Story Doesn't Matter (for a DP) - It's Skillset & Equipment (Rant/PSA)

Eric Coughlin said:
Actually, it has been working that way for the last few short films I produced which I also DPed, but then chose the director as I didn't want to direct. ;)

Directing is very hands on once on set so it's harder to multi-task, whereas producing a lot of work is done before production begins, particularly for shoots that only last a day or two, so it's worked out pretty well. It's been fun being both the producer working above the director and the DP working under the director, but I give them pretty free reign to do their job. I had previously co-directed a couple films which I was DPing, but found I ended up paying much more attention to DPing while the other director did more of the directing, so I evolved to handing off the directing role completely.
Click to expand...
I will steal/borrow this concept so hard.


Eric Coughlin said:
I was more griping about people on this forum saying things like, "Story, story, story, gear is not that important." Not particularly directing it at me, but making generalizations as if it applied to everyone on the forum, when I don't feel it really applies to freelance owner/op DPs.

Yeah, if you just graduated from college you can learn on a GH2 and lens for $500 while you slowly work your way up instead of taking out a $100k loan for an Arri or Red and hoping people will hire an inexperienced person with no quality portfolio or industry contacts just because they have the gear for the job. People who are waiting on high end gear before shooting their first movie are making a mistake because their first movie is going to most likely be low quality and a learning experience anyway. Blah, blah, blah. You don't need high end gear to make quality videos, but you do need high end gear if you want to work as an owner/op freelance DP on high end projects while making additional profit from gear rentals on top of your labor rate.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of levels to this topic. Though, I would hope that on a forum named specifically for a camera, that gear would be an acceptable topic without delving into “just do it” or “sound is more important” or the tired old dead horse “story”. It is implied that we, the users, are here to geek out and learn something about camera(“dvx”) as a tool. There is an audio forum many of you probably also know, that has a clever name “Gearslutz”. Can’t really get too esoteric on other forum members for talking about gear if you are a member of “Gearslutz”. Whereas we have “user” as the subject, and “dvx” has come to imply all cameras. So, in a way “user” opens up all of the peripheral arguments for better content.


Anyone who is a narrative story teller, is right, the story is more important. And good sound has more weight than good visuals (to a certain level). It is just implied that all of that is outside the scope what most of us are here for.


This is a camera user forum, so we should be safe to talk gear over story here. We should feel safe to bash cameras too. Engineers and marketers aren’t always camera users doing work we do, and yet we pay for their salaries. They have amazing talents go to waste because we don’t want to be seen as incompetent whiners. Truth is, a lot of the ideas some of the member here talk about are great user feedback, but it gets swept under the rug because some guys are just tough or talented and can make anything look good with their own two bare hands.



There has been so much of the “if you can’t make xyz camera look good, the problem is you”. Which is a misleading statement. Many of us have been making good looking images since minDV days and much earlier. So, when we dislike the highlight roll off or the colors of a camera, it is coming from experience and preference.



Speilberg petitions for all TV’s to be able to turn of the motion smoothing function. Anyone could say “well, your story should be able to be good regardless of motion smoothing”, but no one says that. Nolan shoots on 70mm film, but we could say, story first, and use a GH2. There is an obvious need and push for specific preferences and quality in the visuals of any movie. The difference is, if you aren’t Quentin, then you don’t get to have an opinion the same way. So, i don’t know, are we supposed to ignore rolling shutter, harsh highlights with color channel seperation, ill advised ergonomics, lack of dual recording media, the right 8bits, funky color that is supposedly more accurate? Idk. Engineers are making so many cool things, just not all of their energy is put into the right things for the end user. They are their for the buyer. And an uneducated buyer is a good buyer. So, stop complaining and get back to the story. ;)

Oh, and I am going to mention @NorBro here for no other reason, than to have him notice this long ass rambling ass post.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the downvote, nothing. Scrolling too close to the edge of the screen on my iPad and there’s no way to ‘take it back’.
 
