Color correction guy turns in unusable work, what would you do?

[Pookie]

I appreciate this, but you're really not listening to anything I've said. You've screwed up my facts and ignored what I've said so many times it's not even worth correcting you.

I think I've identified your problem.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for the CC guy.

 

[CJMVenter]

I think I've identified your problem.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for the CC guy.

Actually, I am the composer for the film and I don't think your assumption is correct. mr_goodbomb is not a difficult guy to work with in my experience. But, then again, I also haven't given him low quality work because I actually care about the work I do no matter what I get paid. If it's a low budget project I'm going to try my best to make it as good as possible so that my own work looks good, too.

But anyway, this CC guy also wanted to master the audio for the movie and do the final mix of all the different audio tracks because he, based on no evidence, didn't trust that I could mix audio despite my having recorded and mixed the entire soundtrack by myself. Keep in mind he was hired to do Color Correction and my job was to handle audio, so basically he was asking to do my job too because he wanted to have total control over the project for some reason.

I gave goodbomb the individual audio tracks as well as a full mix because it's his movie and he should have that anyway but I made it known that I'd prefer the CC guy not try and take over my job. Luckily we had that audio mix for the small premiere we did because the CC guy wouldn't have had anything ready at all.

You guys should see the opening credits he chopped together for the movie. He doesn't even have any attention to credit order conventions let alone aesthetics.

 

[mr_goodbomb]

You guys should see the opening credits he chopped together for the movie. He doesn't even have any attention to credit order conventions let alone aesthetics.

Link removed.

Mind you, he was originally supposed to take some of those tombstones you see in the transitions and apply the actors' names to them in After Effects, but he devised this little sequence to save himself time so he could focus on the color correction. I let it go because the sequence was passable and I wanted him to have the time to do the most with the color work.

He also spelled several actors' names wrong, which he corrected, but didn't correct the credit order. He also shortened the music to the title sequence to suit how long the title sequence he created was. And, honestly, of all the work he did, the sequence is the most acceptable. I just finished watching the film and I have a giant list of things that would need fixed if we intended to work with him to make this acceptable. The majority of the issues are where the blacks are cranked up to the point that all darker areas of the image are solid black, and all white or light areas are harsh and blown out (to the degree that our two black leads aren't visible, and yes, I'll post screenshots of that). The biggest issue, though, is that NOTHING was "corrected." Everything he did was artistic choices, creating a "mood" for the individual scenes and settings. He didn't balance shot-to-shot in order to make shots where color and light values changed between shots, to the degree that, because of his heavy-handed approach to color, the color differences are far more of an issue. So, the job that he was hired to do primarily he didn't bother with, and the secondary, albeit more expressive and "creative" part of his job title, he took to a heavy degree. I also noticed some various transitions and cuts, in both video and audio, that neither I or Venter did. Apparently he didn't feel we did our job well enough and has his own hand at it, knowing that, as per his suggestions, his render was the final export before going to DVD.

I'm rather busy editing a few videos tonight and tomorrow, but I'll get some screenshots together. Apparently I have to quantify that he, in fact, didn't do quality work. Aside from our producer, we've shown the film to a few friends, some of which have no idea what color correction is, and they noticed many of the issues.

 

[Gohanto]

I think I've identified your problem.

I'm beginning to feel sorry for the CC guy.

Yeah...

mr_goodbomb, you're telling your concerns to people that have, like you, all been screwed at some point or another by people who claimed to be able to do work they simply couldn't, or wouldn't, be able to handle.

You learn from this occurrence, and avoid similar situations in the future. Honestly, that's all that's really been said.

And yes, $250 is a small amount of money for professional work. It doesn't matter how much money you make or have in a bank account, professional work costs the same for everyone. It's true some people work cheaper when they're starting out to get contacts, but a lot of those people also will never work as full time pros, because they don't have the skill set, work ethic, talent, ect... Basically, the guys that don't charge professional rates, there's no way to separate "future professional" from "wannabe".

