>We have to make sure that credits are clear and that there are no >misunderstandings...so :
>This is so important. I always make sure that it is very clear what I did on different productions. I think if someone is putting themselves forward as a DP and then includes stuff on their reel that they, say, operated on but did not light, but does not make this clear, then they are defrauding the person who is looking at their reel.
>After all, we all know that anybody can call themselves a DP. The only way employers have of sorting the wheat from the chaff is by looking at their work.
class="style7">>This is something that has bothered me for a while.
class="style7">>I'm sure we've all shown our work to a company to be told "nah! so & so >did that, you've ripped it off" when in fact the opposite is the case.
class="style7">>Or you've come across people trying to move up a grade and using >work they did with you as an AC on their DP reel "well, I worked on it!"
>Sad, but true. The stories we could tell...
>However, I think you have to make a distinction between commercials and films with credits.
>An observation :
>It used to be the rule in commercials that producers, or whoever decides such things, wanted to see reels from cinematographers and resumes from the rest of the crew. More and more that seems to have been reversed, with everyone from Key Grip to Craft Service, "working on their reels", and DPÂ´s just sending a list of credits.
>I was told this was because the "whoever" doesn't have the time to look at a bunch of reels.
>Of course many times when they do want DP reels, they only want them for ideas to copy or for making a "Steal-o-Matic". (I've been shown many a "Steal-o-Matic" with some of my own shots that they wanted me to duplicate -- no, sorry, not duplicate -- get something just like this but only different and try to do better.)
>From my experience, I think you're going to have a very hard time trying to get people to make these kinds of distinctions when many of them are, in fact, trying very hard to blur any distinction.
IA 600 DP
class="style7">>I think you're going to have a very hard time trying to get people to >make these kinds of distinctions when many of them are, in fact, trying >very hard to blur any distinction.
>Precisely the reason I brought it up...
>I think we should band together to try and stop it.
>Geoff Boyle FBKS
Director of Photography
>Two more credit "beefs"
>1/. At a prod companies office's waiting for a meeting. On the producers desk a quite well known stills guy's portfolio that included three pages of wide shots of sets that I had lit.
>2/. South bank show- an available light documentary (looked like Dv to me) on buskers in London. Everything shot on a wobbly steadicam.
>Two credits one said "camera"
>Second credit says "director of photography"
>Mike Southon bsc
class="style7">>1/. At a prod companies office's waiting for a meeting. On the >producers desk a quite well known stills guy's portfolio that included >three pages of wide shots of sets that I had lit.
>I have come to conclusion that best job on set is stills...get the DoP to light it, and snap away!
>Brian Heller writes :
class="style7">>More and more that seems to have been reversed, with everyone from >Key Grip to Craft Service, "working on their reels", and DPÂ´s just >sending a list of credits.
>Then who looks at the Key Grips' and Craft Services' reels?
>Mike Southon writes :
class="style7">>Two credits one said "camera" second credit says "director of >photography"
>I'd guess "Camera" meant operator or "additional photography by..."
>In docs where the DP and operator are the same person, "Camera" is still often used as the overall cinematography/videography credit. (In some documentary contexts "Director of Photography" can sometimes seem a bit pretentious.).
>(So when digital cinematography comes of age, who will be the first A-list Hollywood DP to demand "videographer" credit)
Marin County, CA
>[Stuff about Credit 'etiquette' for reels]
>The visual effects industry has a standard procedure for reels which I think is appropriate for reels in general - cinematographers, DoP's, Directors etc.. Because a number of artists contribute to a shot in VFX (also true of normal shoots as well) when you submit a reel to a production company it must be accompanied by a breakdown sheet.
This breakdown goes through each shot in the reel and explains what you actually did :
>(He's a good friend of mine... see page 3-7 of the 'resume and breakdown').
>Some effects guys are also embedding 'subtitle' tracks into their
QuickTime movies/DVDâ€™s which overlay brief information on each shot.
>OTH, compositing tends to be a niche industry where everybody knows each other... and your reputation is very important. If you lie on your resume/reel, someone will find out and you'll suddenly lose a lot of work.
