Artistry vs technical skill: weighing the importance of both

[CharlesPapert]

Kicking off a discussion here based on this post in the "site changes coming" thread.

Eric Coughlin wrote:

I've probably posted more of my videos and movies here than the average user, but I've gained way more benefit from learning technical knowledge here than from the comments on my videos, which, to a large extent is often, "Good job," and then I pat myself on the back and don't become a better filmmaker. Constructive criticism may be useful, but not as useful as (random example) knowing how to turn off SDI display overlays on a Sony F55 when the celebrity client is waiting on you to clear it.

My personal approach to cinematography has always been more technical than emotional. So often I run across filmmakers who talk a lot of BS emotional stuff and sound like they'll make some awesome movie, but then it looks like crud because they don't know the technical side.

Film clients sometimes ask me, "How will your cinematography choices fit the story we have written?" And my answer may be along the lines of, "I'll use my technical knowledge to make images that are of similar quality to the footage from my site and reels that got you interested in hiring me." I probably didn't read their script anyway. Doesn't tend to work well as an answer to inexperienced filmmakers who want to hear a lot of emotional BS answer, but if it's BS they want instead of quality technical images, they can hire someone else, which, in one particular case they did, and fired that DP half way through production because he was terrible, and the trailer looked poorly shot, but as least they got a BS DP over a technically savvy DP as while I'm not the best DP out there I was definitely better than who they hired.

On the spectrum of "technician/craftsperson" on one end to "artiste" on the other, I also lean more to the former, but while Eric is perhaps at 98%, I'm maybe 60%. I wouldn't consider meeting on a narrative project without reading the script as I believe that the photography must be in service of the story, along with tone. And I'd stop short of describing the facets of artistry on an emotional level as BS, although I've certainly seen my share of this presented in what I believe to be an altruistic form which, indeed, makes it BS!

Thinking back to my first big job as an A operator on a series; the DP came from an indie film background. After a week or two he said to me "hey, your compositions are pretty good. Did you go to art school?" To which I unblinkingly replied no, I'm a camera operator. He was taken aback. It was a little bratty of a retort (I was young!) although it was essentially true. It's hard to say where one's proclivity for imagemaking comes from--are we born with it, is it a function of paying attention and mentally dissecting images over a lifetime? I'm pretty sure for me it was primarily the latter, so really the point for me was that I was self-taught, not a product of traditional schooling.

I have been of late reflecting about this subject and what my sensibilities are. In a way, I'm like an AI engine--when tasked with creating a lighting or camera setup, I have an overall idea of the desired style, so keeping with the analogy, I enter a mental prompt and out comes an image that is surely an amalgam of everything that I've fed into myself. And then I draw on my accumulated knowledge on how to create it within the allotted time and resources for that job. Is that what we all do? Mostly, probably--but then there are the visionaries who come up with something deeply out of the box. I have to give it to them because while I like to push a little harder sometimes to not just do the rote and obvious choice, I probably won't swing for the fences like they might. But the question is: can they also deliver, efficiently and flexibly? As Eric points out in his example, often that may not be the case, and those folks may be better off making art than commerce (which at a certain level, even a creative scripted project falls under).

This isn't limited to scripted of course. Any time a camera is aimed at anything, the person behind it has a myriad of choices to make. Framing alone requires choosing a focal length, distance, height and placement relative to background (the latter aspect too often ignored, in my opinion). So how much of it is skill, and how much artistry?

 

[Zachadoodle]

There will be times in a filmmaking career that you will not be able to bring in all of the equipment you have. Sometimes you can scare off talent if you spend too much time setting up a shot. I know a story of an actress who walked off set, because the film took 14 hours to set up lights and cameras. Being as technical as Stanley Kubrick can work in one extreme, but being someone people can enjoy being with is another.

 

[NorBro]

I think every decision you make could fall under either category depending on who you ask, so I don't know if you could really answer this question, especially now with more productions relying on post to not only fix but also enhance.

