It's official, anyone now can be a colorist!

[Frank Cueto]

Why do I have a feeling that the OP from Craiglist is about to show up around here and defend his POV?? (I swear if that guy shows up, I had NOTHING to do with it!)

 

[Vladimir Cassel]

Why do I have a feeling that the OP from Craiglist is about to show up around here and defend his POV?? (I swear if that guy shows up, I had NOTHING to do with it!)

That's the thing though. The OP of this thread didn't find this guy selling his services on Craigslist; he found him on the Creative Cow forums. "Colorist, Contractor, Realtor" is just in this guy's sig. He lives on the East Coast (not New York), where I don't imagine there's a ton of work streaming in. And this guy is super nice, helpful, and really seems to know his stuff. I think this all speaks for itself and I don't know why all the "professionals" of this board need to wallow in this sort of crapulence yet again.

 

[Jared Caldwell]

He lives on the East Coast (not New York), where I don't imagine there's a ton of work streaming in.

Just to add here, New York isn't the only place to shoot film on the east coast. Atlanta and Georgia in general is definitely growing in a big way in regards to cinema and television work. Just sayin'. :}

 

[Frank Cueto]

Just to add here, New York isn't the only place to shoot film on the east coast. Atlanta and Georgia in general is definitely growing in a big way in regards to cinema and television work. Just sayin'. :}

We sure are getting some feature work here in Puerto Rico as well.

Recently the local government is passing a new film incentive (bribes per Mike M parlance, no disrespect intended, I can see where he is coming... ;-)

As long as you spend more than $100,000 in local production (movies, tv series, shorts, music videos and even advertising) the government will reimburse 40% in tax credits, and now also a 25% in tax credits on the cost of the non-local crew and above the line talent (leading actors, directors and such..)
I am not very well versed in this yet, since my work is post, not film financing... so don't go quoting me now!

 

[M Most]

Just to add here, New York isn't the only place to shoot film on the east coast. Atlanta and Georgia in general is definitely growing in a big way in regards to cinema and television work. Just sayin'. :}

However, New York is the one place that is shot for itself and not as a double for other locations, at least for the most part. That is what builds a lasting production industry. Incentives only work unless and until the legislators who approved them decide that they're not nearly as profitable for the state as they had been promised. The problem is that if a location sells itself largely as being cheap, sooner or later another location comes along that's even cheaper. That's what happened to Canada for a few years, it's what happened to North Carolina a while back, it's what's happened to Australia recently, and it's what's led a number of states to either change the incentives to something a bit more reasonable or let them lapse altogether. That's what happened in Florida, and it's likely to happen in New Mexico. In fact, without an available industrial base to resell tax credits to (as is the case in Louisiana with the oil industry), it's difficult to create a sustaining incentive program that actually makes money for the state. And once a location's incentive program lapses, it's very difficult to get the industry to pay attention again, as Florida learned even after reinstating their incentive program. Creating a lasting film production industry requires infrastructure, a large local crew base, and a real commitment to an incentive program that can be sustained. In the US, the real, lasting production centers that I can see are Los Angeles, New York and Louisiana - the first two for obvious reasons, and the third because they were really the first "incentivized" location and have long been the most committed, even though New Orleans and Shreveport are rarely shot as themselves. I'm not sure any of the others - and in that group I would include Massachusetts, Michigan, Georgia, and Connecticut - will really have any permanence. But that's just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

But I don't think I am.

 

[Jared Caldwell]

