Jump to content

CInematographers should not be paid... What?


Tyler Purcell

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

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...

He does A LOT more then you think. Visit his website sometime and take a look at his previs products.

 

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.

I've always called commercial cinematographers "fashion", because their job is to make whatever they shoot, as ultra pretty as possible. That's not necessarily the goal of ALL forms of cinematography.

 

In my eyes, the mere concept of 3d previs for a single camera setup, is a "fashion" situation. You will be shooting an object or person against a backdrop and you will be lighting/lensing specifically for the beauty of the subject.

 

Maybe you know the appropriate term for those people?

 

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.'

Yes, they do one thing really good. So when Matt's video's talk about cinematography, he opens the doors for anyone who wants to be a cinematographer. Yet, all he discusses is ONE sector of the industry. It's confusing to people who want to work as narrative, documentary or industrial cinematographers. Matt's whole discussion is based on working one or two days on a project, with heavy pre-vis and very close client interaction. This is why he suggests working for free. In my world, a cinematographer works for months on and off, sometimes for weeks straight. So if that were the case, I couldn't make any income through another job. This is the disconnect between his work and the work that I'm familiar with; narrative, documentary and industrial.

 

So his data isn't really that accurate with broad strokes in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Tyler, any chance you could look up the difference between THEN and THAN? I don't wish to be a grammar nazi, but it does make a difference to the meaning of your posts.

Hey man, welcome to the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

He does A LOT more then you think. Visit his website sometime and take a look at his previs products.

 

Again, not sure why that is relevant. His information is accurate and based on actual experience. You can take it or leave it.

 

I've always called commercial cinematographers "fashion", because their job is to make whatever they shoot, as ultra pretty as possible.

 

 

Well, that's simply ignorant, and also dumb. If you insist on making up your own definitions for established genres of work, then all you're going to do is confuse everyone else.

 

So when Matt's video's talk about cinematography, he opens the doors for anyone who wants to be a cinematographer. Yet, all he discusses is ONE sector of the industry. It's confusing to people who want to work as narrative, documentary or industrial cinematographers.

He has made the context of his opinion very clear, stating up front that his advice may not apply to you. You seem to be the only person here who is confused by this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey man, welcome to the internet.

Wow, an 'Educator' that doesn't care about accurate use of language. Ok, fine, you continue to use the word incorrectly, and the rest of us will continue to wonder what the f**k you're talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Again, not sure why that is relevant. His information is accurate and based on actual experience. You can take it or leave it.

It's relevant because, he panders to people who don't know better.

 

Well, that's simply ignorant, and also dumb. If you insist on making up your own definitions for established genres of work, then all you're going to do is confuse everyone else.

Well thanks for calling me dumb and ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It's relevant because, he panders to people who don't know better.

 

Matt's very clear on the type of work he does, and pretty regularly clarifies that other people's mileage may vary. The caveat is clearly stated.

 

If there are people watching who are too stupid to put two-and-two together from that, well, that's on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, that's simply ignorant, and also dumb...

 

 

 

If there are people watching who are too stupid to put two-and-two together from that, well, that's on them.

What the hell is wrong with you two? Cant you get your point across without being insulting on a personal level? I think you both show a lack of proper reasoning if you must resort to Ad Hominem attacks to prove your point.

 

It is a sad day when discussing aspects of filmmaking leads a group of creative people to become hostile with one another. At the end of the day, who really gives a crap? Time for everyone (myself included) to calm the hell down and take a time out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

you both show a lack of proper reasoning if you must resort to Ad Hominem attacks to prove your point.

 

Satsuki is referring to Tyler's argument, rather than Tyler himself, and Mark is not talking about anyone in particular. Hardly ad hominem attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well thanks for calling me dumb and ignorant.

Tyler, your statement that 'all commercial cinematography does is make things pretty' is ignorant because it is uninformed and reductive to the point of misrepresenting what these skilled artists actually do.

 

Your insistence on referring to commercial cinematography as 'fashion' after this has been pointed out to you is dumb because it serves no purpose other than to confuse people on what those actual jobs entail.

 

I am not calling you dumb or ignorant. But the things you've been saying in this thread most certainly fit that description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Tyler, your statement that 'all commercial cinematography does is make things pretty' is ignorant because it is uninformed and reductive to the point of misrepresenting what these skilled artists actually do.

So instead of hitting me with a hammer, why don't you educate? I asked the question: "Maybe you know the appropriate term for those people?" and all you did was call my opinion ignorant and dumb.

 

Satsuki, in my youth, I shot quite a few national television commercials. Back then we called that industry "commercial/fashion". I have no idea what people call it today, but that's the term I've always used because that's what the agency I worked for, billed me out as. Unfortunately, I left that industry when I moved to Los Angeles and got into features. So honestly, I have no idea what they call that industry today, 18 years down the road.

