CInematographers should not be paid... What?

[Satsuki Murashige]

there's no practical way to build a presentable showreel out of low-paid work. Cheap stuff looks cheap, and ability is almost irrelevant in any case.

P

I've just explained that my narrative reel is almost entirely composed of freebies and $200/day work. I specifically chose those projects because they wouldn't look cheap and required a high level of ability in multiple departments to pull them off. So clearly, it is possible. I shot these projects over a period of 4 years, while working as a 1st AC.

 

2016 Reel: https://vimeo.com/132413356

 

My previous 2013 reel had some projects going back 6 years: https://vimeo.com/69869746

 

My 2010 reel was composed of projects I shot between 6-8 years ago: https://vimeo.com/15371986

 

My 2007 reel (which I took down as soon as I had something better to show) was almost all student shorts and crappy local cable commercials.

 

My 2005 reel (similarly expunged) was entirely Super 8 footage I had shot on my own, and some 16mm tests from film school.

 

So that's a real world example of how you can improve a reel over time by selectively choosing new projects to fill in the gaps you are missing. Again, almost all freebies or low-budget jobs.

 

That stuff got me jobs shooting commercials, corporate, documentary, and branded content. I still need to cut a commercial reel together, but you get the idea.

[Bruce Greene]

Years ago, I saw a post here from a young man offering to work for free. I looked at his student work, which was not really professional, but I saw "something" there. A spec, one day commercial came up, and I asked if he'd help me out for free. I wasn't getting paid either.

 

I hired him on a few features after that as a gaffer/grip, or whatever he could do... until he started to charge too much money, and he now makes a living as a cameraman.

 

It's a crap shoot, sure. But sometimes helpful to work for free. I got my first real movie jobs from people I met working for free, long before the digital age. Unless you're "born" into a showbiz family, it's often the only way in, but never with a guarantee...

[Tyler Purcell]

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

Right, "What" you are shooting, what is in the scene, is generally far more important anyway.

 

Satsuki points out, there are opportunities to work on projects that could have great art direction, actors and decent locations. However, who says any of the other players are any good? It's a pretty big crapshoot if you ask me.

[Phil Rhodes]

Satsuki, I'm fully aware that freebies in the USA are usually better than the best broadcast work elsewhere.

 

Your material shows it again and again. Most of us do not have access to that sort of thing.

 

With that in mind, it really isn't a crapshoot. It's just shooting crap*.

 

P

 

* I crack myself up.

[Carl Looper]

The domain in which "free" work takes place is a great domain. It's a world in which it's not about what large budgets can achieve. It's about what DIY filmmakers on shoestring budgets can achieve. It's the playing of an entirely different game, with entirely different criteria for success. It's about what filmmakers are doing within their means. And particularly those works which don't try to come off as being more than what was achievable within their means. The kind of work one does in this domain becomes a very different type of work. Or doing very different kinds of work are those that work best in this domain. What works when working on a shoestring? There are no awards (or indeed penalties) for how one might otherwise fake an expensive looking film. There are no penalties (or indeed awards) for how cheap a film appears.

 

It's an entirely different ball game.

 

C

Edited July 16, 2016 by Carl Looper

[Satsuki Murashige]

Satsuki, I'm fully aware that freebies in the USA are usually better than the best broadcast work elsewhere.

 

Your material shows it again and again. Most of us do not have access to that sort of thing.

 

Well, if you say so. Stephen Murphy has certainly made it work in the UK. Miguel Angel seems to be doing it over in Ireland as well. I realize Stephen especially is working at the very highest end of the spectrum, but I'd be shocked if he's getting paid his full rate for those awesome looking projects he's posted here over the years. I would guess that a lot of those are freebies or spec projects.

[Satsuki Murashige]

Satsuki points out, there are opportunities to work on projects that could have great art direction, actors and decent locations. However, who says any of the other players are any good? It's a pretty big crapshoot if you ask me.

It's not a crapshoot for me, because I only choose freebie projects that have those things locked in before I sign on. You have a lot of power when you choose to do a project like that. I have a lot of say in the choice of locations, the crew, the time of day we shoot, how the set is dressed, etc. My feeling is, it's not worth my time to shoot a freebie if I don't have the resources to at least make it look good.

