How to deal with a Red-hating DOP?

[Steve Sherrick]

I am honestly not a fan of Red either. Id rather work with another camera I have in mind, or own it.
But I see more people using red than any other camera, so its like I'm being forced into buying it. People want red, so Ill give them Red.

I don't like using the red, but I don't moan and cry because some things are bad or because I just done like it.
I'm dealing with it. I'm buying one even though I don't like them.

The dop you had sounded like an unprofessional suckup.
In this situation, Id speak up saying that it wont work, it will clip or whatever. But, make sure that whoever is in charge or has the highest position hears it.
So, they know you said it and warned them. That way it wont be your fault in a way as you did speak up.

This is an interesting approach. In your specific case, it sounds like you are choosing the camera you think will make you the most money which is valid but hopefully at some point you have more say as to what tools you think will give you the best images for a given project. I'm not a big believer in the one size fits all for production. I feel you can be loyal to a brand like Red, yet realize there are times when you may choose another tool for a specific project. This sometimes becomes a far too emotional thing for many people.

 

[Eric M Hurt]

I was working as operator with my Epic.

If you're an operator you should focus on your job as an op and not worry about the DPs dislikes or decisions, they will have to live with them. Focus on getting the frame right.
It's certainly well within the realm of the operator to mention that the image looks too hot or too dark (the AC should also be aware of this), but arguing with him / her is very bad etiquette. There is a distinct chain of command in the camera department, at least on union shows, so IMO it would be best to follow that now if you're planning to move onto union shows. Remember, YOU WORK FOR THE DP, going behind his back and talking to the director or producer (unless something unsafe is going on) is sure to keep you from future work or get you fired (and rightfully so). The operator has a lot of responsibility so there is already a lot to think about and do. When it comes to differing opinions sometimes you just have to suck it up and do what you're there to do, which in this case is: Pan, Tilt and Invoice

 

[Nick Morrison]

Red footage has a distinct look which it never escapes - it is visible in all the examples on that page. It is not to say this look is a bad thing or a good thing necessarily but it is very much to some people's taste and not to others.

I'm not sure I agree. "Beginners" is a fantastic movie that looks organic, and natural. As does "A Winter's Bone". It's all about how you use it. Like the F65, the RED image is naturally quite "clean". Whereas the Alexa is quite naturally bloomy. But for me the RED is like a canvas I can throw a ton of odd filters and lenses onto to create whatever image we need. Which I believe...was the founder's intent in the first place.

 

[Curt Pair]

During shooting, they insisted on using settings which totally clipped the whites in our outdoor, daylight scene.
I warned them that would happen, but they just said they knew what they were doing.
Presumably so they could blame it on the Epic afterwards.

I'm curious how others on here would have handled the situation?

I have to tell you Anthony, I recently went through something similar myself. We did a show for Discovery ID. I was the DP myself, but the producer on site had NEVER shot with Red. I like to monitor in RAW, so that I can truly see what I'm working with in the field and what I can work with in post, even if it's just transcoding to a format they want, which is what I was doing. As I was asking my PA to pull a layer of diffusion, the producer freaked out. She was VERY upset. She actually wanted it darker, and I wanted it brighter as there seem to be more 'noise' indicated in the EVF/LCD than I wanted. I tried explaining that the "look" she was looking at was not the final product, and that by lighting it my way, we'd have more latitude for them in post, and I could easily create the look she wanted in transcodes. "No way, uh-huh, we don't roll until I see what we're going to get, I'm not that gullible, you won't fool me. Make it darker, and do it now!"

So I went the Toia direction, and normally I'd agree with Mark. But like you, I was skeptical about their willingness to use our Epic M again, because I KNEW the footage was going to be noisy!

I made the transcodes, sent them to the client. They were not happy. "Fix it!" they said. I tried and tried. I worked on it in RCX, Resolve and Speedgrade. I just couldn't remove the noise. I ended up having to go into Premiere and use Neat Video's noise removing software. It did a TERRIFIC job, and the client was elated.

After this, I got to thinking on how I could avoid this situation in the future... One thing I came up with for my particular situation, and you could do the reverse... Next time I'll lower the ISO in my 'look' while maintaining the light levels I want and need in my RAW view! The client only truly cares what it looks like in the end. They didn't understand "RAW" footage. They're used to Sony XDCam. They wanted a specific look of shallow depth of field, and a particular ominous, dark feel. ISO could make that perception their reality on set, while making me happy for post.

