Cinematography as a career

[Mike Sun]

Question for working DP's! After four years of shooting music videos and short films on the side, I've recently quit my fulltime job and plunged myself into the world of freelancing. Unfortunately, I've met two pro's during my short time so far as a PA/AC; a former NYC commercial DP and a gaffer of 15+ years. The commercial DP left because they saw a decrease in rates and creatively fulfilling projects. Apparently the DP found that all of a sudden, they've found that they've been bidding against ASC members on projects while offering up their usual rates. In addition I've been hearing about DP's who regularly hire established Union AC's who've worked on major Hollywood movies for their non-union commercials because they are apparenlty desperate for the income.

The gaffer is annoyed with the new crop of cinematographers who didn't work their way up traditionally and not only is his job more difficult nowadays but rates have been pushed down. He's trying to leave as well.

Both were either hinting or strongly suggesting that I look into a different line of work.

As you can imagine, this is all very discouraging to hear so I'm very desperate for a more diverse set of opinions! At the same time, I want to be realistic and if I need to get out of the game now, then now would be the best time to do so. So my question is, do any of you feel the same way as these two people? Do any of you find that the opposite is true? If so, are you comfortable financially? Do you feel that you'll have job security until you retire?

P.S. For context, I'm currently in Boston

 

[Ben Scott]

I couldn't care less how someone has worked their way up as long as they know their craft, can do their job, and are good to work with. I've worked with recent graduates that are far more professional than some industry veterans.

I also don't compete with other people on price. That leads to a race to the bottom. Don't hire me because I'm cheap. Hire me because I'm good. Nobody ever wants cheap. They want really expensive, but for a great perceived deal. I charge a fair but decent rate for myself and my expertise and my gear, and once I've been hired I'll always go the extra mile and nobody has ever ever hired me and not thought they got value for money out of me.

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

The gaffer is right, so many young (self proclaimed) dp's can't light. It's the number one thing I see with younger cinematographers, and I'm not one of the old guys, I'm 37. I can definitely see being annoyed as a working gaffer.

My advise is to pursue this path if you are good at it and you truly love doing it, and you are a likable person. You will then be successful most likely. Funny thing is in this business, everyone's path to "success" can be WILDLY different. If a couple folks saying negative things can discourage you, then you need to toughen up! Yes things are changing, but more good content is needed now more than ever before. It's s tough biz, but that's why I say you have to love it. I can't imagine doing anything else

 

[Jake Wilganowski]

As to your point about having job security till I retire, no I feel I will have to earn it every year. But if you love what you do there will be a natural progression of skills and knowledge. I'm very comfortable financially, but success always feels temporary to me, so I push onward and try not to take it for granted...

 

[Eric Santiago]

One day it will be a career for me and Im north of 50

I love this craft and willing to work a day job and a few side jobs just to do what I get to do...film

You really have to love what you do and believe in it.

I went through the ringer in the music business and got the same experience with jaded musicians.

Didnt give up till I found my calling in film

Well I still play but more focused on film making.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Might want to take this class.
https://www.masterclass.com/classes/werner-herzog-teaches-filmmaking

If you're not willing to steal, lie, get arrested,etc to get a shot, filmmaking may not be a good career choice.

Seriously though, I would say just keep pushing on if you are passionate about it and let the chips fall where they may. If I can have a little success in this business, then anyone can because there are far more talented people than me working in the film industry. It just takes hard work, networking, being able to work with other people, and of course having some ability or least the capability to learn and improve with each job. I believe, and I'm not a DP so take this for what it's worth, that it's important to constantly shoot. Even if it's something you're doing for free because you want to keep getting better. The more you train your brain to immerse itself into the world of filmmaking the better the chances that you will eventually land on your feet both financially and skill wise.

 

[Owen Rennie]

I don't know if it's different here in Australia but 90% of the "DPs" I deal with or know of love their job and have a great lifestyle. However most are in their mid 30s living with their parents. My advice is become a plumber or electrician and film on the side!

