Lighting an indie film.. how long?

Once i was hired to do a few days of behind-the-scene works on a feature film - first time director, first time DP on a feature etc... The scene was as simple as it gets: a few people around the table picking their food. It was lit with 2 lights... one 300w over the table and a kino on a stand to give some fill. ....It took them 5 hours. The set (mind it was $700k production so everyone besides the higher ups was a pro) was so comical on at least a few occasions i almost burst out laughing as i watched this first time director talk gibberish to this first time DP with experienced but not too enthusiastic gaffer standing nearby. They got the shot then broke for lunch. Then i realizes the show was just a b-roll cut away... You should see my face when i learned that after lunch those two geniuses will attempt to shoot a complex scene with 7 people talking... and sure enough they ended up putting one actor against another like soldiers trying to squize them all into their wide angle lens.

At the end of the day, grossly over schedule, they walked around blaming each other not able to notice that it was this mix of their total inexperience that made it happen.
 
OldCorpse said:
There is a very old tradition when it comes to handling cinematographers. You fire them. Often times, the DP was fired not for any fault at all, but because the director needed to establish authority over the crew. So what a director would do when he had a crew respect problem: fire the DP. It's a tradition as old as the movies. Perhaps not fair, but very effective. Now, you actually have grounds for firing the DP! That's what I'd do. Of course, there may be other issues - he may be someone's friend, or whatever, so you must account for that. But the guy sounds eminently fireable - his competence puts your production in jeopardy and he's demoralizing your whole team, including actors. An actor is far, far, far, far, far more vital to a production than a DP - if it's ever a choice between the two, the DP gets shot down faster than you can bat an eye. An audience will easily overlook or forgive bad lighting, but will be far less forgiving of a bad actor. Or, if we confine this just to technical people, bad sound - it's more important to get the sound right, from an audience point of view, than the lighting. Now, it's hard to believe - and we all, myself included are a bit heads over heels in love with things photographic and so we tend to overvalue the "look", but the hard reality is: DP's are less important than the actors.

Fire his @$$ pronto. In front of everybody. Assert control over your production, the sooner the better, you don't want him to shoot too much footage, it's easier to fire the clown early on.
Click to expand...

I've got nothing significant to add other than to attach a +1 to Old Corpse's post! Fire him and fire a fast cameraman before you're in too far! But yeah, don't do it in front of the crew....they will just be glad to know hes gone in the end.

I've actually been the guy that has come in on a film after the original DP was fired. It worked out perfectly, and was done early enough in production that really only one big scene and a few little insert vignettes ended up in the finished film. You could tell a difference in the two lighting styles for sure, but we got away with it.
 
Last edited:
Azmyth said:
How long should it take to do setups?

Lets say you were shooting a night interior in a bedroom..

and you had access to several softboxes, several open face lights, and several other production lights.. at what point would it be running "too long" just to setup ONE setup of lights?

On average how long does it take to setup lights for a small interior scene?
Click to expand...

The question you have to ask... well two... "Does the DP, working slowly, get the shots/look you want?", or "does the DP, working slowly, fail to get the shots/look you want?".

If the shots/look are what you want, or as close as possible given your time/budget... then perhaps some scheduling is required so that talent is not waiting around for the DP to 'get the lights right'.

On the other hand, from the Wife's still photography business, the only couple she shot that had the 'right attitude' for working with her, was a couple were the groom was an actor... he rented an RV, had a makeup artist hired for the day, and basically had a 'nice place' to wait or retreat to, during the day 'bridal shoot'... his attitude was 'everything takes longer on a set', and he especially wanted 'good photos'... and was willing to make the effort to get them.

Others are less patient with the process... and sometimes that affects the attitude during the the shoot...

Since I personally work mostly in available light, the few occasions where I have used lights, I've gotten the setups done in about 30 minutes. Of course in these efforts I'm both Director and Photographer... If I were to hire/acquire DP services... I would have to be very careful that the person's 'reel' matched my desired style, and perhaps even do some 'work' during either rehearsals or auditions to see if we worked well together... I'm sure some 'pros' may be put off by such an approach... well, tough...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
The question you have to ask... well two... "Does the DP, working slowly, get the shots/look you want?", or "does the DP, working slowly, fail to get the shots/look you want?".
Click to expand...

Correct. A slow-moving DP who gives you fantastic pictures will be more expensive than a fast-moving one, but if the latter gives you inferior work, is it worth the trade-off?

