that she had tried to be really supportive of your production and had gone out of her way to help you, volunteering to work for quite a lot of the shoot for free. You seem to have admitted this yourself on multiple occasions, so I have to ask why you suggest her posting was "blatantly offensive". It seems to really misrepresent what she was saying and it makes it appear that she might have said something offensive to you to anyone who encounters your blog and doesn't know what you really posted.

 

I hesitate to add this, but it seems relevant -and with all due respect to the fulltime DoP who worked hard- the shots where people have commented on the good lighting, were in fact not shot by the fulltime DoP....

 

So it really comes down to, as you say, not what you've got (or who you are), but what you do with it that counts!

 

I think that stuff is really nasty, when by your own admission Anna went out of her way to help you. :(

[Dan Parkes]

I think that stuff is really nasty, when by your own admission Anna went out of her way to help you. :(

 

Hello Freya

 

Thank you for clarifying things. If I have appeared to be nasty to Anna then for that I do sincerely apologise -that has most certainly not been my intention and never will. It was not the intention of the blog -it is listing lighting equipment, and is not about the DoP. Anna worked hard and also volunteered her time and I will never ever begrudge that at all.

 

You pick up on the comments in the blog... The reason for Anna's comment being removed was simply because it was in response to my own comment which had been rightly removed! My comment was inaccurate when I wrote in general terms that she lit "half" the film, which Anna replied to. In fairness, she established a lighting design that was then reflected in the supplementary and second unit scenes and so you can not put a percentage on her input. So the production team rightly decided to remove it, as well as Anna's response. I have never ever said her post was "blatantly offensive". When I have ever written that? Like mine, it was inaccurate and quite possibly unprofessional, but not offensive. However, the same can not be said of many of the comments about the blog on this forum, which is truly a shame, when it presents a wonderful platform to share and encourage.

 

I haven't taken offence at the fact that you describe me as a "massive fool" or having a "high bizzare value". But maybe based on your own argumentation about 'being nasty' I should?

 

Regards

Dan

[Freya Black]

 

I haven't taken offence at the fact that you describe me as a "massive fool" or having a "high bizzare value". But maybe based on your own argumentation about 'being nasty' I should?

 

Regards

Dan

 

Once again you misquote me and spin my words. Here is what I actually said in context:

 

I agree, I would just ignore it and move on. While I can see how some people might get entertainment out of someone making such a massive fool of themselves in public, I personally just find it embaressing. Lets be honest, if you post a statement it will just be deleted like your last comment and will be followed up by a reply that will just make me cringe, even if it has high bizzare value.

 

So what I actually said was that you were making a massive fool of yourself in public. That is not the same as calling someone a massive fool, which is definitely not the words I would use to describe you. Many people can make fools of themselves in certain situations. I think that is a widely understood phrase here in the UK. I was making the point that I didn't enjoy this and felt somewhat bad for you that you were embaressing yourself. I think that is somewhat clear when you read what I wrote in it's context rather than taking selected words out of what I said.

 

I also did not say that you had "high bizzare value" but that your comments had high bizzare value. I don't personally find you all that bizzare and certainly wasn't meaning to increase your status in that regard.

 

Lastly if someone were to respond to someone being nasty in kind, then that would be somewhat understandable and wouldn't in any way make the actions of the original person, such as yourself, justified.

[Freya Black]

Hello Freya

 

Thank you for clarifying things. If I have appeared to be nasty to Anna then for that I do sincerely apologise -that has most certainly not been my intention and never will. It was not the intention of the blog -it is listing lighting equipment, and is not about the DoP. Anna worked hard and also volunteered her time and I will never ever begrudge that at all.

 

I don't understand, why on earth would you begrudge the fact that someone went out of their way to support you and were really helpful??? I don't think anyone would suggest that you would hold a grudge against someone for helping you? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that exactly?

Edited August 17, 2010 by Freya Black

[Dan Parkes]

Lastly if someone were to respond to someone being nasty in kind, then that would be somewhat understandable and wouldn't in any way make the actions of the original person, such as yourself, justified.

 

Thanks for the clarification Freya, I am glad you don't think I am "bizzare". And I completely agree with you -we should never respond to anyone who is or who is acting nasty by being unpleasant in return. As David Mullen wisely advises posters here: "Don't let someone else's negative tone or attitude prompt you to respond in kind, though it is highly tempting I admit."

 

So while there have been some 'negative tones' and misinformation on this thread, I think it is a great opportunity to discuss, to clarify and to learn. :)

 

Regards

Dan

[Dan Parkes]

I don't understand, why on earth would you begrudge the fact that someone went out of their way to support you and were really helpful??? I don't think anyone would suggest that you would hold a grudge against someone for helping you? Can you elaborate on what you mean by that exactly?

 

Exactly! We don't begrudge it at all. To elaborate, this word is not with the meaning of holding a 'grudge'; in this context it is in the meaning of being "reluctant" or "resentful", in this case of her time. There are some who allege we have been "disloyal" or unappreciative of the fact that Anna volunteered her additional time for "free". For example Freya you wrote regarding in response to this: "No good deed goes unpunished eh! How nasty can you get!" And later you recommend the response be: "I don't mind being used, it's being used and abused that really gets to me!" Punishment, abuse? That is certainly not the case. It was simply a blog on lighting equipment!

