ASC Member who's never shoot film... How long?

David G. Smith

David G. Smith

Steak Knife Member
Ok, I don't a thing about the selection process for membership into the American Society of Cinematographers, except that it is by invitation only after a recommendation from a fellow member, but I was wondering how long most folks think it will take before a new member to the prestigious organization is extended to a cinematographer that has never shot film? Of course this is all speculation, but is wasn't really that long ago that a person who does not shoot film would not be called a cinematographer. That threshold has been crossed for sure.


Just something to think about
 
Well I've shot on film as a matter of course, as have all cinematographers I know who are my age/experience level, and if I ever get into ASC it'll be at least another ten years or so... so I'm guessing it will still be a while. Film hasn't been completely phased out yet. (though in another four years we'll start seeing graduated cinematographers from NYU who may have never shot on film...)
 
Neat thought. Don't you have to pay something like $10,000 to be in the ASC as well? I remember Gale Tattersall saying in an interview once that the only reason he isn't in the ASC yet is because he hasn't come up with the money. Perhaps it was just a joke? I don't see why they would charge that. But thinking from a different perspective, there are fees to be a member of the SOC.

On a side note, I would like to be in the ASC within the next forty years or so. Some of my colleagues crack jokes about how I have big shoes to fill, considering Bill Pope, ASC is from the small city I live in. :laugh:
 
Last edited:
sonofaresiii said:
Well I've shot on film as a matter of course, as have all cinematographers I know who are my age/experience level, and if I ever get into ASC it'll be at least another ten years or so... so I'm guessing it will still be a while. Film hasn't been completely phased out yet. (though in another four years we'll start seeing graduated cinematographers from NYU who may have never shot on film...)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I started on film, though it has been a long time since I have shot on it. I think that you have hit on something there with the state of filmmaking education. I think that we are going to see a whole generation coming up very quickly that has never done anything on film.

KyranFord said:
Neat thought. Don't you have to pay something like $10,000 to be in the ASC as well? I remember Gale Tattersall saying in an interview once that the only reason he isn't in the ASC yet is because he hasn't come up with the money. Perhaps it was just a joke? I don't see why they would charge that. But thinking from a different perspective, there are fees to be a member of the SOC.

On a side note, I would like to be in the ASC within the next forty years or so. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't know what the specifics are. I think that the initiation fees for joining the Cinematographer's Guild, Local 600, are pretty steep, but I don't know about the ASC. I am nowhere near either, but I just thought this was an interesting thought.
 
I'd like to think that cinematographers worthy of ASC membership would have ventured out of their way to shoot on film just to experience and work with the aesthetic. I'm lucky enough to have shot a couple short films on S16 and one on S35 when I was in film school, but after graduating I worked almost entirely on digital projects. So, I went out of my way to buy a super-8 motion picture camera so I could shoot and develop my own little film projects on the side just to continue experimenting and learning.

To me an ASC cinematographer who hasn't shot film seems far fetched, at least for the next 20-25 years.
 
Finnegan said:
To me an ASC cinematographer who hasn't shot film seems far fetched, at least for the next 20-25 years.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree. Most people around who have "shot on film", are like yourself and did it at film school these days. If you apply all the same principles, tools, techniques and theory to digital cinematography then theres no distinction whatsoever. People will be judged on their merits not the tool. The cream still rises to the top.

EDIT: So I qualify for a piece shot on film? Even if it was a short shot on 16mm? If you are going to have distinction then there'd also need to be a line drawn in the sand such as must have shot two features on film, or similar.
 
That is the question, Noel. Like I said, I don't know anything about that selection process, but I can't find a current member that is not in their forties. Anybody gaining the cred now for membership anytime soon has most certainly shot film. As that time window shifts, it has to start including folks that have done great work exclusively on digital.
 
I finished my undergrad a year ago and was fortunate enough to shoot on S16 multiple times, and I know the faculty doesn't want to give that up any time soon. I really enjoyed my experience with it and hope to one day utilize the film format again (though right now I'm focusing on documentary work).

