DP Rates for Feature Films

[OldCorpse]

I have been offered many films over the years, but after specific experiences, I created a rule of thumb for myself: great script or good paycheck. Nearly all that I have been offered fall short in both areas.

One thing I had little interest in was shooting low budget horror films as that is not a genre I care for all that much (and again, I wasn't offered the ones that had intriguing premises--this was more in the "torture porn" era). The interesting thing is that a lot of the DP's who came up that way have been getting the nod now. I was overlooked for "Get Out" because I wasn't a "genre" DP who had worked with Blumhouse before...that was frustrating. What can you do.

Wouldn't mind shooting a feature now but it is hard once you have established as a TV DP, there is some snobbery there. Honestly I'd be just as happy shooting a really strong episodic series, so much good work going on there and you don't have to wait a year for it to come out.

Great answer! Exactly the right attitude, IMHO. I find myself discussing pretty often the practicality of making (super)low budget movies, and naturally the question comes up what to pay the crew, especially the DP. Now, the kind of stuff I discuss is below the level of consideration for someone in Charles Papert's position, since he's a well established pro. But, surprisingly, the rules are exactly the same. Both parties must get something out of it. The producer/director who needs the DP, obviously gets the DP - meanwhile what's in for the DP? Well, if you're a complete unknown just starting out, just having the opportunity to shoot a full feature might be enticement enough (obviosly not someone on the level of Charles Papert); but even so, the DP should still pay attention to the material. If he gets a good paycheck, of course, that ends the discussion - but the world I'm talking about pretty much never has a good paycheck. At which point, the only enticement is the material. If you come across simply brilliant material, especially material that allows the DP to flex some creative muscles, then the check almost doesn't matter.

I find it amusing that Charles Papert never came across such material. I find that 100% believable - great screenplays/film projects are very, very rare. Heck, the vast majority (99.999%) of even made films are quite uninspiring. But there is one other wrinkle in all of this - the DP must be able to tell if the material is any good. And let's be brutally honest - how many DP's have that kind of judgment? As far as I can see, very, very few indeed. How would I know? Simple - look at the great numbers of DP's who have directing ambitions. It's not rare for a DP to get a shot at directing. And yet, the results are in the vast majority of cases, absolutely dismal. Sadly, most DPs have no understanding of directing, as can be seen by the results of their efforts (of course, there are exceptions - and they are rightly celebrated). That tells you right there, that a DP is (usually) not going to be very good at evaluating material - the way a director might. And in fairness, most directors are very poor too (unlike actors - it seems there is a fair number of great actors, whilst very, very few great, or even competent directors).

So, the idea is quite excellent - a DP (and for that matter many other collaborators of low budget features!) should only take on those projects which are worthy (unless well paid). Trouble is, most of the time, how would they know if the material is any good? It's not like their judgment is very good most of the time.

My private opinion is that it's a mistake to shun horror - including torture porn. Horror has often greaters scope for DP to flex their muscles than a lot of drama or comedy. Now, if someone just viscerally doesn't like horror, that's understandable - to each his/her own, and that's a totally valid reason to pass on horror scripts, period. But that means passing on opportunities, be that as it may, a personal choice, which is totally legit.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I personally don't have much interest in the quality of the script of a feature I'm DPing. I'm not the writer, that's not my job. I mean, sure, cool if it's actually good, but that's not going to have a lot to do with the day to day work on set, and since it's a feature, it's too long for me to share the entire movie with many people in any case, and as the DP, I was never really that much in control of the overall quality of the movie in any case. So, I'm more concerned about what I'll be able to do as a DP on the shoot, as well as how well I get along with the cast and crew, the level of professionalism on set, etc. For example, I'd rather shoot a moody movie with a terrible script that I can light and shoot creatively and get shots I'm happy with rather than say a comedy with a great script that the director insists on flat lighting and basic coverage. The latter bores me as a visual artist, even though since it has better content it will be the better movie.

I recently produced and DPed a 48 Hour Film and have been trying to avoid doing comedies for those as I can do more dramatic lighting for dramas. The director and writer ended up coming up with a comedy script and I was lamenting because comedies often call for flat and boring lighting, as it best suits the style of film being made. The writer actually cited Key and Peele saying how comedies don't have to be shot and lit in a boring and generic way, and can have good cinematography like Key and Peele. So, then we go and film the movie, get to one particular scene, I try to make the lighting more moody, and the director says it looks unnatural, and he was right, while more interesting visually, it didn't fit the feel of the comedy movie we were doing so I reverted to less dramatic lighting. Overall, I was not happy with the project, because I spent money producing it and didn't get any shots I liked as a DP, plus most of the comedy wasn't to my liking. I produced and DPed another comedy film recently, and while some of it was shot flat and I don't consider it my best DP work, I was happy with the end result. As a producer, content is much more important to me, but as just a DP, it's primarily about the visuals.