[Satsuki Murashige]

The bottom line is, once I sign on I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get the best quality footage for the project and my reel. I've gone off and scouted locations myself when production lost a location.

 

I make myself available for countless hours of pre-pro meetings, location scouts, equipment pickups.

 

I've called in favors at the rental house and arranged time for camera and wardrobe tests.

 

I've put together pre-shoot days to shoot b-roll and MOS pickups with just the director and talent so we could have reasonable 10hr days on our production days with full crew.

 

I've driven the camera or grip truck to and from distant locations and picked up my ACs every morning so they could carpool and not worry about parking.

 

I've gone out of pocket for special filters or small pieces of gear that just weren't in the budget.

 

I've reinvested my fee into getting a dolly, or a jib, or a second camera body, or an extra crew member.

 

I don't mind busting my ass on a freebie as long as the director and producers are working as hard or harder than I am. If they are not willing to work hard and the project is failing because of that lack of effort, then I reserve the right to bail. But it's all been worth it so far.

[Phil Rhodes]

Some of the (photographically) best stuff I've ever done has been on stuff I produced myself, simply because then you get a degree of control over how it looks, as opposed to the visuals being a poor nineteenth consideration in everyone's minds. That's a pretty ringing indictment, I guess.

 

It's just a different level of expectation. You guys expect more. Everyone here expects stuff to come out looking awful, so, when it does, they just tend to shrug and say something like "oh, well, there wasn't much money." There's no ambition.

 

P

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I don't have a problem with Matt's point of view in the video at all. The bottom line is this - film business is seen as sexy and there are a lot of people drawn to it each year. Many, many more than the industry could ever sustain. We can't all survive doing this, so right or wrong, the film business thins the heard by having a high barrier for entry and sustainability. And many of the entry barriers are - just like an apprentice studying under a master in the Renaissance painting era - that you have to prove yourself, your talent, your people skills (perhaps the least understood part of a successful film career) without the skewing carrot of remuneration. The film business demands purity of interest. The ones who come to it from other reasons than financial, normally have tenacity and an interest and will eventually make a living in this business. The ones who came for some other reason, will probably not.

 

If it were easy, literally everyone would be in film. It's not supposed to be easy.

[Phil Rhodes]

The film business demands purity of interest.

 

No, it doesn't, it requires something not unadjacent to a blood sacrifice of time and money.

 

If the requirements had anything to do with ability it'd be easier to put up with. Instead, the requirements are: you must have parents who can buy you a flat in Chelsea.

 

 

 

The ones who come to it from other reasons than financial, normally have tenacity and an interest and will eventually make a living in this business.

 

You think that people who aim for a career in filmmaking for any reason other than money, which is almost all of them, will normally make a living in it?

 

This is the problem against which I've campaigned for years. Most of the people who approach this industry will fail to make a living in it, regardless of their motivation, ability, hair colour or shoe size, and even if we allow your "reasons other than financial" restriction that remains true.

 

And what's more, I'll make no apology for the fact that people are allowed to have a financial imperative. I know it's unfashionable in the old world, but people are permitted to strive for the ability to pay for a mortgage and a pension and to send their kids to a decent school, and they're allowed to do that without being told by you that they're breaking some sort of arbitrary metric of personal poverty.

 

Nothing worthwhile is easy, but the relative ease of doing it is irrelevant. It should be a meritocracy, but of course that's laughable. In these circumstances I would much rather people knew that they were not wanted and did not waste their time trying.

 

P

[Landon D. Parks]

We can argue over the merrits of free labor all day, but that wont change the fact people will still offer it up. Until the industry opens itself up to newbies, they will continue to do free work to build their reel and connections.

 

Then there are those that are in it because they like to do it. They love to tell stories, and cannot imagine doing anything else.

 

Will all of them suceed financially? No. Film is brutal.

 

Now I think its an entirely different ballgame for experienced filmmakers with a budget to ask for free help, and short of returning a favor or doing a fun side project with a friend, pro's should not make a habit of taking free work.

 

By all means, work for free for a couple of years to build a reel and contacts, just don't make a habit of it once you are established.