Could you have done the same? Could you set up a look and blow out the sky in the look, but save the RAW integrity for someone who knows what they're doing in post? This way you make everyone happy?

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have to tell you Anthony, I recently went through something similar myself. We did a show for Discovery ID. I was the DP myself, but the producer on site had NEVER shot with Red. I like to monitor in RAW, so that I can truly see what I'm working with in the field and what I can work with in post, even if it's just transcoding to a format they want, which is what I was doing. As I was asking my PA to pull a layer of diffusion, the producer freaked out. She was VERY upset. She actually wanted it darker, and I wanted it brighter as there seem to be more 'noise' indicated in the EVF/LCD than I wanted. I tried explaining that the "look" she was looking at was not the final product, and that by lighting it my way, we'd have more latitude for them in post, and I could easily create the look she wanted in transcodes. "No way, uh-huh, we don't roll until I see what we're going to get, I'm not that gullible, you won't fool me. Make it darker, and do it now!"

So I went the Toia direction, and normally I'd agree with Mark. But like you, I was skeptical about their willingness to use our Epic M again, because I KNEW the footage was going to be noisy!

I made the transcodes, sent them to the client. They were not happy. "Fix it!" they said. I tried and tried. I worked on it in RCX, Resolve and Speedgrade. I just couldn't remove the noise. I ended up having to go into Premiere and use Neat Video's noise removing software. It did a TERRIFIC job, and the client was elated.

After this, I got to thinking on how I could avoid this situation in the future... One thing I came up with for my particular situation, and you could do the reverse... Next time I'll lower the ISO in my 'look' while maintaining the light levels I want and need in my RAW view! The client only truly cares what it looks like in the end. They didn't understand "RAW" footage. They're used to Sony XDCam. They wanted a specific look of shallow depth of field, and a particular ominous, dark feel. ISO could make that perception their reality on set, while making me happy for post.

Could you have done the same? Could you set up a look and blow out the sky in the look, but save the RAW integrity for someone who knows what they're doing in post? This way you make everyone happy?

Not all clients understand RAW. And asking them, or expecting to, could create problems. It's a philosophical "leap of faith" that a lot of clients aren't used to (esp in the WYSIWG world on set where what's on the monitor is king).

I def think letting them monitor and watch a LUT you've set up for them (ie NOT Raw) is a smart move. That way you can still check RAW, but they sit back at the tent happily watching what it "will" be.

 

[Chris Luker]

I worked with a DP that hated Red cameras. That's all he would do is rag on them and how bad they are and how Xxxxxx is better.
I went to his website after the shoot and found that he has shot over 90% of everything he shoots on Red and that he actually promotes himself as a Red expert.
How can you hate something that bad and still try and get as many gigs with the camera as possible? $$$ I guess?

 

[Jaakko Rinne]

I have to tell you Anthony, I recently went through something similar myself. We did a show for Discovery ID. I was the DP myself, but the producer on site had NEVER shot with Red. I like to monitor in RAW, so that I can truly see what I'm working with in the field and what I can work with in post, even if it's just transcoding to a format they want, which is what I was doing. As I was asking my PA to pull a layer of diffusion, the producer freaked out. She was VERY upset. She actually wanted it darker, and I wanted it brighter as there seem to be more 'noise' indicated in the EVF/LCD than I wanted. I tried explaining that the "look" she was looking at was not the final product, and that by lighting it my way, we'd have more latitude for them in post, and I could easily create the look she wanted in transcodes. "No way, uh-huh, we don't roll until I see what we're going to get, I'm not that gullible, you won't fool me. Make it darker, and do it now!"

So I went the Toia direction, and normally I'd agree with Mark. But like you, I was skeptical about their willingness to use our Epic M again, because I KNEW the footage was going to be noisy!

I made the transcodes, sent them to the client. They were not happy. "Fix it!" they said. I tried and tried. I worked on it in RCX, Resolve and Speedgrade. I just couldn't remove the noise. I ended up having to go into Premiere and use Neat Video's noise removing software. It did a TERRIFIC job, and the client was elated.

After this, I got to thinking on how I could avoid this situation in the future... One thing I came up with for my particular situation, and you could do the reverse... Next time I'll lower the ISO in my 'look' while maintaining the light levels I want and need in my RAW view! The client only truly cares what it looks like in the end. They didn't understand "RAW" footage. They're used to Sony XDCam. They wanted a specific look of shallow depth of field, and a particular ominous, dark feel. ISO could make that perception their reality on set, while making me happy for post.