James0b57 said:
I will steal/borrow this concept so hard.



There are a lot of levels to this topic. Though, I would hope that on a forum named specifically for a camera, that gear would be an acceptable topic without delving into “just do it” or “sound is more important” or the tired old dead horse “story”. It is implied that we, the users, are here to geek out and learn something about camera(“dvx”) as a tool. There is an audio forum many of you probably also know, that has a clever name “Gearslutz”. Can’t really get too esoteric on other forum members for talking about gear if you are a member of “Gearslutz”. Whereas we have “user” as the subject, and “dvx” has come to imply all cameras. So, in a way “user” opens up all of the peripheral arguments for better content.


Anyone who is a narrative story teller, is right, the story is more important. And good sound has more weight than good visuals (to a certain level). It is just implied that all of that is outside the scope what most of us are here for.


This is a camera user forum, so we should be safe to talk gear over story here. We should feel safe to bash cameras too. Engineers and marketers aren’t always camera users doing work we do, and yet we pay for their salaries. They have amazing talents go to waste because we don’t want to be seen as incompetent whiners. Truth is, a lot of the ideas some of the member here talk about are great user feedback, but it gets swept under the rug because some guys are just tough or talented and can make anything look good with their own two bare hands.



There has been so much of the “if you can’t make xyz camera look good, the problem is you”. Which is a misleading statement. Many of us have been making good looking images since minDV days and much earlier. So, when we dislike the highlight roll off or the colors of a camera, it is coming from experience and preference.
Click to expand...

This site, and others like it, are a treasure trove for manufacturers. They are literally being spoon fed user feedback and requests for free. No expensive market research firm required. Obviously you have to wade through the noise of people that are just “measurbaters” and never intend to buy or use the gear, but there are plenty of people on here, like myself, that have been doing this for well over 20 years and have bought $100K’s worth of professional gear. I am exactly whom they need to listen to. When I say what I’d like to see in a camera or piece of gear, it comes from the perspective of a long time working professional that works in a demanding environment with high expectations on a regular basis and lots of other like-minded people, as well.
 
Your feedback may only be valuable if you stick to your lane. (You/me/we.)

They could/would listen to you (or someone else) about ENG shoulder cameras.

They could/would listen to me (or someone else) about mirrorless cameras.

But just because someone has been working in an industry for 10-15-20+ years doesn't mean he or she should be speaking about everything. I'd probably be miserable if you built me a camera, lol.

This is exactly why so many products are the way they are.
 
James0b57 said:
Oh, and I am going to mention @NorBro here for no other reason, than to have him notice this long ass rambling ass post.
Click to expand...

I swear I really don't read long posts but my eyes always catch my name, lol.

(It depends on how I'm viewing the site too.)
 
Interesting topic. I have to agree with the OP that when I DP I feel my primary responsibility is weighted to technical concerns - exposure, lighting, contrast ratios, focus, framing, movement - basically technical stuff that I want to do well. Any contributions I make are made in prep. Sometimes, with less camera conscious directors, I may quickly discuss the options of how something is going to cut on the day. It’s a gray area but if I can catch something, I think I should speak up.

I also write and direct and so can’t help seeing the contribution of the image to the story in every frame. It’s both but when you’re the DP you have a very particular technical responsibility to execute the shot. I definitely feel that way.
 
Last edited:
I'm not contradicting anything said earlier. But NorBro got me started on my simple kick again.

--

Is it true that you put the camera close to her, and that added to this jitteriness of her performance?

No, I put the camera where it's required for the given shot, for the given scene. I do not put, just arbitrarily, the camera closer to an actor's face. . . . I put the camera where I stand. I stand and watch the action. And then I'm just trying to film it the way I saw it. It's simple.

And it’s classic filmmaking in that scene, isn’t it? There’s, like, no camera moves.