The DP on the shoot I just finished gives me bee-you-ti-ful pictures, but they take time. I just use the extra time to work with the actors. I know that when he calls me in to approve the shot, I'm going to be very happy, so it's completely worth it.

It's as much about trust as anything. I may check my watch while he's setting up, but I know what the result will be once it's done.
 
Michael Traven said:
OldCorpse, in what universe is being a truly s---ty person justified by being a truly talented artist?

You don't need to be an a**hole in order to be talented, and being talented doesn't automatically make you an a**hole. So the only difference between being a nice guy and being an a**hole is that at the end of the day, the nice guy has friends.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand. I'm not justifying bad behavior - I certainly try to never be a jerk to people - I'm just saying that it's super common and the reality out there. And talent or the lack of has no connection with how nice or not-nice a person is. None. What I'm saying is that results are what counts in this town. If you can deliver in your field, be it producing, agenting, being an executive, a director or actor, then you work, period, regardless of how nice you are or how big an a-hole you are. It's the only thing that counts. Because otherwise you wouldn't have monsters who are famous for being super abusive, like Scott Rudin or any number of others whose extreme abusiveness toward subordinates is legendary. I think we all can think of famous extreme cases of actors or directors etc. Yet these people keep working. Ask yourself why. Hint: they deliver. Now, do you need to be a jerk to do so? Of course not. There are plenty of super nice people who also deliver. My point is that you can't focus on the a-holery as determinative of success. There is no connection.

Speaking of "not working with a-holes" - thank your lucky stars you can afford to. I don't know how it is in the other markets, I can only speak of what's happening here in Los Angeles. I have a friend who books private homes for shoots here, and I've also been on several such shoots and have had a lot of opportunities to watch many crews work. In the last couple of years, especially last year, let me tell you, the situation is grim. People are scared. Work is tough to come by. Do you know what the crew folk talk about constantly? Getting the next paying gig. Who heard of anyone hiring and where. And crucially: you cannot afford to eff up in your job, because you'll be replaced at a drop of a hat and have trouble getting work later on. There is a huge oversupply of willing highly qualified crew people, and too little work. I am pretty impressed with the caliber and professionalism of the crews that I saw - nobody can afford to be less than very good. Of course, this is at the pro level productions and not completely amateur "buddies and girlfriends" indies. So if you can turn down work in your market, you're lucky. It doesn't look that way here. Maybe it'll pick up again, but I kinda think this is the new norm.

Bottom line: deliver. Whatever you do, deliver. And there is no time for incompetence or drama - most people are replaceable. So do good work, because it's the only thing that'll keep you working long term.
 
I dont know how relevant this is but here goes..

Ive been working on a zero budget short with a friend for over a year (yes you read right).

Im dping, hes directing and stars in some scenes. It is literally the two of us as crew. Were using 5d and my lights and audio gear. Weve gotten into a pattern where first setup usually takes 3-4 hours. Thats from unloading gear from my car to ready to shoot. BUT, we almost always use more than three lights, and there is usually a lot of crazy flaggage everywhere. Also, we schedule actors to arrive close to when were ready to shoot. And there is no other crew. So thats that
 
3-4 hours to load and setup the entire scene and gear is fine.. 3-4 hours JUST on 3 lights is not.
 
What did he DO with those three lights? Were they just set on stands and that was it? Were they controlled by all sorts of grip gear? Where/how did the time get spent?

Ps i like that..."buddies and girlfriends indies." Im gonna use that.
 
I know it can be tough to fire people you have worked on other projects with. But he's not paying, it is only costing you money, your decision seems correct.
 
maranfilms said:
I got to say Azymuth, from what you post, test wise. You seem perfectly capable to dp your own film, I think you would be better off. It seems this dp your working with has caused some grief. May be worth looking for another, or as I suggest, you can do it yourself. Of course it will be a bit more work on your end, because you will still need to work with the talent, but a good 1st ad can handle a lot of the load. And what he can't, a 2nd can.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Paul Hudson said:
Old Joke...Why doesn't your DP smoke? Because it takes him four hours to light it. (Insert rim shot) Sorry I couldn't resist.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between a DP and God?.....


....God doesn't think he is a DP!!!


Hey, alright.... don't forget your bartenders and waitress'!!!! (Sorry, I had to).
 
I agree that a big part of your decision should be if he is putting out work of the quality you want. But that being said, it sounded like he wasn't a very nice person to work with on set. Those are the worst for a set. There are people who can bring the whole moral of the crew down and really make the shooting grind to a halt.

