• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Why don't more directors operate the camera themselves?

H

HunterF

Is it because old film cameras are so hard to operate that directors can't manage it? It seems like with the rise of digital, more directors are operating the cameras themselves. I couldn't imagine hiring someone to operate the camera for me, that's one of the most important parts of executing your vision. Granted, I would totally understand hiring a cinematographer to consult with and to help insure the look of the film is exactly right, but I wouldn't want them to actually hold the camera.

Also another sort of related question, are the cinematographer and DP sometimes the same person? Thanks
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Not all directors are focused on visual. A lot are more concerned with performance and would rather sit at a monitor with coms on to judge that. Most directors do not operate camera.

Cinematographer and DP = Same thing unless I've missed something somewhere.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DP and Cinematographer are interchangeable terms.

Also, in terms of camera operation, there's a reason it has traditionally been a completely seperate job even from a DP.

In terms of a Director operating - it's really difficult to focus on framing and performance if you're operating the camera. Generally you end up focussed on one (and as a Director it should generally be performance) and the other suffers
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
+1 Kholi and jax

I've had to shoot all of my films myself because there's no one else where I live (tiny town) qualified to do it at my level. I hate having to do it for exactly the reasons stated above: I'm concentrating on the goddamn camera rather than the performances.

I know Soderbergh shoots his own stuff, but he's a rare exception. And the caliber of actors he works with don't need a lot of direction.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
for that matter, why don't they operate the boom mic? or hold the lights?

Generally, the director is meant to oversee every aspect of the shoot. Indie directors tend to be the cameramen, and of course everyone has their own style
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
mussonman said:
for that matter, why don't they operate the boom mic? or hold the lights?

Generally, the director is meant to oversee every aspect of the shoot. Indie directors tend to be the cameramen, and of course everyone has their own style
Click to expand...

Boy you're snarky most of the time.

OP Had a pretty valid question: Clint Eastwood operates, Robert Rodriguez, Tarantino has done it, lots of well known directors will grab the camera. It's directly related to acquiring the visual story, which is the primary function of motion picture.

No one holds lights, that's what stands are for, and Sound isn't image, although it supports well.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Director of Photography (as we Englanders like to call it, Cinematographer tends to be a your-side-of-the-Atlantic term) is a technical position. Operating the camera requires precise technical skill that renders it very difficult to actively direct your actors. First and foremost, the director is there to work with the actors and liaise with the crew.

It also helps to have that extra level of objectivity. A director who is operating the camera, working as DP, doesn't really have any hurdles of input between themselves and their film. It's unhealthy to have a film that is solely in one person's hands, and separating the DP and Director roles means that you've got the director's overriding vision but with the creative vision and input of someone else.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Many great answers thus far. Besides the fact that camera operator is a position that requires a specialized technical expertise (director not so much), it's also true that you can only devote your attention to so many things simultaneously.

Having operated the camera on everything I've ever directed, I can tell you that I ALWAYS notice things, during editing, that I completely missed, during production. It could be a reflection in a mirror. It could be an actor's performance. It could be whatever. There's stuff you're going to miss, when you stretch your attention too thin. I can't wait to be able to hire somebody for camera, so that I can just direct.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
I can't wait to be able to hire somebody for camera, so that I can just direct.
Click to expand...

Amen!

I'm friends with a pair of filmmaker brothers who work in Portland. One brother will write and direct a feature while the other shoots it for him, then they switch places for the next one. That way they don't have to hire a DP. Reciprocity. That's the kind of setup we need, CF.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HunterF said:
I couldn't imagine hiring someone to operate the camera for me, that's one of the most important parts of executing your vision.
Click to expand...

With this belief, I can understand why asking your question seems logical. The reason why directors do not generally operate the camera is because they do not share your belief. While the cinematography may be the most important element in an occasional scene or part of a scene in the finished film, in other parts it might be the sound, the music or the acting. For the vast majority of most films though it is how all the elements of cinematography, acting, lighting, props, set and sound contribute and work together to create the whole experience called "film". The only person on a film with the vision and therefore the knowledge of how all these elements are going to contribute and work together in the finished product is the director. The role of the director is therefore to sit there and assess the efforts of all the crafts and whether or not those efforts provide the suitable raw materials to execute their vision in post-production. Acting as cameraperson or DOP means the director either isn't paying enough attention to the other crafts or hasn't developed a vision which utilises those other crafts effectively!