I'm mainly an invisible witness to the events, and my camera follows me. And for that, I hate these convoluted moves which make you nauseous and interfere, in fact, with the story very often. I think if you have a story to tell, try to tell it in a simple or maybe elegant manner, and care about the emotions that it can evoke in those who are kind enough to watch it.

--- Roman Polanski




"We're in a world now and in a business where people perceive complexity as good. People don't understand the elegance of simplicity. . . . And don't get Simple mixed up with Simplistic. . . . You know, you hit somebody in the face with a pie. . . . Simple is your choices. One light coming through a window might be quite beautiful. That's all you need. You don't need six other lights, because why are you doing all of this, by habit or by need?"

--- Gordon Willis
 
I somehow even get involved in the threads I try to avoid, haha.

puredrifting's probably so worked up he's still typing his reply that he started last night.

lol, j/k.
 
Run&Gun said:
This site, and others like it, are a treasure trove for manufacturers. They are literally being spoon fed user feedback and requests for free. No expensive market research firm required. Obviously you have to wade through the noise of people that are just “measurbaters” and never intend to buy or use the gear, but there are plenty of people on here, like myself, that have been doing this for well over 20 years and have bought $100K’s worth of professional gear. I am exactly whom they need to listen to. When I say what I’d like to see in a camera or piece of gear, it comes from the perspective of a long time working professional that works in a demanding environment with high expectations on a regular basis and lots of other like-minded people, as well.
Click to expand...
The information is here, but for every point or suggestion, there is a counter point or argument against it. I have not seen ant indication the manufacturing companies directly respond to any of the ideas buried within these here walls (except Mitch and the convergent firmware updates) There is however a much more direct response to hype and what is selling



It would be interesting to get a marketing friend or group of them to read our posts and see how they respond. I’d imagine they’d get different conclusions.
 
Last edited:
OK, I'm gonna get on my hobbyhorse :) - it's not about story, or lighting, or sound or anything, it's about the final effect on the viewer! I've said this a million times on these boards over the years, but it seems, it's just as relevant as ever. Re: the Polanski quote - yeah, simple is fine but sometimes a complex camera move is part of the effect on the viewer, even if it's irrelevant to the 'story', or almost contradictory to the story - because it's not about the story in that instance, it's about the style. Yep, I could do a scene with a stationary setup, but guess what, I want to do it with a huge freakin' distracting from the story sweeping movement, because in the end, that's what I'm going for my final effect on the viewer. Haven't we all seen movies where the story is really irrelevant, and what matters is everything around the story? Is Stranger Than Paradise about the story? Or is is about the style and the mood? And really that's always the case. Always. Take almost anything, say, the "trunk shot" QT is so fond of - it's not exactly *necessary* to the story, but it creates a mood, or you can have a whole movie shot with a certain lighting, movement, framing, cutting rhythms etc. having nothing to do with the story, but you just want to have a certain "vibe" - think of some of the New Wave movies from the 60's where it really wasn't so much about the story, but about a certain attitude, a certain feeling in the air, a certain call to the audience to identify with this or that mentality or political allegiance, or just Easy Ridering or Eraserhead. How stupid you'd be to concentrate on "the story" when you're shooting Blue Velvet? The story there is the excuse for everything else. Someone will say that mood is part of the story - but to what degree? See, it's all connected. Don't talk to me about "does it serve the story" - tell me "what is the final effect on the viewer". Because if you think it's all about story and it's not relevant how it's shown, then you'd never have any evolution in shooting styles, and movies would still look like they did in the 50's (or 20's!) and only the stories would change. So that's a bunch of BS.

In the end, the DP works along a spectrum. At one end, s/he's all about the craft - this is what (I think) the OP is getting at. At the other end, it's like Storaro, who's like an artistic co-creator of the work. Most work somewhere along between those two extremes. I imagine the OP would say "don't make it all about the art creator end, when this given project is about the craft end".