I recently was in talks with another inexperienced producer to do a 38 day $200k feature film. He said things like he thought having a gaffer was a waste of resources since the DP can light a scene, that most of the crew would be made up of volunteers and interns, and he was particularly interested that I owned three Arri Amiras, cause I can imagine having three cameras with no gaffer is a great way to gets lots of coverage with little focus on the visual artistry of filming. The pay was actually going to be pretty decent as I'd quoted him $50k for me with gear for 38 days of shooting (less than my typical day rates but more than I typically make in a 38 day period), but I still wasn't excited about the shoot. Plus, it was going to be 38 days in a row with no breaks. Six hour days, but still. Another thing that concerned me is that he seemed to care more about my equipment than my demo reel.

 

[CharlesPapert]

The reason that I care about the script is that it is very rare that a poor script will result in anything but a poor movie, and that generally means it will have little to no future. So it becomes purely about the experience of having shot it. As I mentioned earlier, most of the time it's both a poor script AND a small paycheck, which also means that the crew will be largely inexperienced, we won't have the time or means to do much interesting work, and so what is really in it for me at that point? Obviously in my earlier years, I didn't really care, just working and shooting was reward enough...but I still was kind of bummed that so little of it got out there and it didn't serve my career other than building my skill set (and honestly, my patience more than anything else, as I was put through the ringer one way or another).

Old Corpse--I'd like to think I have read enough scripts in my life to have some of it rub off on me (and I've punched up quite a few in my day, uncredited of course). Eric--to each his/her own, I feel pretty much the opposite and consider myself lucky to be able to work on hilarious and well-written comedy that probably isn't going to knock people out visually.

There is much, much more I could say about all of this...

 

[OldCorpse]

Fair enough, Charles, you totally might be an excellent judge of the artistic potential of a script - after all, I don’t know you!

Obviously, I’m generalizing based on most DPs. You might be one of those rare exceptions. But still, just based on statistics, if asked to bet my own money, I’d have to bet against. Nothing personal, just pure math. It’s like if presented with a lottery ticket, you’d have to bet it will NOT be a winning one purely based on odds, even if you know nothing about that particular ticket.

Besides, the difficulty is that you’re not just judging the quality of a script abstractly. You’re trying to figure out the script potential in the hands of a particular director, a director who is most often unknown to you. After all, tons of potentially excellent scripts are ruined by poor direction. That’s a tall order no matter how good you are. Even if you’re a good judge of script quality, the end result might still come out as bad. So to ask a DP to sink a lot of time and effort in any such project, is to ask a lot. At some point one has to rely on some degree of trust and intuition. I don’t blame any DP for turning down a project under such circumstances, when the paycheck is not there and the director/producer tries to sell you on the “quality” of the project.

And I totally hear you about the dismal quality of most material out there, it’s atrocious.

 

[Guest]

...For example, I'd rather shoot a moody movie with a terrible script that I can light and shoot creatively and get shots I'm happy with rather than say a comedy with a great script that the director insists on flat lighting and basic coverage. The latter bores me as a visual artist, even though since it has better content it will be the better movie.

Hang over trilogy was shot well. And that DP went on to shoot the Joker with the same director.

 

[bill totolo]

Yes. Most of the "net worth" figures you see on the web are complete conjecture. I have a few actor friends who I have teased about their reported multi-million net worth, knowing that they are living basically hand-to-mouth like most working shmucks!

John Brawley's numbers are pretty accurate, I'd concur at $7-10K a week for most journeyman DP's on good size (union) productions, although thankfully 10% is more common for agent commissions! For a $6 million non-union feature I would expect in the vicinity of $5K a week. Important though to negotiate based on an hourly wage, not a flat fee--we are below-the-line wage workers, have no back end and thus need to be eligible for OT pay. Never take a flat fee unless it works in your favor (i.e. you end up working less hours, which isn't common).

Gear is an entirely separate negotiation and sometimes production will try to conflate the two. Important that they don't look at your overall take as a lump sum and try to negotiate you down. I have the camera packages priced out by the rental house, the producer negotiates the discounts then my gear is broken out from their gear and the same discount applied to all. It's the fair way to do it and protects both you and the rental house from favoritism.

Hey Charles, at what level would you say is the appropriate time to bring in an agent to negotiate on your behalf?

 

[bill totolo]

Great answer! Exactly the right attitude, IMHO. I find myself discussing pretty often the practicality of making (super)low budget movies, and naturally the question comes up what to pay the crew, especially the DP. Now, the kind of stuff I discuss is below the level of consideration for someone in Charles Papert's position, since he's a well established pro. But, surprisingly, the rules are exactly the same. Both parties must get something out of it. The producer/director who needs the DP, obviously gets the DP - meanwhile what's in for the DP? Well, if you're a complete unknown just starting out, just having the opportunity to shoot a full feature might be enticement enough (obviosly not someone on the level of Charles Papert); but even so, the DP should still pay attention to the material. If he gets a good paycheck, of course, that ends the discussion - but the world I'm talking about pretty much never has a good paycheck. At which point, the only enticement is the material. If you come across simply brilliant material, especially material that allows the DP to flex some creative muscles, then the check almost doesn't matter.

