NOTE: This is just my opinion, and it’s my opinion based on the world of narrative filmmaking. There are also a few derogative words used. woops!

I read an article today that evoked some opinions of mine that have been growing over the past few years. The article comes from a blog post on ASC’s website (American Society of Cinematographers) written by John Bailey, ASC, titled “The Cinematographer Today: Evolution of Devolution – Part One“. The article goes into great detail in the origins of how cinematographers came to be. What’s fascinating about this article is the psychology of making a movie out of film and making one through video.

Toland on set of "Citizen Kane"

Bailey makes the point that in the past working with film the cinematographer was in absolute charge of the lighting and camera work. He was the one with light meter. He HAD to know how different varieties of light readings would look, when mixed with a particular film stock in congruency with 1/2 CTO over a 1k Tungsten. Learning this over many years of apprenticeship. He was respected. He wasn’t challenged by his subordinates. A chain of command.

Bailey proposes a question that I’ve thought about myself many of times:

“Has the emergence of digital cameras, especially lower-end ones, into mainstream Hollywood features irrevocably altered the role of the cinematographer in contemporary filmmaking?”

We all talk about how HD is “democratizing” filmmaking. Is that really a good thing? I see the good in it with the indie and zero budget film crowd being able to make films near cinematic levels of high budget films. But there is also another democratization riding on the skirt tails of DSLRs and HD, and that’s within the film making process. Bailey does a great job in summarizing this point.

“In the democratizing era of digital video, in a what you see is (more or less) what you get environment, it is tempting for nearly everyone to express an opinion about what is being displayed at an on-set HD monitor.”

Look at all these DPs!

With the arrival of HD filmmaking things have changed. With every film set having a video village that EVERYBODY can look at. Everyones a DP now. That’s Bullshit. When it doesn’t look right or even “PRETTY” they question you. With a 1st AD and Producer breathing down my neck I don’t have time to question a PA about my exposure. There’s not a chance that kind of shit will fly on my shoot. Democratization is a great way to run a country. But that doesn’t mean it works on a film set. But the neutering of a cinematographer doesn’t end there. This idea of shots being “DATA” is taken into post. Again Bailey hits the nail on the head.

“This extends downstream into the editing suite as the movie is being cut. Too often, the images are seen as just so much “data” to be moved around, reframed, flipped and blown up, as though the cinematographer’s care in image creation has lesser currency because it is “digital.” Everyone has Photoshop on his or her laptop; everyone knows how to alter images. The current generation of Avid editing machines has lots of bells and whistles that make shot alteration all too easy. This practice is further abetted by the often-heard mantra by harried cinematographers, “Don’t worry, we’ll fix it in post.”

This quote reminds me of a lesson I learned from one of my most influential teachers, Dave Insley, one of the DPs for “The Wire”. We were doing a very slight dolly move, maybe only moving a foot in distance. I jokingly said we could have done that movie in post. He then told me to never give that sort of freedom up on your images. Otherwise editors will take it and fuck it up. (something along those lines anyways).

When shooting a film I make sure to be involved in the post production process. Most particularly in regards to color correction, whether it be overseeing CC or doing it myself (which I’m quite fond of). At this stage of the process the edit is locked and I can make sure my work isn’t being trampled on.

I strongly believe in collective effort in creativity and enjoying the time creating a film. But there are few things that will piss me off something terrible. One of those being those who mess with the images the my Director, my crew and myself have worked very hard to achieve. When I work for other DPs the only time I comment on their work is if I’m asked or if I can’t help but let them know how gorgeous it looks.(A little ass kissing never hurt anyone ;)

Michael Ballhaus on set of "The Departed"

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been questioned about the color tone, or the exposure by someone who has NO PLACE. If my director want’s to question the look, that’s fine. It’s more than fine, it’s good, I encourage it. It’s his job and he’s my boss. It means he’s taking the time to compose his shot. You can only rush creativity so much before you miss something vital to it’s backbone. It’s unfortunate how often creativity is sacrificed. That’s why there is so much shit out there.

It’s why I enjoy working with Directors that I’ve previously worked with. They all know what I’m capable of and they give me my freedom to find something on certain key points to make the movie pop at certain points.

The main point that I am trying to make here is that as up and coming cinematographers it’s vital that we keep learning and strengthening your knowledge about all facets of production. We must come to the realization that were all students. We must be constantly learning. That way when time does come to shoot a feature film or documentary you can establish your ground as the director of photography. You are in charge of giving your Director an image that achieves his or her vision, or exceeds it. All the while holding firm in your authority.

My Director of choice, David Joyce (standing) and myself (sitting) composing a shot

The fight to keep that authority is becoming more challenging. But who knows, maybe it will give rise to new cinematographers who are more involved in the process than ever before. To make sure the film’s aesthetic is firmly planted in all facets. Time will tell.