DP v. Cin - Credits question

M

max99

Member
Hi all,

I just wrapped a short film, and I could use some advice as to credits.

DP(?): This person was brought on as a DP. He brought all the lights, lit every scene and worked with the director and the "Cinematographer" to make sure that we got the look that we wanted.

Cinematographer(?): This person was initially brought on primarily for his camera operation skills. However, he had a DOF adapter and a set of prime lenses. He worked with the director and the DP to block out the action of each shot, selected the best lens for each shot, and helped coordinate dolly and crane movements. Early on, he expressed his preference for a "Cinematographer" credit rather than a "Camera Operator" credit, and I think he well deserves it. (Honestly, he did so much more than just operation.)

I know that most folks use DP and Cin interchangeably, so I thought it was a little odd to use both titles in the same credits. But that's where I'm leaning right now. I need to give the lighting person (DP) higher billing than the camera person (Cin) because that's how we originally conceived the arrangement and I don't want to shy from that. Also, he has much more experience.

Please let me know your thoughts on whether DP and CIN are appropriate credits for these folks or, if not, what you think might be bettter.

Thank you!
 
Thanks long woods!

The lighting guy was definitely more than a gaffer. He had input into each shot and (something I forgot to mention above) helped in pre-production regarding shot lists, ideas and concepts. He helped scout the location and suggest camera placement, etc.

Does anyone thinks it's not a big deal to do the DP and Cin credits in the same film? (This is a 5k-budget short film headed for a few film festivals).

Thanks again!
 
It's not some people that use those words interchangeably. It's an exception not to. If you're sending it out to festivals people will notice, especially since a lot of those people know a lot about film. And you won't have a place to put both on a lot of credit entries elsewhere. Just go with the proper terms. Or give two DP credits if you really feel you have to.
 
Just because the lighting guy knew more then the gaffer or was more help then the gaffer, at the end of the day, he was hired as a grip, the gaffer was hired as a gaffer and the dp was hired as a DP.

If this was my set & the light guy (grip) was to come to my gaffer telling him what to do, I'd tell him to take a hike.

You need to learn your role on set and keep your mouth shut.
 
this is something that really should have been worked out ahead of time. Did your camera cinematographer design the lighting or just operate the camera, because a full credit in the american system the cinematographer designs the lighting and choses the lenses, but often does not operate. In the british system the roles are separate, but the lighting guy is more than just a gaffer. A gaffer is an electrician told buy the cinematographer where to put the light.

If both directly collaborated with the director, there may be a case for a shared credit, or perhaps the titles Lighting Director, and Cinematographer.
 
Thanks for all the feedback! You've definitely confirmed my suspicion that it would look a little too quirky to have both the DP and Cin titles, but maybe I'll look at other shared credit options. It was a great and collaborative shoot all around. The "Cin" gave a little direction on lighting, but mostly the "DP" painted the scene. The DP gave a little direction on the camera, but mostly the Cin worked that out.
 
The one doing the lighting should be titled as the "Lighting Director" it will imply that he did more than a gaffer.

edit: Apparently dop16mm already said this.
 
I've always used director of photography and cinematographer interchangeable, although I always take the title of cinematographer because I believe that director of photography is a little archaic. Back in old Hollywood, everyone wanted the "director" title. There was the director, the director of photography, art director, casting director....so on and so forth. Little by little those titles faded out and it seems like director of photography stuck.

Most cinematographers I know, including every single ASC member I've met has said that the terms are interchangeable. However they did make sure to mention that SOME people (a very small amount) make a delineation between the two, arguing that both a director of photography and a cinematographer are in charge of the electric, grip, and camera deparments but the cinematographer operates the camera in addition to those other responsibilities as opposed to a camera operator.

I am, however, against your idea of crediting your camera operator as a cinematographer. A cinematographer, as I stated before, is in charge of the electric, camera, and grip deparments - they work in close, creative collaboration with the director to establish an artistic sensibility that both suits the script and reflects the vision of the director. A camera operator DOES NOT DO THAT in the slightest. The camera operator works with the cinematographer and director in only one respect and that is composition or framing of the shot. Some cinematographers like having the camera operator's input, others just want them to do what they're told - that relationship varies. At any rate, I am 100% against the idea of crediting a camera operator with a cinematographer credit, and I think you should be too.
 
Thanks for the added input. I'll be working out the issue in the next couple days, so I definitely appreciate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top