I find it amusing that Charles Papert never came across such material. I find that 100% believable - great screenplays/film projects are very, very rare. Heck, the vast majority (99.999%) of even made films are quite uninspiring. But there is one other wrinkle in all of this - the DP must be able to tell if the material is any good. And let's be brutally honest - how many DP's have that kind of judgment? As far as I can see, very, very few indeed. How would I know? Simple - look at the great numbers of DP's who have directing ambitions. It's not rare for a DP to get a shot at directing. And yet, the results are in the vast majority of cases, absolutely dismal. Sadly, most DPs have no understanding of directing, as can be seen by the results of their efforts (of course, there are exceptions - and they are rightly celebrated). That tells you right there, that a DP is (usually) not going to be very good at evaluating material - the way a director might. And in fairness, most directors are very poor too (unlike actors - it seems there is a fair number of great actors, whilst very, very few great, or even competent directors).

So, the idea is quite excellent - a DP (and for that matter many other collaborators of low budget features!) should only take on those projects which are worthy (unless well paid). Trouble is, most of the time, how would they know if the material is any good? It's not like their judgment is very good most of the time.

My private opinion is that it's a mistake to shun horror - including torture porn. Horror has often greaters scope for DP to flex their muscles than a lot of drama or comedy. Now, if someone just viscerally doesn't like horror, that's understandable - to each his/her own, and that's a totally valid reason to pass on horror scripts, period. But that means passing on opportunities, be that as it may, a personal choice, which is totally legit.

I think its fair to say that you'll do your best work when you have a personal connection or affiliation for the project at hand.
At least that's true for me. Whether material is good or bad is subjective. Whether or not I'm motivated by it is not.

 

[Greg_E]

There is much, much more I could say about all of this...

Have you ever considered writing a book about your path and experiences? Might be interesting reading for some of us. Think something similar to "Rebel Without a Crew" type of book.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Hey Charles, at what level would you say is the appropriate time to bring in an agent to negotiate on your behalf?

I negotiated my own deals as a Steadicam operator for many years and got pretty good at it, but it sometimes required playing serious hardball with the line producer. One time I remember that guy coming up to me a few weeks into the shoot and saying "hey, you turned out to be a nice guy. When we were making your deal you kind of seemed like a dick". I patted him on the back and said "what a coincidence, I thought the same about you". He looked a little shocked. That was fun.

The difference with making the DP deal is that I have to immediately roll up my sleeves and start working with the line producer on the budget and trying to get as much for my three departments in terms of gear and personnel as possible. If we start in an adversarial tone from a bitter negotiation, that makes it tough. There was a short period some years ago when I was in-between agents, when I took a feature and did my own deal. I needed to re-negotiate during the run of the movie as things changed, and it got rough in the heat of battle, and then the guy pulled some real childish crap on me to put me in my place. Never again.

If you are able to make the deal you are happy with and it doesn't seem to be affecting your relationship with the people you are working with, keep doing it as long as you can. An agent will sometimes get you meetings and introductions for jobs that you might not otherwise, but especially at the beginning that's a crap shoot at best.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Have you ever considered writing a book about your path and experiences? Might be interesting reading for some of us. Think something similar to "Rebel Without a Crew" type of book.

Maybe if I leave the industry! The really good stuff would require naming names!

 

[Greg_E]

Maybe if I leave the industry! The really good stuff would require naming names!

True enough, seems to always be the case in this industry. But I bet a lot of good times as well and probably a lot of good information for productions.

 

[John Brawley]

Oof man, that's a tough deal...here in the states our standard union contracts (which are essentially mandated by state labor laws) have us on 1.5x after 8, 2x after 12. There are exceptions here and there but that's the basic math.

Charles I'm local 600, a US born dual Australian / US citizen. Last few shows I did were for FOX in Atlanta, Fox 21 in Dallas and Universal Cable Productions in Chicago, and currently Hulu / Disney in the UK.

I just looked back at my last few deals and the rate is always the weekly rate as inferred previously for an up to 14 hour work day, but a 12 hour scheduled day is what's expected. There's an overtime rate after 14 hours or for a sixth day or broken turnaround. Also bumps for travel days and for pre / grading etc.

Last few shows I've done for FOX, they have a good rule. At 13 hours after call on a 12 hour scheduled day (not including meal) they say wrap. I once had an AD call cut in the middle of a take at 13 hours. I think it's a good rule, but I know many many shows shoot 14 and 15 hours regularly. Weirdly to me, crew seem to WANT the overtime most of the time and complain about having to stop at 13.