>I think a similar approach could be adopted for cinematography (and directing). Thatâ€™s if producers ever bothered to read the things...
>Sadly, they probably won't.
>Director + Editor
>Dan Drasin writes:
class="style7">>Then who looks at the Key Grips' and Craft Services' reels?
>An excellent question; the answer is beyond my expertise.
>Myself, I wonder what they'd be looking for in a Key Grip's reel.
IA 600 DP
>Very important subject and something I've dealt with just this week while building a new reel and resume.*
>For many years my show reels have started with the brief title card :
>"The photographic direction, camera operation and lighting design on this reel are exclusively the work of Royce Allen Dudley".
>And this is the case. For better or worse, what you see on my reel is my work. However, it has limitations in one sense: I use specialty operators once in a while (Steadicam, skydiving or underwater are the common examples) and hence have not included sequences I DPâ€™ed that include their work. So far this hasn't been a conscious problem. It also may tend to minimize any input in "design" I get from my gaffer, but I am quick to insist on their importance and input value, so I don't think it's too cocky to say " I lit it" even if others carried it out?
>No DP is an island.
>There are shows I operated or lit for other DP's ( since I've called myself "DP") that had significant success due in part to my efforts; I wouldn't in a million years think of putting any of that footage on my DP reel - it's not mine. If I were to solicit work as operator or gaffer, which I generally don't, I suppose I'd need to create a "lit by" and "shot by" reel, with clear disclaimers as well.
>15 years ago a Betacam producer I shot for told me on my first reel something to the effect "put your best stuff on there, even if it's only 90 seconds worth, and make sure it's all yours, with your name plastered all over it. When I look at a reel I never know what it is or what the person really did on it".
>Which reminds me of an incident mirroring Geoff's comment about rip-offs :
>I was producing a project 4 years ago in L.A. and got 30-odd demo reels, unsolicited, for DP. We screened them. There was duplicate footage of a sequence on two of them. One was a somewhat well known DP, the other guy as it turns out had been his 1st AC / 2nd unit operator.
>*Unrelated but pertinent; how many of you working DP's actually shoot stuff just for your reel? I always thought this a dishonest, somewhat amateurish solution to creating a reel, but after years of major trouble getting the best footage from people I've shot for, I decided it might be time to fill in the missing links of my reel with specifically-tailored clips. I know all the young guys and gals in town do it. Is it "OK" ?
>What if someone asks "that's a great scene- what was that from? I'd love to see the whole film " Do I then look the fool by saying "oh, it's just something I did one Sunday with short ends?"
>And what about agents; do they care (assuming you have some resume) if your reel is full of spec? It's been 5 years and it's time again for this guy to try and find an agent. Last time I spoke to them, the consensus seemed to be "You need stuff people have seen, or looks like they've seen".
>Royce Allen Dudley
DP, except when I'm otherwise, which will be made clear
>In the late 90's and early 0's in London, it was possible for three post houses to have the same shot on their reel - a compositor had moved from one to another and since he was now at the new house, "his" shot went on the new company's reel, while the VFX super or producer from when the shot was done was now at a third house, so THAT house would have the shot on their reel.
>The original house at which the work had been done would [naturally] have it on their reel.
>Dan Drasin writes :
class="style7">>(So when digital cinematography comes of age, who will be the first A->list Hollywood DP to demand "videographer" credit
>That's actually a Union issue I believe. And it has to do with hard fought battles over credits. It's because those battles were won by our Union that we even have the right to be called certain things in credits. There would have to be a very good reason to give that up. And once you give something up you probably will never get it back.
>That's why this credit issue is so important. It's much bigger than "I did this" or "I did that" or being cute and calling yourself something else. And if somebody claims credit that is even the lease bit misleading it undermines all of us. If you get credit in a film it is a legal and historical document.
Steven Poster ASC
class="style7">> I'd guess "Camera" meant operator or "additional photography by..."
