Cinematographer versus Photographer

roxics

roxics

Veteran
Officially my title is Director of Photography because I'm working the camera, figuring out the lighting and framing of a scene and directing other camera operators sometimes. But I'm not in the film industry, corporate video and I think this title confuses people because I get asked to do photography a lot. They see the word photography and think photographer.

Title change aside, I'm trying to find a way to explain the difference in the mindset of these two positions. Why having one person that does both might not be the best idea.

I do photography as a hobby and reluctantly as a pro when my day job calls for it. But mostly studio portraits and products where I can take more time getting the shot right. Even then I'm far from great because a photographer is like a sniper and is looking for that perfect frame. I'm like a guy with a machine gun who will eventually hit something. My mind isn't focused on that one expression on the model's face because I'm used to thinking at 24fps where things move and expressions change frame to frame.

How would you describe the difference and how are you at both?
 
A photographer and cinematographer both know: lighting, composition, camera mechanics (f-stop, shutter speed, ISO, etc.). But like you said, the act itself differs. A photographer, particularly a portrait photographer, also is a director. He must elicit an expression from the subject.

You might then say, well a cinematographer might branch out into landscape or product photography (less directing). But my hypothesis is that people tend to like one or the other, photography or cinematography, not both. And so a cinematographer might be able to do photography, but he wouldn't like it. And vice versa.

On the other hand, the machine-gun style of photography ain't that bad, and I would expect it to be quite common even among pro still photographers. I got this great picture of my cat by turning on my TRV900 at 30 frames per second and letting him roll around in the chair --- as is his wont.

kitty.jpg
 
I also had a TRV900 back in the day. I did some alright stills with that camera. That little floppy disk adapter. lol

I think you're pretty on point though. I still like photography, but to do it professionally it's not my thing.
Even though photo and video camera have merged on the lower end, there are still differences in gear and mindset. I never learned strobe photography for one.
Like you said, you have to be a director as well, always looking for every subtle change of expression whether that is a person't face of a something in the background that is slightly off that maybe a production designer would otherwise take care of.
 
roxics said:
I also had a TRV900 back in the day. I did some alright stills with that camera. That little floppy disk adapter. lol

I think you're pretty on point though. I still like photography, but to do it professionally it's not my thing.
Even though photo and video camera have merged on the lower end, there are still differences in gear and mindset. I never learned strobe photography for one.
Like you said, you have to be a director as well, always looking for every subtle change of expression whether that is a person't face of a something in the background that is slightly off that maybe a production designer would otherwise take care of.
Click to expand...


Interesting timing with this discussion because today I worked shooting behind the scenes of a photo shoot and I was reminded of how differently Still Photographers work and approach things. Particularly when using flash, as this photog was today. Because they can deal with contrast in a manner that videographers cannot, Still Photogs are less limited in what they can do and in what sort of setups they choose. One setup today was a subject in full shade with a large ship behind the subject that was white in color and in full sun. For video it was brutal. Just horrible. A setup I would never have chosen for video. But via flash units the Still Photog could place the shaded subject several stops above the white background that, to the human eye, was much brighter than the subject. In this regard Still Photography is much easier than video or even Film. If a Still Photog wants a bright sky 3 stops under the backlit subject they can just use flash to make it so. Via flash a still photog can make a clear sky any shade that they desire. From white without detail ( overexposed ) to black without detail ( underexposed ) and anyplace in between. They can make a noon-time blue sky a deep dark shade of blue that looks like dusk.

One setup was in a room that was so dark that it was difficult to see much with the human eye. But with no more than a flash unit as a key light and another flash unit bounced into the ceiling of the room the Still Photog could create an image where the room was brightly lit. Many of these Still Photogs who are highly skilled at using flash would have little to no idea how to light a room using hot lights. They rarely light with more than 3 units in total and they rarely have to light for movement. That is, they don't have to light for a subject that will move in shot from one point to another. They pretty much just light for the one spot where the subject will be when the shutter is depressed. They very rarely have to light for two cameras or light for a subject that will be seen from two different angles at once. Still Photographers don't have to ride iris and it isn't often that they have to ride focus. Most times their subject is stationary and even when the subject is moving most Still Photogs use auto-focus.

The two worlds- Stills and Video- share many things yet at the same time are completely different worlds. Still photography has far more means of "cheating" and in numerous ways, imo, it is much easier. They don't have to hold a shot for 10 minutes straight. The cameras are featherweight compared to a full sized video rig. They rarely have to deal with large and heavy hot-lights. They don't have to light for movement of the subject. They can deal with contrast far more easily. They can more use shutter speed as an exposure control. They can more easily "paint" things out in post and more easily deal with poor exposure / exposures errors that took place during the shoot.

One thing that doesn't appeal to me about portrait photography and fashion photography is the coaching of the subject and the motivating of a subject that a Still Photog has to perform. All the "Oh, yeah, that's nice. Just like that. Now turn your head back again- OH! Right there, don't move!! That's perfect! You're the best! Oh my god, wait until you see this shot!! You are making my job so easy for me!". Much of that is "bull-sh*tting" someone and having to be a salesman. Having to butter-up a subject and stroke their ego. It can get cheesy if not downright weird when it starts to sound like sex-talk.