Where the DP comes in, and what his/her role is depends first and foremost on the director. Some directors are so hands on, and have such specific vision, that the role of the DP is more toward the craft end (Hitchcock) - the director knows his angles, his lights, his framing, his lenses, and the DP is almost more like a key grip or lighting person. Or the DP has a completely free hand, because the director simply has no tools or care about the "how" and only about the "what", at which point it's the DP's movie visually. Usually it's something inbetween.

As a director, you have to know where you stand. That's how you pick your DP, and how you work with him/her. If you want someone to just do as they're told, that's totally legit. As long as you understand your own limitations. I am someone who has a very definite idea about what I want - I have crystal clear ideas about framing, blocking, but simply don't have the depth of experience with lenses and lighting to always make the best choice. A DP has spent their life and every waking hour thinking about light. S/he'll know things that are possible to do with light or lenses that never occurred to me, because I have not put similar time in. It has nothing to do with "being the greater artist". So as a director know your limitations - some DPs become directors, so they may know down to the last button what they want from a DP (and conversely, fail as a director, because they didn't appreciate that you need to spend an equal amount of time thinking about the art of directing).

I know my limitations. As an example, I was shooting a short that I wrote, and there was a shot of two people in a car, driver and passenger, seen from behind (from the back seat) at night. Well, I had very specific ideas about camera placement and framing. The DP was cool with that - and I had no interest in what he could have contributed there. But. I knew that I wasn't as clear about what I wanted lightwise, except I wanted their faces not visible, just the outlines of their figures. So I told him what I wanted, and gave him a free hand with lighting - and we talked about what the scene was supposed to accomplish (as a final effect on the viewer). Now, if I had to DP that, I'd light it pretty conventionally, just because I don't know what else is possible. But he came up with something that when I saw it on the monitor, brought tears to my eyes. I had to complain about allergies, cause who wants a grown-a$$ man tearing up at a lighting scheme. See I loved what the guy came up with, and I told him that. But we each knew to play to our strengths. He didn't try to tell me how to direct, and I in turn knew to give him a free hand when it was obvious he had a lot of ideas that would work for me in very specific situations bases on the effect I wanted. If the DP needs to discuss gear, or what s/he needs to pull off this or that effect, it would be pretty stupid to ignore it because "story is more important".

So the moral for me, is to stay in your lane, but know when to let the other guy run free to get the best effect, because in the end, it's about the final effect on the viewer. That's the best kind of cooperation when the director and DP really work for the common good of the project, and the customer/viewer. Play to each other's strengths, and don't worry about making distinctions between gear and story and this and that. Only the final effect counts.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
The qualification is that story is primarily the job of the writer, director, and producer, and typically not the DP.
Click to expand...

That’s a very different attitude to the show’s and films I’ve been involved with.

I see my role as being a story teller. A story “TELLER”

You might not be the person that writes the story. But you sure as hell are involved in the telling part.

My job is to TRANSLATE.

I use my technical skill set that you prize with my investment in and understanding of the story, to TELL that story, in collaboration with the producers, writers, directors and actors.

Film making is unique in the creative arts in my view, there are few truely creative group efforts that rely so much on the individual efforts of a large group of people (Theater and classical music maybe are the others I can think of)

I’ve always loved cinematography because it’s a highly technical field but it’s all in the service of a creative outcome where the audience don’t care at all what you went though to get that visual result. They just are moved (hopefully) by what you do without understanding or even needing to understand why they are engaged and responding.

All you need to do is hold their attention.

Now sometimes that can be done through trickery. A move I like to call “mowing the lawn” where you lay a track and move the camera backwards and forwards up that track is a great way to create depth and visual interest. But if you do it all the time and with no story motivational cues, then it’s effect also is lost.

If you save those moves to punctuate story moments, “ahh ha” moments or even counterpoint those story subtext moments then you are “telling” the story, not just filming or documenting a performance, or doing something “because it looks cool”




Eric Coughlin said:
and as an own/operator who rents out their gear when hired, it's very important in relation to profits for their business model.
Click to expand...