I think one of the biggest problems hindering film's longevity is that there's this pervasive aspect of youth culture nowadays where young people obsess over new software, hardware, and just any general advancements in technology. The craze surrounding Apple's WWDC is a perfect example. With ARRI, Panavision, and other companies ceasing development of film cameras, that alone ends up creating what I thought was a pretty noticeable disinterest in film, even in students just a year or two younger than me.

That doesn't necessarily mean they are any less talented or skilled, but the interest in film is certainly dying in younger generations simply because there's nothing new to learn and talk about. So I think it can't be too long before we see very accomplished and respected filmmakers who have never shot on film (and have no desire to).
 
Whether or not someone has shot on film does not necessarily determine whether they are a great cinematographer or not. Being a cinematographer has very little to do with the camera body and format, and very much to do with the artistry of the image. A great cinematographer is a great cinematographer, just because someone hasn't shot on film doesn't mean they can't and doesn't mean they are necessarily any less of an artist. Look at audio, for example. There's probably thousands of amazing Producers and Engineers who have never worked on vinyl, yet they are still good at what they do.

But yes, I'm sure there will come a point where that happens, however I believe it will be more like an interesting tidbit; the ASC isn't going to lower it's standards just because film is dissipating.
 
I have no real interest in shooting film. While I understand that there's a certain mojo to the image and process that is desirable, why would I actively pursue something that provides a myriad of obstacles on the way to producing the best footage possible?

I'm interested in making great images that support the story I'm a part of telling. Shooting digital affords instant feedback, the ability to provide high quality monitoring to the director/scripty/et al, a vastly simplified and expedited post workflow, the ability to cut roughs during principal photography, the ability to improvise and adapt quickly, uninterrupted shooting for long periods (more than 80 minutes on the C300 with a 32gb card), redundant backups at the end of a shooting day, smaller and lighter equipment, greatly reduced shooting cost, and about a thousand other conveniences. I know that even five years ago the landscape was entirely different, but we've reached a point where choosing digital is no longer a compromise. We can get (roughly) similar dynamic range, resolution, and color rendering out of a number of different digital cameras, with many added benefits.

Digital doesn't necessarily make us lazier either. We shouldn't throw away our light meters or dramatically alter our sensibilities just because it's easy to get exposure these days. But who can resist shooting night exteriors with under 1000 watts of light all on battery power, or <25% of the G&E you'd need shooting film. I just shot two features without generators, using a combination of battery power outdoors and household power for interiors. We never tripped a single breaker. Why not take full advantage of the new possibilities open to post-film film-makers?

The barrier of entry is lower, but the wheat will still be separated from the chaff. I come from the music recording world and saw the same transition happen (but a full decade earlier) from analog tape to digital recording, first on sub-par formats like ADAT and early digital computer based recording, before graduating to products that actually rivaled and exceeded the technical scope of tape. I've recorded to 2" tape, and I'll never do it again. Digital flat out stands toe to toe in terms of sound quality, and offers far too many conveniences and revolutionary workflow options to ignore.

Cameras and recording media are simply a means to an end. I'd shoot with a cell phone if it was the most direct path to telling a compelling story. I want as little between me and the image as possible, and shooting digital means better control and more possibilities. Keep your film and I'll happily keep filling up my hard drives and memory cards.
 
IMO film has a certain quality about it that simply cannot be matched, though the Alexa comes close (again IMO).

who can resist shooting night exteriors with under 1000 watts of light all on battery power, or <25% of the G&E you'd need shooting film.
Click to expand...
Me? I wouldn't shoot at night with <1000w of light on battery power and expect to get anything more than simply acceptable images, if not ridiculously noisy ones. Shooting digital, I'd should be lighting more, not less. I fear that the whole deal with digital ISO going up to 12,000+ is normalising a noisy image, which I am not a fan of at all, and hope that is not the way it is going.
 
sonofaresiii said:
wow, not even a whole page before it devolved into digital v. film
Click to expand...

