FREE PORN VIDEO'S

by **admin_pornrev** » Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:55 am

Eds Note: This man DEFIANTLY has a lot of good points, BUT, I also sense a little bit of jealousy. Some very skilled "driven" amateurs are now taking a slice of the media pie, and the pro's are not happy about it, and making new laws to protect their incomes.

In a field as vast as video and photographic media there is a heck of a lot to learn and formal education gives a great advantage, but the plus side for amateurs is their minds have not been brainwashed by all of the crap found in formal education.

mikejones.tv
FROM: http://www.mikejones.tv/journal/2011/10 ... siona.html

screen narratives, experiences and ideas

All opinions on this site are those of Mike Jones and are not intended to represent his employers or associates.

Start acting like an Amateur if you want to be a Professional one day
Monday, October 3, 2011 at 6:00AM
Aspiring Filmmaker - Professional Filmmaker.

I think we have a problem, a deeply flawed sense of what these two monikers mean. And in the digital age of the internet free-for-all, the problem is getting Worse.
This post may feel like a rant, but if you bare with me i promise to get to a positive and constructive point by the end.

Here goes…
Would all you multi-hyphenate, DSLR shooting, one-man-band, editor / director / screenwriter / colour-grader / filmmakers, with your ultra-shallow depth-of-field, Vimeo hosted music-video showreels - who have never actually had a paid professional gig in your life - please, for the love of God, SHUT THE FUCK UP…!

Please Stop blogging, please Stop tweeting, please Stop dispensing advice or setting up websites with your ‘pro’ techniques and commentary, please Stop propagating fallacy and ignorance, please Stop offering your opinions on what is or isn’t Cinematic, Please Stop signing your signature with a litany of job titles just because you own a fist-full of software plug-ins and a Mac. Please Stop Pretending…

Deep breath…
Ok, Allow me to qualify my consternation.
There has been a distinct trend shift over the past decade in the way we discuss and use the term ‘professional’ particularly in relation to the screen media production. Once upon a time the term Professional had a very specific meaning - a doctor, priest or lawyer - specialized positions of trust. Later the term broadened and embodied a person who makes a living from a knowledge-based art or craft and is hence denoted as belonging to a ‘profession’. The word ‘profession’ derives from someone who ‘professes’ for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs.

However the moniker of Professional seems now to be adopted not just by those who possess specialist knowledge and make a living from that knowledge, but also by those who simply claim to have a professional attitude, a professional mindset, a professional demeanor irrespective of whether they actually make a professional living from that knowledge or even whether they possess that knowledge or experience at all. In short, the notion of a screen media ‘professional’ has been watered down into a evaporating puddle of mediocrity and irrelevance.

Now certainly many praise the breakdown of such hierarchies and the, so called, democratization of creative screen production. And moreover, many companies have made a whole shit load of money selling stuff because of this breakdown (witness FCPX which will make 100x more money for Apple than FCP ever did) And I would be the first to champion the dynamism and vibrancy of a society as a whole when creative engagement is undertaken at a popular grass-roots level. To this I raise my glass in full and vocal support.

However, there is a downside to this watering down that i feel compelled to point out.

Now, don’t get me wrong - acting ‘professionally’ is certainly an admirable quality and one certainly doesn’t need to be a working professional, to act ‘professionally’. (and arguably theres a lot of ‘professionals’ who rarely display ‘professionalism’) But acting professionally and having a professional attitude is Not the same as actually being a Professional. And to confuse the two is to do yourself a great disservice. Very often such delusion will deny or hinder opportunities to actually become a real professional.

Let us also not confuse Professional with Art. You, of course, do Not need to be a professional to make art. Indeed there is arguably no direct connection between the two at all. A Professional-Writer for example may occasionally write art - personally motivated creative expression - but more often a Professional-Writer will more likely be writing for a living - writing to commission, writing to a brief. In such acts of writing, ‘art’ is either incidental or a bonus rather than a requirement or goal.

This again is the difference between the amateur and the professional. An aspiring filmmaker may spend a decade making art they love in an artform they are passionate about, even producing work of quality. And yet never actually be a ‘professional’ and make a living from it. Which is to say, they never need to have a daily rigor of discipline and deep knowledge-base to produce their art, but which would be crucial to day-to-day making a living from it.

So, having made these distinctions (not as a value judgement of worth but as tangible fact about what a ‘professional’ is) we can make a broad assumption about most Aspiring Filmmakers - that they actually do desire to make a living from it and build a professional reputation over a life-long career. Thus I come to my argument - that those calling themselves ‘Professional’ before they actually are, do their ambition no good.

My reasoning is very simple. The people best placed to be able to help them fulfill their ambition of becoming working professionals are those who already are working Professionals. They are the people who may hire you, give you work experience, introduce you to people, be your referee or recommend you for gigs. They may also mentor, teach, advise or guide you.

BUT, if you jump the gun and declare and pretend yourself a Professional, an expert, before you’ve earned it, then those Professionals will see right through your fraud and will likely Not have any interest in helping you.

(I will refrain from naming names; needless to say a swathe of websites, bloggers and vocal ‘filmmaker’ online personalities and forums spring to mind that clearly fit the category of the fraud attempting to pose themselves as a professional; pretense at being a bastion of knowledge and experience when they have scant of either. I will leave these sites and individuals nameless for now in the hope that they will do some examination of self and realise their folly.)

Allow me to use myself as a case study. I call myself a professional for one simple reason; I’ve never worked in any other industries. I’ve never had a ‘day job’. Writing, shooting, editing and, in more recent years, teaching screen production is all I have ever done. Those skills and knowledge have in turn lead to opportunities in ancillary roles as critic, curator and commentator on screen production and even software development of tools for filmmakers. My profession has also taken me across mediums - from film, TV and radio, to online, live events and gallery spaces - fiction and documentary. This is how I make my living and along the way I’ve done many years of post-graduate formal training and study to continually make my profession viable as a living. It has taken nearly 20 years to get to a point where I now no longer have to hunt work, make a very comfortable living, and have some degree of flexibility to pick and choose projects that interest me creatively. My job is a working profession.