 

[Mike Sun]

I couldn't care less how someone has worked their way up as long as they know their craft, can do their job, and are good to work with. I've worked with recent graduates that are far more professional than some industry veterans.

I also don't compete with other people on price. That leads to a race to the bottom. Don't hire me because I'm cheap. Hire me because I'm good. Nobody ever wants cheap. They want really expensive, but for a great perceived deal. I charge a fair but decent rate for myself and my expertise and my gear, and once I've been hired I'll always go the extra mile and nobody has ever ever hired me and not thought they got value for money out of me.

That's all very helpful to know. I'll remember that!

The gaffer is right, so many young (self proclaimed) dp's can't light. It's the number one thing I see with younger cinematographers, and I'm not one of the old guys, I'm 37. I can definitely see being annoyed as a working gaffer.

My advise is to pursue this path if you are good at it and you truly love doing it, and you are a likable person. You will then be successful most likely. Funny thing is in this business, everyone's path to "success" can be WILDLY different. If a couple folks saying negative things can discourage you, then you need to toughen up! Yes things are changing, but more good content is needed now more than ever before. It's s tough biz, but that's why I say you have to love it. I can't imagine doing anything else

This puts things into perspective. Thanks for the insight!

As to your point about having job security till I retire, no I feel I will have to earn it every year. But if you love what you do there will be a natural progression of skills and knowledge. I'm very comfortable financially, but success always feels temporary to me, so I push onward and try not to take it for granted...

That helps set expectations for me. Can I ask what type of work you typically get? Thanks!

One day it will be a career for me and Im north of 50

I love this craft and willing to work a day job and a few side jobs just to do what I get to do...film

You really have to love what you do and believe in it.

I went through the ringer in the music business and got the same experience with jaded musicians.

Didnt give up till I found my calling in film

Well I still play but more focused on film making.

I admire your drive!

I don't know if it's different here in Australia but 90% of the "DPs" I deal with or know of love their job and have a great lifestyle. However most are in their mid 30s living with their parents. My advice is become a plumber or electrician and film on the side!

Ah, that's interesting. Hopefully you didn't lump in the people in their mid-30's living with their parents with the DP's who you consider to have a great lifestyle. Good idea on taking a side gig.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

This is a rather controversial topic but part of an important discussion to be had about where filmmaking is headed, and how that impacts the careers of the people who work within it. I think a good place to start is an overview of where we are now, and how we got here.

Various types of imagemaking used to be distinct disciplines, each with their own career path and specialized knowledge. Still photography, high-end narrative/commercial cinematography, documentary/industrial cinematography, broadcast/news videography, editing, motion graphics, and visual effects all were separate career paths. If you wanted to become a photographer, you started as a photo assistant to an established photographer while developing your skills and building your own portfolio. If you wanted to become a broadcast cameraman, you interned at a local news station. If you wanted to work in movies, you started as a PA. As technology evolved, formerly expensive professional tools became affordable, and the lines between these disciplines blurred as competition for existing jobs increased exponentially. As producers began to see this new trend and take a chance on new people, budgets fell precipitously. And many more decided to jump into the producing game themselves, being able to leverage their much lower overhead costs to underbid existing production companies at unheard-of prices. This initially caused an overall drop in quality of product as the market sorted itself out.

The good side of this was that there was now room for smart, talented, young upstarts to break into the market and establish themselves very quickly, often offering new services for which there was no existing market. For example, the early days of Red and all the young DITs who jumped on that bandwagon made their way into an established high-end cinematography market in record time. The traditional video engineers who could adapt and innovate quickly also made that transition, though many did not and became obsolete. The bad side was that much of the specialized knowledge and craft that these folks possessed was lost with them. This has been true across the board.

