Photographer AND videographer?

[alaskacameradude]

My question is how can anyone be qualified in video without such a grounding in stills?

Maybe because instead of a 'grounding in stills' they started from 'the ground'
with motion? I've never done stills (until the last year or so...more about that
later) but I've done motion for 20 years. I studied TV production in college, got
a job as a videographer/editor at a NPPA station after I graduated and shot news
for a few years (which is the same sort of path guys like Philip Bloom and Den Lennie took
over on your side of the pond from what I understand.) Good training for shooting
documentaries when you have to shoot a couple packages every day. Later I shot
commercials for the TV station before leaving and going into business for myself.
Lately, I have seen stills photographers offering motion services, many of whom don't
know enough to keep their shutter speed at twice the frame rate....and shoot 1/2500
shutter speed at 24fps just so they can open up to F1.4....as they don't get the whole ND
filter thing. Of course there are plenty who make the transition but in my area, there
are lots of professional photographers but not many motion guys. I used to always
refer my clients to one of the professional stills guys when they wanted both stills and
motion, but the stills guys started trying to take motion jobs themselves, instead
of reciprocating by referring clients to me for motion gigs. About this time I decided
to buy a Sony mirrorless, which could use the same lenses as my motion camera.
Family pics, landscapes and stuff just for fun. But after another client asked if I could
take stills along with doing the video, I decided to go for it. And I've done so on my
last 4 or 5 gigs. Maybe I should wonder how any stills photographer can 'be qualified'
without a solid grounding in video??

 

[alaskacameradude]

Because it's quite easy to take the a similar journey on the video side, as well.

Touché'. You beat me too it and said the same thing I did in much fewer words!

 

[JPNola]

Now a days, we have this really cool thing called DPAF, and Auto Iris.

I'm still making effort to shake my associating Auto Iris with amateurism. As far as DPAF, I will always defend the craft and the art of the manual focus. DPAF is clinical, absent intuition, and soulless.

Likely there is some machine that can play notes on a guitar faster than any human being, more accurately than any human being, and more efficiently than any human being. But that sorta misses the whole point, now doesn't it?

 

[JPNola]

My question is how can anyone be qualified in video without such a grounding in stills?
.

There are many things from stills that you have to un-learn to be good in video. There are more crutches and cheats in stills than in video. For instance, stills shooters will often control exposure via the shutter speed. Shooting that way is far easier than in video where most often you are locked into a shutter speed. If you came up in video you never had to learn to no longer use that crutch. From the start you learned to work locked into a shutter speed.

A person coming from jazz piano to classical piano has to break many of the habits that they formed playing jazz. A person who started in classical piano doesn't have to break any habits they formed playing another style of piano. ( that's my second music analogy of the night, for anyone keeping score. )

 

[morgan_moore]

I think if one was being really "zen" in learning cinematography the extreme teacher could have the student spend five years placing the camera subject and lights before allowing the student to actually roll the camera!

That is stills!

Don't get me wrong I think motion is a higher art form.

I feel I've developed from lighting a still to lighting a shot with a camera move and am now learning multicam lighting.

Motion is also a huge pita because the lights are so dull - with stills I have a package that is probably worth 10k of hmi - so another challenge to get along without that. But maybe is know what to do with 10k of lights unlike most video people

Lens and dof wise - unlike most videographers I've been on vista and s35 for a long time so have a feel for that glass.

And digital post I've been pulling raw files for 15 years so know where they go.

This is good training for high end cinematography and not a privilege most videographers have.

Of course in parallel the videographers have been building a skillset of audio, sequences, continuity and story.

Most stills people could do with a year or five telling stories with a handy-cam before being allowed to roll on a cinema camera.

Film making is hard with many routes in. The best route is those prepared to self critique and learn from every pot?

 

[morgan_moore]

As far as DPAF, I will always defend the craft and the art of the manual focus. DPAF is clinical, absent intuition, and soulless.

I have extensive thoughts on (cinema format) motion focus - because I spent a long time trying to get focus - on one frame! - with a 6k manual focus Mamiya and then a centre point focus Hasselblad (simple conclusion- it's hard) probably something you have not done.

