|
Author
|
Topic: Panning the camera during interviews
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 03:59 PM
At the risk of rankling some of you...we've missed a couple of good sound-bites, lately, and I wanted to make this point:
Photographers...please keep your cameras pointed at the person being interviewed. I know there can be exceptions, but when, with the best of intentions, you pan, zoom, or attempt to illustrate what a subject is talking about, you risk losing a sound-bite. Essentially, you're editing the interview, and that is the reporter's job. Remember, it is difficult to make cuts when a camera is moving.
I'm serious about this. Unless you're missing a once-in-a-lifetime shot that you cannot obtain at any other time, get the 'b-roll' later. Stay on the face.
When in real life someone speaks to us, we look at them. We don't look away. Let's not distract our subjects or play roulette with sound-bites.
Less can be more. Please don't make your camera a distraction.
[ June 15, 2005, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:11 PM
Attitudes like this illustrate why reporters should never EVER be allowed near an edit bay.
If it is such a problem, let the photog edit the piece. One of two things will happen. He/she will see the errors in his/her way and never do it again, OR he/she will be able to follow through with the plan he/she had while shooting.
Any photog worth their salt are editing their story in their head while shooting. Aware of potential jump cuts, aware of what will work in the edit bay and what won't.
Talking heads are the most boring form of television. Show and tell done during an interview can be 1000% more effective when done correctly.
Maybe you need to try a little harder to get on the same page as your photog, and not try to be 'technically superior'.
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:20 PM
Thanks for the advice, but I'm already *somewhere*. Doing quite nicely thank you very much.
Seriously, you can NEVER 'lose' a soundbite. EVER. Give me your tape, I PROMISE I can clean up the mess. A little effort, creativity, and experience goes a LONG way.
Losing the superiority complex helps too.
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Fedora
Open Line Veteran
Member # 1276
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:20 PM
Lunch I have to disagree with you. Our photogs here do not edit, we reporters and anchors do. I have run into this many, many times because they don't have to edit and don't really think about it.
I agree with U&D. While you're shotting the interview, please stay on the subject of the interview.
thank you.
--------------------
Hail To The Redskins! Hail Victory!
Posts: 3455 | From: OFF THE BEACH! Republic of Texas! | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:21 PM
Oh, you deleted your reply. See...editing is EASY.
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4892
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:21 PM
You're way off, lunch.
Up was just bringing up a point that makes reporters' jobs more difficult when trying to write a story to the video you've shot. It's much easier for us to write when there's little movement during an interview...unless the subject is setting Michael Jackson's white doves free and there won't be a second take. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
While a subject is giving an interview and tape is rolling, the photog and the reporter should assume anything will be useable. So picking up the tripod and moving it two feet to the right at the end of a subject's response is also a no-no. If you have to make adjustments that require a lot of distracting movement, stop tape, move, and start tape. Seems like common sense.
Stating there's a "superiority complex" simply makes it look like you're suffering an inferiority complex.
Maybe you have a small lens.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
[ June 15, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Pagan Bastard ]
--------------------
"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
- George W. Bush
May 1, 2003
Posts: 3516 | From: Midwest | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wes Mantooth
Senior Member
Member # 4831
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:22 PM
IMHO the only times a photog should move his cam during an interview is for a effective slow zoom into the subjects face or a new angle while the reporter is asking the next question.
While the subject is talking I act as if every bite will make air.
Are there exceptions?..yes
Helicopter crashes behind you while the interview is taking place.
Perp walk starts.
ect.ect
[ June 15, 2005, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Wes Mantooth ]
Posts: 683 | From: South side of the sky | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:27 PM
Pagan, I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather watch a package without talking heads. Unless those talking heads are shot in a creative way.
In my opinion, and in my experience, an interview subject only needs to be up one time in a package. For a super. Thats it. If I can cover the boring talking head with video, I will every single time.
Remember, you can always cover a soundbite that is poor visually. Shaky camera, panning during the bite etc.
If you can't imagine a scenario where some show and tell is not only attempted, but pulled off to perfection, then you haven't worked with very good photogs.
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:28 PM
Sorry, Lunch, but I spend a lot of time in edit pays. I also log every shot, write the piece, and am willing to change it on a moment's notice, depending on what does or doesn't work. It's called 'retaining a sense of ownership'. A good shooter usually has it, too...unless he's more concerned with getting that lunch penalty.