>I've been burned on credits for a couple of documentaries where I shot the entire show (on one doc, upwards of 50 days), and found myself sharing the cinematography credit with a guy who came in for one day (an unscheduled day while I was out of town). I'm not normally too picky about these things, but I've got to admit that got under my skin.
class="style7">>In the late 90's and early 0's in London, it was possible for three post >houses to have the same shot on their reel -"
>What's with the past tense? It still happens....
>The question is whether its an issue? I don't think so, given that the whole legal waters around show reels are very murky. Remember, you don't necessarily own what you create...and thus you mightn't even have the legal right to use material in your showreel. Although most people do require their Clients/Producers to licence back material for promotional purposes. Our production company stipulates it in our contract , but whether that covers me when I leave...I doubt it (even though I wrote the contract...heh).
>Doesn't stop anyone tho.
>Still, I think the breakdown sheet should include production company etc. in the info.
>blah + blah
>George Hupka wrote :
class="style7">>I've been burned on credits for a couple of documentaries where I shot >the entire show (on one doc, upwards of 50 days), and found myself >sharing the cinematography credit with a guy who came in for one day
>That would bug me too. I shot the last 3 days for a doc back in 2003. The director asked me how I wanted to be credited? I told him after the DP credit list me under additional camera.
>Typically in credits for shows on The History Channel I see a DP or Cinematographer credit then additional cameras for day players. That seems fair.
New Orleans, La
>Stuart Willis wrote :
class="style7">> What's with the past tense? It still happens....
>And not just in London.
IATSE Local 600
class="style7">>We have to make sure that credits are clear and that there are no >misunderstandings. so :
>1) Cinematographer John Doe whose credits include ********
>Still too much of a loophole. The person in question will simply say "I *am* Cinematographer John Doe. And I do *have* the following credits". Even if some of those 'credits' were when John Doe was working as an AC.
>I've seen MY cinematography on somebody elseâ€™s DP reel. He had been my gaffer and was looking for DP jobs. His argument was that he did "light those scenes". Yeah, he "lit those scenes" as much as any of the electricians lit them. He put the lights in place.
>I'd change your #1 statement to :
>1) John Doe whose Cinematography credits include ********
>It is the specific credits we're concerned with here.
DOP at large
class="style7">>I've seen MY cinematography on somebody else's DP reel. He had >been my gaffer and was looking for DP jobs. His argument was that he >did "light those scenes"
>Geez if I did that, there's a lot of cool stuff I could sneak in and claim. But I would never even think of doing it.
>Besides which, the whole question of 'did the DP or gaffer really do it' is a limited way of thinking anyway, for two reasons; one is that my experience has always been, with the best people working a synergy is created where the best ideas are those that exceed the sum of parts. I have shots from my personal films done with crews where I could not possibly tell you who thought of what exactly, and this is stuff that allegedly I had a total auteur control of in every sense of the word. But it's like playing jazz with top improvisers, you set the theme and those who can really play can riff on it.
>The second one is, that cinematography in a traditional setting is an act of interpretation and translation in addition to, or as much as, and act of creating from the ground up. You can only go so far on pure technique.
>In fact I would say that even in my most experimental, one-man-band, available light mode with no crew at all, I am working this way.
>But maybe I value the growth of connective tissue over unmotivated dynamic gestures.
class="style7">>Typically in credits for shows on The History Channel I see a DP or >Cinematographer credit then additional cameras for day players. That >seems fair.
>Exactly! I've done a lot of those kinds of jobs and that's exactly the credit I expect...Heck, if I've only done one day, I'm pleasantly surprised even to be listed in the credits. Which is probably why that incident bothered me so much.
class="style7">>"The photographic direction, camera operation and lighting design on >this reel are exclusively the work of Royce Allen Dudley".
>I don't put anything like that on my reel simply because it's assumed that that's the case, and I don't even want to put the idea into someone's mind that it might be otherwise.
>I worked with a director who would only give me footage that I'd shot for him with "Directed by" and his name superimposed on it. He said he'd had trouble with people passing off his work as their own, and what he was essentially saying to me was "I don't trust you at all not to go out and get directing gigs with this footage" even though I'd stated on many occasions that I had no interest in directing.