Now imagine what happens when the Wannabe fraud filmmaker described above - who calls themselves a professional but whose skills, knowledge and opinions are wafer thin - encounters someone like yours truly, who has taken decades to build a career and knowledge base in order to sustain their professiona as a living.

It’s not a fight that happens, or an argument or even angry words. or even some sort of snobbish exchange. What happens by and large, online and off, is…. Nothing. The Wannabe filmmaker armed with their DSLR’s, software plugins, blog website, Vimeo account, and a dangerous mix of ignorance and arrogance, is simply ignored; dismissed as irrelevant by the greater working professional industry.

The sad truth is that, despite the accessibility of both the tools of production and the means of distribution, the great champions of the successive DV, HDV and DSLR “revolutions” are generally NOT working professionals. They are NOT making a living from their craft. And whilst some may produce interesting creative works, their opinions and perspectives on ‘industry’ and ‘practice’, ‘aesthetics’ and ‘form’, rarely have any basis in real experience.

Don’t get me wrong, Thats absolutly a-ok. They don’t Have to make a living to make art or contribute to the greater creative consciousness of the world. BUT, if they do wish to be a professional (in the purest sense of the word) then declaring their expertise in excess of their experience is NOT the way to achieve that goal. It doesnt help, it just makes them look stupid and arrogant to the people who could otherwise help them in their ambition.

The anti-film school wannabes seem to think that by avoiding, bypassing, ignoring or circumventing formal training they also bypass the label of ‘Aspiring’. The sense of entitlement the so-called digital revolution inspires, convinces them they can jump straight to being the ‘real thing’ simply by saying they are and avoiding a position where they would have to admit to not knowing. Which is what film school is, a place where you go to learn what you don’t know. Thus a student is invariably someone who admits that they don’t know and seeks to change that.

On the flip side, this disease of the pseudo-professional filmmaker-fraud knows no bounds. I’m just as dismayed by the number of film school students who seem only to have enrolled in order to validate what they think they already are rather than learn what they don’t know. Film school is a waste of time for such people and teaching them is painful because they arent there to learn, they are there to prove.

Without doubt, the key to learning and success is being able to know what you don’t know and finding a path to remedy that situation. Inside or outside of film school there seem far too many who are blind to this truism. The broad rejection of learning and knowledge that prevails in western societies is surely the reaosn why, despite having so many cameras and so many screens and so many opportunities, we’re still making a lot of crap.

But, I think the answer is really very simple.

It’s time we reclaimed the word ASPIRING as a prestigious descriptor rather than a term to be circumvented or avoided. To say you are Aspiring is constructive. To say you are Aspiring is honest. Rare qualities in an online and interconnected world filled with fraudulent voices pretending to be something they have no claim yet to be and dispensing knowledge they don’t have the experience to understand.

In short, my message to those who may be guilty of these crimes (yes, you know who you are) is this - Start acting like an Aspiring Amateur rather than a Pretending Professional and I think you’ll find you get to your goal of making a living as a professional a lot quicker. Start acting like someone who wants to learn and knows they have much to learn openly and honestly, rather than slipping into the pit of self-delusion that will result in nothing but the perpetuation of ignorance. Be careful who you read, choose your sources carefully, check the ‘about’ page of the website to see if the author has credability. Cross-check opinions on technology and technique with writers who do know what they are talking about. I am a vivacious reader of websites and blogs about production technology but I can assure that 16 out of every 20 websites and blogs I encounter propogate nothing but fallacies, innacuracies and misunderstandings. To be an effective Learner you need to have good powers of critical-thinking to sift through the bullshit. Because there is a whole lot of Bullshit out there.

True Professionals are more likely to take you seriously and be inclined to help you if you dont try and pretend to be something you’re not. The honesty and openness of being Apsiring is much more productive than the close-minded arrogance of the fraud-professional.

What is crucial to remember is that whilst anyone can make something, not everyone can or will be TRUSTED to make something with someone else’s money. This is the difference between the Fraud and the Professional. Professional screen production is ultimately a trust game. I was recently discussing this idea with Kris Wilde - arguably one of Australia’s most successful television writers and creator of outstanding crime drama series such as Wildside and EastWest 101. Kris commented that the idea that a great project, talent or script will ultimately win out is a myth. The only thing that matters is Trust. And Trust has to be built up over time. Trust has to be earned. This is true at every level; from a kick-starter indie project, to a major international production. Thus your ability to make a living from your knowledge and skills is based almost solely on how much people trust you and how well that trust is warranted.

And quite frankly the brigade of DSLR-wielding, Vimeo showreel hosting, film-tech blogging, aficionados spouting their multi-hyphenate job titles, have absolutely Zero Trust Value in the grand scheme of things.