With new entries to the job market adopting cross-discipline techniques, new ways of producing content have evolved. The DP/VFX artist is one discipline that many people have parlayed into successful commercial studios and directing careers. Another is the documentary/narrative DP. In fact, you could say that the current ubiquitous trend of available light, low-light, shallow-depth, flarey, smoky, low-con cinematography style is a direct result of the small-crew, minimal lighting, 'camera-first' documentary approach being applied to a high-budget aesthetic style. These are just a few examples of how new competitors have sought to carve out a niche for themselves in this saturated market.

Ultimately, whether you view these trends as exciting or problematic, this is the reality of where we are at. Yes, budgets and rates are not as high as they once were. Yes, specialized equipment is both cheaper and more ubiquitous, and thus are no longer solid financial investments. Yes, there are many more people competing for the same jobs. Most of them have less specialized knowledge and skill in a given field than their predecessors did, but many have more cross-disciplinary skills as well. I think that in order to survive in this environment, we all have to somehow separate ourselves from the pack by innovating and selling our own unique skillset. It's no longer good enough to have talent, years of experience, a solid resume, a deep roster of industry contacts, and an amazing reel, and then just sit back and expect the phone to ring. We all need to identify the target markets that we want to work in, be hungry enough to develop both the photographic and marketing skills to position ourselves advantageously, and then work hard to force our way into those jobs.

This is certainly a challenge for everyone, but I think the current market favors young up-and-coming cinematographers over the older established ones for two reasons - one, lower overhead means that it is easier to survive on less money; and two, as directors and producers get younger they increasingly want to work with those in their own peer age group.

 

[Nick Morrison]

If you love it do it, and do it with class. The rest - ie your career - should figure itself out naturally, once you build a network of clients and friends that can nurture and help you grow.

Don't listen to the cranks.

 

[Josh Wilkinson]

This is a rather controversial topic but part of an important discussion to be had about where filmmaking is headed, and how that impacts the careers of the people who work within it. I think a good place to start is an overview of where we are now, and how we got here.

Various types of imagemaking used to be distinct disciplines, each with their own career path and specialized knowledge. Still photography, high-end narrative/commercial cinematography, documentary/industrial cinematography, broadcast/news videography, editing, motion graphics, and visual effects all were separate career paths. If you wanted to become a photographer, you started as a photo assistant to an established photographer while developing your skills and building your own portfolio. If you wanted to become a broadcast cameraman, you interned at a local news station. If you wanted to work in movies, you started as a PA. As technology evolved, formerly expensive professional tools became affordable, and the lines between these disciplines blurred as competition for existing jobs increased exponentially. As producers began to see this new trend and take a chance on new people, budgets fell precipitously. And many more decided to jump into the producing game themselves, being able to leverage their much lower overhead costs to underbid existing production companies at unheard-of prices. This initially caused an overall drop in quality of product as the market sorted itself out.

The good side of this was that there was now room for smart, talented, young upstarts to break into the market and establish themselves very quickly, often offering new services for which there was no existing market. For example, the early days of Red and all the young DITs who jumped on that bandwagon made their way into an established high-end cinematography market in record time. The traditional video engineers who could adapt and innovate quickly also made that transition, though many did not and became obsolete. The bad side was that much of the specialized knowledge and craft that these folks possessed was lost with them. This has been true across the board.

With new entries to the job market adopting cross-discipline techniques, new ways of producing content have evolved. The DP/VFX artist is one discipline that many people have parlayed into successful commercial studios and directing careers. Another is the documentary/narrative DP. In fact, you could say that the current ubiquitous trend of available light, low-light, shallow-depth, flarey, smoky, low-con cinematography style is a direct result of the small-crew, minimal lighting, 'camera-first' documentary approach being applied to a high-budget aesthetic style. These are just a few examples of how new competitors have sought to carve out a niche for themselves in this saturated market.

