Lazy Cinematography?

jambredz

jambredz

Veteran
With the tremendous advances in tech in these cameras nowadays I feel that more and more people who call themselves cinematographers have the tendency to moan and groan even more. I love the art of lighting and these modern cameras have features, especially Dynamic range that's never before seen. Alot of people seem to just want to set up the camera and let the camera shoot the scene. Ok so your camera may not have the Dynamic range of an Alexa but how about lighting the scene to put the scene into your camera's range. Add light here...flag light there...soften light elsewhere. It seems alot of people are lazy. And no i dont think you always need a truck load of $$ and lights... but I do think you need truck load of grip equipment/light modifiers (which should be relatively cheap to rent). Sometimes its about having the right modifiers and not a big ass HMI. Just something I was thinking about.
 
Not THAT uncommon for a cinematographer to not even operate the camera in "real" cinematographer world. Pointing the camera at something and operating it has very little to do with cinematography. That's a "camera operator". Sometimes the cinematographer does do that job, but it's not integral to his job description. Most people who CALL themselves cinematographers are actually camera operators, and often not very good ones.
 
Hey Gonzo...I def know that alot of high end Cinematographers barely even touch the camera :) . But the ones I like actually operate (Roger Deakins, Wally Pfister, Chris Doyle to name a few). I also know lighting is only one part of cinematography...but I was just touching on the aspect that I think all these camera nowadays are very good if people took the time to put that camera into the camera's dynamic range. Too many times I see "oh it sucks in low light"...uhm then add a light...or highlight clipping argument. I mean these are all valid, but damn...scrim the light or flag the thing. I know not all cases are controllable but with some good light modifiers and some knowledge there should be waaayy less complaining.

lol yeh its true ...alot of people call themselves Dp's are really cam ops@ Gonzo

Very True Gary
 
You all just be glad you never worked as a gaffer for one of these "lazy cinematographers".. I have.. and I quit when I realized he didn't know color temperature, nor the fundementals of lighting - and expected Me to design the lighting. God knows I'll do A LOT for a production, but I will not, as a gaffer, do the work of a cinematographer, only to have the wannabe-DP get the credit for it.

I'm telling you, documentary filmmakers gone DP are dangerous.
(Or perhaps I just whine a lot?)
 
My favorites are the folks that add Director of Photography as their title but couldn't shoot their way out of a dark paper bag.
 
As much as you want to do a lot, some of the best DP's I've worked with would have the most simple setups. Some with just one light placed in just the right spot.

Often it's those who know when they don't have to do anything at all are often the best.
 
Laziness is good. A lazy person invents the wheel because they are bored of dragging logs. With the freed up time they then get down to some creativity and art.

To qulalify that I really like the second half of this .. http://www.fstopacademy.com/listen-2/black-magic-camera-john-brawley-interview/

Talking about the less 'machinery' on set the better the performances.

I think people forget that with a limited time on set too much tinkering with lights eats into the performance time.
 
Last edited:
Being a good cinematographer to me is also when to shoot, the time, framing and how it looks best. Yeah you can use these lights, flag that or this but the shot still doesn't look right. I think a better example would be to show some footage and how it was done.
 
I love lazy. Lazy everything. Lazy is a sign of intelligence. There's always an infinite amount of busywork for those who like senseless activity. Lazy means you understand the most important relationship of Effort vs Output. Lazy people find the least effort to achieve the result - it's called efficiency. That's what built civilization. "Don't be lazy, go plow that land with your bare hands!" "No thanks, I'm too lazy - I'd rather hook up a horse to a plowshare".