But it's not a turf issue, nor a turf argument, and I find your response to be intractible without logic. This is about collaboraiton.
You got a problem with collaboration?
(And yes, I did edit the first response because it didn't serve the purpose).
quote:
Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
Attitudes like this illustrate why reporters should never EVER be allowed near an edit bay.
If it is such a problem, let the photog edit the piece. One of two things will happen. He/she will see the errors in his/her way and never do it again, OR he/she will be able to follow through with the plan he/she had while shooting.
Any photog worth their salt are editing their story in their head while shooting. Aware of potential jump cuts, aware of what will work in the edit bay and what won't.
Talking heads are the most boring form of television. Show and tell done during an interview can be 1000% more effective when done correctly.
Maybe you need to try a little harder to get on the same page as your photog, and not try to be 'technically superior'.
[ June 15, 2005, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michigan J. Frog
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4050
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:29 PM
Do Photogs get to tell you Reporters how to interview effectively as well?
--------------------
"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of those liberties which make the defense of the nation worthwhile." -Earl Warren
Posts: 6254 | From: Heck | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Signature on File
Open Line Veteran
Member # 6488
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:30 PM
Are you talking about a "live interview" or taped? We miss a lot of good interviews basically because we are tied down at a scene doing stupid "bump shots" and "teases". We do worthless "live shots" just to pad some young producers "resume tape". I have always believed in getting the story first, then the lives come later. News stories are like water puddles, the longer they sit, the elements began to evaporate! ![[Beating a Dead Horse]](graemlins/horse.gif)
--------------------
Steve Fossett has just set a new record. Winner of the 2007 Nevada "Hide & Seek" Championship.
Posts: 5477 | From: Zxracradia | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:33 PM
Tape.
But let's remain on-topic.
Can't we just work together?
quote:
Originally posted by DamnifIknow:
Are you talking about a "live interview" or taped? We miss a lot of good interviews basically because we are tied down at a scene doing stupid "bump shots" and "teases". We do worthless "live shots" just to pad some young producers "resume tape". I have always believed in getting the story first, then the lives come later. News stories are like water puddles, the longer they sit, the elements began to evaporate!
[ June 15, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:37 PM
Collaboration?
Does your photog know you logged on Medialine and pi$$ed all over him today? Is that how YOU colaborate?
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:41 PM
Lunch...what's that old saying about making assumptions?
quote:
Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
Collaboration?
Does your photog know you logged on Medialine and pi$$ed all over him today? Is that how YOU colaborate?
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:44 PM
I always thought assumptions were statements, not questions?
I'm asking, not assuming.
[ June 15, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: LunchPenalty ]
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Signature on File
Open Line Veteran
Member # 6488
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:47 PM
If you want to see a real story massacre, just give your tape to an NPPA editor. 1:10 TRT, 35 freakin edits. Swish, zoom, fade, dissolve, Full nat sound, music bed, ect. Makes my head swim and I'm talking about a package on a traffic fatality.
--------------------
Steve Fossett has just set a new record. Winner of the 2007 Nevada "Hide & Seek" Championship.
Posts: 5477 | From: Zxracradia | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:49 PM
Lunch, I'd rather not get into a petty argument with you.
Based on the responses, here, others agree with my point, you're wrong, and that's it.
Be grateful the rest of these posters don't sign your paychecks.
[ June 15, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MacG
Member
Member # 4642
|
posted June 15, 2005 04:51 PM
"Talking heads are the most boring form of television."
WRONG!!!
A person speaking is the most riveting thing television can do ...
Rephrase the quote above, and I CAN agree ... if you are trying to say that most of the soundbytes that end up in packages or vosots are useless and boring ... I WILL agree ...
But that's because of what we choose to cover, and who we choose to quote ...
The infinite variety of the human animal is much more riveting than almost all of the other video we put on TV ...
There are always exceptions ... that, they tell me, is what proves the rule!
Posts: 39 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lazlo Toth
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4867
|
posted June 15, 2005 05:05 PM
Lunch:
I have to say, I think your attitude is wrong.
If you shoot the interview straight, you can always cover it with b roll later. But if you pan and zoom during the interview, you have fewer options later.