Simply I think electronic aids are critical. Dpaf is probably 2 gens away from functioning though.. But it has to come

Edit: I forgot one thing - part of my "stills grounding" was shooting manual focus film for a decade even high end sport on deadline - most stills people today miss that and therefore lose a huge chunk of "education"

 

[morgan_moore]

Maybe because instead of a 'grounding in stills' they started from 'the ground'
with motion? I've never done stills (until the last year or so...more about that
later) but I've done motion for 20 years. I studied TV production in college, got
a job as a videographer/e.. Maybe I should wonder how any stills photographer can 'be qualified'
without a solid grounding in video??��

Alsaska you doubtless learned a million skills I'd love to have - here is one thing having the strength to admit that - the real learning tool.

In your grounding you probably didn't get to shoot much vista or s35 - you probably didn't work a lot of raw files or have big lights you could really fill with - maybe you did - so your grounding missed some elements.. As does mine.

 

[alaskacameradude]

Alsaska you doubtless learned a million skills I'd love to have - here is one thing having the strength to admit that - the real learning tool.

In your grounding you probably didn't get to shoot much vista or s35 - you probably didn't work a lot of raw files or have big lights you could really fill with - maybe you did - so your grounding missed some elements.. As does mine.

In my TV station days, I shot almost exclusively with 2/3 inch Sony XD
cams and the like with a 20x zoom lens. Learned to light interviews
a million different ways in 5 minutes or less and still have them look
decent. How to shoot on the long end of the lens to throw the BG out of
focus with that 2/3 inch glass. To put together nice sequences complete with
good sound, build surprises into stories and such when I had the time, and slap
together a completely artless package in 5 minutes to fill the 'black hole' when
I didn't. Most important, I learned that you never stop learning. So when I
moved to commercial production with Super 35 Cinema cameras, I learned
some new things. Mainly about how to slow down. TV news video work is
like trying to drink from a firehose, commercial production is taking a sip,
and asking 30 other people if it tastes as good as you think it might have.
Prime lenses, long camera moves with dollies or gimbals, cranes, steadicams
or drones. I loved it! Because I love this stuff, I honestly think
I have one of the best jobs in the world. When I started my own business,
I had a lot of skills in doing the work of 5 people (shoot, edit, light, audio,
direct live newscast, run downstairs during commercial break to move the
studio camera to the weather green screen and run back upstairs to direct
before the 2 minute break is over.) Stuff most small market TV guys get.
So I was pretty unfazed by the last minute cluster-F's and stayed calm and
figured out how to get the job done, because that's what TV news guys do
every day. I had just enough of the cinema side of things, when I bought
my first HD camera, I made sure it was a Super 35 camera because I loved
that look and the things I could do with it.....lenses breeding like rabbits in
my backpack, each with a different 'look.'

But I'm telling you, all still photographers that think video guys are just artless
hacks that press record and spray around, and don't know about composition
and lighting and so on should be forced to watch the yearly NPPA TV photographers
of the year award videos. Our station made me watch them and those things are
inspiring. Talk about some great storytelling, shooting, editing and sound....those
guys are freaking amazing. They literally build in surprises in so many stories.
Like the one about a normal adult league hockey game....looks normal until one guy
skates up to the camera and takes off his helmet and says his name and age....70
years old. But he's just a pup compared to.....the star player who you earlier saw score six
goals on a dazzling array of skating and stick handling......who skates up and takes off
his helmet and says his name and age.....94 years old. I wish I could find some of these
videos online, those guys are really good. Especially for 'non stills photographers'

 

[morgan_moore]

Alaska
I love old school 2/3 guys and completely respect thier skill sets. One thing in my press days is that I got to hang out with them a lot which was an education in itself

 

[deltoidjohn]

I feel I've developed from lighting a still to lighting a shot with a camera move and am now learning multicam lighting.

Motion is also a huge pita because the lights are so dull - with stills I have a package that is probably worth 10k of hmi - so another challenge to get along without that. But maybe is know what to do with 10k of lights unlike most video people

Not knocking your own experience or background in stills, but I think these days most working photographers relationship with lighting is very different to what your own might have been. Apart from the small percentage doing very high end commercial/fashion work, most photographers probably haven't used more than a few strobes and modifiers at most. Most are spoiled by their ability to bounce off the ceiling and light up an entire room, or blast a flash to fill a back-lit subject in direct sunlight, or even by their ability to expose for the subject and background independently through the combination of flash & shutter-speed. And they're never working with light-meters and contrast-ratio formula's, just trial and error and adjusting a few dials until it is right. It's almost cheating.