So, Stop pretending - if you are an Aspiring Amateur then proudly say so - you’ll learn more and have people far more willing to help you and offer you opportunities. But if you persist with being a fraud, with pretending your merit exceeds your experience, if you insist on calling yourself a professional when you clearly are not making a living in the profession, then the only people who will buy into your trust value will be other frauds and non professionals.
If you would like one day to make a living making screen media, then start acting like an Amateur. You’ll get there faster.
—
Heres a few websites that have the good-oil - written by folks who truly know what they are talking about…
http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/
http://provideocoalition.com/
http://www.studiodaily.com/main/
http://digitalfilms.wordpress.com/
http://lfhd.net/
http://www.biscardicreative.com/blog/
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/
http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/
And, Trawling the plethora of websites of online fraud-pros that embody the issues above, I have concluded the following golden rules which apparently equate to being a ‘Professional DSLR filmmaker’.
• The shallower the Depth of Field, the more professional you are.
• Always shoot aperture wide open despite the fact that wide-open is where the lens is least sharp, least clear and least effective.
• Always matte to 2.40:1 despite the fact that it throws away 1/3 of the screen real-estate when your entire audience will watch on a 16:9 TV.
• The dirtier the image the better; Lens flare, grain and artifacts are what make you a Pro. If you cant shoot them, add them in post.
• Use the word ‘industry standard’ a lot. It allows you to validate yourself by your tools when you cant validate yourself by experience.
• Avoid ‘narrative’ and ‘meaning’ at all costs. The mark of the real Pro is dreamy showreels of clouds and sunsets scored by Sigur Ros Radiohead music tracks on Vimeo.
• Colour Grading always begins with a Bleach-Bypass filter.
• Always have actors walk into focus (preferably with a melancholy expression). It makes you and them look cool. It’s a win win.
• Ignore sound, it doesn’t matter. They’ll be listening to your ripped Sigur Ross Radiohead tracks anyway.
• Size matters. Always make your camera look as bulky as possible with as many handles, follow-focus knobs and cables hanging off it as you can.
• Rack-Focus everything. Professionalism is directly proportional to how many focus moves you can squeeze into a shot. It also helps you justify the cost of the follow-focus rig.
• No one will take you seriously unless you use Prime lenses for everything.

Comments Off | Share Article | Email Article | Print Article
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (36)
I really appreciate the mention, but you should add in Shane Ross' blog at http://lfhd.net/ lots of working professional war stories and Shane's a great communicator and shares his knowledge readily.

Philip
October 3, 2011 | Philip Hodgetts
Thanks Phillip an you're dead right. In fact I'm going to use the energy from this post to compile a list if the 'good oil' online.

Cheers
Mike
October 3, 2011 | Mike Jones
I love this article/
October 3, 2011 | Rob Ashe
Mr. Jones,

I may be one of those "wannabes" that you mention in your article, but is it simply because I shoot with a DSLR? I do not flaunt myself as this "guru" or claim that I know it all in this industry either. I feel I will always be able to learn something new. I've worked very hard to get where I am and continue to work hard to get where I hope to be one day. And yes, this is my second career, unless you do not consider serving 10 years in the US Navy a career. Not that it matters, but I was unsure of where I wanted to go in life. While in the military I attended film school and, at the risk of sounding cliche, I found my calling.

To get to the point, how do you differentiate between the hard working folks who so happen to shoot with DSLRs and the "wannabes"?

Thank you.
October 3, 2011 | Bryan Tosh
Hi Bryan

Thanks very much for your comment. I don't want to be seen as an anti DSLR, anti-indie filmmaker snob, nor as raining on creative enthusiasm. So allow me to clarify. My criticism and concern is not at all directed at DLSRs or their owners (i own and shoot on several of them myself) nor is it about other professions and careers or people who have moved from one career to another. Certainly and absolutely it is not directed at folks like yourself. Frankly i wish more people came into these industries from other previous career professions; that life experience, perspective and discipline is in very short supply and in my experience makes for much more mature and sophisticated creative work. (in many ways i wish i had had a different career first instead of starting so young - it took me a long time to learn what i didn't know)

I refrained from naming names but my concern is for an increasingly vast body of bloggers and vocal online voices around indie video production that present themselves as authorities on 'filmmaking' without the real experience and knowledge to back it up. And my fear is that folks like yourself who are actively seeking to grow their skills, knowledge and careers can get mislead by the overwhelming amounts of bullshit and hyperbole that's out there. More often than not, unfortunately, that BS comes from the 'DSLR brigade'. Which is not say that it is particular to the technology or type of camera per sae, but rather that this particular gung-ho arrogant culture has very actively embraced the DSLR as some kind of validation. Hence the tool is not the problem so much as it has been a catalyst to unleash the problem.

On a technical level, despite their power, i would argue DSLRs do teach very bad habits and promote poor technique to those inexperienced in production. They tend to privilege certain types of imagery which the 'DSLR brigade' subsequently champions as the bench mark of 'cinema'. And thus the misinformation and warped perspectives tend to go around and around.

To put this in a more grounded context, I've seen young or inexperienced filmmakers who come from a DSLR mentality get their first pro gigs and end up getting a rude shock as they realise two things - 1) they don't know half of what they need to know and 2) much of what they think they know is wrong.

Some folks also took my post as picking on multi-hyphenates but then rightly pointed out that i am a multi-hyphenate myself. I didn't mean this as hypocrisy. Certainly I've worked in many capacities, Generally speaking this was simply as a way to stay employed and flexible. The issue in this regard is the multi-hyphenates who list the plethora of roles they believe they can lay claim to without any real depth to the knowledge of any of those roles they list. Being multi-skilled is crucial, but there's a different between being multi-skilled and being pretentious.

The point, to answer your question, is simply to say - with a bit of tongue in cheek - that it is better to present openly as an Aspiring Filmmaker, than pretend your experience is greater than it is. To take pride in 'Aspiring' is to be open minded to learning. And thats what my real gripe is - too many who think they know everything and not enough who want to learn. And frankly its the ones who want to learn who will get the gigs and opportunities to be come a full time working pro in the end.

Thanks for reading. I hope that clarifies where i was coming from.

Good luck with all your projects.

Mike
October 3, 2011 | Mike Jones
Mr. Jones,

Thank you very much for clarifying. Yes, you are correct, I DID misinterpret the article. Which also means my wife was correct.