When I used to watch artistic film breakdowns when I was younger, I used to think, "I didn't even notice that and I watched this movie 5 times."

Like, does it matter if the light is on the left side of the face or the right side of the face? [Not to oversimplify the process, but when is it art and when is it just making a production decision.]

___

Most people in and out on forums are just technical camera operators. They get the freelance work (or have some house gig) and just have to get the job done.

They aren't union sets and there is no time to execute every single vision. Once in a while, you'll see a very clear artistic shot that most would agree is artistic, but I think the rest is technical, if I had to choose one word or the other.

How come the Sundance or Vimeo 'Staff Pick' people are never on forums? lol

 

[Doug Jensen]

I know a story of an actress who walked off set, because the film took 14 hours to set up lights and cameras.

Good for her. She should have left after one hour. That is just a lack of professionalism from whomever is running the shoot. I try to schedule talent to arrive on-locaiton about 30 minutes before I will need them, even if it takes hours for the crew to prepare. Very rarely am I not ready to go at the schedule time. And then I cut them loose, and hand them their check, immediately after the last shot. Respect for other people's time is critical.

 

[rob norton]

How come the Sundance or Vimeo 'Staff Pick' people are never on forums? lol

Excuse me?

(doubt you'll make it past first 20 seconds lol).

Back when "maker" videos were all the rage. I think I'm happier with the audio recording more than the visuals. Also in a time when you worked really hard to shoot in a sequence to later avoid jump cuts.

5d mark ii, zoo h4n, grading skills from Stu Maschwitz, those were the days. Wait, no they weren't (in terms of DSLR shooting).

Nice topic Charles, I'll add to the thread properly soon.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

My approach tends to be use my various technical knowledge and I suppose artistic knowledge (having watched movies and such) and then just trying to create shots I find interesting, and what I find interesting may often also be artistic. I personally don't often do things like using the cinematography choices to further the themes or story elements, though there can be some aspects I'll use, as an example, hand held for a more tense situation and tripod or dolly for less tense scenes, or moody lighting for a drama and flatter lighting for a comedy.

I'm not necessarily saying I'm opposed to those who do use story to make choices as far as cinematography; perhaps I'm moreso criticizing those who have low technical knowledge and high BS knowledge, and then get bad results due to low technical knowledge. If a person has both technical and artistic knowledges, it's a good combination. If I was a producer or director hiring a DP with artistic knowledge vs technical, I'd choose the one with technical knowledge, especially since as a director you often choose the shots so if the DP is messing up basic technical aspects you're kind of screwed, while if the DP fails at the artistic, the director can more easily control that element as they often do anyway.

One reason I've steered much of my career away from freelance DPing is that it actually is the director who has more control over artistic choices, and I now prefer directing as it gives me more control. On sets with a controlling director who chooses the angles, the lighting, the focal length, the camera stabilization type, etc., the DP can sometimes become a glorified camera op button pusher. It's interesting how the roles play out; I was told by a friend who worked on Avengers: Endgame that the A cam op was making most of the angle choices for the camera crew and the gaffer was making the lighting choices, which made it sound like the DP was just sitting back collecting paychecks. When I've got a competent crew I've sometimes been guilty of getting lazy in that regard, while with a less competent crew, sometimes my own abilities shine more as I have to apply my mind to get results rather than relying on others.

Regarding not reading scripts, I'll clarify that a bit. I only do about one paid narrative project per year if that, perhaps I've done 30 days of paid narrative shoots in my 15 year career, so not much. I've DPed plenty of unpaid movies, the majority self produced. That said, I get an average of perhaps 50 movie shoot offers per year (shorts and features) and ignore most of them as most do not have enough budget for me to want to take them, they're often inexperienced producers (compared to experienced corporate producers I often work with who are less headache), and back to the subject of the topic, I often feel I may loose the job with my bluntness and lack of interest in their story or in using their story as a guide for my cinematography choices, while I'm still confident I can deliver a good product they'll be happy with, if we can get past the interview.