 

We appreciated her work then and appreciate it now, and have no slightest intention of any "punishment" or "abuse". Quite the opposite!

 

Regards

Dan

[Freya Black]

 

You pick up on the comments in the blog... The reason for Anna's comment being removed was simply because it was in response to my own comment which had been rightly removed! My comment was inaccurate when I wrote in general terms that she lit "half" the film, which Anna replied to. In fairness, she established a lighting design that was then reflected in the supplementary and second unit scenes and so you can not put a percentage on her input. So the production team rightly decided to remove it, as well as Anna's response. I have never ever said her post was "blatantly offensive". When I have ever written that? Like mine, it was inaccurate and quite possibly unprofessional, but not offensive. However, the same can not be said of many of the comments about the blog on this forum, which is truly a shame, when it presents a wonderful platform to share and encourage.

 

I will re-iterate:

 

A note to those wanting to post a comment: it seems unfortunate to have to resort to removing some messages, but all posts will be moderated and blatantly offensive comments removed.

 

This is a direct quote from a comment you made on your blog. You can use the find function in your browser to find it. I have posted the comment complete and without editing as it is on your blog. It is very clear here that you say that "all posts will be moderated and blatantly offensive comments removed". I did not feel that Annas comment was blatantly offensive but understandable given the situation. It what way was Annas comment inaccurate as you describe it? In what way was her comment "possibly unprofessional" (whatever that might mean?) I'm not sure why you are being so critical of Anna when she is someone who has gone out of her way to help you.

 

You seem to imply that your original blog entry may have been unfair to Anna. This is the first I have heard you say this. Do you think it might have been appropriate to make an apology to Anna for the innacuracy in your blog posting? I think it would be VERY understanable for Anna to be hurt by such an inaccurate statement when she had gone out of her way to help and be supportive of you.

 

I can understand why your production team decided to remove an innacurate statement like that to prevent their embaressment. However it would have been good to explain the editing that took place on your blog, so people might not get the idea that Annas comment was "blatantly offensive" and had been deleted for that reason which is the way it appears on your blog.

[Freya Black]

Exactly! We don't begrudge it at all. To elaborate, this word is not with the meaning of holding a 'grudge'; in this context it is in the meaning of being "reluctant" or "resentful", in this case of her time. There are some who allege we have been "disloyal" or unappreciative of the fact that Anna volunteered her additional time for "free". For example Freya you wrote regarding in response to this: "No good deed goes unpunished eh! How nasty can you get!" And later you recommend the response be: "I don't mind being used, it's being used and abused that really gets to me!" Punishment, abuse? That is certainly not the case. It was simply a blog on lighting equipment!

 

We appreciated her work then and appreciate it now, and have no slightest intention of any "punishment" or "abuse". Quite the opposite!

 

Regards

Dan

 

Yes, it certainly seems like you have been disloyal and unappreciative. That would be something very different however to being resentful to someone for their help, which is quite a strange idea I feel.

 

"No good deed goes unpunished" is another common UK saying that perhaps you are not familiar with. It doesn't mean physical punishment like being beaten with a stick but that your good works will come back on you in a way that is bad for you." It is actually a jokey saying that I think makes reference to a more serious historical saying.

 

As for being abused, yes I do feel that Anna has been abused in this matter quite a bit, whether that was intended or not.

[Dan Parkes]

This is a direct quote from a comment you made on your blog. You can use the find function in your browser to find it. I have posted the comment complete and without editing as it is on your blog. It is very clear here that you say that "all posts will be moderated and blatantly offensive comments removed".

 

You forgot to copy and past one rather important part in the above - "Ambleton Delight said... " You will notice my comments have "Dan Parkes said". I never personally said Anna's comment was offensive. Ever. But it was effectively inaccurate because it was referring to my removed comment regarding the use of the word "half".

 

In what way was her comment "possibly unprofessional"

 

If you read my actual comment above I am referring to both of us. It is unprofessional for members of a crew to be airing grievances in public when the line of communication should be directly with the production team. In this case there isn't actually any grounds for any grievance in the first place, so is worse.

 

I'm not sure why you are being so critical of Anna when she is someone who has gone out of her way to help you.

 

I am not and have not been critical of Anna. As I have stated all along the blog is not about her. Please provide a specific example of this.

 

You seem to imply that your original blog entry may have been unfair to Anna. This is the first I have heard you say this.

 

No I do not. You were quoting from the comments section, not the blog, and so I am referencing the comments section, in which I make an inaccurate comment that was removed. I stand by the original blog -as it is not about DoPs but about lighting equipment.

 

Do you think it might have been appropriate to make an apology to Anna for the inaccuracy in your blog posting?