I guess I haven't run into they type of "filmmaker" you mention in your article... yet. I've been very lucky, thus far, to have had the great pleasure of only working with fun, down to earth, professional folks.

Thank you for your expressing your view, if anything, it has sparked a conversation among myself and my fellow Twitter friends. I hope I did not come off with an attitude in my previous comment. Keep up the good work Mr. Jones.

Very Respectfully,
Bryan
October 4, 2011 | Bryan Tosh
Not at all mate. glad I triggered a conversation

Cheers
Mike
October 4, 2011 | Mike Jones
Mr. Jones -

I absolutely agree with the notions described in your article. I have only been in the business for 5 years and it's a rare job when you meet a true professional. While I did not go to film school, I went to college for a related digital media degree and it was largely an experience in learning new things. I am the first to admit when I don't know something, and I believe I embody your definition of an "aspiring" editor. However, there's an issue here. When applying for jobs, you frequently have to describe yourself as established or experienced. It's almost a nail in your coffin to call yourself "aspiring" on a cover letter. While the people behind the cameras can see whether you're genuine or not, you have to get past the HR department first, where they want proven, experienced people. Yes, I'm sure once I've been doing this for 20 years I won't have these hang-ups, but I still have to work for the next 15 years in the meantime.

~ Melissa
October 4, 2011 | Melissa Cozart
I do agree with your article, pretty much top to bottom. The thing is there are ways that it can be misinterpreted in some ways. I do not want scare people away from being amateurs, and striving to be pros. What they often do not understand is that they want to classify themselves before its time, and that can have a negative effect on their career.

The biggest issue is that everyone wants to draw a line, and say you are either "Amateur or Pro", when the reality is there are all different levels. I see Melissa's post, and while I agree with it to a certain point, it concerns me. While I do agree its tough to go into an interview and spin yourself as inexperienced, it is not the worst thing. I am often in on the interview process here at work, and I can't tell you how many times people try to sell the fact that they are software proficient, but totally lack the professional attitude, ability to work in a group, or even the ability to admit they do not know everything, and are still willing to learn. These are people that NEVER get hired.

As long as you have realistic expectations on starting salary ranges, you can get hired at big places, and do what everyone else has done, work your way up. Just do not try to be something your not. Also understand their is a difference in getting someone to pay you $500 to edit their video, and calling yourself a professional, and making your entire livelihood based on it.
October 4, 2011 | Art Guglielmo
Thanks for your comment Melissa.

You raise a good question about how to get a job, the interview process and how to describe yourself. Like Art above, i have been on many interview panels recruiting editors and camera-persons for in-house positions. Its not easy for the recruiters and a delicate balance for the candidate between self-promotion and honest representation. In fact I confess that even some recent panels ive been on, hindsight reveals a a wrong choice was made in who got the job. The most experienced doesn't mean the right attitude. The right attitude doesn't mean they can do the job. And then there's always the fact thats its very hard to judge and test the knowledge base of a candidate form a few paltry interview questions and a showreel. One such case saw me ask a hard technical question about codecs, formats and workflow and the candidate answered it superbly. Yet when they got into the job it was evident their knowledge base was extremely narrow and ill-informed and I had just happened to ask a question in the one technical area they knew. At the same time, another person can walk in, be missing or unable to meet much of the selection criteria for the job, but something tells you that they might well be the perfect choice... but you cant give the job because they didn't 'show it' in the interview.

The short, real, answer is that the interview process is so deeply deeply flawed and so variable and random that you cannot put to much stock in it. What you can do in the interview is be honest, open and clear. Dont over-blow your experience, dont pretend to know things you dont. But don't sell yourself short either. If you cut a boring corporate training video then say "this is a boring corporate vidoe I cut, BUT... i used this particular technique and got a great result... and it really works to achieve....and Im keen to develop these techniques...." An answer like this speaks to an editor who will put 100% in regardless of what the project is. it speaks to an enthusiasm to grow.

The rest - and the real stuff that will ultimately get you such a gig - you do before the interview. Edit everything you can. volunteer. if you have to. music videos, TVCs, short films, docos, corporate videos. It doesn't matter. Every time you open up the NLE you learn something. Read software manuals. i mean REALLY read them. Cover to cover. You will learn SO MUCH from that alone and Im staggered at how many young editors I meet who have never read the manual. Stay up to date. This is crucial. Obviously the web is the bext place to stay up to date BUT (as per the point of my post) be careful Who you read and cross-reference opinions with others.

Im not sure that counts as consummate advice but i hope its useful.

Cheers
Mike
October 4, 2011 | Mike Jones
If you think this adlink bait is worthwhile, you're falling for a deep misconception. I'm sorry, but this is a part of the now-popular sour-grapes trend in Video Production. Look around you - The Music Industry, Web Authoring, Software Engineering, on and on. What you see is relative maturity on this point. Music accommodates all levels of participant, just as those other fields do, and you don't hear nearly as much of the kind of pitiful whining the "pros" in the Video production biz are engaging in these days. Get over it Mike, and all the rest of you who agree with him. If you're having trouble distinguishing yourself or maintaining your profit margins now that everyone can join in, well guess what: Too Bad For You. Welcome to the new reality. You better up your game and quit complaining or you will be buried in the groundswell. No more free reign in what used to be a prohibitively expensive game. Deliver or die. The cream will always rise to the top, no matter how many players there are. There are plenty of windbag professionals in every field waiting to have their clocks cleaned by upstarts. Deal with it. Nothing is going to change because of your complaints. Nothing at all.
October 6, 2011 | WR
amen brother!
October 6, 2011 | Mitch Mattraw
Thanks for your comments but I'm afraid you have very much missed the point.

