Read an article from a couple of years ago where the author said he wasn't getting directing jobs because he wasn't shooting with an Alexa or other large pro cameras. The thinking is that they want to see that you have the leadership skills to handle a large set and not just a small crew set. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't help but think it's of minimal factor whether to hire director or not.
Camera determines job b.s.
- Thread starter lambert
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Depends on who's doing the hiring. Different folks have different priorities.
If I'm hiring someone, and I tell them I want them to use a specific camera (for whatever my reasons are) and the person argues with me... yeah, that's probably not a relationship I'll want to nurture. Who knows why I specify an Alexa? Maybe I'm planning on pitching the project to a network whose technical specifications demand a certain camera, a certain recording format, a certain bit rate or bit depth, whatever it is, and if the guy I'm interviewing tries to tell me his DSLR or BMPCC is just as good, then no, he's not getting the job.
Besides, it's generally not the job of the director to go specifying what camera to use, unless the producer decides to specify that it's the director's job. The director of photography generally makes that recommendation, and the producer makes that decision.
Sounds to me like your author has probably never been near a large set, and has no idea what the roles typically are in such a production, so he's pointing the finger of blame at something other than his own inexperience.
If I'm hiring someone, and I tell them I want them to use a specific camera (for whatever my reasons are) and the person argues with me... yeah, that's probably not a relationship I'll want to nurture. Who knows why I specify an Alexa? Maybe I'm planning on pitching the project to a network whose technical specifications demand a certain camera, a certain recording format, a certain bit rate or bit depth, whatever it is, and if the guy I'm interviewing tries to tell me his DSLR or BMPCC is just as good, then no, he's not getting the job.
Besides, it's generally not the job of the director to go specifying what camera to use, unless the producer decides to specify that it's the director's job. The director of photography generally makes that recommendation, and the producer makes that decision.
Sounds to me like your author has probably never been near a large set, and has no idea what the roles typically are in such a production, so he's pointing the finger of blame at something other than his own inexperience.
Jim Feeley
Veteran
Here's one weird thing about that approach: The Alexa (and Amira) cameras are pretty easy to use. I mean, you need a good operator and the operator (or you if you're operating) must have a great eye, but compared to film or the early days of RED, they're way more straightforward. And on smaller gigs, you don't (well, didn't compared to some RED jobs) need to hire a DIT and could spend the money on a good AC. And heck, I've been on lots of jobs with Alexas, F55s, RED, etc with very small crews.
But the idea that they want to know a director can move through a production with a large crew sounds sensible. While the actual storytelling skills are the same, the needs to delegate, decide, and [my alliteration falls apart here] are hightened, even with a good AD to motivate/harrass departments to move along. Because an hour of overtime on a large set is really expensive.
Note, however, that I've never directed a project with 20-30 people. I have worked such jobs, though; primarily ads and super-fancy silicon-valley corp. And some directors haven't been as smooth as the crew (to say nothing of the client) would like. I guess the directors didn't make the good judgments needed to drive a crew that big. And you know the old saying:
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Producers are busy. A simple clue to see if a director has the experience needed to drive a big shoot (especially a shoot where a dozen agency clients wil be standing around) would be great. But these days, looking at camera choice isn't that clue.
But the idea that they want to know a director can move through a production with a large crew sounds sensible. While the actual storytelling skills are the same, the needs to delegate, decide, and [my alliteration falls apart here] are hightened, even with a good AD to motivate/harrass departments to move along. Because an hour of overtime on a large set is really expensive.
Note, however, that I've never directed a project with 20-30 people. I have worked such jobs, though; primarily ads and super-fancy silicon-valley corp. And some directors haven't been as smooth as the crew (to say nothing of the client) would like. I guess the directors didn't make the good judgments needed to drive a crew that big. And you know the old saying:
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Producers are busy. A simple clue to see if a director has the experience needed to drive a big shoot (especially a shoot where a dozen agency clients wil be standing around) would be great. But these days, looking at camera choice isn't that clue.
Last edited:
Maybe I’m reading wrong but to me it sounds like “director” here really means “DP/director”. If it was just a director the answer would seem to be “we’ll shoot with whatever you want.” So sounds to me like theyre looking for gear owners which is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of a director. Sort of like how many job ads seek a “videographer” but really want a videographer/editor/producer.