Ultimately, whether you view these trends as exciting or problematic, this is the reality of where we are at. Yes, budgets and rates are not as high as they once were. Yes, specialized equipment is both cheaper and more ubiquitous, and thus are no longer solid financial investments. Yes, there are many more people competing for the same jobs. Most of them have less specialized knowledge and skill in a given field than their predecessors did, but many have more cross-disciplinary skills as well. I think that in order to survive in this environment, we all have to somehow separate ourselves from the pack by innovating and selling our own unique skillset. It's no longer good enough to have talent, years of experience, a solid resume, a deep roster of industry contacts, and an amazing reel, and then just sit back and expect the phone to ring. We all need to identify the target markets that we want to work in, be hungry enough to develop both the photographic and marketing skills to position ourselves advantageously, and then work hard to force our way into those jobs.

This is certainly a challenge for everyone, but I think the current market favors young up-and-coming cinematographers over the older established ones for two reasons - one, lower overhead means that it is easier to survive on less money; and two, as directors and producers get younger they increasingly want to work with those in their own peer age group.

I would echo a lot of this as a 20-something that didnt go to film school. I get hired for my ability to direct and produce as much or more so than my abilities as a Cinematographer. There are very rarely ACs or Gaffers on my sets, usually 1 or 2 PAs.

 

[Marc Wielage]

The gaffer is right, so many young (self proclaimed) dp's can't light. It's the number one thing I see with younger cinematographers, and I'm not one of the old guys, I'm 37. I can definitely see being annoyed as a working gaffer.

I've been baffled by a rash of projects I've been on this year where I can see there is no key light for the actors on screen. Basically, what I see happening (particularly on lower-budget projects) is the DP basically lights the set, then they stick the actors in it and start rolling. I wind up having to give the actors key lights in post, just to throw some more fill on them. I do not have this problem on major-budget projects done by experienced pros. We basically have to go "Revenant" on these shows and do lots of windows and roto to bring the actors out in the shot.

Another huge problem is dark scenes where the DP seems unable to give the actors just a skosh of backlight or rim light to separate the actors from the background, along with an eye light. I have no problem with dark scenes, but when the actors sink into a sea of mud, it's a real problem. There's an art to doing this well, and I see this being lost with a lot of younger DPs. I dunno if these skills are not being taught, or if these knuckleheads missed that particular day in film class.

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I've been baffled by a rash of projects I've been on this year where I can see there is no key light for the actors on screen. Basically, what I see happening (particularly on lower-budget projects) is the DP basically lights the set, then they stick the actors in it and start rolling. I wind up having to give the actors key lights in post, just to throw some more fill on them. I do not have this problem on major-budget projects done by experienced pros.

Another huge problem is dark scenes where the DP seems unable to give the actors just a skosh of backlight or rim light to separate the actors from the background, along with an eye light. I have no problem with dark scenes, but when the actors sink into a sea of mud, it's a real problem. There's an art to doing this well, and I see this being lost with a lot of younger DPs. I dunno if these skills are not being taught, or if these knuckleheads missed that particular day in film class.

Marc, I think some of this also just comes down to changing tastes. In the same way that the underexposed, grainy, wide-open, zoom lens aesthetic of some 1970s studio projects may have been unthinkable to cinematographers who began shooting in the 1940s and 50s, the new fashion can seem simply 'wrong' to the old guard. Ultimately, I guess time will tell how this photography will be judged. But I think it is unfortunate that these DPs are not given the chance to own their work - that's how you get better, after all.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I dunno if these skills are not being taught, or if these knuckleheads missed that particular day in film class.

They skipped class and bought a camera instead.

Easy to admire the entrepreneurial spirit. Unfortunately what these young DPs may not realize is how much you learn starting at the bottom on a set.

 

[Bill Totolo]

Question for working DP's! After four years of shooting music videos and short films on the side, I've recently quit my fulltime job and plunged myself into the world of freelancing. Unfortunately, I've met two pro's during my short time so far as a PA/AC; a former NYC commercial DP and a gaffer of 15+ years. The commercial DP left because they saw a decrease in rates and creatively fulfilling projects. Apparently the DP found that all of a sudden, they've found that they've been bidding against ASC members on projects while offering up their usual rates. In addition I've been hearing about DP's who regularly hire established Union AC's who've worked on major Hollywood movies for their non-union commercials because they are apparenlty desperate for the income.