No sour grapes at all. I have lost no work at all because of tools or population growth. In fact quite the opposite, i have gained work and opportunities. And I have long been a champion of low cost tools and more efficient production. We have to rethink production models and adapt or die. I've been writing about that perspective for a decade.

Quite contrary to your perspective, My post was driven by concern for younger players who i see regularly crash and burn unable to make a living when their expectations and misunderstandings exceed their abilities. When their desire to be perceived as Professional gets in their way of actually learning How to be a professional.

So thank you for your comment but you might want to take a more articulate reading first before jumping to conclusions about my sour grapes.

Mike
October 6, 2011 | Mike Jones
Becoming an able, competent, professional is a long haul in every field. A vital part of coming up is trying and failing - in the early stages, everyone has false assumptions because they can't possibly know the whole game. Ignorant enthusiasm, despite your article, is not a problem. This isn't something you can or should protect anyone from with your criticisms of some select few (who will no doubt ignore your "wisdom").

It is now as it has always been, everywhere. Many will start, few will succeed. Failure is a vital teaching tool. Let it happen. Those who have the ability to "figure it out", will. Those who don't, won't. It's "all good". No one is going to hand people, who can't deliver, a succession of contracts. The easy thing about video is you can see instantly from someones sample work what they can and can't do. There's nothing to hide, and no game to cover ineptitude. You could have approached your article from an entirely different and far more constructive and positive angle, but you didn't. It comes off as a litany of peeves. I call that sour grapes, maybe you have another phrase that's better. Take it for what it's worth man, there was a better way to come at this article. The tone is wrong.
October 6, 2011 | WR
By your definition Mike I guess I would be a professional, having worked in television for several years, and advertising before that for a decade. But the thing is, I don't offer advice, blogs, Facebook or Twitter suggestions, or anything else like that about television, my specific job, or industry. And I definitely do not consider myself an expert. I'm just a guy who works in TV.

While I don't really watch many DSLR indie films, or read any DSLR filmmaker blogs, analogous to television I do have to say it would definitely be very strange to have someone who doesn't work in my industry, and never has, blogging advice about my job.
October 6, 2011 | Phil
Mr. Jones,

I spent more than 10 years on TV as a reporter, and I'm an aspiring filmmaker now.
I disagree with 99% of what you've said, and I thought it might be interesting for the people out there to know why. The ongoing DSLR revolution (and it is not a DSLR revolution already as the world is turning mirrorless) opened up the floodgates for creativity. Like it or dislike it but since that time millions of people who were previously voiceless are becoming storytellers. This doesn't mean all of them will eventually become professionals or Nobel prize winners, but the number of remarkably creative projects will grow exponentially. I don't care how are they going to call themselves. I only care about what I see. And what I see now is that big broadcasting networks are already extremely unprofessional in every sense of the word. It is so great that the unionized cameramen community is starting to feel the pressure (and it is, believe me) as I'm so tired of seeing people with giant ENG $100 000 cameras going handheld when they have to use a tripod. As simple as that. Stop pretending like you have a monopoly on the knowledge which is becoming very affordable and does NOT require 20 years of experience in the industry to start shooting great videos. I've seen too many old people on TV who like to boast they spent half of their lives with Tarkovsky, but can't get you enough brolls from the daylong shoot or somehow forget to whitebalance.
The great thing that where we are now is not the end of the story. When RED is still over $50 000 there will suddenly be a Chinese manufacturer with the similar camera for $8 000. My company spent $40 000 to get us BetaSX in 2004. Today I can spend $700 to get the camera that will blow it away. Not durable? No audio? Can't you understand these are just temporary issues. We've been paying $700 for the 10 minutes long feed from NYC to our headquarters. Now it's all on the internet. Free. You know what I mean?
Some of your points are legitimate, but I understand them differently. For example, the DOP obsession is only bad because it devalues the very effect of shallow depth of field. Imagine every little thing on the news and in theaters shot that way, and I bet people will start filming with prosumer 30i with everything in focus just to be distinguished from the crowd.
But overall it is so great that this blurry looks is now available for the masses. This is one of the main weapons of cinema - when you can conscientiously slice the reality into layers according to the importance of your subjects.
I don't even mention dollies, sliders, steadicams that became affordable and common because of the DSLR revolution. You don't need to be anything to get into this business. And of course the influx of this technology is pushing out those "pros" who are not professionals, but simply overconfident monopolists. DSLR revolution is fueling competition and that simply can not be bad. You may think you are immune because of your experience. I doubt it. I saw teenagers' work that might knock any pro out. ANY.
Two more things. You shouldn't underestimate the social effect of this technological breakthrough. From Egypt to Wall Street DSLRS are becoming (as I heard it recently) "the citizen's perfect machete". Alternative sources of news and video are created every day. You don't like the way they shoot? You know what? Nobody cares. This is h i s t o r y in the making. And God knows how many new storytellers the world will not loose because of the arrival of this new medium. The number of web users is quadrupling year by year and television is dead. I'm still employed by one of the biggest networks, but I swear that TV's days are numbered. Go check any nightly news show ratings in any country.
Finally, why I think we should welcome everyone to the growing DSLR. I experienced it myself. If I am the storyteller (correspondent) no cameraman in the world can get me exactly what I want. As a reporter (documentary filmmaker) I'm now getting the full control over my visuals. And if I'm following my subject, and the subject does something I need to be captured NOW, I don't have to wake my cameraman up. This is incredible.

I'd leave to talk about the cost-effectiveness of such one man army setup at the times of the Great Depression to the others. I said enough and I thank you for you patience and my chance to disagree.
October 7, 2011 | Konstantin
Thanks so much Konstantin for taking the time to pen such a detailed and thoughtful comment to my post. It's very much appreciated. The truth is I agree with everything you said and ironically i actually don't think you disagree with me. I think we are arguing different things.