I worked with a photog who decided it was a good idea to shoot cutaways while President Clinton was speaking and lost a bite that I wanted.
I'm with UpandDown.
And in a market our size, it's very often neither the reporter nor the photographer who edits the story.
--------------------
Nowhere are prejudices more mistaken for truth, passion for reason, and invective for documentation than in politics. This a realm, peopled only by villains or heroes, in which everything is black or white and gray is a forbidden color.
-- John Mason Brown, Through These Men (1956)
Posts: 7959 | From: SF Bay Area | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michigan J. Frog
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4050
|
posted June 15, 2005 05:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by upandown:
Tape.
But let's remain on-topic.
Can't we just work together?
Normally, I agree with you.
But although this post (let's "work together") is what you normally espouse...your original post is a didactic statement of what you want--as though you're the photog's boss.
Those two sentiments are mutually exclusive.
--------------------
"It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of those liberties which make the defense of the nation worthwhile." -Earl Warren
Posts: 6254 | From: Heck | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 05:14 PM
No more dicactic than two people dancing to the same beat, Frog.
To be didactic would exclude all other circumstances, and I didn't. I left room for exceptions to the rule.
Besides...doesn't 'together' mean looking at the same material the same way at the same time?
And being on the same page?
quote:
Originally posted by Frogman:
quote:
Originally posted by upandown:
Tape.
But let's remain on-topic.
Can't we just work together?
Normally, I agree with you.
But although this post (let's "work together") is what you normally espouse...your original post is a didactic statement of what you want--as though you're the photog's boss.
Those two sentiments are mutually exclusive.
[ June 15, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sultanosurf
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4846
|
posted June 15, 2005 05:31 PM
Ah, just what I always enjoy. Dancing around the issues between reporters and shooters when just this one subject alone can't begin to contain all the antagonism. But c'mon, guys, let's skip the niceties. Get right to the down and nasty. Let it fly! There's LOTS more about each other we don't like.
U&D, you'd probably admit you may have gone off the reservation when you include ALL photogs when you probably only had a problem with one or two.
And Lunch, your artistic efforts are probably appreciated by most everyone you work with, and you probably are getting the money shot 99% of the time. But if I have the mayor admitting he DID shovel cash into every account he could, you better hope you didn't pan down to his hands wringing, or we're BOTH dead.
Personally, I had one shooter who would set up for pressers and then jaw with his buds NOT ROLLING while the money bites were passing by. Yes, he was a vet who had plenty to contribute to our collaberation. But when it came down to it, WE missed the shot. Over and over.
I didn't flame the whole staff, but I did discuss it with him, and then the chief shooter when the problem continued.
Are interview pans a huge problem? Nah. But the underlying friction between the two members of a field crew sure is...
Posts: 4037 | From: Sunwashed Surf | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
booyah
Senior Member
Member # 830
|
posted June 15, 2005 05:32 PM
Losing a soundbite this way is extremely aggravating when it simply wasn't necessary to cut away, pan or otherwise disrupt the collection of an interview on tape. I agree that we don't need to see a talking head the whole time - but let's make getting the sound the priority and make covering it the priority NEXT. If a photographer is just trying to gather b-roll for cover in order to save time, he or she is not paying full attention to the subject speaking. A photographer needs to be listening, too. Sometimes, there is nothing that can substitute for having that incredible sound bite on camera. There is nothing more disheartening when you're putting a piece together than discovering that the very heart of it - the impact of that moment - will only be half as powerful, because the photog was getting a shot of the subject's hands.
Granted, as a photographer, there's nothing worse than covering a package that's ALL talking head...same person, same location, and if you edit, too, then you've got the headache-inducing task of wallpapering a jump-cut-ridden piece with dime-a-dozen cutaways.
Been there, done that, too. But I have to agree with u&d. Get your cutaways after the interview.
--------------------
"TV tastes funny." -Cheese/Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends
Posts: 837 | From: home | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 05:37 PM
For the record, I've asked certain photographers to refrain from such pans interviews. Later, if they try to cut the bites, they see why. The lesson: that good intentions don't always work out.
One guy, however, blew my mind by responding, "But then it's no fun for me."
No. He doesn't edit.
[ June 15, 2005, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Diggin' Bear
Open Line Veteran
Member # 650
|
posted June 15, 2005 05:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
Pagan, I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather watch a package without talking heads. Unless those talking heads are shot in a creative way.