It's a particularly American disease to work more than 12 hours regularly. I'd never heard of the disgusting invention of the "fraturday" till i started working in the US. Luckily I haven't had too much experience with those because I've had pretty good production teams.

In the UK where I work now it's a 12 hour day or they have 10 hours continuous days (same rate) but no lunch break. You just keep working and eat when you can but after 10 hours it's dead. You also have to "ask" the crew for overtime, and on a friday night you sure won't get it.

In Australia a 10 hour day is normal, and rarely do you do overtime.

In the US, though it's 12+ as normal. So bad for everybody's health and I really don't think your'e making good decisions after 12 hours anyway, you're less productive and alert, let alone the impact on home life.

Still, my deal, which seems to be a standard HOD set up on the last few network shows I've done, is that you're "bought out" in terms of hours because the rate is so good and you're not really on timesheets, other than if you break turnaround or do more than 14 or an sixth day. I mean you do time sheets but you get the same rate of pay, because you rarely go past 14 hours...usually only for a scout or grading.

I've only been able to recently et productions to pay for grading time. Sounds like a lot of DP's don't even go to grades, or do it via notes / stills. Maybe if we all got paid we would go more. I always go to a grade. I had one producer tell me the studio flat out refuse to pay DP's for grades so they would pay me an occasional saturday / sixth day as the only way around it.

Agent AND manager! Above the liners have that here but I don't think I know of any below the liners that have a manager. Interesting!

Yes it's good model, essentially you have a team of people. A manager tends to be more strategic and for me, because I also occasionally produce and direct, it's good for developing other IP.

Hey Charles, at what level would you say is the appropriate time to bring in an agent to negotiate on your behalf?

The way I do it is the agent ALWAYS negotiate the rate. That way they are always the "bad cop" and it keeps you at arms length from the discussion. Even if I'm doing a favour short film for an actor, I still get the producer to deal with my agent. That's the arrangement I have. They get a % of everything, and they negotiate on everything, big or small.

This way all my discussion with the production is never about my rate or conditions, only about the job itself.

On union shoots where do you draw the line as far as equipment rentals? E.g. if you and your 1st AC both own the exact same lens sets, do you walk away with the rental fee because of your seniority? I imagine people would be pretty upset if one person tried to take absolutely everything from the rental budget just because they owned lots of equipment?

Is it frowned upon for certain positions to accept rental fees for pieces of equipment outside their department? For example, if the DP owned a Ronin 2 gimbal set up, would that be stepping on the toes of gimbal operators trying to get their own equipment on the shoot? Or a DP bringing a pair of titan tubes is fine, but getting the rental fee for 40 tubes on a shoot is taking it too far?

Many studios have rules about this. Fox for example, won't allow more than 15% of the toal camera budget to be made up by sub hires under the primary vendor. So the last show I did the budget for camera was in the ballpark of 25K per week for camera gear. No more than 15% of that amount can be made up by prestons, monitors, tripods or whatever the crew are bringing, including my own gear.

I generally try to tolerate it, but I actually don't like my crew loading the job too much. Firstly it's often stuff I don't realllly want, but more that the crew want to make some money on. In a busy town like Atlanta for example when I was crewing my last show there were 92 union shows SHOOTING when I was trying to crew. If you're trying to hire a top shelf focus puller, they will likely own a preston. I prefer a WCU, so if the first AC asks and finds they can't hire THEIR preston on, either because I don't want it, or there's a limit on the amount of gear they can hire on, then they tend to walk to another show.

I dislike the dynamic that tends to set up, but it's unavoidable in the US system where everyone is making extra bucks on gear hire, no matter if you want it or not ! The only things I every hire on are usually the kinds of specialty items that a Panavision or Keslow doesn't tend to carry.

So in the corporate world I typically go off of day rates for equipment rental, two days is twice the cost of one day, three days is three times the cost, etc. But for longer rental days, like a 10-40 day feature film shoot, daily rental rates are expected to be reduced. What is standard in these terms? Say an Amira with a tripod and SmallHD monitor at $1500 per day for a corporate job, what would the rental be for a 20 day six million dollar union feature?

In the US I typically see an 80%-90% discount to main unit. I don't know how they keep making money and this is another reason I don't like sub hiring too much crew gear. I want the vendor to be sustainable and to have the support, but at those kinds of discounts I don't know how they do it. Typical US TV camera packages are between 15-25K per week depending on the number of cameras, second unit etc. Often the producers crunch the vendor hard on the main unit and forget to ask for a similar deal on dailies and second unit and that's when the vendors can make some money back.

JB

 

[Greg_E]

Remote TV sports is a 10 hour standard day.