thoughts on being your own DP / director?

D

dv416

Well-known member
hey all
i'm a freelance video shooter / editor by trade. mostly run and gun style, skeleton crew type stuff. occasionally i do bigger "productions" though. these sorts of shoots have typically been extremely hectic, budget stretched to extremes, run and gun extraordinaire. the reason being the story is so involved and the shooting time so short. i am used to this way of working and have been dp / cam op in all of these situations.

im considering JUST directing this time around, but its tough for me to relinquish - not so much the lighting responsibility - but the camera operator responsibility, as i am pretty confident in my abilities. the shooting pace should be more managable on this project though. but i'm still so used to doing everything on the fly. so i'm wondering, for similar shooter / editor types, do you typically cam op / dp your own "bigger" projects as well? what are your thoughts on that...
 
On my student films, I directed and did my own cinematography, and it always felt lacking in each scene. I noticed that either I gave too much attention to directing (and got the performance I wanted from the actors) or I gave too much attention to cinematography (and the performance was lacking and I got great visuals).

Make them 2 separate jobs if you can.
 
Learn to delegate responsibility, it's core for any business to succeed. If you're unable, you best be the best one man band you can be. Also try working with people whom you think are way better than you.

P.S. Just directing means you need someone to co-ordinate and act as producer and UPM, so I don't think you'll end up "just directing" just not "operating" or "lighting"
 
Hollywood separates the task for a good reason. When you have to split focus on multiple tasks they all get less attention. If you're directing you should direct and that's it. My .02
 
Did you like how the actor delivered the first line by looking at the glass he's drinking from? Oh, you didn't notice because you were paying attention to this pretty frame you just found?

Those are 2 different jobs. The only time you can merge those when performances are not that important (music videos) or images can go crap (industrials).
 
And Diego slides in with the %01 exception to the rule. I hope Patryk is eating his words! :)


In all seriousness, the DP brings more to a production than simply his job of photographing the picture. The DP is the directors partner, confidant, and friend. A good working relationship between DP and director can bring more to a picture than either of their talents could be separately. The man who can do both jobs can't be all those things at once or have the point of view of two different people. It IS possible to do both, but a creative partnership is almost always more fruitful, enjoyable, and creative. Two heads are better than one. They work off of each other to find something otherwise not possible. I know for a fact that the films I've worked on which have found success after post, were the films I had the best relationship with the director. There is nothing like having an open, creative, and free relationship to create and collaborate. It shows on screen. A DP is more than just a person who knows how to make an image. He is a key support role as well. It's as simple as that. If you ever find yourself on set where the director does not feel that way about the DP (and vice versa!) than the hiring process of the director/DP was a failure.

Is it possible to do both jobs? Yes. Is it really the best option? 99% of the worlds directors don't think so.
 
Last edited:
I'll also add that Soderbergh is sometimes a camera guy, and not always a DP. But hey, if someone wants to go for both, why not? It's a good learning experience. If it's a small enough project, it could work well. Bigger gigs are of course harder.

Plus, if you have a choice of doing it yourself or hiring someone like "Chivo" Lubezki (again, I'm going into the extremes), who the hell would choose to do it themselves? :D

I guess I always have the "anything is possible" mindset. If you want to do something, and have the balls and passion to go for it, then who are we to limit them. That doesn't mean it's always the best idea.
 
diego1235467 said:
i'll also add that soderbergh is sometimes a camera guy, and not always a dp. But hey, if someone wants to go for both, why not? It's a good learning experience. If it's a small enough project, it could work well. Bigger gigs are of course harder.

Plus, if you have a choice of doing it yourself or hiring someone like "chivo" lubezki (again, i'm going into the extremes), who the hell would choose to do it themselves? :d

i guess i always have the "anything is possible" mindset. If you want to do something, and have the balls and passion to go for it, then who are we to limit them. That doesn't mean it's always the best idea.
Click to expand...

+1.
 
diego1235467 said:
Plus, if you have a choice of doing it yourself or hiring someone like "Chivo" Lubezki (again, I'm going into the extremes), who the hell would choose to do it themselves? :D
Click to expand...


The problem with having no budget, is the type of DP I'd like to get, is not someone I can afford... and 'sales' has never been a strong point for me... otherwise I could afford the DP I would want.
 
Where everyone has a point about not multitasking, still I think the greatest thing we have if we have no budget is that we have all the time in the world. If that is the case, then I believe anything can be done on a chilled out pace. Not lazy, just 'deep breaths' throughout if you will.

Where the problem with having no budget is not being able to get what you like for money (DP's props and all) the blessing of having no budget is the liberty.

I feel better with less money. But I'm in it for the happiness. I'm sure you can do it all, just plan it. Clear thought, and you can definitely pull it off.
 
If you must DP and direct, use experienced actors and rehearse them, then you will half your directing work done, allowing you to DP as well. Often, though, when a director DP's their own film, the results are mixed. See Peter Hyams' 2010 and Running Scared and Stephen Sonderberg's films for two examples of Directors who DP.
 
I don't know about it being okay with music videos or industrials...I think with anything, you need good things to show on screen, and you also need to show them in a way that pushes your story forward. Both are always important.

But yeah, for smaller things, sure you're trying to learn, why not...but if you want your work to be any good I'd recommend finding someone to do the camera/lighting for you.
 
Good work can be done with a director/DP. Will you get bold, artistic cinematography (the kind the Academy likes to nominate)? Probably not - as you all have said, there's not enough attention given to any one thing. Can you get cinematography that suits the story really well? Absolutely. For certain types of projects with certain styles, you can totally get great results if you know what you're doing.

The ultimate question should be, can you do anything right at all if you're a director/DP working alone? Probably not. If you are going to take all of this responsibility upon yourself to direct a film AND take charge of the cinematography, you need a solid support crew. A great G&E crew and great planning on your part (just like solid rehearsals with your actors) will make the on-set duties go smoothly. If you've planned out your lighting with your gaffer, it's done. You get on set, pick your shots and make it happen.

~~Dave
 
Beyond the simple challenges of being both director and cinematographer, and beyond whether or not it can be done, lies the issue of collaboration. I think that a big part of what makes film so powerful of an artistic medium is because it's not one artist working on the film. It's many artists who all collaborate together within their specific field of expertise to create a single piece of art. I think it's a mistake to be the director AND the cinematographer even if its well within your ability to do so simply because collaboration is such an integral part of making a good film.
 
I think the advancement and acceptance of digital video as a format has empowered many directors to DP their own stuff. Shooting film added a technical layer of both proficiency, thought and time, which would have made it a lot harder for the previous generation of directors to both meter, tweak, direct the actors at the same time, etc.

Especially with instant playback and "WYSIWYG" monitoring on HD monitors, the director doesn't have to spend the extra brainpower and pre-visualize the lighting and contrast of scenes and meter carefully. He can see his mistakes on the fly and have his crew correct.

Though Soderbergh does take credit as a DP, he is mostly his own camera operator. I believe his crew, particularly his gaffer, really take on the most technical choices of lighting which is the DPs primary responsibility on set these days. On the other hand, when there is minimal or no lighting, such as in "The Girlfriend Experience" I can believe that Soderbergh could both DP and direct that piece entirely.

I don't by no means encourage directors to DP their own stuff, I have never seen a director both direct actors and a crew and produce great looking material. But I can see how it is much easier now than twenty years ago to integrate the two roles when you're not so concerned with getting outstanding looking visuals.
 
I say work with what you have. If you can't find a good DP and you have some skills behind the camera it's better to get out there and shoot something instead of sitting around doing nothing.

For a feature I would say it's a must to have both.

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