But, it's not really important for me to pass the interview, as, if I want to make money, I'm generally better served doing corporate work, and if I want to make an artsy film, I'm generally better off self producing it rather than doing some low paid movie shoot for inexperienced producers. So, regarding reading the script, if I'm only doing 1 in 50 of the movie offers I'm getting, it's way too much time and effort to read 50 scripts just to land one job. I'll generally read a script before filming the movie, but not necessarily before being officially hired for the job, as that would be doing work for free. After reading too many scripts and not getting hired or finding out the budget is too low, you get tired of reading more scripts. The problem is, during the interview, they often want to hear what I thought of the script, and hearing, "You haven't hired (paid) me yet" is not an answer most low budget aspiring filmmakers wish to hear.

Meanwhile, Charles makes more money from film work than I do, so I assume gets enough legitimate offers that it's worth the time to read scripts prior to being officially hired.

As for how reading the script affects my thoughts on how I'll film it, I've still found my most common approach to filming a scene is showing up and winging it. I've done storyboarding before and the last time I did it I threw most of it out the window due to time constraints when filming, which leads me back to thinking, was it really worth the time and effort. In that particular case, no. Maybe, if there had been more budget to have more shoot days to follow the storyboard more. I do have one somewhat egotistical theory on storyboards (aside from how it can help other departments on bigger sets such as VFX, etc.), which is, if a DP can't think up their shots quickly on set and needs to write down or have drawn out each shot prior to set, they must be a slow thinker. So, a fast thinker can quickly choose shots in the moment. Who is better, the storyboarding DP or the choose the shot on the spot DP? Depends, it can be either, but all else being equal if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the onset one. Means you've got more time outside of work to play airsoft if you're not constantly storyboarding and planning on your off days.

Some of my most involved "storyboarding" (may not be the correct term since there were no drawings; shot planning?) has been on two or three one shot long takes scenes or movies I've done, where the planning is in the blocking and where the camera will be, and really needs to be thoroughly planned out.

 

[NorBro]

Excuse me?

(doubt you'll make it past first 20 seconds lol).

Back when "maker" videos were all the rage. I think I'm happier with the audio recording more than the visuals. Also in a time when you worked really hard to shoot in a sequence to later avoid jump cuts.

5d mark ii, zoo h4n, grading skills from Stu Maschwitz, those were the days. Wait, no they weren't (in terms of DSLR shooting).

Nice topic Charles, I'll add to the thread properly soon.

lol, there he isss, how many SPs do you have? (i scrubbed through it, i love that cam)

 

[Zachadoodle]

Eric that's a lot of words (I've had the same thing happen to me several times). Though it took me 5 years to get through The Holy Bible. Sounds to me like you had a ton of experience on film sets, and your belief is for the efficiency of the story. The little details do matter because they make up the big picture. Had they not mattered the audience would be distracted from the story. Your job as the DP is to make sure the audience clearly sees the story. I think how you use a camera is similar to how a sculptor uses a block of wood, chizelling it down to the finest details to where it is a polished sculpture or in your words a polished useful image. Makes sense. And good job for getting it up there with Hollywood. I wish I could've been in Hollywood.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Meanwhile, Charles makes more money from film work than I do, so I assume gets enough legitimate offers that it's worth the time to read scripts prior to being officially hired.

It's not about being worth the time, it's all but a prerequisite of interviewing to shoot narrative. If there are four or five people being considered for a job and one of them has clearly not read the script, they aren't getting the job. And if it's a low budget gig or even a freebie, I want to make sure it's even worth me doing so I am absolutely reading that script.

Some of my most involved "storyboarding" (may not be the correct term since there were no drawings; shot planning?) has been on two or three one shot long takes scenes or movies I've done, where the planning is in the blocking and where the camera will be, and really needs to be thoroughly planned out.

Shotlisting. You don't do this as a director or a DP? You just prefer to wing it?

