Cinematography : Really bad cinematography lately by Laura Tabor-Huerta

Lot of that going around. Too many people think that because they have a camera (regardless of the model, expense or a mobile phone) that they're a DP, and haven't a clue about anything. And you're correct. Bad form weeds them out!

it's the same for filmmakers, actors, Crew, etc. Lots of average storytellers but genius is rare.

You are seeing the inevitable result of democratization of the craft. No longer is money and experience seems as a valid barrier to someone hanging a shingle as DP. Trust funder DPs dominate the remaining well budgeted projects, and good enough has become the new "good." It isn't merely the resultant weak look or inappropriateness of approach that is the issue. That's the part you see on screen. The bigger issue I have viewed the past decade with the proliferation of indie productions in general are accepting a self-educated, green, DIY approach to the process, and failure to respect the value of established approaches and the value of experienced crews and cast. I know that when we still shot in film, directors were forced to trust a DP, and since they have been basically educated in digital cinematography, it is more common to "avoid the expense of a pro" and their accompanying opinion, which is an ego thing... but I have seen it grow, and many DPs who are hired are left out of color grading today because the filmmaker knows better / wants the glory. It's a thing. That's OK. Proof is in the pudding.

Remember the days of Dad and his brand new 8mm camera? History has a way of repeating itself.

Yeah but I wouldn't say "bad" necessarily. We're past that point now where lens adaptors would provide telltale signs of up-and-coming DP's. Digital Cinema Cameras now are almost idiot proof when it comes to exposure and focus. So rather than suggest it's bad, I'd assert that cinematography today is getting...awkward. Where the framing, movement and compositions seem off.

The overall image still somehow looks professional only because the sensors are great in low light and forgiving in overlit situations. So it's way more obvious when the camera placement is not conforming to traditional eyelines, continuity or coverage. But doing so in a sloppy way that distracts rather than helps.

M L. technology used has zero to do with professional results. A camera is as good or bad as the human behind and the lighting, subject and scene in front of it. All of those things are cinematography. It's about craft, and while there are more self taught talented DPs, operators, editors, and directors today than in the past, there are vastly more mediocre or worse people with very nice equipment making garbage.

Good tech won't save a badly written, horribly acted or poorly photographed/edited feature film. It's true. But what good tech will do is highlight the amateur hour in a way that confuses the audience. It all "looks" like a movie. So why does it suck? Well, that becomes all too obviously NOT about it's budget.

Right... since so many people these days assume that anyone who bought a cinema camera is a DP, and there are so many film festivals that will accept just about anything anyone submits as long as it plays, it's easy for people who have no talent to find people who will pat them on the back.

These are great and something as an educator I think about often. I think we should also realize that technology greatly changes artisan careers. We are no different then the thousands of artisan trades that have evolved or faded away. We are new blacksmiths, glassblowers, and tapestry makers. We created art that was only dreamed of by the many. Now machines make it look like anyone can do it. It’s no different than the candle makers of old. They were so brilliant at their craft we could could actually and accurately measure light in foot candles. Today’s machines can even come close that but the masses today don’t even see it. Our job now is find where we belong in today’s world. There is always room for the technical arts. We just need to be wise enough to see it and strong enough to act on it.

William

Artisan? The new technology dumbing the capture of images down to a very very low common denominator is one of the significant issues behind crap shooting in a lot of cases. Yes this causes troubles for those limited to crafting something.

As a real DP I am an artist, creating and capturing images. While craftsmanship is an essential part of what I do, it is a very very small part indeed. As an educator, I hope this is what you are teaching your students not that they are limited to artisanship.

Andrew, Yes. I teach my students the art of visual storytelling in relation to filmmaking. I was merely addressing the combination of technological advancement and the effect of the current cycle of democratization in our industry. The “middle class gig” isn’t what it was just a few years ago, especially outside of the major markets. Just clarifying. BTW, I noticed you’re new on 32. Welcome! Hope to see you around the boards. Cheers!