However, New York is the one place that is shot for itself and not as a double for other locations, at least for the most part. That is what builds a lasting production industry. Incentives only work unless and until the legislators who approved them decide that they're not nearly as profitable for the state as they had been promised. The problem is that if a location sells itself largely as being cheap, sooner or later another location comes along that's even cheaper. That's what happened to Canada for a few years, it's what happened to North Carolina a while back, it's what's happened to Australia recently, and it's what's led a number of states to either change the incentives to something a bit more reasonable or let them lapse altogether. That's what happened in Florida, and it's likely to happen in New Mexico. In fact, without an available industrial base to resell tax credits to (as is the case in Louisiana with the oil industry), it's difficult to create a sustaining incentive program that actually makes money for the state. And once a location's incentive program lapses, it's very difficult to get the industry to pay attention again, as Florida learned even after reinstating their incentive program. Creating a lasting film production industry requires infrastructure, a large local crew base, and a real commitment to an incentive program that can be sustained. In the US, the real, lasting production centers that I can see are Los Angeles, New York and Louisiana - the first two for obvious reasons, and the third because they were really the first "incentivized" location and have long been the most committed, even though New Orleans and Shreveport are rarely shot as themselves. I'm not sure any of the others - and in that group I would include Massachusetts, Michigan, Georgia, and Connecticut - will really have any permanence. But that's just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

But I don't think I am.

There are a few things going for Atlanta and Georgia that can create longevity...

1) Atlanta has a huge television and news base. Anything owned by Turner (Cartoon Network, CNN, etc) has a base in Atlanta. Television infrastructure is securely placed in Atlanta.
2) Atlanta is pretty much the Hip Hop capital. Numerous music videos are shot on location in Atlanta.
3) Georgia has a lot of natural location diversity. Georgia has mountains, plains, beaches, and ocean. Georgia also has all four seasons (hot summers, and pretty cold winters [snow]).
4) Hartsfield/Jackson Airport is the busiest airport in the world. Atlanta is accommodating to business and air travel.

Though all states have a lot to offer, I can see the potential in the Atlanta area, especially with a lot of infrastructure that is already established. :}

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

In the US, the real, lasting production centers that I can see are Los Angeles, New York and Louisiana - the first two for obvious reasons, and the third because they were really the first "incentivized" location and have long been the most committed, even though New Orleans and Shreveport are rarely shot as themselves. I'm not sure any of the others - and in that group I would include Massachusetts, Michigan, Georgia, and Connecticut - will really have any permanence. But that's just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

But I don't think I am.

What Mike said.

 

[Frank Cueto]

Well... We have a few things going for Puerto Rico that a LOT of the other incetivized places dont.

We are probably the only place, within the jurisdiction of the US government, that you can get extensive professional crews and support and still have "exotic" locations. Hawaii comes to mind, and although I can't talk about them due to lack of knowledge, I have heard it from producers that shoot there, that we have better local crews and support for film production. This might be changing now with the production of POTC4 which is shooting over there. From my understanding they offered an even better incentive than Puerto Rico. Kudos to them!

Puerto Rico is seldomly used as stand in for a US location. Recently there where a couple production using PR as PR, one of them is "The Rum Diaries" and the other one is "The Caller" (which was shot on redone non-MX, and I am happy to say all its post is being handled at my facility.)

If I am not mistaken, PR was one of the first (if not the first) to offer film incentives in the world. The local government has measured the impact of such incentives on our local economy and so far has been a positive effect. To such degree that both controlling political parties have always backed up the incentives and now we are getting new ones to keep competitive.

Of course, as you have all stated, this can be seen as a race to the bottom, can be seen as a race to "who can do it cheaper". Hopefully by the time that time reaches PR will have matured to such point that it will still hold value for film productions and we will have a healthy flow of local productions. Only time will tell.

I can say the incentives also apply to local productions, and it has been positive. In the last 12-16 months I have finished around 8-10 features. True, none of them where from out of state, but we have come tantalizing close, and once we managed to grab 250+ vfx shots for a Fox title and turn them around in record time and budget (per their comments).

The very last thing I am looking to do is start a flamewar, there are a lot of people I highly respect here and who repeatedly share their vast knowledge/experiences (Mike and Mark come readily to mind). Just wanted to share the POV of someone who has experienced great growth (both economically and capability wise) thanks to this.

Feel free to correct any misinformation I may have mistakenly shared here.

P.S. Mark, a while back I believe a DIT from Off-Hollywood came to PR to work on a red shot show. All I heard was great thing spoken about him. Two big thumbs up

 

[Frank Cueto]

On a side note, Fast 5 recently wrapped Principal photography here, PR stood in for the slums of Brazil (not too nice I must admit, what the heck...) and they picked PR for other reasons besides the incentive:

1) It was easier logistically to shoot in PR than Brazil.
2) Visa and passport issues, they delay everything
3) Language barrier (I don't quite buy this one, but i heard it thrown about a lot)
4) Its part of the US jurisdiction, so if something went wrong, it was easier to deal with.
5) SECURITY
6) transportation issues
7) Film Incentives (DUH!)