There was certainly a time way back when I wasn't as fastidious a shotlister as I am now--perhaps my gray matter isn't able to just keep all that stuff in my head, and not forget things along the way. Mostly it's a way to organize all the shots in lighting directions and/or all the other factors that make shooting order logical--wardrobe changes, re-sets, performance needs...a zillion factors that dictate why a particular shooting order is more efficient. Getting back to the original concept, this process is entirely based in the technical, with hardly any artistry involved--a function of efficiency and organization. On the recent film I directed, I built a shotlist, photoboards and overhead diagrams--the last two primarily for the DP's benefit, on their request--as well as a comprehensive breakdown of each setup in shooting order with props, actors and specialty notes for the 1st AD. It took a ton of time in prep, but on the day we were able to blast through the shoot with hardly any verbal communication required for each upcoming setup.

 

[rob norton]

I do have one somewhat egotistical theory on storyboards (aside from how it can help other departments on bigger sets such as VFX, etc.), which is, if a DP can't think up their shots quickly on set and needs to write down or have drawn out each shot prior to set, they must be a slow thinker. So, a fast thinker can quickly choose shots in the moment. Who is better, the storyboarding DP or the choose the shot on the spot DP? Depends, it can be either, but all else being equal if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the onset one. Means you've got more time outside of work to play airsoft if you're not constantly storyboarding and planning on your off days.

How do you come up with, or comment on, a schedule if you're winging it?

 

[morgan_moore]

One thought.

I only gained technical knowledge because my 'art' demanded it.

Wanna film a chase? learn steadicam.

Wanne see a bonnet mount? learning gripping!

etc etc.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I only gained technical knowledge because my 'art' demanded it.

Wanna film a chase? learn steadicam.

Ha, that one is a little bit like "want some orchestral music on your score? Learn violin"!

but I get the sentiment!

Adding skills can be very rewarding. I really would love to dig in and spend time learning After Effects, haven't gotten there yet. I'll probably have to do the sound mix on my current project, which I've done to an extent in the past so no biggie I suppose, but was originally planning on having a sound editor do it so I have to revise expectations to what I can manage (time to pull out the mic and start making footsteps!)

 

[rob norton]

Ha, that one is a little bit like "want some orchestral music on your score? Learn violin"!

but I get the sentiment!

Adding skills can be very rewarding. I really would love to dig in and spend time learning After Effects, haven't gotten there yet. I'll probably have to do the sound mix on my current project, which I've done to an extent in the past so no biggie I suppose, but was originally planning on having a sound editor do it so I have to revise expectations to what I can manage (time to pull out the mic and start making footsteps!)

Have you used unreal engine? I put in about 50 hours and got pretty far from where I started, still lightyears away from any real developers.

I just don't work on enough shoots where that level of pre vis would help, so it sort of feels like an unwise use of time taking it further.

 

[morgan_moore]

Ha, that one is a little bit like "want some orchestral music on your score? Learn violin"!

I think Im talking my basic journey has been lead by my 'desires' to pull of shots.

I mean with no desire to film and photo stuff I could have.. got a job in a bank or a kitchen or something.

I guess very few of us get an in of the nature.. 'dave you are good at volts and current.. you should become a gaffer'

 

[markfpv]

Hmmm. Interesting topic thread Charles.... and probably need to let it marinate a bit longer....

But for quick reply...."So how much of it is skill, and how much artistry?"
From my perspective (not shooting scripted narrative)... it changes a bit with each project. And I'd guestimate my "technician/craftsperson" to "artiste" ratio at something like 80 / 20... but then somewhat laugh out loud when thinking of myself with that "e" at the end of one spectrum.

I've been doing this 30 years or so, and I do find that not having to "think" about the technical is very advantageous while operating as it both relaxes corporate penny pinchers as well as those who appear on camera - and then not consciously thinking about "rule of thirds" or "shutter angle", or other "technical things" etc, can let the mind wander and play around perhaps with other creative things while on set. And I very much "draw on my accumulated knowledge on how to create it within the allotted time and resources for that job" and like to think that pre-pro / planning is often what separates the hobby-est from the pro. As many a project are doomed or certainly "molded" well before that record button ever gets pushed.