Either way it’s dumb because the skillset is what’s important, cameras can be rented, so my guess these jobs the author was losing are probably lower budget affairs where theyre trying to get a guy with the right gear for cheap.
Either way it’s dumb because the skillset is what’s important, cameras can be rented, so my guess these jobs the author was losing are probably lower budget affairs where theyre trying to get a guy with the right gear for cheap.
Let me clarify, because I'm not exactly crystal most of the time. Anyway the author of the article was talking about his directing reel and the fact that interested parties that loved the reel once they were told they weren't shot on pro cameras didn't call back. Barry and Jim make a lot of sense especially in the commercial world.
So youre saying the potential clients were equating shooting on a 5D (or whatever) with low budget/low end productions = no experience with “real” projects? I suppose that kinda makes sense but I would think the talent (if its there) would come through regardless of cam/budget. But if theyre valuing experience with larger projects over raw talent then what can you do? But that still sounds more like its not BECAUSE these things werent shot on pro cams but rather the lack of a pro cam is an indicator of other things/red flags.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Pro Production = Pro Camera
Director Who Has Never Done Production With Pro Camera = Director Who Does Not Do Pro Productions
The logic is simple.
Now, there can be rare exceptions where a non-professional camera is better suited to a job than a pro camera on a pro production, but generally speaking, the logic above holds.
I'd say it's likely there isn't a single director out there who has done many one million plus dollar productions and has yet to shoot on a pro camera.
Director Who Has Never Done Production With Pro Camera = Director Who Does Not Do Pro Productions
The logic is simple.
Now, there can be rare exceptions where a non-professional camera is better suited to a job than a pro camera on a pro production, but generally speaking, the logic above holds.
I'd say it's likely there isn't a single director out there who has done many one million plus dollar productions and has yet to shoot on a pro camera.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Agreed. If I was a client or producer of a large job and found out that someone I was looking to hire had never used anything more than a $2000 camera then I would question that person having the proper experience to handle the responsibilities of my production.
Back in the day when I cut my first reel I showed it to a producer to get his thoughts. He said, "Where's the money?" I had chosen all the shots that I thought were the most beautiful and showed the greatest variety of styles. He wanted to see stuff that showed production value, were obviously difficult or expensive to accomplish, and he wanted to see recognizable stars. This meant that I had done big time work. So out went my perfect sunsets and in went crane shots, a building interior with a lot of complex lighting and set design, an a PSA I'd shot with Gwyneth Paltrow. Her shot was perhaps the simplest lighting of the bunch (soft frontal) but she was about 25, gorgeous and quite famous. It was the first shot on my reel.
Most of my stuff at the time was Super-16 but I made sure there was 35mm on there as well. No one would pu video on their reel back then. I even had a little IMAX and a couple of high speed food shots. There was also a TV commercial that had run nationally, which showed that I was doing recognizable, professional work.
It wasn't a question of beauty or craft. It was competency.
Back in the day when I cut my first reel I showed it to a producer to get his thoughts. He said, "Where's the money?" I had chosen all the shots that I thought were the most beautiful and showed the greatest variety of styles. He wanted to see stuff that showed production value, were obviously difficult or expensive to accomplish, and he wanted to see recognizable stars. This meant that I had done big time work. So out went my perfect sunsets and in went crane shots, a building interior with a lot of complex lighting and set design, an a PSA I'd shot with Gwyneth Paltrow. Her shot was perhaps the simplest lighting of the bunch (soft frontal) but she was about 25, gorgeous and quite famous. It was the first shot on my reel.
Most of my stuff at the time was Super-16 but I made sure there was 35mm on there as well. No one would pu video on their reel back then. I even had a little IMAX and a couple of high speed food shots. There was also a TV commercial that had run nationally, which showed that I was doing recognizable, professional work.
It wasn't a question of beauty or craft. It was competency.
Run&Gun
Veteran
There's an old saying that goes something like you're not paid for what you know, you're paid for what you're responsible for.
I've long argued that all that really matters in a reel is famous actors' faces. That's the only thing that most producers understand - if they see George Clooney's face in your reel, they won't care what camera it was shot on nor even how beautiful the shot is. Now I don't think that's 100% the way things should be, although there is some value to the idea that it means you can handle a pro-level set, but it's just the way it is.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
That's definitely true, but those kind of faces will only be captured on ARRIs or REDs so it's moot.