 

[Shawn Nelson]

However, New York is the one place that is shot for itself and not as a double for other locations, at least for the most part. That is what builds a lasting production industry. Incentives only work unless and until the legislators who approved them decide that they're not nearly as profitable for the state as they had been promised. The problem is that if a location sells itself largely as being cheap, sooner or later another location comes along that's even cheaper. That's what happened to Canada for a few years, it's what happened to North Carolina a while back, it's what's happened to Australia recently, and it's what's led a number of states to either change the incentives to something a bit more reasonable or let them lapse altogether. That's what happened in Florida, and it's likely to happen in New Mexico. In fact, without an available industrial base to resell tax credits to (as is the case in Louisiana with the oil industry), it's difficult to create a sustaining incentive program that actually makes money for the state. And once a location's incentive program lapses, it's very difficult to get the industry to pay attention again, as Florida learned even after reinstating their incentive program. Creating a lasting film production industry requires infrastructure, a large local crew base, and a real commitment to an incentive program that can be sustained. In the US, the real, lasting production centers that I can see are Los Angeles, New York and Louisiana - the first two for obvious reasons, and the third because they were really the first "incentivized" location and have long been the most committed, even though New Orleans and Shreveport are rarely shot as themselves. I'm not sure any of the others - and in that group I would include Massachusetts, Michigan, Georgia, and Connecticut - will really have any permanence. But that's just my opinion. I could easily be wrong.

But I don't think I am.

Interesting. What about Austin? I've long thought they were the #3 behind LA and NY.

As a biased local, I think Portland is going to get over the hump and become a more permanently viable production center, maybe #5 in the US.

 

[Frank Cueto]

And this thread in the "off-topic" section of reduser has officially gone off-topic

Maybe we should move this to another thread?

 

[M Most]

Of course, as you have all stated, this can be seen as a race to the bottom, can be seen as a race to "who can do it cheaper". Hopefully by the time that time reaches PR will have matured to such point that it will still hold value for film productions and we will have a healthy flow of local productions. Only time will tell.

Yes, only time will tell. So far, I've really only seen the scenario you're referring to happen in two places: Louisiana and Vancouver. Both had some built in advantages. Louisiana had New Orleans, a place people love to visit, and after Katrina, a huge sympathy factor. But they have also done a lot of things right, in terms of creating and maintaining an incentive program that included things like an infrastructure incentive, as well as growing their crew base and, as I mentioned before, structuring the incentive program in a relatively self sustaining way based on their indigenous industry and resources. Vancouver had a number of distinct advantages, such as being in the same time zone and only a 3 hour trip from Los Angeles, as well as some varied local terrain and a city that has a rather generic "North American City" look to it. But they also shrink and grow based on something they can't really control, namely the exchange rate. When it's favorable, they do well. When it's not, well, they don't. That, of course, is something PR doesn't have to deal with, but then again, it never becomes an advantage, either. One could, of course, point to Toronto as well, but I would argue that Toronto has had a film industry - namely, the Canadian film and television industry - for many years, and is no newcomer to the production game. As for Austin, mentioned by another poster, it has some similar advantages to New Orleans as a place everyone loves to visit, but it really has only one major patron (Robert Rodriguez) and doesn't even come close to New Orleans in terms of overall production.

Bottom line: I stand by my previous conclusion.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

Interesting. What about Austin? I've long thought they were the #3 behind LA and NY.

As a biased local, I think Portland is going to get over the hump and become a more permanently viable production center, maybe #5 in the US.

:thumbsup:

 

[Liam Hall]

I think that there are a lot of people that have experience in multiple facets of filmmaking. When you are just starting out on your own, you wind up wearing a lot of different hats.