Could you have done the same? Could you set up a look and blow out the sky in the look, but save the RAW integrity for someone who knows what they're doing in post? This way you make everyone happy?

If you have the time, just set up some curves in camera to make it look like what the client wants. And shoot with the settings you chose for the shot. Or just show the client the image in Redgamma3.

 

[Curt Pair]

Not all clients understand RAW. And asking them, or expecting to, could create problems. It's a philosophical "leap of faith" that a lot of clients aren't used to (esp in the WYSIWG world on set where what's on the monitor is king).

I def think letting them monitor and watch a LUT you've set up for them (ie NOT Raw) is a smart move. That way you can still check RAW, but they sit back at the tent happily watching what it "will" be.

Nick, I completely understand and agree with what your saying... for this particular project, I was hired by a producer I've known for over a decade. We work VERY well together, unfortunately at the last possible moment, they had to be replaced with another producer I've never worked with... so... all the 'prep' work of explaining the camera, the system and workflow went out the window. The new producer was married to a shooter, so of course, they knew 'everything.' That made it a bit tough... but I was cheerful and explained how we were going to do things. Unfortunately, they drew a line in the sand, and I KNEW it was a mistake. I was able to rectify the situation, and that is the most important element of this story, but I don't want to have to endure what was necessary to do that again! In speaking with Dan Duran at Red, a week later, when we were discussing other things, he asked what was going on for us... I mentioned the situation, and it was actually his idea to lower the ISO... light bulb went off. I didn't even think about that solution. This is why this community versus other manufacturers is so awesome... for the most part, folks help others here! I was trying to help Antony by sharing my own experience and offering suggestions I'm now using for myself.

 

[Curt Pair]

I worked with a DP that hated Red cameras. That's all he would do is rag on them and how bad they are and how Xxxxxx is better.
I went to his website after the shoot and found that he has shot over 90% of everything he shoots on Red and that he actually promotes himself as a Red expert.
How can you hate something that bad and still try and get as many gigs with the camera as possible? $$$ I guess?

You know Chris, I know a COUPLE of guys like that... they dis Red, Epics and Scarlets all the time publicly on Facebook and online forums, yet when I see their demo reels, all they do is boast their "Red Reel!" I just don't get that either! I guess in some circles it's so much cooler to be an Alexa person than an Epic person... I believe they're all tools... I just try to pick the best one. For me, (and maybe because I own one...) that tool of choice is an Epic. I just think it makes the best pictures ever! (I'm proud of it and I'm not afraid to say it! )

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

It happened to me once. the DP was blowing the picture at 250 Asa in bright daylight even though we had ND's in my "front bag" (I don't know the word in english for an AC do-it-all bag).
I warned him as you did, the line producer saw it was over exposed. Man, everybody noticed it. I was the Red tech back in the "rental with a red tech" business, they trusted their own DP who had never worked with a Red.
... And I never worked with them again. They crushed me like it was my fault.

So it's ok to be professionnal, to warn the DP, do as your told, keep your mouth shut but when post-production calls you to ask what happened, they can blame the DP sure, but you too, and you won't work with the production company anymore.

When Red release the slate and project metadata, I embraced it.
Now when I warn the team and I'm not listened, I use the custom slate metadata to clear my name of all forthcoming hustle.

-Shot overexposed on purpose by DP-

Quick and easy. I'm must say I work mostly in commercials where ego's are as high as the sky.
I don't want to feel crushed anymore, one time was enough.

 

[Mike 'Fireman' Ross]

I think a lot of us have been there. The first big job I DPed last year I had this exact issue. Shooting 1980s NYC nightclub scenes, producer over my shoulder, wanting it REAL dark and grungy…

They got what they wanted, they got what they paid for, but I know it could have been better. I've more confidence with the camera now; I'd push back a little harder these days. But sometimes you just have to dance to their tune...

Mike

 

[Antony M]

Some great responses here, some very interesting.
And quite a few of you seem to have already been in the same situation.


Björn. thank you for your HDRx suggestion. That didn't occur to me at the time.


There does seemt o be differing views on the matter though. I wonder if some of this depends what country you are in?