 

[CJMVenter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4qm1ynHSSA

Mind you, he was originally supposed to take some of those tombstones you see in the transitions and apply the actors' names to them in After Effects, but he devised this little sequence to save himself time so he could focus on the color correction. I let it go because the sequence was passable and I wanted him to have the time to do the most with the color work.

He also spelled several actors' names wrong, which he corrected, but didn't correct the credit order. He also shortened the music to the title sequence to suit how long the title sequence he created was. And, honestly, of all the work he did, the sequence is the most acceptable. I just finished watching the film and I have a giant list of things that would need fixed if we intended to work with him to make this acceptable. The majority of the issues are where the blacks are cranked up to the point that all darker areas of the image are solid black, and all white or light areas are harsh and blown out (to the degree that our two black leads aren't visible, and yes, I'll post screenshots of that). The biggest issue, though, is that NOTHING was "corrected." Everything he did was artistic choices, creating a "mood" for the individual scenes and settings. He didn't balance shot-to-shot in order to make shots where color and light values changed between shots, to the degree that, because of his heavy-handed approach to color, the color differences are far more of an issue. So, the job that he was hired to do primarily he didn't bother with, and the secondary, albeit more expressive and "creative" part of his job title, he took to a heavy degree. I also noticed some various transitions and cuts, in both video and audio, that neither I or Venter did. Apparently he didn't feel we did our job well enough and has his own hand at it, knowing that, as per his suggestions, his render was the final export before going to DVD.

I'm rather busy editing a few videos tonight and tomorrow, but I'll get some screenshots together. Apparently I have to quantify that he, in fact, didn't do quality work. Aside from our producer, we've shown the film to a few friends, some of which have no idea what color correction is, and they noticed many of the issues.

Oh, I hadn't heard about the audio edits. That should be um...interesting.

Anyway, I do appreciate that people with a lot more professional background than others require a higher rate.

It's unfortunate that that rate can't be paid on certain budgets and it's certainly going to be a crapshoot of finding talented newcomers but if you realize you can't meet a deadline with at least passable work then honestly you should not get paid anything. Obviously goodbomb is going to have to work this sort of clause into contracts in the future so lesson learned there, but to feel sorry for the CC guy for accepting a job he was totally unfit to do...well that doesn't make any sense now does it?

If you know there's even a good chance that you can't complete a job then you should not take the job period. But maybe he really thought he could get it done and just couldn't. I don't know.

Anyway, I also eagerly await the screenshots.

 

[Gary Huff]

Come on, man. It's obviously not about not wanting to spend more money. It's about being able to spend more money.

250 bucks is a lot to me too.

When you work under the circumstances these low budgets force you into, every penny counts and if the guy took the job and claimed to be able to do it but didn't deliver on time and on top of that unusuable material, it's his fault.

But the point being, how long do you want to work with budgets so low that you cannot even pay a decent wage to someone based on their experience/talent/$$$ equipment purchases required to do the job? What is your plan to stop making $250 for CCing an entire film a huge deal? How many people claim, "Do it cheap on the first one and there will be more money down the road" who are talking out of their ass and don't deliver?

You get what you pay for. If you want to be able to hand the film off to someone who will do the job they are supposed to do (and no more), deliver on time, and deliver a great product, you have to pay for it. None of this, "Can I have a Lexus for the price of a Ford Pinto?" nonsense.

 

[connectivitygroup]

How long is the film?

 

[keylight]

Goodbomb,

You're starting to get pretty combative with people in your posts, people who are trying to help. I think the consensus is that you need to move on. You've got a film that is mostly finished and you're spending time arguing about whether or not $250 is a lot of money. It is to you but isn't in terms of what it costs for CC work (and since that's what you want to buy, you should be realistic about what you'll get if you pay only $250 for something that costs a lot more).

Having said that:

I appreciate this, but you're really not listening to anything I've said. You've screwed up my facts and ignored what I've said so many times it's not even worth correcting you. Thanks for the input. Have a good one, guys.

Well, in the hopes that you'll continue to at least monitor this thread, I'm going to use your own words to address this:

It's a major setback.... What would you do in this situation?

You start off well enough.