There's a very rare chance anything else will be used (besides film) unless there is a particular relationship involved somewhere in the pipeline.
I.E. George Clooney Nespresso commercials are shot with the new Venice (hypothetically-speaking) because the director/producer really likes the camera and/or has friends over at Sony.
There's a very rare chance anything else will be used (besides film) unless there is a particular relationship involved somewhere in the pipeline.
I.E. George Clooney Nespresso commercials are shot with the new Venice (hypothetically-speaking) because the director/producer really likes the camera and/or has friends over at Sony.
I guess I understand that thinking (flawed though it may be), I just think pecifically asking about what camera something was shot on is a weird roundabout way to learn the information you're after as a producer. Why not just say "what budget/scale/scope level do you have experience in?" Do they expect you to lie? And if so, why couldn't you just lie about the camera too?
I think the most honest answer is that too many producers are idiots.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
It’s a form of mental shorthand.
Run&Gun
Veteran
In a lot of cases, definitely a hand and something (probably) short involved... ; )
Sounds like a complete mismatch:
1-you are applying for the job that you probably shouldn’t
2-with a producer that doesn’t know his sheet so tries to cover his butt elsewhere
Many great answers already posted!
However, not so clean cut.
Its a different competence for:
-Advertizing (shmooze and lies due to ego trippung)
-Corporate (do not rock the boat)
-Movies (get the needed things done)
And for the most part, work and trade expertise is a tiny fraction of it...
Producers who hire me the most - never seen my reel. EVER. They never asked for one!
Why? Who knows...but I have some ideas why....
Excellent though autistic DP who did shitload of high end budzet advertizing and commercial work, with amazing reel, can not get a brake in movies, not even the indie ones (as a paid DP). Why? Well he demostrated it for me myself personaly:
You do not ignore producer’s words “our talent is here!” because you are busy adjusting lights angles and chair’s position (NYFJ!!!!!). Especialy not when the talent is CEO of fortune 10 company who has 7 minutes assinged for this bloody shoot he needs to do.
Then, I know a guy, a pure shithead, that always keeps poping up as a director of high end, superball and such advertizing productions even though, on one shoot G&E crew littererly walked away on him from the job because of maltreatment (imagine that!?!?!?!).
Yet, he is still swimming succesfuly. Makes sense how and why, when you find out who is covering his back.
As for as cameras in a reel:
Just tell them is Alexa and Varicam. Trust me, 99,7% of producers would not know the difference! If the suspicions arise, just tell them its a production decision to **** it up in post.
Unethical?
Well in that case, you better don’t ask where producers find money for the jobs you already got paid for
I can give you the list but not sure if you have stomac for that...
1-you are applying for the job that you probably shouldn’t
2-with a producer that doesn’t know his sheet so tries to cover his butt elsewhere
Many great answers already posted!
However, not so clean cut.
Its a different competence for:
-Advertizing (shmooze and lies due to ego trippung)
-Corporate (do not rock the boat)
-Movies (get the needed things done)
And for the most part, work and trade expertise is a tiny fraction of it...
Producers who hire me the most - never seen my reel. EVER. They never asked for one!
Why? Who knows...but I have some ideas why....
Excellent though autistic DP who did shitload of high end budzet advertizing and commercial work, with amazing reel, can not get a brake in movies, not even the indie ones (as a paid DP). Why? Well he demostrated it for me myself personaly:
You do not ignore producer’s words “our talent is here!” because you are busy adjusting lights angles and chair’s position (NYFJ!!!!!). Especialy not when the talent is CEO of fortune 10 company who has 7 minutes assinged for this bloody shoot he needs to do.
Then, I know a guy, a pure shithead, that always keeps poping up as a director of high end, superball and such advertizing productions even though, on one shoot G&E crew littererly walked away on him from the job because of maltreatment (imagine that!?!?!?!).
Yet, he is still swimming succesfuly. Makes sense how and why, when you find out who is covering his back.
As for as cameras in a reel:
Just tell them is Alexa and Varicam. Trust me, 99,7% of producers would not know the difference! If the suspicions arise, just tell them its a production decision to **** it up in post.
Unethical?
Well in that case, you better don’t ask where producers find money for the jobs you already got paid for
I can give you the list but not sure if you have stomac for that...