The catastrophic “democratization” of the industry is in part a direct result of technological change dumbing down the skills, experience and demonstrated artistry that are a prerequisite for professional levels of production. Not only does this push many toward lowest common denominator of productions, “democratization” has drastically lowered what that lowest denominator currently is. This boom in awful productions actually lowers the statistical possibility of someone suffering under the delusion of “democratized” production helping move into anything resembling the established professional realm of the industry. While there are other factors adding to this tragic “democratization”, technological change is a major component of it. . The result is scads of people pretending to aspirations of moderately viable results while unconsciously heading for the bottom of the barrel. And missing. Thus ending up even lower. This nicely comes back to the subject of this posting, the increasing number of projects with crap cinematography. Bad cinematography being increasingly visible is but one of many results of said “democratization” that so many tout as positive in some myopic fashion.

“Middle class gig”? It is not a term that is in use at all within the limited areas of my experience. As you’ve found me to be new (thank you for the welcome), perhaps you might define it?

@Andrew, Please let me separate these two things. My apologies, the welcome was not meant to infer anything other than I saw your account was only a couple weeks old and I was hoping to be welcoming. My “mid-class gigs” reference was to the work outside of major markets and the lower budgets those have been getting resulting in less pay or in most cases not enough pay for enough qualified people or time to do a good job. I do agree that there is a terrible rash of bad cinematography and that is based on a number of factors. Again, I apologize for any inference to you being new, you have obvious experience in the industry and astute observations.

William, no worries, its all good. To see how long someone has been on S32 look under Profile>About. It tells you when they joined S32 and things like Network and Posts. I’m not quite sure where you saw I was new, but enjoyed the irony of comparing our start dates and S32 presence.

Cinematography is an Art and a Craft. Apply the 10,000 hour rule. I have 25 years of Cinematography. Still learning. Hire a pro if you want it to look pro. You get what you pay for. You pay nothing you get horrible.

The 10,000 hour “rule” is taken from a book written by journalist Malcom Gladwell, based on anecdotes about success. “Rule” greatly overstates its scientific accuracy and applicability Actual research questions this “rule” time after time. It is a useful consideration but not a rule. A person doing something wrong for 10,000 hours will not correctly master the skill they think they are doing.

There are lots of so called “rules”. Apply thought and scrutiny to understand every “rule” before you apply them to anything you care about.

I think this has two sides, sort of. As in: Yes, I think directors, especially when first starting out, should not DP their own projects, but get a CamOp/DP who's willing and able to film I instead. The thing with no- and lowbudget films is that you often work with inexperienced cast & crew in general and many filmmakers simply want to get their stories out there, regardless of quality. It's more a thing like: "I know did lots of things wrong, and there was only a small bit of actual collaboration, but at least I can prove that I can make an entire feature film!" And that small step of a feature film will have given the director and many other people lots of educative moments to reflect upon.

I'm a DP myself (shooting commercials, music video, etc. mainly), but I know that if I would write/direct, for instance, my own first feature film, the camera department is one of the first things that I would put last on my list.

The first thing would be 'the story' (it better be great!), the second thing would be 'the talents' (they should be good enough to at least be convincing in their roles and their developments/journey/change and pull you inside the story, etc.), the third thing would be sound, and in this case I mainly mean the dialogues (if we can't understand what they are saying, no one is going to watch the rest of it) and next comes the actual cinematography. You'll have to take a lot of consensus, and whatever you do it will never be great with a near no budget. And quite often, that can be okay, if the filmmaker in general knows what s/he is doing. There's a lot of people out there however, that simply decide to make a feature film and in some way they succeed. Often with a very poor result, but they succeeded nonetheless. And I kind of feel like they deserve some credits for actually pulling that off! If they loved the experience, they'll grow into their role, they'll get some more money for their next film and hopefully some more after that, etc.

We all gotta start somewhere! :)

No one should ever shoot a film on a phone. First off, what fucking focal length is that? Who even knows? There is a reason directors are very picky about using 35 / 50 / 85 for different shots. Second, thats going to be garbage for the grade, least of all if you have to green screen something the compression will be absolute trash, might even make it unkeyable. I mean dude if those things don't even go through peoples minds then they shouldn't be making films they should start from the very beginning because they obviously need a 101.

Thats not to say things can't be shot for super low budget and still look amazing, we have tons of great cheap cameras, a whole new world of affordable LED lights and gimbals, i just bought an H1N and a great lav for a little over 150 bucks, so sound is not a big deal either. And you got these crazy drones that can get you aerial shots you used to have to pay out the ass for. Just because you CAN do something low budget doesn't mean you know how to... I'm sure if rocket science was more affordable to people they'd all be blowing themselves up just the same. Like damn at least learn how to use the equipment first