I was originally going to supervise him often, but as the original premiere event got closer and closer, I had less and less time.

So you planned to supervise him, but didn't. But later you write:

I was there to supervise until the last few days before the event itself. He basically tried to crush weeks of work, where I was frequently visiting to discuss and take a look at his "samples" though he was never actually doing work on the project, in a few days before the event.

So you WERE there to supervise quite a lot, but he never had any work to show you. This tells me 3 things:

• Either you were doing a horrible job of supervising or you weren't supervising
• It was way too much work to pay someone just $250.
• No progress on work while you're there to guide him should have told you there would be no progress on work when you left to do other things.

I am VERY confused by the next two quotes from you:

He never asked me to come look, and despite my asking for them via email, he never sent me samples.

A month or two ago, I simply told him, "mail in the finished product whenever you get it done, thanks." He asked me to come see it, but he's a good distance away.

If the first quote describes the time BEFORE the event, then that would contradict your assertion that you were there to supervise up until a few days before the event. If the first quote describes the time AFTER the event, then it is direct contradiction to the second quote. So which is it? Reading through all of your posts just now makes me feel like either your story is changing or you're just really bad at explaining things (which isn't a great trait for a film maker to have).

By the way, the 2nd quote roughly translates to: "I used to go see him to supervise the work, but after he missed the deadline, it became unimportant to me." Not a great approach to take.

But then there is this:

I'm wondering how many times I'll have to say I was there for the duration, over his shoulder, short of the two or three days he decided to cram the work into and DIDN'T want me present, before you'll actually read it.

But how could you have been there to supervise and yet nothing got done in all that time? What did you expect him to do in those 3 magical days you weren't there? If he got NO work done (or almost no work) for WEEKS while you were there, you were foolish to think he would get ALL the work done in 3 days while you were gone.

At this point, I'm quite glad I didn't visit. Any criticism was always met with harsh response, and usually ended with me saying "fine, it's ok, no worries."

Translation: "I give up."

I'm sorry, but what EXACTLY could I have done to spend that time "correcting the problem?"

Go out and find someone to do the work that STILL needs to be done.

You have no idea how many clients I've worked with who can't spare $250....

Let me guess. Most of them. Frankly, if your clients don't have the money to pay you a decent price for decent work - THEY SHOULD NOT BE YOUR CLIENTS. Or to put it another way, you get what you pay for.....

because you're clearly not on the same level as the average working man.

Um, that's a pretty insulting thing to say actually. You might try it when looking in the mirror. (Yes, my tone in this post has gotten increasingly combative. Just trying a different approaches in the hopes that you'll get over the whole thing and MOVE ON. You still have a film to finish!)

So if I paid more, and someone did this same thing, acted unprofessionally, turned in work incredibly late, and done unacceptable work, THEN it would be call for alarm?

Surley you realize that the guy you hired was NOT a professional. And the fact that you hired him WITHOUT a contract and paid him in full BEFORE he delivered anything, demonstrates that you certainly didn't act professionally yourself.

I'd like to add that I work a freelance video job fairly consistently when I don't have other work going. It's a 2-hour gig, and then I go home and edit the footage and turn it in. It's $120 per shoot. It's an annoying job for that low amount....

This is a REALLY BIG part of the overall problem. It sounds like you haven't had any real exposure to how things are done. I would spend my time looking for a job working for someone else in the industry. Learn the ropes - the production AND business side of things. Have you ever interned at a production company? Not only is it a way to learn, but it can sometimes lead to paid work.

The issue here is actually just having money to spend on someone else who will do decent work, rather than having burned that money on this guy's lack of anything usable.

Go out and work some extra shooting jobs and save your money(while also looking for an internship). In the mean time, reach out to colorists and get some prices. Tell them about your project, your low income, and your desire to learn. You'll find someone who will take your work for a fraction of what they normally charge if you approach them openly, honestly, and with a real desire to learn. Maybe it'll cost you a few thousand dollars. That's cheap. So keep saving away until you have it. (And if you don't think your film is worth spending that kind of money on, then who cares about finishing it?)