Back to what to call what we do, I was never comfortable with "Cinematographer" because to me that applied to work that was going to be seen in a cinema. Or at least applied to narrative work. It just seems a bit highfalutin and pretentious. "Videographer" is a term that applies best to what most of us here do. But "Videographer" is looked down upon as a result of it being used in regard to "Wedding videographer" and for a long time a lot of those guys were hacks with crap gear and doing crap work. Or "Videographer" referred a TV News videographer- again, not exactly folks doing high quality work. "Director of Photography" is what I most use, but using that title seems a bit odd when I am working as a one-man band. Who am I "directing"? Myself?
 
I wear both hats and have learned a lot by doing both still and video work. As JP pointed out, they are different at the professional level. Still photography of people is all about the people first, then the photography. You have to stay in the moment and draw the good images out of some subjects. Video is more about pre planning then being the observer to document. But I always encourage people to do both for these reasons:

Still photography has taught me a lot about image choices. Lens characteristics, working distance, DOF as well as subject interaction and overall subject disposition. If the subject does not look right the most technically perfect image will not work. Being a portrait photographer has really taken me away from being what many "video" folks are which is a camera pointer. I am now way more interactive than when I only did video.

Video work for me is about being on or off. Some jobs like filming sports or concerts mean you are "on" for hours at a time. A still photographer would NEVER work this way. It is like meditation is a way and is imperative to get consistent great results. Film/video is also about flow of motion & time. Stills go for slices where video goes for chunks of time. From this view it is more difficult than still photography when you factor in all of the tech choices like SS, aperture exposure and audio.

Imho, titles are only for crewed shoots. Outside of that you are just getting the job done. Film maker, videographer, DOP, cinematographer, cameraman... They are all the same person in the end. I settle for "video guy" in the end because that is how most people refer to the position outside of the cinema world! :)
 
JP

Coming from stills you will understand my frustration with those pesky little gutless cant light much 2.5HMIs.

Stills flash rocks for lighting ease. Any time you meet a tog who uses hot lights for stills you know they are a pretender :)

And the ease of a having a 16-35, 50, 70-200 on three bodies. Simplicity.

--

As for directing. Well the stills tog works up the shot with the subject.. why dont people do this in video? well the director does, or the solo shooter should.

All that 'looking great darling' is a bit 1974, a grown up shoot is polite, directorial, but not 'pervy'. One works with the model to deliver what the client requires, you are a team.

--

Title wise I came up with 'camera operator' - such a person can operate a still or motion camera, admittedly it downplays my huge abilities* in direction, running a crew and all the rest, but there is no problem over delivering.

DOP? That means (to me) that you can handle, and have experience of, a crew of 5+, delivering pages on time and on budget in close collaboration with the 1ad and director.

Cinematographer means (to me)
a) you have skinny jeans and a poor attitude
b) you are operating on the multimillion feature that you are also DOP of.

S

*or not!
 
Last edited:
I do both, and opt for cinematography, just because I've come to realize I'm capturing motion, or in other words, movement. If I were to break it down technically, I'd say the only real difference it boils down to is the purpose of the shutter. I don't like the spray-and-pray style of photography because it feels like a copout, and ultimately compromises the aesthetic decisions for my shutter setting. Photography captures images. Cinematography captures motion, and the technical differences between both are in how the shutter mechanism (which they both have in common) is used. My 2c.

Nice posts combat entropy, hope you're well man.
 
Of course, the term "director of photography" is just a tradition conferred to us by Hollywood. In other countries, the term "camera operator" is frequently used.
 
DLD said:
Of course, the term "director of photography" is just a tradition conferred to us by Hollywood. In other countries, the term "camera operator" is frequently used.
Click to expand...

That's not really true anywhere in the Western World (as far as I know). For the last fifty years at least, there's always been a pretty clear delineation between the 'operator' (the person physically framing the camera) and the DoP/Cinematographer (the person in charge of the camera/lighting/grip depts).

A slightly more archaic form of the two is 'Lighting Cameraman' (DoP/Cinematographer) and 'Operating Cameraman'. But this these terms were primarily used in the UK.

The DoP/Cinematographer can certainly operate the camera as well (and outside of the USA it would appear that the majority do, most of the time), but 'Camera Operator' isn't an interchangeable term with 'DoP/Cinematographer' it just refers to the one specific job.
 
morgan_moore said:
Any time you meet a tog who uses hot lights for stills you know they are a pretender :)
Click to expand...

You have dreadful timing because just yesterday I learned that Annie Leibowitz is in town to shoot a Vogue spread and she rented hot lights ( HMI's ) from the local rental house. Not sh*tting you.