It may be worth trying to have a talk with him about both his behavior and time constraints as well. Just a nice conversation about his on set manner and time issues can do wonders (depending on what type of guy he is, of course)

Also, I see you are from GA as well. Good to see some more local guys!
 
Azmyth said:
Ha! good one!

Yeah the plan now is to DP it myself with the help of my 1st AD/AC and my 2nd AD. There's no reason we can't do it ourselves in 1/4 of the time.
Click to expand...

You must do what you feel is right, of course...

But if you want to take this seriously and be taken seriously, I would suggest you rethink your plan and look into getting someone else on set to DP. Even if it's someone who's not quite as good as you are, if you want to direct, you need to direct, not light. If you do both, they'll both suffer. But if you get someone else, you can still use your talent to guide them, make suggestions or even commands if you need to, while still focusing on directing.
 
I actually agree with that. Directing is a full time job. So is being a DP. Now, I know that in the ultra-low budget or no-budget indie production it's all about every person doing five jobs for the simple reason that you can't afford/find anyone else to pitch in. And so yes, it's possible to direct, produce and be a DP and cam operator and gaffer and first AD all in one person, but odds are every job will suffer. These situations happen especially on newbie productions, and that's the worst time to saddle a new director who doesn't have vast experience, with extra jobs. Of course, if there's no way out, then roll with it. But if there is any way to find another DP so you can concentrate on directing, do so. Just my 02 cents. Good luck!
 
OldCorpse said:
I think you misunderstand. I'm not justifying bad behavior - I certainly try to never be a jerk to people - I'm just saying that it's super common and the reality out there. And talent or the lack of has no connection with how nice or not-nice a person is. None. What I'm saying is that results are what counts in this town. If you can deliver in your field, be it producing, agenting, being an executive, a director or actor, then you work, period, regardless of how nice you are or how big an a-hole you are. It's the only thing that counts. Because otherwise you wouldn't have monsters who are famous for being super abusive, like Scott Rudin or any number of others whose extreme abusiveness toward subordinates is legendary. I think we all can think of famous extreme cases of actors or directors etc. Yet these people keep working. Ask yourself why. Hint: they deliver. Now, do you need to be a jerk to do so? Of course not. There are plenty of super nice people who also deliver. My point is that you can't focus on the a-holery as determinative of success. There is no connection.

Speaking of "not working with a-holes" - thank your lucky stars you can afford to. I don't know how it is in the other markets, I can only speak of what's happening here in Los Angeles. I have a friend who books private homes for shoots here, and I've also been on several such shoots and have had a lot of opportunities to watch many crews work. In the last couple of years, especially last year, let me tell you, the situation is grim. People are scared. Work is tough to come by. Do you know what the crew folk talk about constantly? Getting the next paying gig. Who heard of anyone hiring and where. And crucially: you cannot afford to eff up in your job, because you'll be replaced at a drop of a hat and have trouble getting work later on. There is a huge oversupply of willing highly qualified crew people, and too little work. I am pretty impressed with the caliber and professionalism of the crews that I saw - nobody can afford to be less than very good. Of course, this is at the pro level productions and not completely amateur "buddies and girlfriends" indies. So if you can turn down work in your market, you're lucky. It doesn't look that way here. Maybe it'll pick up again, but I kinda think this is the new norm.

Bottom line: deliver. Whatever you do, deliver. And there is no time for incompetence or drama - most people are replaceable. So do good work, because it's the only thing that'll keep you working long term.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, and you're absolutely right that such is the state of the industry -- but for myself, I can tolerate a-holes when I'm just a nameless face to them, but not when I work in any position close to them. I'll put up with all kinds of s--t from fast food managers at my day jobs, but I can do that because I have no passion for fast food. But in this business, this is what I want to do for a living, and yes I can tolerate a few a-holes, but people who fire crew members just for the show of it are beneath even a-holes. That's a tyrannical kind of egomania that only shows your crew that you don't trust them to be professional without some sort of faux dictator act.

I worked with a-holes on my first professional gig, a week-long shoot for the Travel Channel. Before week's end, I managed to get chewed out for 5-6 minutes over the handset for a misunderstanding on the part of one of the producers (essentially, because I did my job right). But when I'm working as a Craft Service PA on a 150-man crew, I have a higher a-hole tolerance than if I were in more direct contact with said people.

-JMT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top