When you've got the money and the right colorist, sit in while he does the work. And supervise, but ask the colorist what he needs to know from you for him to do his job. DON'T ACT LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. Tell the colorist what you hope to achieve and then ask/get their input. Let them explain what they are doing and why they are doing it. Listen to them. Learn from them. Leave with a finished film AND a better understanding.

I'm assuming two things with this last bit of advice. First, that you've found a good colorist who is willing to help teach you a little about the process. There are a lot of people in this industry who enjoy helping others learn so you should be able to find someone

Second, is that you're willing and ABLE to take the advice of others. Your responses to people's posts in this thread started out on the right foot, but your attitude quickly shifted. Most (maybe all?) of the posts here have hit the mark with their advice - at times it was advice which you did not want to hear.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

But the point being, how long do you want to work with budgets so low that you cannot even pay a decent wage to someone based on their experience/talent/$$$ equipment purchases required to do the job?

The short answer is: as long as I'm required to but not a second longer.

Look. Breaking into this business is difficult as hell over here. Moreso than in certain other places.

Here's a rundown of how the Swedish film industry works:
All films are financed by the Swedish Film Institute (SFI), and they get their money from the Swedish government.
They have a deal with the government which tells them how many films, what type of films, what production companies and what film makers to give money to. This deal is re-negotiated every few years and has been since SFI was founded half a century ago.

The basic idea of it all is to only make "quality films". Films made by first time writer/directors, genre films (horror, sci-fi, action etc) and small independent production companies are not "quality films", and there's basically three ways to get funded by the SFI:

1) You're a producer working for one of the handfull of production companies that qualify on the "established" list.
2) You're a writer or director, and you've been granted money by the SFI before (this is what qualifies you as "established").
3) You're an independent production company and haven't been granted money by the SFI before, but you've got documented experience producing feature films for three years already.

All of the above also requires you to already have a distribution deal before you apply.

If you want to shut out first time filmmakers from getting into the industry, you couldn't think of a better system.

So to answer your question, I'll do this on a microbudget with whatever money I can get together with other hard working people who want to break into the business and get a couple of feature films under our belts for as long as I have to.

I don't enjoy not having the cash to pay everyone, but to call it nonsense is just wrong, man.

 

[Ted Ramasola]

I'm also disturbed that the OP mentioned that the "Colorist" was also making VFX, Titles and Transitions. Therefore I think mr_goodbomb hired the "colorist" not just for colorgrading but for much more.

I also viewed the clip posted. Was that a trailer? I think mr_goodbomb that you should post a short clip of the original raw footage that the "colorist" has to grade, I mean, grading can't make miracles if the original material is crap in the first place.

So for the purpose of having something tangible to technically dissect in this thread post a short maybe 1-2 second ungraded footage of a before (your raw material) and after (the "unacceptable" grading done by the colorist)

 

[keylight]

Look. Breaking into this business is difficult as hell over here. Moreso than in certain other places.

It's an interesting system over there. But there is no requirement that all films be financed by the Swedish Film Institute, is there? I mean, if someone else wants to fund a film there is nothing stopping that, right? For example, the low budget work you've been doing isn't prohibited. And if a big Hollywood studio wants to come to you and fund a film, the SFI wouldn't or couldn't block it, would they?

So it seems like you've got 2 different potential sources to finance a film:

1. Industry financing where studios, investors, others... privately finance films.
2. Taxpayer financing.

In the sense that society is helping to fund the arts (which helps society progress), it sounds like a pretty good deal to me. In terms of putting up obstacles to obtaining taxpayer financing for the first time, it's not really any different than Industry financing.

If it's your position that the SFI should be willing to take more risk than the industry, then I would tend to agree with you. I wish we had a similar taxpayer funded source of financing here, but we don't. What we do have is the NEA, which makes almost no contribution to film in the US.
And when it does, it seems the result is that someone in congress hates the resulting work and threatens to cut the NEA budget.