My post is nothing about art, political activism, popular creative endeavour or the virtues of the digital revolution in democratising media production. To all that i say Amen.

Whilst most understood the target and thrust of my post i have had a few comments from those who seem to have taken my post for an argument against low-cost digital tools or criticsm of the democratisation of production. Worse still, seen my post as defence of traditional workflows, legacy methods and production processes. None of this is the case.

My post was concerned simply with observing that the digital revolution is not all 'utopia' and that there are some significant downsides we need to be conscious of. That, in spite of the obvious benefits, the culture of the digital revolution can also inspire a kind of contempt for learning and craft.

The truth that is unavoidable (and which too few born out of the digital revolution understand or acknowledge) is that there is an enormous gap between popular production of art, activism and expression in moving images, and the day-to-day craft of making a living from it.

You are absolutely right to observe that stunning productions can be produced at a grass roots level with inexpensive and accessible equipment. (Likewise that many so called 'professionals' rarely display such creativity or professionalism.) This is all very true.

But whether these same digital indie filmmakers could produce that quality day after day, fulfilling a brief, satisfying clients on time with the rigour and discipline required to make a living? That's a very different story. And as expressed in the post I've seen a great many young people come out of the digital DIY culture who desire to make a living from their skills, but who crash, burn and fail because their belief in their skills and knowledge exceeds the reality. It is an arrogance that inhibits learning and leads to failure if the aim was to make a living as a working professional.

This is not because of a difference in equipment or the inflexible nature of the old-school when confronted by the new school; but rather because of a poor attitude to learning and a desire to Prove rather than Learn.

My post is really about Education and Learning, not about technology, its democratisation or accessibility. Not everyone wants to, can or should make a living from filmmaking. My post was only directed at those that do. To which i say again my advice - act like an aspiring amateur, rather than pretend to be an expert professional and your goal of being able to make a living will be greatly increased. This is true irrespective of whether you wish to make a living with high-end gear or low, work within established paradigms or new, whether you shoot with a shoulder-mount XDCAM or a handheld DSLR. The principle is universal.

I don't think you do disagree with me, Konstantin. Certainly i don't disagree with you. I do think you took my post as criticism of digital enthusiasm and grass roots accessibility of production. Nothing cold be further from the truth and i think if you read my post more closely you will see where I'm coming from. I picked on the 'DSLR Culture' because that's very much where i see poor skills and a lack of understanding coming from. Im certainly not alone in that. But as i said, this is not a criticism of the technology of DSLRs, nor of their accessibility, but of how that technology has fostered a poor culture around learning, discipline and craft.

The digital revolution is Not a revolution. It's an Evolution, an important and significant one for sure, but it is just the continuation of what began with the Bolex, 8mm and the Portapack. When we allow ourselves to be carried away with the revolutionary war cry we can easily loose perspective. I think DSLRs are one part of a technological evolution that - despite its wonderful benefits - has also caused a good degree of perspective to be lost in the hyperbole of a shallow DoF, anyone-can-do-it, down with the broadcast establishment, Rapture. That loss has been in an openness to learning and depth of knowledge. And thats a loss that no technology will compensate for.

Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts.

Best regards
Mike
October 7, 2011 | Mike Jones
Thank you Mike. I'm sorry for being a little bit too emotional. I fully agree with what you said about learning. And I can assure you there are hundreds of enthusiasts (including myself) who are desperate to learn and are learning. For example two years from now I hardly knew what f-stop means and now being 31 I'm getting my MA in documentary filmmaking. However I can tell you that video related blogs (like the one run by P. Bloom or A. Reid) were no less valuable for me than my textbooks or masterclasses at school. I shoot in micro 4/3 and there is a whole community of people who are willing to test the bitrates for the new software just to make our cameras more sensitive in low light. They might need more knowledge of Eisenstein, but when Eisenstein meets higher bitrates it doubles Eisenstein's capabilities. Once again I don't dispute what you said about making a living with that. In fact this conversation resembles what was happening when cinema emerged and was competing with theater, or when 16 mm indie cameras started to challenge the world of exclusive and expensive filmmaking. Of course we can call that evolution to the extent that every evolution consists of multiple little revolutions pushing the art and the industry ahead. 1 more time I thank you for raising the issue and apologize for the categorical tone. Good luck!
October 8, 2011 | Konstantin
This article was VERY well stated.

As a student filmmaker (17), seeing a huge amount of my peers pick up a DSLR, shoot with the lens wide open, and suddenly think they have this great compelling film is quite frustrating.

Also frustrating is to see how some people have such an ignorance to certain aspects of filmmaking.

Making the image out of a camera look amazing is wonderful, along with mastering AE and FCP and the whole host of other PP programs is excellent. But seeing how none of these fellow students even glance at subjects like screen direction, film theory, in-depth study of shot composition, directors with years of experience, or every filmmaking website and blog out there smacking them over the head for STORY. Yes, the camera market has changed, but the core fundamentals behind composing a truly great film are exactly the same.

The other day I talked to a college student who was trying to charge $2k a day for "cinema" work with his 7D, claiming he was a "Pro DP." I asked him who Stanley Kubrick was, he had no idea.

I am not in any way trying to demean my peers, but it would be nice for people to stop associating their camera with their ego.
The fact that someone owns a 60D and they own 2 5D's and lots of gear does obviously make them more than 2X cooler than he with lesser gear.

With all the filmmakers whose work I have watched, both in the online community and in film festivals, often the best films that leave a lasting impact are those produced by the humblest filmmakers. Those who truly have a yearning for knowledge and will listen to the advice from those with professional experience and knowledge to becoming a better filmmaker are the ones who will succeed.