The whole premise of the thread was digital vs. film bait. I'm surprised it took that long.

The tools don't matter. The final product matters - the path to that goal is irrelevant.
 
sonofaresiii said:
wow, not even a whole page before it devolved into digital v. film
Click to expand...

Why can't we discuss the benefits and pitfalls of each? We're not talking about which format is "better", only what shooting with either can bring to the production in terms of possibilities. Film is gorgeous. Digital can be too. It's not about one or the other being "best".
 
nothing said:
The whole premise of the thread was digital vs. film bait. I'm surprised it took that long.

The tools don't matter. The final product matters - the path to that goal is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

That is not correct. Now I may not have articulated very well, but the intent of the thread is based upon the assumption that there are going to be cinematographers who will develop the skills, artistry and a body of work that will qualify them for membership into the the most prestigious cinematography organization in the world by using digital acquisition tools exclusively. I was just wondering how long folks thought that would take.
 
David G. Smith said:
That is not correct. Now I may not have articulated very well, but the intent of the thread is based upon the assumption that there are going to be cinematographers who will develop the skills, artistry and a body of work that will qualify them for membership into the the most prestigious cinematography organization in the world by using digital acquisition tools exclusively. I was just wondering how long folks thought that would take.
Click to expand...

I think you were very clear. I was responding mainly to the poster who said that any cinematographer worth his salt would be actively pursuing shooting film. There is a whole crop of young DPs coming up in a strictly digital world (guys like Kholi), and there's no reason that our bodies of work will be inherently inferior to that of prior generations. We still light, frame, and move the camera like our fore bearers, we just point a different kind of box at things. If the ASC decides that mastery and artistry are somehow tied to a particular format then they will quickly become irrelevant. I can't imagine that a group containing many of the greatest cinematographers of our time would be so short sighted. It won't be too long (maybe 10 years) before we see an ASC member who has never shot film.
 
And that's a fair assessment (the 10 years bit... all the rest should go without saying), but I think we're looking at something closer to 15 to 20 years, since like I mentioned I'd guess that most of this latest *generation* of new cinematographers have all shot on film, though rarely and we're certainly the last to do so. So I'd guess it's the generation AFTER me that'll be the first to have widely never shot on film, let's say another five years before they even start professionally DPing, and another ten or fifteen years after that before they start getting into ASC.

But then, there are exceptions. So we'll see. It also is worth mentioning that since film still IS available, mostly, I'd guess most people with a real passion for cinematography would seek it out, just to have shot on it at least once (I know I did) even if it's not practical. I mean, shooting on a handcranked super 8 camera isn't practical, but damn, I think it's pretty badass. But that view may not be universal.
 
The ASC is a living, breathing organization. Cinematography now traverses two different technologies, it's a byproduct of moving forward, not a negative. We've all seen modern films shot on 4k, many production companies have shifted to digital, and now even Hollywood is disbanding film distribution(how sad). Film, in my opinion, offers an aesthetic that cannot and will not ever be available in digital. The physical layers of emulsion and grain characteristics. It's an artistic choice, or an economical one for some. In my heart, I know the ASC will allow entrants who've never shot film an opportunity to join. Simply because the world turns, one day at a time.
 
As an owner of a medium format digital back (5k 16bit) for stills -I just think the idea that film looks better is just BS - sure film may look better than todays digital motion picture cameras but not for long IMO and certainly not to an extent to have any commercial relevance - look to stils which is 5 years ahead of motion due to the low framerates/data rates - I dont know any film shooters at all (apart from 'artists') in stills

I would also add two words to the debate; Deakins, Skyfall

S
 
morgan_moore said:
I would also add two words to the debate; Deakins, Skyfall
Click to expand...

Deakins never shot digital until the Alexa came along because he didn't want to use 'inferior technology'

There's no doubt digital can still get amazing images, and the artistry should be seperate from the camera or format.

That said, there's still a certain aesthetic to film. I personally believe it will still be used in feature films for a while as a creative choice, but will see the phasing out of it in television and commercials
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top