The FY2010 budget for the NEA was a tiny $167M. That's less than the budget for 1 summer blockbuster, or a few small budget studio films. And keep in mind that this money is divided up among ALL the arts. Television (I believe) gets the largest share. Other forms of visual and performing arts get a lot. Films get a just a small slice of it.

 

[Doc Bernard]

Okay, guys, let's tone down the rhetoric a bit. People are getting a bit too hot under the collar. Step back and see if you can see it from the other persons shoes for second. Oh, and just take a deep breath.
M'kay?

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

It's an interesting system over there. But there is no requirement that all films be financed by the Swedish Film Institute, is there? I mean, if someone else wants to fund a film there is nothing stopping that, right? For example, the low budget work you've been doing isn't prohibited. And if a big Hollywood studio wants to come to you and fund a film, the SFI wouldn't or couldn't block it, would they?

So it seems like you've got 2 different potential sources to finance a film:

1. Industry financing where studios, investors, others... privately finance films.
2. Taxpayer financing.

In the sense that society is helping to fund the arts (which helps society progress), it sounds like a pretty good deal to me. In terms of putting up obstacles to obtaining taxpayer financing for the first time, it's not really any different than Industry financing.

If it's your position that the SFI should be willing to take more risk than the industry, then I would tend to agree with you. I wish we had a similar taxpayer funded source of financing here, but we don't. What we do have is the NEA, which makes almost no contribution to film in the US.
And when it does, it seems the result is that someone in congress hates the resulting work and threatens to cut the NEA budget.

The FY2010 budget for the NEA was a tiny $167M. That's less than the budget for 1 summer blockbuster, or a few small budget studio films. And keep in mind that this money is divided up among ALL the arts. Television (I believe) gets the largest share. Other forms of visual and performing arts get a lot. Films get a just a small slice of it.

I just wish they'd support independent filmmakers who try to do something different, genre films and films that young people want to see that can also be sold abroad, and first time filmmakers so we'd get some new blood into the system. That's all.

So people don't have to self finance feature films after film school...

And yeah of course it's perfectly legal to shoot a feature film without their support, and it's easier here than in most places because you don't need permits in public places.

 

[Jawa Ex Machina]

Okay, guys, let's tone down the rhetoric a bit. People are getting a bit too hot under the collar. Step back and see if you can see it from the other persons shoes for second. Oh, and just take a deep breath.
M'kay?

Sure man. Yeah you're right.
No offence intended from my side towards anyone.

 

[mr_goodbomb]

When it comes down to deducing my forum posts like a political debate and people asking for extended clips of raw material to see if it's any good on it's own, I'm not interested anymore. I have nothing to prove here, I paid someone for work and they didn't deliver anything close to even halfway usable output, and even had they done so, they didn't do it anywhere near on time. I don't care what the amount was, that isn't right. They crammed the actual work into a few days, and it's obvious. Of the five people who have seen it so far, each said on their own, without coaxing, that it appears as if they threw presets on so it was obvious that they did something. Of the two months I spend visiting him to discuss and what should have been supervising actual work, those two or three days were the only time I was unavailable, and that's when he chose to do the actual work: last minute. The rest of the time was spent creating examples and discussing. After the event, when I stopped visiting, he was supposed to be DONE. DONE. I can't stress that enough. He's just now getting me a copy to view.

I'm not here to defend myself, my job, my lifestyle, my experience, or my education, and honestly, the fact that that's where people take it is downright petty, and what it has to do with this topic other than attempting to rifle some feathers is beyond me. This is a low-budget film, you do things to get by. It's not for a lack of understanding of "how it's done," it's for a lack of ability to do it within that process, because that process assumes you have money. I'm 25. I don't.

I also viewed the clip posted. Was that a trailer? I think mr_goodbomb that you should post a short clip of the original raw footage that the "colorist" has to grade, I mean, grading can't make miracles if the original material is crap in the first place.

I assume you're just skimming this thread?

No, thank you. This patronizing sort of mentality is of no interest to me.