>When he was fired the subsequent management gave me everything I wanted without subtitles. I then discovered that this director was shopping around pieces I'd shot for him and telling production companies that he was totally responsible for the look, including the lighting. He assumed that I would steal from him simply because he knew that he would steal from me given half a chance. Every time I heard about this I made sure the production company knew who was responsible for what.
>There was a local company that I was affiliated with for a couple of years that wanted to put my footage on their reel "for our mutual benefit." I passed, as the owner styled himself as a cameraman and I knew he'd neglect to tell prospective clients whose footage was whose.
>Does anyone with a reel on DVD worry about sending it out non copy protected? Mine's not protected and I've wondered what would happen if it fell into the wrong hands.
class="style7">>*Unrelated but pertinent; how many of you working DP's actually shoot >stuff just for your reel? I always thought this a dishonest, somewhat >amateurish solution to creating a reel
>Why is that amateurish or dishonest? Everyone I know who's tried to jump into a better category of work, ie. commercials or features, has had spec stuff on their reels at one time or another. I have spec stuff on my reel right now. The fact that you produced it yourself doesn't invalidate the quality of work on it.
>It's still your work even if you didn't get paid for it, and there's nothing wrong with showing it around and saying "This is what I can do!" because, after all, it is what you can do.
>When people ask about those pieces I tell them the pieces were done on spec for very little money. If they're smart they sit up straight and pay attention, because those pieces look really good.
>Art Adams, DP [film|hidef|video]
San Francisco Bay Area - "Silicon Valley"
Dramatic License #CA14886 http://www.artadams.net/
class="style7">>I've seen MY cinematography on somebody else's DP reel. He had >been my gaffer and was looking for DP jobs. His argument was that he >did "light those scenes"
>As a gaffer, I lit a number of scenes over the years for one DP or
another...sometimes to the extent that they walked in on the day and pulled the trigger without having had much input at all. That may be a testament to my aesthetic brilliance or general cleverness or utter indispensability...but at the end of the day, I was part of their team - and since they were making the big bucks as the DP's, they were ALSO taking the big responsibility for how the image looked.
>Their rolling film without changing anything was a tacit acceptance of my pre-light, but did not in any way remove the responsibility for the image from their shoulders.
>As such, I have lots of way cool shots I could put on my DP reel that I truly did light...but they are not my shots. CAUSE I WASN'T THE DP.
mindful if not humble
class="style7">>I worked with a director who would only give me footage that I'd shot for >him with "Directed by" and his name superimposed on it.
>I worked for 6 years with Terence Donovan, for those of you who don't know him, shame on you, he was one of the top 3 photographers during the "swinging sixties" and probably best know for the Robert Palmer promos.
>Anyway, he wouldn't allow anyone to us anything that you'd shot with him.
>He wasn't being a twat about this it was just that he'd gone to a meeting in Paris, shown his work, and been told that he'd ripped off *****
>Of course he hadn't but it had a lasting effect on him and he was
paranoid about it.
>I had a terrible time getting hold of material I shot for him.
>Now that he's dead I can say that his producer quite often slipped me tapes and that I had contacts in the post houses that gave me copies as well.
>We fell out after 6 years because he saw my reel that had lots of work that I'd shot with him on it.
>He said " you know the rules" and I never shot with him again, it's a pity, because we worked well together. I lasted 3 times as long as any other DP.
>We remained friends and met and talked photography but I didn't shoot with him again.
>Why am I telling you all this?
>Well, it's an example of the paranoia that lying about reels induces and that can destroy a wonderful working relationship.
A DP's responsibilities are extensive and start back in pre-production. The key word is responsibility. Does the responsibility for the shot(s) used rest with you? Or, where you there on behalf of someone else and if you screwed up they' d be responsible?