Thank you for putting your true perspective in the industry out there, definitely a much needed truth for those of us aspiring to one day be able to call ourselves professional filmmakers.
October 8, 2011 | Luke Lasley
Good article. Two somewhat related observations:

(1)

In a field requiring as wide and diverse skillset as film, saying you're a professional filmmaker is a bit like a bricky saying they're a professional buildingmaker.

To use Malcolm Gladwell's infamous "10,000 hours" maxim its going to become hard to rack up 10,000 hours EACH at writing, grading, shooting, editing, directing, or producing. You may be able to do all those things, but it truly is hard to become a master at any one of those things, yet alone all of them. Thats just the way it is.

Trust me, I've tried.

I've been luckily enough to be able to make my living in the screen industries for close on a decade. The last half of that decade working in features.

I was there at the birth of Final Cut Pro (v1.0 buddy!) and rode that wave for a few years cutting corporates, music videos, whatever. I cut out of my parents house. I was the archetypal 'bedroom banger'. I wasn't part of the editing institution because there wasn't a way in for guys who learned on FCP - at least not on the start. However, I was forced to become professional if only by virtue of the fact that trading your SKILL for MONEY changes the whole relationship.

That skillset let me jump into features in about 2005, and I actually started working less and less on box as I moved into 'production'. I'm now a professional post/vfx producer, and I've never been more professional. I know my job, I do it well, and I always try to do it better. I'm pretty sure I've clocked my 10,000 hours too.

When I was young and cocky I didn't think I needed experience; with experience, I now know that I did. Experience is the only thing that teaches you the value of experience. When you're a professional you are being paid for your experience.

To use an idiom "a master helmsmen was never made sailing calm seas".

But, like many others, I want to direct (and write sometimes). Despite my decade of professional screen experience, I wouldn't call myself a professional director or writer. I've been paid for a few directing gigs but no way in hell is that experience comparable to being a veteran director. My co-writer, though, is a professional writer. He's an ex journalist and he earns his way through writing words. Yes, he's not *quite* an experienced screenwriter, but the jump between screenwriting and journalism is smaller than the jump between FCP and Directing. I can tell the difference in our levels of experience just by the quality of our drafts. What I would call a third draft is his first. He just *gets* to where he needs to be faster.

So, sure, I'm a professional filmmaker, but I'm also an aspiring director.

This is the problem with hyphenates, what level are you at any of those things?

(2)

During my career I've had the privilege of working with many amazing professionals. One of them is an oscar-winning director. I fondly remember him having a casual conversation about his struggles with articulating himself properly. He was frustrated by his inability to precisely communicate ideas and was looking for ways to improve.

That is what made him a seasoned director of nearly three decades.

He was open to learning and improving - he also willing shared stories and his own wisdom. He wasn't out to prove himself to the institution because thats not what being a director is about: its about being a good director and finding ways to be that.
October 8, 2011 | Stu Willis
Stu and Luke - Thank you so much for taking the time to offer such thoughtful and articulate comments. I think the comments have certainly surpassed the original post.

Cheers
Mike
October 8, 2011 | Mike Jones
Hiya Mike.

I have an acquaintance who describes himself on LinkedIn as a "professional actor". My first thought is always "what restaurant are you working in?" (He's a pretty good actor, too, I reckon he's doing himself a disservice).

I hate the word "professional". "I'm a professional screenwriter" makes me sound like an amateur. We writers are taught to drop superfluous words. "I'm a screenwriter" is a reasonably accurate description of who I am. When I've earned the adjectives (well-respected, produced, award-winning, wealthy, failed) then I can start using them.

I'm a writer, but I'm also a director. And a composer. But I heard Dave Lee Roth say once "pick one thing, and do the shit out of it", so right now I just say I'm a writer. Besides, tell anyone in the industry that you're a writer-director-editor-composer (or whatever) and their eyes glaze over after the second word. Twenty seconds later and your business card is in the bin.

That reminds me, I need new business cards. Now that people are starting to take me seriously as a writer. Funny how that started happening when I started concentrated on actually BECOMING a professional.
October 9, 2011 | Devin. Writer.
Thank you! I completely agree with everything you've said and thank god there are people who are thinking this.

Here's a film student's perspective - The number of times I've heard the words shallow depth-of-field and cinematic being thrown around as some kind of bench mark of filmmaking, if I hear it in a conversion it literally makes want to scream. Unfortunately this attitude is rife even amongst a lot of film school students who feel that the tools and the fancy settings they offer are all that is needed for good filmmaking.

I was having a conversation at film school with a student who was disagreeing with me that shooting on a DSLR had it's problems. I asked him why he felt DSLRs were so great and his reply literally was "the depth of field is so shallow, it looks cinematic". At which point I held my breath and withdrew from the conversation. I mean really? is that all that is needed for cinema? There's this obsession with throwing the background out of focus as much as possible and hoping the audience is wooed into not noticing the bad framing, poor composition, superfluous camera moves, poor direction, bad performances etc etc. Some of these people need to sit down and watch Citizen Kane.

Also the point you make about learning at film school really was a good one. When I started at AFTRS this year, I will admit, much to my shame, I had an attitude of trying to prove myself. I have had some industry experience, nothing at a pro level but I do have some understanding of how things work and this was enough to stop me from committing to learn. About one week into the classes I felt something was not right. It was exactly that - trying to prove yourself vs actually learning. At that point I gave myself the "what the f*ck are you doing" talk and snapped myself out of it. The next day I went into AFTRS to just learn what I was being taught. The shift was huge.
October 9, 2011 | Raj
Thanks so much Raj for your very honest comment. Very much appreciated. It's been great to see both seasoned pros and aspiring filmmaker students both responding to the post in a positive way. Whatever career stage we are at, We can't let ourselves become blinkered, narrow or arrogant about what cinema is or can be, nor of our roles, skills and learning trajectory as practitioners within it.