I've been over the fine details of this and repeated myself enough. I appreciate the comments, and this is where I respectfully bow out. I have nothing to prove and no need to defend myself. I paid money, I didn't get what I paid for, that money has been refunded. To that degree, it doesn't really matter what anyone else would do, because it's been done. If anyone had interest in seeing clips of his "work" out of morbid curiosity, PM me, but I'm fairly certain it's more about judging my output than his, and that sort of spitefulness just isn't something I'm interested in catering to. Hope all is well, have a good one.

 

[simonpwood]

At the price you listed its fairly clear that you did not hire a "color correction guy"; you just hired some guy with a computer, right? Professional color correction guys will be using proper studio equipment, calibrated monitors etc. You wont get a color correction guy at that price (not unless he owes you a favor or something).

We've all done no-budget work at some point, no doubt, so when you are working in those budgets it would be easier to just do the color correction in your NLE program at the same time as the edit is being done. That way you will spend the time to get it done as good as approximately it can be done with limited resources.

For that price you maybe could have bought a Magic Bullet plug in or something; it would never be as good as if a real color correction guy worked on it, but at least you will have the enthusiasm and drive to get it as close as you can. Some guy hired for a few hundred bucks doesent have anything invested in the project, as you've just found out.

 

[Doc Bernard]

Mr_Goodbomb,

I am asking you not to give up on this thread. There is a ton of info here to learn from. Sure, sometimes the info was given in a manner that may have stung. I saw that. I also saw you get defensive.

Very good questions have been asked, though.

1. When you hired him, what due diligence did you do for his hire? (resume, references, asked around, his reel)
2. Asking for samples of the "before" footage is valid. What did the colorist have to work with?

The people here are trying to help you, but they would like to have more info. They are trying to be objective, looking at both sides of the equation. And that's a fair approach.

I saw the opening, though you were unhappy with it, I wasn't the worst thing I ever saw.

 

[keylight]

I just wish they'd support independent filmmakers who try to do something different, genre films and films that young people want to see that can also be sold abroad, and first time filmmakers so we'd get some new blood into the system. That's all.

So people don't have to self finance feature films after film school...

And yeah of course it's perfectly legal to shoot a feature film without their support, and it's easier here than in most places because you don't need permits in public places.

Agree with you 100%

 

[ugafan]

taking at look at this guy might help...

 

[keylight]

When it comes down to deducing my forum posts like a political debate and people asking for extended clips of raw material to see if it's any good on it's own, I'm not interested anymore. I have nothing to prove here, I paid someone for work and they didn't deliver anything close to even halfway usable output, and even had they done so, they didn't do it anywhere near on time. I don't care what the amount was, that isn't right. They crammed the actual work into a few days, and it's obvious. Of the five people who have seen it so far, each said on their own, without coaxing, that it appears as if they threw presets on so it was obvious that they did something. Of the two months I spend visiting him to discuss and what should have been supervising actual work, those two or three days were the only time I was unavailable, and that's when he chose to do the actual work: last minute. The rest of the time was spent creating examples and discussing. After the event, when I stopped visiting, he was supposed to be DONE. DONE. I can't stress that enough. He's just now getting me a copy to view.

I'm not here to defend myself, my job, my lifestyle, my experience, or my education, and honestly, the fact that that's where people take it is downright petty, and what it has to do with this topic other than attempting to rifle some feathers is beyond me. This is a low-budget film, you do things to get by. It's not for a lack of understanding of "how it's done," it's for a lack of ability to do it within that process, because that process assumes you have money. I'm 25. I don't.




I assume you're just skimming this thread?

No, thank you. This patronizing sort of mentality is of no interest to me.

I've been over the fine details of this and repeated myself enough. I appreciate the comments, and this is where I respectfully bow out. I have nothing to prove and no need to defend myself. I paid money, I didn't get what I paid for, that money has been refunded. To that degree, it doesn't really matter what anyone else would do, because it's been done. If anyone had interest in seeing clips of his "work" out of morbid curiosity, PM me, but I'm fairly certain it's more about judging my output than his, and that sort of spitefulness just isn't something I'm interested in catering to. Hope all is well, have a good one.

You ask for advice and opinion.

You got advice and opinion.

You reject advice and opinion.

Did I miss anything?