 

There is nothing in the original blog to apologise for, as it is not about her, but about the kit. Karel's thread title and link are far greater causes for offence than the lighting kit blog itself. If Anna has any ground for offence she should really take it up with him. Ask Anna herself if you think there is cause for an apology. I have been corresponding with Anna regularly over the last few days, including today, and found it most worthwhile and I would similarly recommend you write or talk directly with Anna herself, rather than all these attempts to vilify me.

 

How about we get back to the far more important, positive and enlightening topic of the beauty of cinematography, the great DoPs we have the pleasure of seeing work in our time, and the ever increasing array of fantastic lighting tools at our disposal?

[Freya Black]

Thanks for the clarification Freya, I am glad you don't think I am "bizzare". And I completely agree with you -we should never respond to anyone who is or who is acting nasty by being unpleasant in return. As David Mullen wisely advises posters here: "Don't let someone else's negative tone or attitude prompt you to respond in kind, though it is highly tempting I admit."

 

So while there have been some 'negative tones' and misinformation on this thread, I think it is a great opportunity to discuss, to clarify and to learn. :)

 

Regards

Dan

 

The point I was making in the text you quoted was kind of the other way around.

 

My point was that if someone acts in a way that might be seen as nasty, it can be understandable if someone might react in kind. If they do so, that in no way makes it okay that the original person was nasty. For instance, lets say you were to punch someone in the face and they turned around and said you were a total fu***** worthless ****. It would not make it right that you punched them in the face to start with.

 

Hope thats clearer.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Freya Black

[Dan Parkes]

Yes, it certainly seems like you have been disloyal and unappreciative....As for being abused, yes I do feel that Anna has been abused in this matter quite a bit, whether that was intended or not.

 

'Disloyal', 'unappreciative' and 'abusive'. Freya, these are serious words to use about any filmmaker, especially (and correct me if I am wrong) a fellow UK filmmaker, one you have never met or yet worked with. It saddens me tremendously that you seem determined to take this stand. Anyway, I hope that we can meet one day and/or the actual truth of the matter can one day be known to you. Thee British film industry, as wonderful as it is, needs all the positive support it can get, and not this.

 

Regards

Dan

[Freya Black]

You forgot to copy and past one rather important part in the above - "Ambleton Delight said... " You will notice my comments have "Dan Parkes said". I never personally said Anna's comment was offensive. Ever. But it was effectively inaccurate because it was referring to my removed comment regarding the use of the word "half".

Ah yes, you do indeed have a point in this regard. So Ambleton Delight is not yourself but perhaps your production team? If so I do apologise for suggesting this comment was your own. Perhaps you could clarify about how that comment came about? You had no say in this?

 

 

If you read my actual comment above I am referring to both of us. It is unprofessional for members of a crew to be airing grievances in public when the line of communication should be directly with the production team. In this case there isn't actually any grounds for any grievance in the first place, so is worse.

 

I did read your actual comment. I did understand that you refered to yourself too. However I'm talking about Anna and how you are being critical of her. It doesn't in some way make it right that you suggest this about yourself also. my whole point is about the way you have treated Anna.

 

I am not and have not been critical of Anna. As I have stated all along the blog is not about her. Please provide a specific example of this.

 

Wow! I have provided numerous examples of this! You havn't addressed them so far.

Just above we are discussing how you made a comment that Anna acted unprofessionally.

I personally don't think this is the case given the circumstances but even if it was, why are you being critical of her in this way?

[Freya Black]

There is nothing in the original blog to apologise for, as it is not about her, but about the kit. Karel's thread title and link are far greater causes for offence than the lighting kit blog itself. If Anna has any ground for offence she should really take it up with him. Ask Anna herself if you think there is cause for an apology. I have been corresponding with Anna regularly over the last few days, including today, and found it most worthwhile and I would similarly recommend you write or talk directly with Anna herself, rather than all these attempts to vilify me.

 

My attempts were certainly not to vilify you and I am offended that you suggest that.

My attempt was to try and help you see that you had been unfair to Anna which is something you are not really addressing.

 

In essence it's not about you as such but about the way you have treated Anna.

[Dan Parkes]

I have provided numerous examples of this! You havn't addressed them so far.

Just above we are discussing how you made a comment that Anna acted unprofessionally.

I personally don't think this is the case given the circumstances but even if it was, why are you being critical of her in this way?

 

Numerous? Please cite one specific example of me being publicly "critical" and/or 'abusive' of Anna and I will most certainly address it, and if valid most definitely apologise, as that has never ever been my intent, quite the opposite.

 

Regards

Dan

[Freya Black]

'Disloyal', 'unappreciative' and 'abusive'. Freya, these are serious words to use about any filmmaker, especially (and correct me if I am wrong) a fellow UK filmmaker, one you have never met or yet worked with.

 

While these words are your own, I do agree that they are serious and so far seem appropriate in this case. Perhaps I am wrong but so far you don't seem to have addressed my actual concerns but to be doging around the semantics of the situation.

 

It saddens me tremendously that you seem determined to take this stand. Anyway, I hope that we can meet one day and/or the actual truth of the matter can one day be known to you.

 

Is there a reason you can't make the truth known now?