Indeed I really like that word/idea 'practitioner' - a practitioner is someone always in 'practice', always aspiring. A Professional Practitioner is simply someone who makes a living from their Practice.

Those that are out to Prove or Justify are not honoring that idea of being a 'Practitioner'.

At a grounded level that's my real beef with DSLR Culture (not the technology which I use and love, but the mentality the technology can too readily bred) Shallow depth of field becomes a badge, a stamp, a staple rather than a choice, a technique, or a Style. It becomes an ANSWER rather than a QUESTION.

To say that shallow DoF equates to being 'more cinematic' is to fail to ask what 'cinematic' means in context of the story you are trying to tell.

And it's that failure to Question that leads directly to the kind fraud-professional my post refers to and the plethora of half baked mis-information they too often sprout. Information all too readily lapped up by those even more ignorant or desperate for validation.

Every aspiring filmmaker seeks validation - indeed much of the unspoken motivator to enter film school is to feel validated. The issue with DSLR culture is that has leaped upon the chance to Validate by Technology, to validate by a visual 'Look' rather than those two more powerful elements of validation : Ideas and Creative Process.

I look forward to hearing less phrases which are Answers: "we'll shoot wide-open shallow DoF so it looks more cinematic". And more phrases that are Questions: "what is the meaning of this shot? How should be shoot it for that meaning?"

The difference between mediocrity and excellence in cinema is the Questions the filmmakers ask.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Mike
October 9, 2011 | Mike Jones
The reason that low budget filmmakers have embraced short DoF so heavily is that it is hard to make deep shots *work*. They require a control over composition, camera movement, lighting and art direction that takes time, money and often skill. Much easier to smear your background into an abstract painting. Eyescan becomes a non issue as there's only one place to look in the picture, the colour gamut is blurred together into a wash, and shitty set dressing is unreadable.

I say this as someone who has shot a bunch of times on a DSLR and in a previous life used to shoot video on a long lens and as wide open as possible.
October 10, 2011 | Stu Willis
Very very true. It can certainly be an instant problem solver.
October 10, 2011 | Mike Jones
Thank you Mike for raising an important discussion!

It can take decades to have cause to refer to oneself as a professional. There is a collective need to become more mindful and less blinkered to information touted as professional in the screen arts and generally, on and off line.

We can take heart that school students are now encouraged to apply the triangulated method of cross referencing information. This is certainly as applicable to adult learners and anyone seeking information from the internet.

The erosion of quality standards across many industries is increasingly problematic. In Australia this issue has been subject of controversy as concerns surge for the quality of media and journalism. Recent attempts to legislate represent the extent of measures proposed, to protect professional standards. With this debate comes conjecture about our democratic freedoms, to what extents should our freedom of speech be regulated? Yet, were we ever vested with a democratic right to falsely represent ourselves?

It is encouraging that students from different faculties take our post graduate film course so they can extend their knowledge of film history, criticism, ideas and screen culture. Students are eager to learn and demonstrate an overall appreciation for the opportunity and the learning environment. Despite their often substantial previous experience, students remain poised to humbly absorb the professional experiences of accomplished educators in our school.

Education and training can have a wonderful effect on attracting further professional experiences and be a measurable way to then validate what has been learned, upon completion of studies. As a result, doors can open significantly in the screen arts world that without significant experience would not have been otherwise available.

Best of Luck!
October 10, 2011 | Tea
Is this article written to show all amateur filmmakers that your'e better than them? congrats on being a pro but with this being the only time i've come across anything youv'e written/made I can't say i'l be taking too much of oyur advice on board either.
November 5, 2011 | john
I'm sorry you feel that way John. But I fear you have entirely missed the point of the post which should be abundantly clear - pretending to be a pro before you really are only harms your chance of ever actually becoming a working professional.

I see young filmmakers with talent but too much ego and drunk on technology make this mistake everyday and harm their career prospects with pretending bravado when honest willingness to learn would serve them much better.

As for my own credentials which you have questioned - I have only one; I have never had a job in any other industry. I've made a living for 15 years in this tough creative sector. And I have been able to do this simply because I always assumed I needed to learn, always asked for help, never pretended to be more expert than I was. and because of that I learned a lot fast and made friends with those who could provide me opportunities. Opportunities which I then made the most of by admitting what I didn't know in order to know what I needed to learn.

Your comment makes me think my post may have cut a little close to the bone for you. Perhaps there's a lesson here for you to learn. If not, then I wish you well.

Mike
November 5, 2011 | Mike Jones
I see one thing missing in all these posts and that is the basic fact that filmmaking in all its genres requires one key ingredient to succeed... a good story. Whichever visual approach you choose, if the story sucks you've lost the audience. Cinematography (and videography - ghastly word) is just the palette. All those (often very well shot) DSLR shorts are like camera test exercises and the truth is that while they may exhibit often good degrees of craft, story is more important. Whether documentary or drama, news or advert, you remember the story first. The self shooter with a Z1 who tells a compelling life-story can be a professional despite his or her limitations and those of the kit, while those "shallow-depth of field" obsessed part-timers who produce a visually beautiful film of paint-drying will always be amateurs. Someone pointed out above we're in the middle of a technological revolution just as in the music industry which is bringing fantastic tools to the masses... but professionals shouldn't be too worried because, just like great music is not about the instrument, nor great writing about the keyboard, great film/tv is never about the camera.

Great discussion Mike, thank you for starting it!
November 7, 2011 | Captain
Page 1 2 Next 30 Comments Most Recent Comment »
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.

cc Mike Jones - Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative 3.0 - 2002-2012

FREE PORN VIDEO'S

Start acting like an Amateur if u wanna be a Professional

Start acting like an Amateur if u wanna be a Professional

Who is online