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I wonder if it’s simply a personal choice.

Hunter, you can’t imagine hiring a camera operator and I can’t imagine
operating the camera myself. And since I make part of my living as a
camera operator the reason isn’t because I can’t actually hold a camera.
The one time I tried it I felt very disconnected from the actors. While
operating I was focused on the technical aspects of the shot while splitting
my attention with the performances - and everything else a director most
pay attention to. I found that dividing my attention like that was not the
best use of time on a fast 18 shoot day feature. I was not the best operator
and I was a less attentive director. I hired an operator the next day.

When I direct I hire a cinematographer (also called a Director of Photography)
and they hire a camera operator. I am a good enough director that I can
direct the operator to execute my vision. In my experience the main reason
directors don’t operate the camera themselves is that operating is a very
skilled job. Most directors like having a skilled, dedicated person in each of
the positions on a set.

But I understand when working on a small film. When I was just starting I
was the most skilled operator I knew so I operated the camera until I found
someone who was learning that side as I was learning to direct. That was a
great collaboration and made me a better director.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HunterF said:
I couldn't imagine hiring someone to operate the camera for me
Click to expand...

I actually used to feel the same way. Framing is so important to me, and when and how the camera moves etc, that I found it difficult to explain to someone else, and thought I might as well do it. But once I gave that charge to someone else, as cracker said, when you look at the monitor, you notice a lot of things that you would otherwise have missed, including what's in focus, what's out of focus, etc.

A lot of directors do get behind the camera sometimes. Soderbergh gets behind his camera every now and then. Even Spielberg will adjust the frame and tell his DP not to adjust further. You lose a little, when you give up that control, but you gain a whole lot more, as you can put your attention to so much more.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I would prefer to monitor the performance as well. When doing the camera thing, you have to concentrate too much how on you are moving the camera, focus pulling, etc. As director if I can just sit and watch everything, that's a lot better.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lots of good posts here.

My $0.02:

Camera operating is a career unto itself; a craft that takes years to master.

Most 'studio' features aren't shot entirely hand-held. The operator is often on wheels (geared, or remote) requiring coordination and years of practice.

I once saw a 2nd AC spend countless lunches practicing on a geared head. He had a laser pointer taped on a head and was endlessly tracing various shapes drawn on a wall (e.g. a figure-8, zig-zag ...). He looked pretty good until the Camera Op did a demonstration. This guy could repeat moves at various speeds, reverse directions and hit the same mark over and over again. The AC smiled and got back to his reps.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kholi said:
Boy you're snarky most of the time.
Click to expand...

Mussonman often is, but in this case, I'd have answered almost identically. The point is valid. If you're spending as much concentration on the job at hand (boom op, cam op, gaffer) as you should, you take away concentration from other areas (unless you compartmentalize EXTREMELY well). I can't concentrate on the lighting when I'm really trying to get framing and camera blocking down... I certainly can't concentrate on performance while doing all of those... and Boom Op is an all encompassing endeavor, so much to pay attention to. I always try to get a Cam Op that will spend as much concentration on operating the camera as human possible so I don't have to worry about it. That way, as I'm watching the monitor, I can ask for changes and know they'll happen.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I agree with it being better if the director doesn't have to run the camera.

I had the pleasure of working this way only once, and it made a huge difference having a real cinematographer handle the camera and lighting while I directed.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
DJFJEKETE said:
I found this a little while ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwJk2dJidMQ
It's the making of Ghost Rider 2, and from what I can see both the directors are very camera oriented. One of the directors goes on roller blades with the camera to capture the action. I find this to be really interesting.
Click to expand...

Neveldine and Taylor both started as cinematographers & camera operators before transitioning into directing, so it would make sense for them to be so camera oriented.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top