Reels are an unfortunate selection system. Interviews are a more thorough way of choosing a DP but the first cut has to be made somehow as time limits the number of DPÂ´s one can interview. Viewing an entire film is much more informative but still a time heavy activity. Show reels don't tell you how much money (resources and time) were available to the DP. They're a poor way to determine the DP's ability to create, manage resources and work in concert with the director, production and everyone else involved in the project.
>Credits, reels and viewing entire films can't tell you if the DP collaborated with a hands on - cinema savvy director who set up most of the shots or a director who wants primarily to concentrate on the actors and is content and confident to let the DP design the photography. Big difference - not reflected in credits.
>Good producers and directors (and DPÂ´s) do their homework when hiring. Hiring based simply on credits or screening numerous show reels is cutting corners, it may - might - could - possibly - work.
class="style7" >As a gaffer, I lit a number of scenes over the years for one DP or >another...sometimes to the extent that they walked in on the day and >pulled the trigger without having had much input at all.
I worked as a gaffer for a while at a tabletop company where we would place the lights in position before the tabletop set was even constructed! We just knew their drill so well. The props would slip the tabletop in between the lights. Never claimed it was my "look" though.
>Later when I started shooting, I had a few experiences where a new director would claim to have shot something I shot. Most often it was a sly producer trying to gather the necessary crew for a new and inexperienced director by offering everyone to step up a notch in crew positions. It was presented to me as an opportunity to shoot a spot. I would light it, operate and frame it. Later the director would start shooting as well as directing and put it on their Director/DP reel.
>While we're on the subject of credits and why it can be a tricky issue even when the credits are perfectly explicit, this illustration may help.
>In 1971, Peter Bogdonovitch made a documentary on the life and films of director John Ford entitled Directed by John Ford.
>In the film among many other things, Bogdonovitch asks John Ford about cameramen and setting up shots, etc. Ford relates an experience he had with Winton Hoch, the DP on "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" for which Hoch won the Academy Award in 1949. Ford says that he wanted Hoch to continue shooting a scene of a wagon train traversing a ridge during a spectacular western storm.
>Hoch refused to shoot in the storm because he felt it would compromise the photography and only shot it after Ford threatened him. Ford goes on to say that Hoch had the AC write on the slate that he, Hoch, was shooting this scene "under protest" so that when the studio execs saw it back in LA, Hoch wouldn't be fired.
>Of course, it turned out to be the most spectacular sequence in the film and was a significant factor in the Academy's decision to give the Color Photography Oscar to Hoch. Ford got a pretty big kick out of telling the story that the DP got the Academy Award for shooting "under protest" what Ford insisted he shoot.
>Needless to say, this is all from John Ford's perspective.
IA 600 DP
class="style7">>Needless to say, this is all from John Ford's perspective.
>I actually had this experience in Chicago on a pilot for Robert Conrad. We had to shoot a scene at night on the Outer Drive that was an action sequence. The only night that the city would give us was the night before Thanksgiving.
>Anybody who knows Chicago weather will understand that it was storming so hard that the sleet was travelling horizontally. I went to the Director and Conrad and said that I couldn't keep the lenses dry and the lights up. And recommended that we not shoot.
>Conrad said that we had to try it. "If we try and fail at least we've tried. If we don't Universal will never give us another chance. And the city won't let us close the Outer Drive again."
>With that in mind we shot. And of course it was one of the best scenes in the movie. I've kept that in mind every time I get in a difficult weather situation.
>Steven Poster ASC
>Brian Heller wrote:
class="style7">>Ford goes on to say that Hoch had the AC write on the slate that he, >Hoch, was shooting this scene "under protest" so that when the studio >execs saw it back in LA, Hoch wouldn't be fired.
>Arthur Penn tells a similar story (I think it's in the Joe Gelmis book "The Film Director as Superstar" circa 1970) about Peverell Marley, ASC shooting "The Left Handed Gun" for him. Much of it was shot with two cameras, a BNC and an Arri, and Marley put "second camera unlighted" and his signature on the slate to keep Jack Warner off his ass -- but of course the stuff from the second camera was the best stuff.
>Penn also tells of asking Marley for a two-shot, and Marley doing a Bob Hope-esque gold swing, and calling out to the operator, "He wants a two-shot. Give him a two-shot."