:)
 
For me, cinematographer/DOP comes with the specific job. I just shot a documentary with a small crew where we actually lit a recording studio with about 25 lights. I had a three person electrical crew and two grips. I did not set lights, I measured and controlled light and metered it, directing the crew where and how I wanted the lights deployed. On that project, I was definitely the cinematographer and when the film is finished, my credit will defintely be DOP. But since I shoot docs and often operate myself, I morph back into a cameraman for most of it. To confuse matters more, I also shoot stills professionally, although not very often anymore. But I still do an occasional portrait session. Usually by myself although sometimes I am lucky enough to have an assistant. I find these titles to depend on who you are speaking with and in the context of the job and the verbiage the clients are comfortable with. I am shooting a single camera interview with next week, probably by myself, maybe with a PA assistant so to me, on that job, it would be kind of pretentious to show up and say, "I am the DOP." It's more like I am the cameraman who will light the interview. To me, you can only be the DOP if you have a crew to direct, even if it's just one or two people. If you do it all yourself, DOP sounds a bit pretentious.
 
Last edited:
Director of Photography sounds archaic to me at this point, and I work in the right industry to hear it a lot. I don't really think about it since no one actually says the whole phrase out loud, just DP. Director of Photographer sounds a bit heavy handed, like its designed to be impressive. Obviously that wasn't so much the case when it was created, but it comes off that way now. So to fail to answer your question, I wouldn't try to explain the difference. We adjust to the market, the market doesn't adjust to us.

This is why I started calling myself a producer. Less work and no nomenclature problems.
 
I've said it before, I think the U.K. term, 'Lighting Camerman', best describes what most of us do, most of the time. DP is the most overused term in our business. I hear it and unless I know someone is talking about a commercial or narrative shoot, I automatically change it in my head to 'cameraman'. I've put together and been in-charge of multi-camera shoots, but I'm not a DP, nor did I really consider myself one, even in those instances. There are plenty of true DP's out there and they deserve the respect that the true title carries, most of the rest are pretentious pretenders that just want their ego stroked.
 
This one is always an interesting discussion when it comes up.

The first three years or so that I was working as a DP (as in, being hired to light and shoot motion work and oversee a crew of varying size) I insisted on calling myself a Lighting Cameraman because I felt that I was too young and not worthy yet of the title of DP. Different times, now that high school students feel comfortable adopting the term!

There have long been message board discussions about the differences between a Cinematographer and a Director of Photography. I had always heard used them interchangeably. The closest distinction I can see is that cinematography describes the craft, and DP is the job title (something like, one can be an artist but specfically a sculptor) but that's splitting hairs. The arguments I've heard about one referring to whether or not you operate the camera are not based in any convention I have heard of, but that may be the case in other countries. When asked what I do by people outside the film industry I tend to say "cinematographer" because of the confusion with the term photography in the other title, as others noted above.

One thing I am a stickler for and that is that a DP/DoP should be the architect of the lighting. Operating a camera while someone else's deals with the lighting doth not a DP make.
 
Dude = Idiot.

Also shows an ego centricity that demonstrates an inability to bond with director, talent and story.

Dudes are never good DOPs.



--

I certainly think DOP has a connection with directing crew, running a department.

A cinematographer might wander the Gobi desert with a single anamorphic chasing natural light and produce something amazing but they are still not a DOP.

Not all productions require a DOP.

Maybe?
 
I personally don't do photography, so I never have any confusion around being a Photographer or a DP. But I imagine happens outside of the industry.

I use the term Cinematographer on my website, because there is little room for confusion, because it's shorter than Director of Photography.

I am not a stickler for what it means to be a DP or Cinematographer. I mean, there are so many ways of working with a camera shooting moving images and telling stories visually. So just because you didn't shoot Blade Runner doesn't mean that you are somehow not worthy of the term DP or Cinematographer...which I have seen people post on this forum before.

Different productions work in all types of ways. So if you are doing a shoestring budget feature with a Producer/Director, a Sound Recordist, one actor, and you are operating the camera, you can call yourself or be called a DP, Cinematographer, or whatever else you like...even if you are not lighting anything nor have a team to oversee.

I don't think there is anything pretentious about any term in and of themselves. They are just titles, mostly important for organizing workflows, signing contracts, and advertising or marketing your services. If you are a person who works as the head of the camera department in any shooting scenario, even if you are the only person in that department, even if it's a very informal shoot, you can call yourself a DP, or a Cinematographer, or whatever else you feel is helpful. The terms in and of themselves don't imply any level of skill or any level of grandeur of crew size or budgets. You can be a novice DP or cinematographer, or an experienced DP or Cinematographer. You can be a bad or good DP or Cinematogrpaher. In my opinion, you can be a Cinematographer in a commercial shoot, or for content, or for music videos, without the final product going to the Cinema.

In the end, it doesn't matter what the term is, it just matters how good your work is, how easy you are to work with, and your reputation. If you focus on those things, nobody within the industry is gonna care that much about what you call yourself or not. Specially nowadays where technologies and budgets and results have allowed no-budget work shot on a videocamera to look just about as good as a 35mm film to most people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top