"Hey, don't be lazy, go light that scene with a thousand lights, put up flags, scrims, reflectors, blah, blah, blah"
"No thanks, I'm too lazy, I'll just use available light and practicals"
"Bbbbut you're lazy! Haven't you seen how to light a scene? What, you've never seen a Universal film?"
"Hey, grampa, it's not the 50's anymore, no need to light the scene like we're on a set with no ceiling needing to blind the talent and burn down the stage"

And so on. Maybe some need ten trucks full of lights. Others - the lazy ones - just need creativity... the scene will look different and have different aesthetics (have you heard it's not the 1950's anymore?) and our artistic sensibility has moved on so we give the audience credit for understanding that sometimes a low-lit or lo-fi grungy look is just what the doctor ordered. OK, so some need a million dollar camera and five million bucks in lights and grip gear before they feel confident enough to even attempt to light a scene. Others just need a good eye, a good brain and the creativity to make magic happen out of a $500 camera and NO lights. Guess who'll get to make more movies.

Times, they are a'changin'. Yeah, yeah, grampa, we know all was better back in the day when you were young, and kids these days with their cheap cameras should get off your lawn! Kids have no respect for the hard earned knowledge of DP's who needed a million watts just to expose the tip of a nose - plus they had to walk 10 miles barefoot to school, all up hill, both ways.

Yeah, time moves on, technology moves on, artistic sensibility changes. So what to do? Adjust and adapt, or cry and live on old memories? Everybody will answer it their own way. Never stop learning. Out with the old, in with the new. Today's kids with the cheap cameras will become tomorrow's old men... and guess what... they'll complain about "kids these days" - it's been true since we climbed down from the trees - "kids these days want to crawl into caves and light fires and cook - what about chasing lizards in the tree branches and chewing them raw like we did? Kids have weak teeth these days and are lazy, that's what! They have lost the knowledge of how to hunt tree-frogs - all that precious knowledge lost, lost by these lazy kids!".

Having said that, for my own production, if you offered me one of those lazy kids "cinematographers", I'd kick your a$$ so hard your head would spin. Only people who understand light and how to use it to create images need apply - in other words, professionals, not kids with no experience. But to each his/her own.
 
One of the big issues I see in the emerging barrage of newly self-appointed cinematographers is a uniformity of style. Rather than emulate the masters, they would rather recreate the latest flavor-of-the-month internet video (sliders, shallow depth of field, Magic Bullet) so it all becomes interchangeable. While it's great to develop your own "look", it's truly valuable to be able to change up styles for a given project. Sometimes it is so far from one's own preferred aesthetic that it can be challenging to the point of frustration, but that's why they call it "work"...! For the recent web series "Burning Love" I was asked to duplicate the look of "The Bachelor", which is quite far from my wheelhouse. Interesting challenge, whole new approach--great exercise for the chops.
 
OldCorpse said:
Having said that, for my own production, if you offered me one of those lazy kids "cinematographers", I'd kick your a$$ so hard your head would spin. Only people who understand light and how to use it to create images need apply - in other words, professionals, not kids with no experience. But to each his/her own.
Click to expand...

Are you completely unaware of the irony of negating your own point?
 
At the risk of sounding blindingly obvious....It's something you have to have an eye for, regardless of "to light or not to light."
 
I just want to say that in any creative or artistic profession, there will be people who attempt to be a professional but won't live up to expectations. This can be someone trying to pass themselves off as a cinematographer or those who simply don't have it. With all artistic endeavors, there are many styles and approaches one can take. So keeping an open mind to style is important. Sometimes ugly cinematography is the right cinematography. However, despite looking good or bad, the right cinematography is typically not the result of laziness.

When I discuss laziness, I am not talking about physical effort, as in setting up 1 light versus 20, as some have previously in this thread. I'm talking about not putting in the thought and then the appropriate effort to make the proper imagery that best tells/supports the story. Why do you think Emmanuel Lubezki sometimes uses big studio lighting, and sometimes natural light?

Camera technology in no way is changing the need for lighting, it just changes how much you need and how it's produced. The use of natural light is great, but it's not always right. Camera technology is making it so latitude and exposure are not as big of an issue as it was in the past. Thus freeing the cinematographer from having to fight some typical battles of exposure. But that does not remove the DP from the responsibility of aesthetics. What direction is the light coming from? What is lit and what is not? What color is the light? What quality is it? Hard? Soft? All of these variables are beyond camera technology and no amount of DR, resolution, framerate and ISO can solve.