The gaffer is annoyed with the new crop of cinematographers who didn't work their way up traditionally and not only is his job more difficult nowadays but rates have been pushed down. He's trying to leave as well.

Both were either hinting or strongly suggesting that I look into a different line of work.

As you can imagine, this is all very discouraging to hear so I'm very desperate for a more diverse set of opinions! At the same time, I want to be realistic and if I need to get out of the game now, then now would be the best time to do so. So my question is, do any of you feel the same way as these two people? Do any of you find that the opposite is true? If so, are you comfortable financially? Do you feel that you'll have job security until you retire?

P.S. For context, I'm currently in Boston

This is what they told me 25 years ago...

 

[Nick Morrison]

This is what they told me 25 years ago...

Haha. Awesome answer.

 

[Josiah Duncan]

I dunno if these skills are not being taught, or if these knuckleheads missed that particular day in film class.

Fresh out of school and I don't remember this being taught at all where I went. I just stumbled upon lighting dark scenes via heavy hard back lights myself and night scenes just sort of clicked from then on. No one else at school figured that one out at the time. The biggest issue I saw and still see with lighting in indie and student productions is just the sheer lack of budgeting time to light the scene. I personally love lighting a scene as best as I can for every shot, but too often people have unrealistic expectations of how long the shooting day should last and how much you can actually get done in a day. This often would cause situations where I'm unable to adjust lights in between shots at all when I know just a few more minutes would greatly increase the cinematography as a whole. I hate that though, and I know extra time for lighting is really the secret sauce I need at this point to improve my craft.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I read an article (I can't find it now) which argues two points, both of which sound reasonable:

1. A professional's hourly rate cannot be less than $50/hr

2. A professional should charge their day rate

Point 1. is kind of obvious, but point am not completely sold on point 2. That means that photographers, DPs, etc. should be charging $400 per day (8 x $50), regardless of how long that day is. But a day rate still makes perfect sense.

Maybe you should also become a photographer? Some people, goodness knows why, like to pay big money for things like weddings, portraits etc. I guess it makes them feel special that they can afford to pay $5,000 for a photographer while ordinary plebs can't? Or maybe they just want to signal to others that they aren't cheap? Now, a wedding is worth much more than a day rate, but it's not worth $5,000. To some people it is, but even so, I would never charge that.

The problem with a day rate of $400 is that you could do one day's worth of work for an ad that will air at prime time on TV. So maybe the weekly rate of $1,500-$2,500 should apply for experienced DPs for commercial work. That's not very expensive from a client's POV. It's significantly less than what ASC members will charge. The golden rule of business: under-promise, over-deliver. It's just a matter of finding the right ratio.

But don't take business advice from me just yet. I still haven't gotten around to printing business cards and compliment slips. One day, one day... ;-)

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Fresh out of school and I don't remember this being taught at all where I went. I just stumbled upon lighting dark scenes via heavy hard back lights myself and night scenes just sort of clicked from then on. No one else at school figured that one out at the time.

Isn't this one of the very first things that a film maker learns? I remember reading about how David Lynch shot Eraserhead. He had zero experience with features, yet knew the basic three-point lighting method. His only formal training was in fine arts.

Nobody ever needed to study photography, but I do acknowledge that up until about ten years ago, film school offered certain advantages. Now, film schools are as redundant as photography schools always were. Not only that, but it seems that you would do worse by attending a film school.

 

[Josiah Duncan]

Isn't this one of the very first things that a film maker learns?

Three point yes, night lighting no. I studied in Indiana though, not your USC or NYU, but the most learning is absolutely done outside of the classroom. It's easy to spot the students that take initiative outside of class, it's absurd to think everything you need to know to be competent in the industry can even be taught in a full-time class schedule. I went to study film for my last two years for my bachelors and the greatest advantage was easily connections. I've hired numerous former students that I've worked with in school to assist me on shoots.