In my opinion, and in my experience, an interview subject only needs to be up one time in a package. For a super. Thats it. If I can cover the boring talking head with video, I will every single time.
And I can cite chapter and verse when a 'talking head' can be way more compelling than the video I have to work with. Here's probably the best:
A local woman won a Carnegie award for plucking an 18 month old child that was walking out on to a busy 4-lane highway at night in a rural area. She won the award SEVEN MONTHS after her action. Nobody got the action on video, nobody could get the kid's family to talk. The only vids? The road, some signs and some traffic that would illustrate how busy the place usually is.
But I got lucky. The woman was as animated as you'd want - not crazy or anything, but just a very compelling person. Big blue eyes, very attractive, a huge smile, and she cried a little thinking about what might have happened to the baby.
I used just a little of that traffic video - some nat sound, and a standup near a 'hazardous road' sign that stood nearby.
But the woman was the star, talking with those huge eyes and those expressive hands. People loved it. One of our consultant says it's the best 'no-video' piece he's seen. All I did was keep a compelling, real live person on screen as much as possible, and it worked, because she was special, and it came through.
There's no way you could have shot video that would have sold this any better. If you don't believe me, I'll send you the tape. Thank goodness our chief photographer has a GREAT feel for when interviews speak for themselves!
--------------------
Deja Moo: The feeling that you've heard this bull before.
Posts: 1780 | From: Over there. | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 07:24 PM
Like upandown and his harem of photogs, we aren't on the same page.
I never advocated panning away from a subjects face during an emotional interview. I never advocated panning or cutting away from a person's face when they are saying something super important.
I simply argued the flaws in speaking in absolutes, saying NEVER EVER DO THIS. I only tried to argue that there are situations where panning off an interview is acceptable.
EXAMPLE:
Press conference with Mayor saying where he stashed the money. STAY ON THE FACE. DUH.
EXAMPLE:
One on One with mechanic showing you how to change your oil. OK TO PAN OFF SUBJECT TO SHOW WHAT HE IS DOING WHILE HE NARRATES.
Any questions?
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trench Worker
Open Line Veteran
Member # 616
|
posted June 15, 2005 07:39 PM
If talking heads are the most boring form of television, the folks at 60 Minutes need to be informed so they can alter the program accordingly.
I don't know what you're alluding to upandown. From what I gather, you saw a report where a photog panned during an interview to something he/she could have picked up later while shooting b-roll. If that's the case, I agree, almost 100% of the time that's a dumb thing to do. But there's always that rare exception -- very rare.
The problem is a lot of young photographers don't trust the established system. Most methods that have been tried and failed (MTV's "shaky cam" for instance) have been thrown out. Sticking to the basics may feel formulaic but the images, while critical, are merely the foundation for the story. The words -- spoken and written -- are the cement. Photographers who want to experiment should do so on their own pieces. If they come up with something radically new they will get ripped-off tout-de-suite and the whole world will imitate their genius. That should be flattery enough.
Posts: 2138 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4892
|
posted June 15, 2005 07:45 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Frogman:
Do Photogs get to tell you Reporters how to interview effectively as well?
Yeah. I tell my photogs "If there's ever anything you see or notice that I can do better, feel free to speak up. It's a team effort."
I usually have to reach up and close their jaw after they hear that....
But it's true. You are a team. And if a photographer can help me then I take the help. I must say, the reverse is seldom true, and I've yet to figure out why.
--------------------
"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
- George W. Bush
May 1, 2003
Posts: 3516 | From: Midwest | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 08:07 PM
Lunch,
Read it again.
I never said "Never."
quote:
Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
Like upandown and his harem of photogs, we aren't on the same page.
I never advocated panning away from a subjects face during an emotional interview. I never advocated panning or cutting away from a person's face when they are saying something super important.
I simply argued the flaws in speaking in absolutes, saying NEVER EVER DO THIS. I only tried to argue that there are situations where panning off an interview is acceptable.
EXAMPLE:
Press conference with Mayor saying where he stashed the money. STAY ON THE FACE. DUH.
EXAMPLE:
One on One with mechanic showing you how to change your oil. OK TO PAN OFF SUBJECT TO SHOW WHAT HE IS DOING WHILE HE NARRATES.