 

[morgan_moore]

Not knocking your own experience or background in stills, but I think these days most working photographers relationship with lighting is very different to what your own might have been. Apart from the small percentage doing very high end commercial/fashion work, most photographers probably haven't used more than a few strobes and modifiers at most. Most are spoiled by their ability to bounce off the ceiling and light up an entire room, or blast a flash to fill a back-lit subject in direct sunlight, or even by their ability to expose for the subject and background independently through the combination of flash & shutter-speed. And they're never working with light-meters and contrast-ratio formula's, just trial and error and adjusting a few dials until it is right. It's almost cheating.

Completely yes and no

Yep back in the day I shot on 645 slide and used a meter... that is no monitor or any evidence that one is in the park until the stuff came back from the lab - no 'tap'.

I think video people can be a bit closed/conservative (aka safe) with lighting (for good reason) if they learned on narrow DR cameras and the low output hot lights from a typical ENG kit.

So I might have an advantage on lighting for a file that will take a bit more flex and allow some stuff you could not do with a narrow DR vidcam and no flex in post, I might also know what to do given a bigger than regular video package as I might have been placing lights outside for ages while Mr Video doesnt usually have access to that package. Yep that includes knowing the simplicity and speed of bashing a powerful light off the ceiling

Also I would have a disadvantage in that most vid people are really good at subtle ratios and colour sensitivity because Im used to tweaking that stuff in post whereas they are used to nailing in camera.

 

[Michael Thames]

I'm still making effort to shake my associating Auto Iris with amateurism. As far as DPAF, I will always defend the craft and the art of the manual focus. DPAF is clinical, absent intuition, and soulless.

Likely there is some machine that can play notes on a guitar faster than any human being, more accurately than any human being, and more efficiently than any human being. But that sorta misses the whole point, now doesn't it?

Canon puts an auto iris button on their C300 mkii, you know their professional camera. It comes in veery handy when you are running and gunning. That's the only time I use it. Getting correct exposure and focus isn't rocket science, I think you might be surprised at just how many profesional photographers understand this simple concept. In fact photography has an additional tool - shutter speed - at their disposale, which videographers dont have.

I know of no such machine that can play guitar in said manner. To equate the high musical arts, to getting something in focus is quite laughable. I guess you think you are Michaelangleo el Davinci every time you spin the Manuel focus dial. Nice little Fantasy...

 

[deltoidjohn]

I know of no such machine that can play guitar in said manner. To equate the high musical arts, to getting something in focus is quite laughable. I guess you think you are Michaelangleo el Davinci every time you spin the Manuel focus dial. Nice little Fantasy...

I think perhaps you missed the point here - I think JPNola was referencing the fact that just playing the notes correctly is not equatable with the "high musical arts"; there is another far more human element to it. Likewise AF systems don't know exactly what our intentions are in a scene.

In any case, I think proper focus pulling is quite an art form. Upwards of a dozen marks, several different actors, a camera that is also in motion, only a few inches of DOF, and no monitor? It is hard enough if the DOP, talent and dolly grip all hit their marks exactly and have their timing perfect - change any one of those variables the slightest amount and maintaining focus consistently is nothing short of magic!

 

[Michael Thames]

I think perhaps you missed the point here - I think JPNola was referencing the fact that just playing the notes correctly is not equatable with the "high musical arts"; there is another far more human element to it. Likewise AF systems don't know exactly what our intentions are in a scene.

In any case, I think proper focus pulling is quite an art form. Upwards of a dozen marks, several different actors, a camera that is also in motion, only a few inches of DOF, and no monitor? It is hard enough if the DOP, talent and dolly grip all hit their marks exactly and have their timing perfect - change any one of those variables the slightest amount and maintaining focus consistently is nothing short of magic!