If you're an operator you should focus on your job as an op and not worry about the DPs dislikes or decisions, they will have to live with them...
It's certainly well within the realm of the operator to mention that the image looks too hot or too dark (the AC should also be aware of this), but arguing with him / her is very bad etiquette. There is a distinct chain of command in the camera department, at least on union shows, so IMO it would be best to follow that now if you're planning to move onto union shows. Remember, YOU WORK FOR THE DP, going behind his back and talking to the director or producer (unless something unsafe is going on) is sure to keep you from future work or get you fired (and rightfully so). The operator has a lot of responsibility so there is already a lot to think about and do. When it comes to differing opinions sometimes you just have to suck it up and do what you're there to do, which in this case is: Pan, Tilt and Invoice

This wasn't a union film.
I agree with your first line: I got on with my job and just ignored their comments about which cameras were better, etc.
But I'm curious about your comment (in capitals) that "YOU WORK FOR THE DP".
Certainly I work WITH the DP. But I work FOR the production which is paying me.
Is this different in the USA (where you are based)?

In this situation, Id speak up saying that it wont work, it will clip or whatever. But, make sure that whoever is in charge or has the highest position hears it.
So, they know you said it and warned them. That way it wont be your fault in a way as you did speak up.

Yes, normally this would be what I would regard as sensible.

I have to tell you Anthony, I recently went through something similar myself... I like to monitor in RAW, so that I can truly see what I'm working with in the field and what I can work with in post, ...


After this, I got to thinking on how I could avoid this situation in the future... One thing I came up with for my particular situation, and you could do the reverse... Next time I'll lower the ISO in my 'look' while maintaining the light levels I want and need in my RAW view! The client only truly cares what it looks like in the end. They didn't understand "RAW" footage. They're used to ...


Could you have done the same? Could you set up a look and blow out the sky in the look, but save the RAW integrity for someone who knows what they're doing in post? This way you make everyone happy?

Curt's experience and solution was almost identical to mine (but in reverse).
I switched the view to RAW (which the DOP didn't even realise I had done, which says something).
And as a result managed to rescue the shot.
Although this obviously means that the editor will have to manually change the ISO settings back when importing.

It happened to me once. the DP was blowing the picture at 250 Asa in bright daylight ...
I warned him as you did, the line producer saw it was over exposed. Man, everybody noticed it... they trusted their own DP who had never worked with a Red.
... And I never worked with them again. They crushed me like it was my fault.


So it's ok to be professionnal, to warn the DP, do as your told, keep your mouth shut but when post-production calls you to ask what happened, they can blame the DP sure, but you too, and you won't work with the production company anymore.


When Red release the slate and project metadata, I embraced it.
Now when I warn the team and I'm not listened, I use the custom slate metadata to clear my name of all forthcoming hustle.


-Shot overexposed on purpose by DP-

Exactly what I worried would happen.


I like your solution with the Slate metadata. Nice idea, if you have time to type that in.
How do you get to see that metadata though? Does it show up in RedCine?

 

[Scott Crawley]

Many or most of us have found ourselves on a production where we are not shooting our camera of choice. It happens for a variety of reasons but when it does it generally means that I, as the DP have lost a primary battle and made a compromise. It would be understandable enough if he wanted to make it clear to his team that this was not his choice, but as a key figure on the set he should be careful not to drive a wedge between his crew and the Production staff just because he is ass hurt. It can disrupt the mood on set and certainly kill morale within the camera department. At worst it could put the entire project in jeopardy and at best it will only sour relationships.

As a subordinate I would just take it as a sign that he is uncomfortable with what is happening and look for ways that I might help ease his way and enable our unit to perform to it's highest ability under the circumstances. I would expect to meet with less resistance that way. Then I would document the shit out of my efforts. ;-) If you really think that you know something that he doesn't then you are in a unique position to help, if he will accept it.

Since he owns the gear and shows extensive Red footage in his reel consider the possibility that he might actually love it, but has heard so much anti-Red BS that he finds it easier to play along and pretend that he hates it too as not to look like an idiot to his camera crew. If that is the case, you have the potentially difficult task of helping him to find his balls. Happy Hunting!

Which do you think he will respond better to, a challenge to man up, brotherly support or a capitulating technician? Which are you most comfortable playing?

Whichever happens, whining just makes you look like a pussy as his example clearly shows. (If you are representing it accurately.) I advise against it.

 

[Eric M Hurt]

"But I'm curious about your comment (in capitals) that "YOU WORK FOR THE DP".
Certainly I work WITH the DP. But I work FOR the production which is paying me.
Is this different in the USA (where you are based)?"