Maybe this is why I view things differently from you.

I’m not hired so I can profit from renting equipment or to make money.

I still shoot short films with friends for nothing.

The only things I own to rent are the kinds of things I can’t easily get from a regular rental facility. The things I need to TELL a story in the way I want to.

Even operating a camera is a performance. Just like an actor. You’re either ahead of the story or behind it or in the moment at the same time with the actor, reacting and discovering things. You HAVE to be engaged with story.

I gather you haven’t had the amazing experience of an emotional take with an actor doing the best work of their career and you’re right there beside them and in their face totally helping them to be their best. You have to be able to read their performance to know that you should swing and tag what they’re looking at, a prop or another character. When to move and when not are choices. They are informed by what the actor is doing and what you bring to the story TELLING.

I find so many of these unplanned moments in a scene BECAUSE I know and understand the story.
 
Last edited:
OldCorpse said:
OK, I'm gonna get on my hobbyhorse :) - it's not about story, or lighting, or sound or anything, it's about the final effect on the viewer! I've said this a million times on these boards over the years, but it seems, it's just as relevant as ever. Re: the Polanski quote - yeah, simple is fine but sometimes a complex camera move is part of the effect on the viewer, even if it's irrelevant to the 'story', or almost contradictory to the story - because it's not about the story in that instance, it's about the style. Yep, I could do a scene with a stationary setup, but guess what, I want to do it with a huge freakin' distracting from the story sweeping movement, because in the end, that's what I'm going for my final effect on the viewer. Haven't we all seen movies where the story is really irrelevant, and what matters is everything around the story? Is Stranger Than Paradise about the story? Or is is about the style and the mood? And really that's always the case. Always. Take almost anything, say, the "trunk shot" QT is so fond of - it's not exactly *necessary* to the story, but it creates a mood, or you can have a whole movie shot with a certain lighting, movement, framing, cutting rhythms etc. having nothing to do with the story, but you just want to have a certain "vibe" - think of some of the New Wave movies from the 60's where it really wasn't so much about the story, but about a certain attitude, a certain feeling in the air, a certain call to the audience to identify with this or that mentality or political allegiance, or just Easy Ridering or Eraserhead. How stupid you'd be to concentrate on "the story" when you're shooting Blue Velvet? The story there is the excuse for everything else. Someone will say that mood is part of the story - but to what degree? See, it's all connected. Don't talk to me about "does it serve the story" - tell me "what is the final effect on the viewer". Because if you think it's all about story and it's not relevant how it's shown, then you'd never have any evolution in shooting styles, and movies would still look like they did in the 50's (or 20's!) and only the stories would change. So that's a bunch of BS.

In the end, the DP works along a spectrum. At one end, s/he's all about the craft - this is what (I think) the OP is getting at. At the other end, it's like Storaro, who's like an artistic co-creator of the work. Most work somewhere along between those two extremes. I imagine the OP would say "don't make it all about the art creator end, when this given project is about the craft end".

Where the DP comes in, and what his/her role is depends first and foremost on the director. Some directors are so hands on, and have such specific vision, that the role of the DP is more toward the craft end (Hitchcock) - the director knows his angles, his lights, his framing, his lenses, and the DP is almost more like a key grip or lighting person. Or the DP has a completely free hand, because the director simply has no tools or care about the "how" and only about the "what", at which point it's the DP's movie visually. Usually it's something inbetween.

As a director, you have to know where you stand. That's how you pick your DP, and how you work with him/her. If you want someone to just do as they're told, that's totally legit. As long as you understand your own limitations. I am someone who has a very definite idea about what I want - I have crystal clear ideas about framing, blocking, but simply don't have the depth of experience with lenses and lighting to always make the best choice. A DP has spent their life and every waking hour thinking about light. S/he'll know things that are possible to do with light or lenses that never occurred to me, because I have not put similar time in. It has nothing to do with "being the greater artist". So as a director know your limitations - some DPs become directors, so they may know down to the last button what they want from a DP (and conversely, fail as a director, because they didn't appreciate that you need to spend an equal amount of time thinking about the art of directing).