Nah, Nola was mocking professional photographers saying they don't know exposure or how to focus. I made a joke that there is DPAF and auto-iris on professional video cameras from one brand in particular. It went over his head and thus the knee-jerk reaction, I expect no less from Nola.

I think we have exhausted this seemingly ultra-sensitive topic of manual focus vs. auto focus. All I can say is in my humble opinion MF is something an above average monkey can learn. I know because I learned it, and I consider myself a below average monkey.

 

[morgan_moore]

Any videographer who is moving toward 4k or higher capture on large chips at wide Fstops is kidding themselves if they think they can pull focus manually.

Here those videographers need to bow down and listen to the stills guys who have been shooting 6k for more than a decade.

Gaining critical focus manually for one frame is really tough at 6k, Gaining critical focus at 24 or 240 frames every second is going to be extremely challenging. This is not SD interlaced mush.

Focus at this level you are choosing the eyelash or eyeball.

I don't really see how it can be done without certainly a puller, zoomed right in on a huge non latent monitor and/or working to extremely disciplined marks.

Of course critical focus may matter less behind the wall of motion blur and the OOF frame only being evaluated for 1/24 of a second by the viewer but in that case there is no value to shooting 4k or higher because one is not delivering that resolution (personally I think 2k looks fine)

--
I was absolutely at a rugby match at Twickenham in maybe 1995 thinking that real men pull manually. I was sorely put right on that one.

 

[Michael Thames]

Any videographer who is moving toward 4k or higher capture on large chips at wide Fstops is kidding themselves if they think they can pull focus manually.

Here those videographers need to bow down and listen to the stills guys who have been shooting 6k for more than a decade.

Gaining critical focus manually for one frame is really tough at 6k, Gaining critical focus at 24 or 240 frames every second is going to be extremely challenging. This is not SD interlaced mush.

Focus at this level you are choosing the eyelash or eyeball.

I don't really see how it can be done without certainly a puller, zoomed right in on a huge non latent monitor and/or working to extremely disciplined marks.

Of course critical focus may matter less behind the wall of motion blur and the OOF frame only being evaluated for 1/24 of a second by the viewer but in that case there is no value to shooting 4k or higher because one is not delivering that resolution (personally I think 2k looks fine)

--
I was absolutely at a rugby match at Twickenham in maybe 1995 thinking that real men pull manually. I was sorely put right on that one.

Just to be clear for what it's worth, I see the future and the future is AF. These old dudes can't spin that dial fast enough anymore. And really do you think 99% of the people can detect a difference between AF or MF in the final result? As technology improves we have to keep up. Most of these guys are defending a dying cause. I don't blame them I would too if that were my only talent.

 

[morgan_moore]

I think it is bump af - manual pull to say 5ft and the computer puts it to 4'11" 27/64ths which is where it should be

 

[alaskacameradude]

Focus at this level you are choosing the eyelash or eyeball.

Doesn't this depend a little bit on what F-stop you are shooting? F8 being much more forgiving
than F1.8 for example? Much larger 'plane of focus' and all.....at least you can get both the
eyelash and eyeball in focus.

 

[JPNola]

Getting correct exposure and focus isn't rocket science. Most of these guys are defending a dying cause. I don't blame them I would too if that were my only talent.

All I can say is in my humble opinion MF is something an above average monkey can learn. To equate the high musical arts, to getting something in focus is quite laughable.

Are those who argue on behalf of hand-making musical instruments merely defending their "only talent" and arguing on behalf of a "dying cause" that no longer has legitimacy in the face of automation? Every Focus-Puller is singularly skilled?? Really Michael?

Rather than be sucked further into another pissing contest, I give you this:

 

[morgan_moore]

Doesn't this depend a little bit on what F-stop you are shooting? F8 being much more forgiving
than F1.8 for example? Much larger 'plane of focus' and all.....at least you can get both the
eyelash and eyeball in focus.

My whole quote mentioned large fstop.

Now here my optical knowledge gets a bit sketch but focus on 645 is really hard - I guess because you are doing wides on a 35 and 80 is a "normal" so larger sensors have the focus character of those long lenses. This is gonna be a problem for the red Alexa 65 crowd.

I've always thought mft was a good compromise for practical daily shooting with a bit more of a look than 2/3