The problem is when you start advertising that you can "do it all". Just like any job you apply for, you want to show aspects of your resume that are relevant to the job you are applying for.
:}

I slightly disagree on two counts. Firstly, there are many people in this industry who wear many hats all the time. Look around this forum and you'll find lots of people who can do all the core jobs to highest standards.

And second, the problem isn't when you advertise you can do everything, but when your clients expect you to do everything.

 

[Frank Cueto]

Yes, only time will tell. So far, I've really only seen the scenario you're referring to happen in two places: Louisiana and Vancouver. Both had some built in advantages. Louisiana had New Orleans, a place people love to visit, and after Katrina, a huge sympathy factor. But they have also done a lot of things right, in terms of creating and maintaining an incentive program that included things like an infrastructure incentive, as well as growing their crew base and, as I mentioned before, structuring the incentive program in a relatively self sustaining way based on their indigenous industry and resources. Vancouver had a number of distinct advantages, such as being in the same time zone and only a 3 hour trip from Los Angeles, as well as some varied local terrain and a city that has a rather generic "North American City" look to it. But they also shrink and grow based on something they can't really control, namely the exchange rate. When it's favorable, they do well. When it's not, well, they don't. That, of course, is something PR doesn't have to deal with, but then again, it never becomes an advantage, either. One could, of course, point to Toronto as well, but I would argue that Toronto has had a film industry - namely, the Canadian film and television industry - for many years, and is no newcomer to the production game. As for Austin, mentioned by another poster, it has some similar advantages to New Orleans as a place everyone loves to visit, but it really has only one major patron (Robert Rodriguez) and doesn't even come close to New Orleans in terms of overall production.

Bottom line: I stand by my previous conclusion.

Fair enough, wouldn't expect anything else.

 

[M Most]

I slightly disagree on two counts. Firstly, there are many people in this industry who wear many hats all the time. Look around this forum and you'll find lots of people who can do all the core jobs to highest standards.

I find lots of people who **claim** they can do that. Whether they can or not is something neither you nor I nor anyone else on this forum actually know. But based on a lot of experience, I doubt it.

And second, the problem isn't when you advertise you can do everything, but when your clients expect you to do everything.

They usually expect that because you've claimed you can (not you personally, but the generic "you").

 

[Sid Idris]

I just saw a post, that was signed by a person, describing himself as:
"Colorist, Contractor, Realtor".
That perfectly explains, why rates for color grading work are a joke, as is majority of work posted by these, so called, "colorists".
My rant for a day...:biggrinjester:

you know he may very well be a colorist who had to find new ways to supplement his income with real estate/renovations... I seem to remember a number of post houses shut down during the real estate boon here in LA...

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Well teh REAL problem is guys like this giving lowball quotes, and clueless clients seeing these quotes as the new price for whatever.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

None of this is new.

When 3d software moved from expensive IRIX workstations to commodity PCs, there were people coming out of the woodwork setting up vfx shops. All they did was buy a few PC stations, a bunch of licenses and hired some cheap talent and they were bidding on jobs.

Technological hurdles become anthills faster than we can fathom because the hardware and software is much cheaper and more powerful than ever before and just keeps getting better.

Old barriers to entry get torn down, but will lead to new ones.

I think only the ones who are really committed will stick around, while the ones who want a quick buck will move on when they realize they owe more than they make.

 

[Thomas Mathai]

The race to the bottom has been running for a good while, I'm already noticing some results from it:

Filmmakers saying they will just do the work themselves, since they can't afford to hire anyone.

Some clients buying the hardware/software and hire a few jack of all trades freelancers to do the work in-house.

Outsourcing the work overseas or other states.

Industry veterans and young guns alike setting up shop on their own, work on a few projects at a time to keep moving forward.

It's so much easier to learn any job in the film industry now. Not only do we have tons of behind the scenes extras on dvds, we have tons of tutorials (good and bad) on how to do just about any technique.

How we learned is much different from how the next generation will learn. They may not apprentice at all, just jump in with both feet, and get burned a lot more, but that doesn't mean they won't have mentors or help, it'll just be in a different form.

The question will be, are we working with people who know what they are doing well or just following the numbers. I think only time will tell.