I know my limitations. As an example, I was shooting a short that I wrote, and there was a shot of two people in a car, driver and passenger, seen from behind (from the back seat) at night. Well, I had very specific ideas about camera placement and framing. The DP was cool with that - and I had no interest in what he could have contributed there. But. I knew that I wasn't as clear about what I wanted lightwise, except I wanted their faces not visible, just the outlines of their figures. So I told him what I wanted, and gave him a free hand with lighting - and we talked about what the scene was supposed to accomplish (as a final effect on the viewer). Now, if I had to DP that, I'd light it pretty conventionally, just because I don't know what else is possible. But he came up with something that when I saw it on the monitor, brought tears to my eyes. I had to complain about allergies, cause who wants a grown-a$$ man tearing up at a lighting scheme. See I loved what the guy came up with, and I told him that. But we each knew to play to our strengths. He didn't try to tell me how to direct, and I in turn knew to give him a free hand when it was obvious he had a lot of ideas that would work for me in very specific situations bases on the effect I wanted. If the DP needs to discuss gear, or what s/he needs to pull off this or that effect, it would be pretty stupid to ignore it because "story is more important".

So the moral for me, is to stay in your lane, but know when to let the other guy run free to get the best effect, because in the end, it's about the final effect on the viewer. That's the best kind of cooperation when the director and DP really work for the common good of the project, and the customer/viewer. Play to each other's strengths, and don't worry about making distinctions between gear and story and this and that. Only the final effect counts.
Click to expand...

Hey NorBro - see above :smiley_up (just in case you missed it...) :happy:
 
TL;DR: DP's job is filming, equipment, technical mastery, not story; leave story to writers, producers, and directors. Equipment is important for the DP.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, Ron is just an April Fool's prank...
 
Story *IS* important to a DoP, but only in the sense that having a deep knowledge of the story helps inform him in his choices (lighting / camera movement / etc).

But the story is really just an *INPUT* to the DoP's decision making, the DoP himself (or herself) rarely needs to care about crafting the story itself and getting it into shape. That is first the role of the director (and to a lesser extent, the actors as well. And maybe even the producer perhaps in pre development when moulding it to get funding)
 
I feel my voice as a DP is to understand theme, story, character, genre and audience expectations.

Once I know the story and theme I can lean into that by establishing the tone or I can play against expectations.
If I just take a dogmatic technical approach, I risk shooting superficial cinematography by rote.

This line of thinking will help determine everything including equipment orders, crew lists, shooting schedule, gels, etc.
It has a very big impact on production. After all we're not plummers (no disrespect to plummers).

Horses for courses I guess...
 
Last edited:
A good DP needs to understand the story REALLY well. I would never hire a DP who wasn't extremely interested in the story.

A director's two main jobs are to direct the actors, and choose the shots. To choose the shots, the director should consult and lean on the DP. Shot selection is SO important. It is the whole grammar of cinema. A great DP needs to be an expert of shot selection, which means he/she needs to understand drama and visual storytelling.

The whole reason cinema is different from theatre is because the filmmakers decide exactly where the story should be viewed from at every moment. Shot selection is the grammar of cinema--it's the sentence structure, syntax, and punctuation.

To choose the shots, you have to imaginatively enter into the heads of every character in the scene so you can know exactly what they are thinking and feeling. A DP needs to completely understand the story, which means he/she needs to understand every beat of the scene, every line of dialogue, every shift in perspective.

A great DP will have studied art history, and will enjoy reading great literature.

I would never want to work with a DP who didn't agree with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jvc
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top