 

Heck, why not put in some volunteer hours when you first start? Instead of paying 100,000 to go to college, save some money and spend 4 years working for free. You'll still have more money in the end than if you blew it all on a peice of paper.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Tyler Purcell]

Where I don't think film school is worth while today, I do think "college" for a second/backup career is critical. I was lucky to already have TWO backup careers, certifications and everything, during my college years. So I wasn't concerned... but a lot of people SHOULD be concerned.

 

Also, if you need a good job to pay for your filmmaking, you will need a degree of some kind. A lot of people can't tolerate being a perpetual freelancer. It's VERY difficult to raise a family on freelance work in 2016. 20 years ago, it was the mainstay in this industry, but today the rates for freelance work have plummeted. This is because consumers have so much to choose from, it's watered down content in a way which makes it difficult to make money. The only industries still standing are corporate, training and commercial.

 

Using me as example again, I got really lucky and met someone on craigslist randomly two years ago and I've been working for him steadily ever since. If you have two or three of those guys in your back pocket, people who are always working on new stuff, then you'll be OK financially. However, if you can't find those people, then you've gotta get a real job. Nothing wrong with that, but if you don't have any degree's, it's much harder, especially with so may OTHER people submitting resumes WITH degrees.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Using me as example again, I got really lucky and met someone on craigslist randomly two years ago and I've been working for him steadily ever since. If you have two or three of those guys in your back pocket, people who are always working on new stuff, then you'll be OK financially. However, if you can't find those people, then you've gotta get a real job. Nothing wrong with that, but if you don't have any degree's, it's much harder, especially with so may OTHER people submitting resumes WITH degrees.

I think it is also important of which kind of degree you have. Generally, the types of degrees with difficult "weed out" courses that make the average person say "wow, that is hard" are the kind of degrees you want to have. Hell, I know people with degrees in Electrical Engineering that could fund decent budget films every few years if they wanted to and still live comfortably.

[Mark Kenfield]

I'm actually not so sure that a Plan B is good idea for film people. I think if there's a viable Plan B for someone, then they should just pursue that from the start instead.

 

This industry is just too damned difficult to scrape by in unless you have no other option. And I've never met any career filmmakers who've managed to stay in the game in the long-term without a complete and unrelenting compulsion to craft films.

 

I got absolutely nowhere for the first four years I was doing this stuff, I achieved flat nothing.

 

It wasn't until four years ago, when I realised that I was holding back too much and remaining open to too many other options, that I made the conscious decision to commit to this path fully and unreservedly (and sealed that commitment with the entirety of my savings :unsure: ). That was the changing point for me. Going all in. And I think it's a level of fervour that you need to have in order to stubbornly push through all the crap that this life and lifestyle entails.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I'm actually not so sure that a Plan B is good idea for film people. I think if there's a viable Plan B for someone, then they should just pursue that from the start instead.

 

This industry is just too damned difficult to scrape by in unless you have no other option. And I've never met any career filmmakers who've managed to stay in the game in the long-term without a complete and unrelenting compulsion to craft films.

 

I got absolutely nowhere for the first four years I was doing this stuff, I achieved flat nothing.

 

It wasn't until four years ago, when I realised that I was holding back too much and remaining open to too many other options, that I made the conscious decision to commit to this path fully and unreservedly (and sealed that commitment with the entirety of my savings :unsure: ). That was the changing point for me. Going all in. And I think it's a level of fervour that you need to have in order to stubbornly push through all the crap that this life and lifestyle entails.

So you believe in the Cortes "burn the ships" method to career advice?

[Mark Kenfield]

So you believe in the Cortes "burn the ships" method to career advice?

For conventional career paths? Absolutely not. But for a pursuit as overtly foolish and aspirational as filmmaking? Unequivocally.

[Jon Kline]

By the time you're negotiating payment, you're obligated to the production in a way that you wouldn't be for $0. I work for rate, or I work for free. If the producer tries to push for something in the middle, I use it as an opportunity to up the camera department budget.

 

If I'm working for free, you can bet I've got a drive on set and I'm going home with a copy of the dailies myself. And I'm making sure to get some face time with everyone.

[Satsuki Murashige]

If I'm working for free, you can bet I've got a drive on set and I'm going home with a copy of the dailies myself.