 

It think you just assumed I was using "fashion" as a derogatory term to put down Matt's work. Just the opposite, I have high praise for the masters of that art form, but it's an entirely different skill set then; narrative, documentary and industrial, which is my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

"Maybe you know the appropriate term for those people?"

 

"DP" or "cinematographer" is fine.

 

I directed a national commercial this week and our fine cinematographer was listed as "DP" on the call sheet. Nobody was confused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im obsessed with this stuffb but my profession provides my bread n butter...my videos, and my loyal following of 13 people, provide a perfect 0% of a living. Tell u though, if i have a DP or anyone especially actors give their time to my project...i will put off the thing to sock away a few hundred. Those smiles are real. Respect-smiles...just my $0.0002

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Satsuki is referring to Tyler's argument, rather than Tyler himself, and Mark is not talking about anyone in particular. Hardly ad hominem attacks.

You are playing semantics. Let me put this another way...can you imagine a teacher telling their student that. not them, but their argument was "dumb, ignorant, or stupid?" If so, I cannot imagine this educator would last long teaching.

 

I realize some here have an axe to grind with Tyler (myself on occasion) but resorting to demeaning terms is not the way to handle it for people who "fashion" themselves as professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are playing semantics. Let me put this another way...can you imagine a teacher telling their student that. not them, but their argument was "dumb, ignorant, or stupid?" If so, I cannot imagine this educator would last long teaching.

 

No, but I did have a chemistry teacher who, in explaining the first test results, divided the class up in to 'super wits', 95% and above, 'wits", 85-95%, and 'half-wits', 70-85%, and then stated 'any half-wit should pass my exam'...

 

In my master for math program a professor stated... 'there are students here who will 'get it' with some effort', 'there are students here who will get it with a lot of effort, and there are students here who will never get it, and I don't want to bother with those who will never get it'.

 

In my grammar school experience I was subjected to teachers who didn't mind using the 'paddle' or 'ruler', and I had my knuckles scared for years, due to my lack of concern for their rules... fortunately for me, despite the number of paddling and knuckle rappings I received, I did not form a later life inclination for such 'indoor sports'...

Edited by John E Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

No, but I did have a chemistry teacher who, in explaining the first test results, divided the class up in to 'super wits', 95% and above, 'wits", 85-95%, and 'half-wits', 70-85%, and then stated 'any half-wit should pass my exam'...

 

In my master for math program a professor stated... 'there are students here who will 'get it' with some effort', 'there are students here who will get it with a lot of effort, and there are students here who will never get it, and I don't want to bother with those who will never get it'.

In a time period where shaming is generally frowned upon (fat shaming, victim shaming, etc), I would hope that people do not need to have it explained to them why such demeaning talk is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are playing semantics. Let me put this another way...can you imagine a teacher telling their student that. not them, but their argument was "dumb, ignorant, or stupid?" If so, I cannot imagine this educator would last long teaching.

 

Except it's not a Teacher/Student relationship. We're all adults here. We should be able to defend our ideas in a robust fashion, and be prepared to be called out for making dumb or unfounded statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Except it's not a Teacher/Student relationship. We're all adults here. We should be able to defend our ideas in a robust fashion, and be prepared to be called out for making dumb or unfounded statements.

And we also have to be prepared to be called out for being an butt and making childish comments using words as "stupid" to refer to someone else or their ideas. No matter how intellectual one here is, there are others whose knowledge and skills far surpass ours. We should consider how we would feel if one of our betters came here and trashed our ideas to the stone age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Matthew, are you calling Stuart an a-ss-h-ol-e, while drawing a flimsy veil of plausible deniability there?

 

In my momentary excursion into proffanity there, I discovered by experiment that sustaining members can use that word but others can not. In my case it converted to "an bum".

 

Hilarious.

Edited by Gregg MacPherson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

So Matthew, are calling Stuart an butt, while drawing a flimsy veil of plausible deniability there?

Am only playing by the rules that Sir Stuart has set. I would prefer more diplomacy these days but I suppose I am in the minority on that front.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am only playing by the rules that Sir Stuart has set. I would prefer more diplomacy these days but I suppose I am in the minority on that front.

I don't make the rules here, Matthew, so you can take your snide 'Sir Stuart' comment and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. How's that for diplomacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't make the rules here, Matthew, so you can take your snide 'Sir Stuart' comment and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. How's that for diplomacy?

Well, I imagine I should alert Donald Trump of who his running mate SHOULD have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthew, you were the one complaining about ad hominem attacks, now you're the one making them. I never once criticized you, yet you took it upon yourself to make snide comments about me. If you want a kinder, more diplomatic forum, then start with yourself, because right now you're just a hypocrite.

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
×
×
  • Create New...