I would hope we all can get beautiful, "filmic" shots during golden hour at a lovely location. But can you get the CEO to look good on Tuesday between 11:00 - 12:30 using existing practicals, small crew and light package??

 

[CharlesPapert]

Have you used unreal engine? I put in about 50 hours and got pretty far from where I started, still lightyears away from any real developers.

I just don't work on enough shoots where that level of pre vis would help, so it sort of feels like an unwise use of time taking it further.

So would you dub it "Unwise Engine"...?!

 

[NorBro]

8 out of every 10 games I see are made in Unreal Engine (along with other software but the big UE logo is always right up front).

These are some skills to have...I wish I had.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I think Im talking my basic journey has been lead by my 'desires' to pull of shots.

I mean with no desire to film and photo stuff I could have.. got a job in a bank or a kitchen or something.

I guess very few of us get an in of the nature.. 'dave you are good at volts and current.. you should become a gaffer'

That's an interesting point, Sam. Some people do get ushered/mentored into the world of production. Years ago there were a few Steadicam operators who had previously been star atheletes (running backs maybe?) who had been encouraged into the fold by established operators. I had nothing of the sort, growing up in a relatively minor market for the industry and without any connections. I had no natural aptitude for Steadicam, nor was I exceptionally fit and especially not tall (when I started the assumption was that Steadicam operators needed to be towering, thanks to inventor Garrett Brown clocking in at 6'6"!) The only thing I had going for me was an absolute obsession with that particular craft, and was relentless in my pursuit. I think where it gets trickier in this time where so much is accessible to the average person--the barrier for entry has been lowered so much in terms of financial and knowledge base availability--it's less likely for people to specialize, which means their time and energy and focus is spread out thin. Who has time to devote to multiple pursuits at once? The phrase "jack of all trades, master of none" comes to mind.

 

[Paul F]

As for how reading the script affects my thoughts on how I'll film it, I've still found my most common approach to filming a scene is showing up and winging it. I've done storyboarding before and the last time I did it I threw most of it out the window due to time constraints when filming, which leads me back to thinking, was it really worth the time and effort. In that particular case, no. Maybe, if there had been more budget to have more shoot days to follow the storyboard more. I do have one somewhat egotistical theory on storyboards (aside from how it can help other departments on bigger sets such as VFX, etc.), which is, if a DP can't think up their shots quickly on set and needs to write down or have drawn out each shot prior to set, they must be a slow thinker.

Holy smokes. How does this work? You are a genius. No seriously. You haven't read the script, You don't know the action. You don't know the lighting requirements. Just how much do you know before you arrive? I am amazed that you can just show up and wing it.

I suppose it's like when I did broadcast. I just needed a quick rundown and I was ready. But that was after I did many shows. It became routine.

 

[CharlesPapert]

I've been doing this 30 years or so, and I do find that not having to "think" about the technical is very advantageous while operating as it both relaxes corporate penny pinchers as well as those who appear on camera - and then not consciously thinking about "rule of thirds" or "shutter angle", or other "technical things" etc, can let the mind wander and play around perhaps with other creative things while on set. And I very much "draw on my accumulated knowledge on how to create it within the allotted time and resources for that job" and like to think that pre-pro / planning is often what separates the hobby-est from the pro. As many a project are doomed or certainly "molded" well before that record button ever gets pushed.

Great point. Having a fat bag of skills and knowledge means more bandwidth available for the creative.

I would hope we all can get beautiful, "filmic" shots during golden hour at a lovely location. But can you get the CEO to look good on Tuesday between 11:00 - 12:30 using existing practicals, small crew and light package??

Yes! The true test (for me) is, can one tackle adverse conditions. overcome the limitations and pull off something great? Creative problem solving is equal parts left and right brain--thinking outside the box and being able to calculate what it will take to achieve. I think of those situations fondly, as some of my favorite days on set. It's a great feeling to emerge the "victor".