If you worked for any other company your manager would be your boss even though your checks are cut from the main office, same goes here.
Think about it this way; they hire the DP first and then he hires (or has a large hand in hiring) the ops, that should tell you who the ops work for.
There's nothing wrong with doing one job and doing it well. Having that mentality will keep opening doors, trying to do other people's jobs will close them since no DP will hire or give a recommendation for an op
they don't think has their back. In the end you have no idea what the DPs final goal is, nor are they under any obligation to tell you, so all you can do is try and capture his vision as best as possible.

I had an interview with the long time DP Marvin Rush (Star Trek Nex Gen, Hell on Wheels) the other day. He was telling me about an op he stopped hiring because the guy "was always trying to make the film his way". Worth thinking about....

 

[Björn Benckert]

My advice,
If you prove a DP wrong, then you will not get too far as a camera AC / camera tech, But if you are able to comfortably give him information in a such nice way so that even in his own mind he thinks that he came up with this "great idea of closing down a bit to save the highlights". Then, if you managed that, you can consider your self to have a future as a quite successful AC... If not then you need to become a DP then the AC profession is not for you.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

All you can do is to convey accurate information, you can't force people to accept it.

At a setting of 100 ISO you'd have a problem with clippy highlights even on an Alexa.

 

[Ken Wilson]

The majority of the complains about any Red camera is that its too 'fiddly' and too sharp (meaning, too digital looking and not very organic). In my opinion, these are actually valid observations.

I believe everyone (me included) is specific about what is perfect and we all try to achieve it based on this belief which is relative and can very well be wrong.

 

[Burke Doeren]

Did you reference the goal posts / traffic lights while you were on set? That's always one of the first tools I'll bring up if ISO is ever in question because it shows you precisely how much of the frame and which channels are overexposed or underexposed.

As long as you can get someone to focus on and abide by those tools, you'll have a well-exposed image.

 

[Antony M]

"But I'm curious about your comment (in capitals) that "YOU WORK FOR THE DP".
Certainly I work WITH the DP. But I work FOR the production which is paying me.
Is this different in the USA (where you are based)?"


If you worked for any other company your manager would be your boss even though your checks are cut from the main office, same goes here.
Think about it this way; they hire the DP first and then he hires (or has a large hand in hiring) the ops, that should tell you who the ops work for.
There's nothing wrong with doing one job and doing it well. Having that mentality will keep opening doors, trying to do other people's jobs will close them since no DP will hire or give a recommendation for an op
they don't think has their back. In the end you have no idea what the DPs final goal is, nor are they under any obligation to tell you, so all you can do is try and capture his vision as best as possible.

I had an interview with the long time DP Marvin Rush (Star Trek Nex Gen, Hell on Wheels) the other day. He was telling me about an op he stopped hiring because the guy "was always trying to make the film his way". Worth thinking about....

Thank you for explaining, now I understand where your comment came from.

That isn't the situation here.

I was taken on already by the production, which wanted to shoot on Red cams. The DOP was brought in later and had no say in the choice of camera or ops.

" In the end you have no idea what the DPs final goal is, nor are they under any obligation to tell you, so all you can do is try and capture his vision as best as possible."
Maybe I didn't explain properly in my first post, so let me be clear here, this wasn't a particular "look" or "vision" they were after, they just didn't understand the way the Red's sensor and ISO setting works. And they refused to believe my explanation. They insisted that it worked the same way as film, i.e. they wanted to set it to a very low ISO in bright daylight.


Also with your analogy of other companies, if I worked for a company and my direct manager was deliberately harming the business, then I would certainly go to a higher manager to express my concerns. My loyalty would be to the company not to the bad manager.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The majority of the complains about any Red camera is that its too 'fiddly' and too sharp (meaning, too digital looking and not very organic). In my opinion, these are actually valid observations.

I never buy the "sharp" critique. The F65 it turns out is "sharp" and needs some BPM on it as well (all of Ater Earth is shot on 1/8 BPM). It all depends on how you USE the RED...if you filter it properly, match it with the proper lenses, it can look very "organic" and not so "sharp". I believe RED made the camera like this on purpose. It's up to YOU, the user, to make it sharp, organic, or whatever. By design it'a assumed YOU will be adding the personality, not the camera. Personally, I'm on board with that philosophy and applaud them for it. But that's just me.