Natural light, can at times, can offer the lighting direction, quality, and quantity which is good for the story, and when it does, use it.

Anyhow, every profession known to man has people who attempt and fail to be successful. This can be from lack of natural talent, education, or passion. Who knows. Yes, the title of cinematographer is something anyone can bestow upon themselves, you don't even need a camera! However the proof is in the footage. Let them call themselves a cinematographer, let them be lazy, bad and fail.
 
Last edited:
Gary Huff said:
Are you completely unaware of the irony of negating your own point?
Click to expand...

I'm not negating my own point - note, how I said "to each his/her own", and for me, I prefer a cinematographer who has intimate knowledge of lighting... the reason being, that even if I can't afford many lights, a knowledgeable DP will give me the kind of results I'm looking for. In other words, it's not just about "a lot of lights", or "few lights", it's about how you use lights, whether a lot or none. The lazy kids gravitate to natural light simply because they don't have the depth of knowledge how to handle subtle lighting - nothing wrong with that, you get the "low/no budget, grungy" style that's popular for many these days, but I like something different. So to each his/her own. Or are you going to tell me that I am only allowed to like one thing? I'm not saying my taste is somehow better - that's the difference. The debate I see is between people saying "my taste is better", "no MY taste is better", and I am not playing this game - I have my taste, not better or worse. I just happen to be very interested in visuals, so unfortunately I can't use just some kid whose only DP experience is a couple of weeks with a dslr - I'm not saying my taste is better, just that I need a DP who can work with my taste and it just so happens that unfortunately it's DP's who have a lot of wide experience (bad luck for me). To each his/her own.
 
OldCorpse said:
The debate I see is between people saying "my taste is better", "no MY taste is better", and I am not playing this game - I have my taste, not better or worse.
Click to expand...

You start off by saying that being "lazy" is great, and then turn around and say that you'd never hire anyone like that. So since you won't put your money where your mouth is, you negated your own point.

People say they like stuff that is really devoid of any kind of craft or talent all the time. You might say that makes it legitimate, but I'd prefer to see where the hard earned money is spent, and it's not on movies that have DPs who don't setup lighting.
 
Gary Huff said:
People say they like stuff that is really devoid of any kind of craft or talent all the time. You might say that makes it legitimate, but I'd prefer to see where the hard earned money is spent, and it's not on movies that have DPs who don't setup lighting.
Click to expand...

I dont know why you think that amount of kit and craft go hand in hand

The expert in the craft will get the required result in the most efficient manner, the required result - not a sub par result.

So many arguments here are too extreme, the experts will be lazy/efficient in what they do and that might be less lighting on occasion than is the tradition which was built around slow films stocks

If a camera is clean at 800 there is no need to ND it down to 320 (for example) and carry on as before..

S
 
I think the term "lazy" is being wrongly applied here by many posters. It's not an issue of using available light vs a truckful of lights. A seasoned and talented DP can go either direction as they choose and as the project and particularly scene dictates. An inexperienced DP is better off with the available light scenario than attempting to light because chances are they may just waste time and end up with lesser images to boot. Where the laziness comes in is when minimalism is the only trick in one's book, because one has not yet put in the time to learn how to shoot any other way. Ryan's post describes all of this very well.

In two hours I start shooting a pilot and my first location has large windows all down one side. I intend to shoot two angles of coverage (windows behind and windows to the side) with little to no additional lighting, adjusting the blinds to shape the light. It's an efficient scheme for a hugely ambitious schedule, and will look nice to boot. When we turn around and face the windows, the truck will begin to empty, as I will work 6K's and M18's into bounces and through diffusion to wrap the window light around. A lower-budget production relying on house-powered units would require a different approach, i.e. avoid shooting into the windows by changing the blocking, or simply allowing them to blow entirely, or perhaps expose for the windows and allow the subject to go dark. Neither would suit the project, so I ordered what I'll need to make it look right, as I see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top