>Somehow I think Burnett Guffey treated Mr. Penn with a bit more respect.
>Jeff "ah, the waning days of the studio system" Kreines
>Steven Poster writes :
>"If we try and fail at least we've tried. If we don't Universal will never give >us another chance. And the city won't let us close the Outer Drive again."
Terrific story. And you should get full credit for that...
IA 600 DP
>Steven Poster writes:
class="style7">>"If we try and fail at least we've tried.
>As a young doc shooter faced with every possible challenge, I learned from some wise teachers that "the gods send threads for the web begun."
>Scout's honour, I've never once been rained out of a shot. My only lost shots have been due to a lack of preparedness or an abundance of stupidity.
>Dan "nothing ventured, nothing gained" Drasin
Marin County, CA
class="style7">>Does anyone with a reel on DVD worry about sending it out non copy >protected? Mine's not protected and I've wondered what would happen if >it fell into the wrong hands.
>Copy protection of DVD's (commercial or otherwise) is a joke.
>There are many utilities (almost all of them free) as well as full blown wizard-driven programs available all over the internet allowing anyone to strip the audio and video from any DVD, and make copies of individual clips or the entire DVD ranging in quality from reasonable to perfect. There is also no-brain hardware available for under $100 which totally removes copy protection from any DVD made.
>Copy protection only protects you from the most amateurish attempts at copying, and often not even that. Don't waste your time and energy thinking about protecting your reel.
class="style7">>Ford got a pretty big kick out of telling the story that the DP got the >Academy Award for shooting "under protest" what Ford insisted he >shoot.
>...and of course, you never hear the stories where the DP has suggested some coverage or blocking etc. to the director and its turned out to be great.
>I guess perhaps because its a given that the DP will assist the director with good ideas but its an anomaly when the Director assists the DP with a good idea
>But it does highlight the fundamental problem with show reels. They're superficial. So much of what makes a good crew-member is what goes on *behind* the camera... stuff which contributes significantly to the quality of the product but which is hard to quantify. Which is why I always take personal recommendations above a showreel. They're what really counts when I'm hiring people.
class="style7">>He (Terrence Donovan) wasn't being a twat about this it was just that >he'd gone to a meeting in Paris, shown his work, and been told that >he'd ripped off *****
>No one likes to be ripped off, but there may be worse things.
>In the film "The Red Shoes", the director of the ballet, played by Anton Walbrook, tells the young composer, Marius Goring, whose work has really been ripped off -- and by his own music professor no less -- to remember "it is more disheartening to have to steal, than to be stolen from."
>Of course being accused of stealing your own work might be a little over the top. However, attempting to prevent people with a legitimate usage right from accessing the material is not going to stop creative theft. Just ask Jack Valenti about that.
>BTW, if you haven't seen "The Red Shoes" or haven't seen it lately â€“ you should check it out. It may not be Michael Powell and Emeric Pressberger's finest work, but it still holds up very well. And it's suitable for the entire family.
>The liner notes say it's been restored in the DVD edition under Jack
IA 600 DP
>Better late than never , I give my personal opinion .
>It's a simple question of ETHICS. How can a person use other peoples work, and show in his reel like it's yours, and take advantage of it ? It's very simple, he's got no ethics !!!
>I'm starting a career as a DP here in my country (Brazil) , and have a lot of material that a did in commercials, like second units where I'm really de camera operator but doing and creating the light, because the DP is lighting another set, but I'll not use them because the cinematography of the hole film is not mine. Still, there's a lot of people that do things exactly like you tell, and take advantage of that, but I just can't live with it, lucky them!!!
>For me, it's like a taxi-driver that drives a DP to a set , and them tell to his friends "I work on the cinematography of that feature ".
DP - SÃ£o Paulo - Brazil
class="style7" >What bugs me is how the http://www.imdb.com/ lists DP's.
>The is NO distinction between 1st and 2nd unit DP's.
I am an Assistant and I have had problems with listings on IMDB as well. Especially in the "Other Works" Dept.