Very good point Jon! I always make sure to negotiate a copy of the raw footage for myself before I sign on. You'd be crazy not to.

[Tyler Purcell]

For conventional career paths? Absolutely not. But for a pursuit as overtly foolish and aspirational as filmmaking? Unequivocally.

Yea, it's a pretty bonkers "career" path because only a select few, actually make enough at it to be worth doing it in the first place.

[Landon D. Parks]

I have been a big proponent of a backup plan... Film is tough, and most people will not make it who try. It's just the reality of things. It sucks, but what can you do about it?

 

Personally, I'd say there are two types of people in the industry: Those that want to do it because they have stories tell, and those who think it's a lucrative market. The first person should probably try to find a way to do their art as a side job - and then work on using that to break into the industry. The second person should find another industry all-together. If you are they type who has a story tell and just has to tell it --- then you'd be better of getting a first career / working toward a degree that allows you to make some big money - not only so you can help fund your baby, but your family as well. Once you have your baby done, you'll have to hope it's good.

 

Film is not the only medium where those with stories to tell will do it as a second career. Authors: do you really think 99% of them make enough to live on? No. Actors? No. Those in theatre? No.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Jan Tore Soerensen]

Please define "making it". Are you talking about financial freedom? Being able to live off of filmmaking?

 

The main problem for people who are trying to make it in the creative industry, is selling themselves. You need experience to effectively do that. Experience with cold calling and building networks. It also takes time and practise, which people do not have in todays society. If they haven't "made it" in 6 months, they give up.

 

As a person with extensive background in sales, I like to believe I have an edge on fellow creatives when it comes to actually making money off my passion. But it is, and always will be though out there for a hustler. Noone told you it would be easy.

[Jamison Madison]

Matt is a good guy, he genuinely wants to help upcoming DP's. I think a lot of you took his video the wrong way.

 

Take a look at some of his other stuff on his channel, it's good stuff.

[Tyler Purcell]

Matt is a good guy, he genuinely wants to help upcoming DP's. I think a lot of you took his video the wrong way.

 

Take a look at some of his other stuff on his channel, it's good stuff.

Ohh no doubt... And I watched a lot of his stuff before commenting. I just don't understand how someone who is working full time as a cinematographer had enough time to make all those YouTube videos, promote them, answer questions and develop a whole other previs business.

 

My other beef is his mentality is focused on commercial and music video work. Fashion cinematography in my eyes, is an entirely different business then narrative, documentary and industrial. He goes so far as to admit, his advice is not relative to narratives.

 

In my eyes, narratives are the key to becoming a good cinematographer because they shoot a lot of material, in varying locations, extremely fast. You don't have time to previs many scenes if any, which is why the top cinematographers who shoot narratives, are so amazing.

 

So personally, I'd rather listen to the advice of a traveled veteran, who has worked on all types of shows, then a NYC commercial specialist giving general cinematography advice. Not to say his advice is wrong, much of it is right. I just feel he needs to spend more time doing other types of projects in other locations to learn about how to make money off your work, rather then being so hyper focused on giving away your time as a method of getting "work".

[Satsuki Murashige]

I just don't understand how someone who is working full time as a cinematographer had enough time to make all those YouTube videos, promote them, answer questions and develop a whole other previs business.

 

There are a lot of busy folks with a passion for teaching and sharing their knowledge. David Mullen being the most obvious example. Not really sure what difference it makes to you what people do in their free time...

 

My other beef is his mentality is focused on commercial and music video work. Fashion cinematography in my eyes, is an entirely different business then narrative, documentary and industrial.

 

Commercial work is not the same thing as fashion work. Totally different field. Ron Dexter and Bill Bennett being obvious examples of commercial DPs. You might want to look them up.

 

So personally, I'd rather listen to the advice of a traveled veteran, who has worked on all types of shows, then a NYC commercial specialist giving general cinematography advice.

 

That's your perogative. But clearly, the most successful DPs in this business are highly specialized, not jack-of-all-trades. You'd do well to pay attention and learn what you can from the specialists. Chivo is not shooting corporate between features. Bennett is probably not shooting live multi-cam between car commercials. Bob Chappell is probably not shooting tabletop between feature documentaries. As they say, 'jack-of-all-trades, master of none.'