>I was wondering if we as a group of How Many Members? Could attempt to explain to them the importance of all the listings and see if we could get it to reflect what they claim to be. In light of the IMDB Pro pay service I think we might have some luck.
1st Assistant Cameraman, Local 600,
Los Angeles CA.
FTAC Steering Committee Member
CDU 600 Supporter
>I worked as a second unit DP and additional cinematographer on a feature. In this feature, I shot an entire scene (this was months after principal photography and the DP, a friend of mine, was on another project). I worked with the director and made all of the arrangements that any DP would make for a shoot.
>The film was edited together, and my scene is part of the movie. Now, I am trying to build a reel to show narrative material that I have shot. I'm trying to get more of this type of work rather than the commercials I normally do. I went to the DP and asked him if I could use the materials I had shot in my reel. He said "yes" without hesitation. He even supplied me with the footage to use in my reel.
>I remember him distinctly telling me, "You shot it- it's your stuff... Of course you can use it in your DP reel." So now, as I'm editing my reel, a couple of the shots I did are in the montage, and the entire scene that I shot is in an "extras" section of my reel because it shows my abilities to visually construct a complete scene with the proper lighting, camera angles, eye lines, inserts, etc.
>I don't feel like it is wrong at all for me to show this in my reel because all of the work I am showing is mine from start to finish. The DP gave me his blessing to use all of the stuff I had shot as I wished. It represents my work as a DP.
>Why is it ethically wrong for me to do this?
Director of Photography
Vilnius, Lithuania (and often times L.A.)
class="style7">>Why is it ethically wrong for me to do this?
Art Adams, DP [film|hidef|video]
San Francisco Bay Area - "Silicon Valley"
>When David Watkin received the Oscar for Out of Africa they showed one of the flying sequences. His first remark on the podium was "I didn't shoot that!". Everyone laughed because they knew that even though he didn't actually go up in the plane that shot the footage, his was the responsibility for the photography of the film.
I would never claim to having Directed a "shot" just because I happened to suggest where the actors should go in a particular sequence, or made a comment about a nuance of the performance. DP's "assist" Directors, just as Gaffers "assist" DP's. But every frame of every film I have shot is my responsibility photographically, so I would be entitled to put any part of a film I had shot on my reel (if I had one!).
>I was fortunate enough to get established before Showreels really existed as it was very laborious and expensive to do them on film. But even after the electronic version took hold, I always saw them as a liability and still continue to do so. On the film I am shooting at the moment we were looking for a 2nd Unit DP and I was keen to hire a DP from the UK who I knew of through word of mouth. He sent a reel that was not liked by various members of the committee that makes decisions on bigger movies. He had not had time to put his "latest" work on the reel and that is what possibly lost him the job. However, if the reel had been lost in the post, or some such thing, I'm sure he would be here working with us now. The other problem with showreels is that they tend to be self limiting: people see something on the reel and hire you because they think you can do "that...er that type of thing you did in that Duckham's commercial...".I am lucky to have enough movies out there so that when my agent says I donâ€™t have a reel, people understand...but then I don't work in commercials any more. What I am saying is that the best thing is to turn up and see the people who are hiring and delay the reel as long as possible! And if you have to have a reel, make sure it is the highest possible standard with the best of your work...even if you were not the operator.. or you didn't put up each and every light yourself.
>On the subject of IMDB, I had this back from my contact there:
>"The list managers are already very aware of the problem you addressed, and have been working through how they can correct and change the listings. They are working on some major behind-the-scenes data tools that would completely change the way that we organize that material for ourselves, and which will allow much more detailed credit listings. That said, they could not give me a specific time frame on when the changes might occur, but they do plan to have the needed system work done by the end of this year, which would allow the detailed listings to happen in the New Year.
>I'm sorry my answer isn't much more specific, but I do hope that the information I do have helps you, and that you can understand that we are continuously working to improve the site, albeit at slower speeds than many of our users would like. We really do want folks in the industry getting their proper credit for all the difficult work that they do."