Any questions?
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4892
|
posted June 15, 2005 08:52 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
EXAMPLE: One on One with mechanic showing you how to change your oil. OK TO PAN OFF SUBJECT TO SHOW WHAT HE IS DOING WHILE HE NARRATES.
I disagree...unless you do this after the formal interview and you're using it as a nats type of byte. If you're in the middle of the normal interview...either A) stay on his face, or B) stop tape, and tell your photog and the interview subject to save it for after the interview.
There's a C, but you won't like it...it's don't move unless the reporter specifically tells you to. That way, you're doing your job well, and the reporter can't bytch about you not getting what he/she wanted. If he/she wanted you to pan off, you say "You should have told me to pan, I stay on the face during an interview."
You'd be right, too. ![[Rockon]](graemlins/icon_kidra.gif)
--------------------
"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
- George W. Bush
May 1, 2003
Posts: 3516 | From: Midwest | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sultanosurf
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4846
|
posted June 15, 2005 08:53 PM
Well, here's more gas on the fire.
Lunch, maybe U&D could've worded his original thought a little differently, but your response pisses me off.
"reporters should never EVER be allowed near an edit bay"?? Nice. Yeah, I'll just turn over my enterprise story and beat traffic home.
Anybody who's been around knows photogs have a full plate, and you get jacked sometimes with newbie reporters who don't have a clue, where you've gotta carry the piece. And I appreciate collaborative input from pros.
But when the piece blows up it's not YOUR name anybody thinks of first. And you'll be safe in your union gig ten years from now while most of the reporters are shuffled off to their fifth gig.
You bet your ass I want a stamp from start to finish. And the shooter better not be taking a gamble with some art pull or pan, or think I'm not competent enough to be in the f***ing edit bay.
If your attitude is indicative of the kind of collaboration to expect, reporters at your shop must dread the daily draw...
Posts: 4037 | From: Sunwashed Surf | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 09:07 PM
Lunch,
Panning to show the mechanic changing his oil is exactly what I'm talking about, unless we agree in advance and have another interview to cover it.
This is not a question of your ability, talent, or judgement.
It is a matter of leaving the reporter all possible options when he writes and produces the piece.
Look at the bright side. I, for one, am a reporter who knows the difference, tries to communicate, and cares.
Isn't that better than some raw newbie?
[ June 15, 2005, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 09:38 PM
I've obviously stumbled upon a conclave of reporters who edit their own stuff. My apologies.
I edit every story I shoot, period.
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
David R. Busse
Member
Member # 392
|
posted June 15, 2005 09:49 PM
For the record, I have worked with Upandown off and on for almost three decades (I'm a photographer).
And yes, I have told him at times what questions to ask in an interview....and he has suggested ways to shoot things.
Collaboration is what it's all about. Period.
But I would be hesitant to hold your mechanic example up as a way to shoot. Why not stay on the mechanic, then do the interview a second time as a demonstation...shooting wide, tight and action sequences of what the interviewee talked about?
Never say never when discussing the "rules" of storytelling. Now here's one for you to try.
Since you are a reporter who edits, have you ever edited your story before writing it? It's probably the purest form of television writing and worth giving a try...it's the way many of the oldsters in this biz learned to do long-form stuff.
Posts: 311 | From: LA, Calif. USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sultanosurf
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4846
|
posted June 15, 2005 09:52 PM
Actually, my stuff usually goes to an editor.
That's a THIRD member of the collaborative team. And they seem to want as much clean A-roll as they can get, which they then do amazing things that neither my photog or I would've anticipated. BUT, it's always done within the parameters of my script.
Field packs are cut by the shooter, but again, following my script. Hopefully with all the elements in hand I thought I was getting, assembling the piece in my head as WE were covering the story.
Maybe my previous post was overcooked, but damn, those are some harsh comments about reporters.
Posts: 4037 | From: Sunwashed Surf | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 10:14 PM
Lunch,
Fine. Edit your own pieces. But no man should be an island. Perhaps you should open up to reporters or producers. You might like the results.
I no longer edit my own stuff, but used to do so as both a shooter, and later as a reporter.
In my shop we have field photographer/editors, and also pure editors who remain in house. Some of both are very good. Others need a bit of help or inspiration. That's the way of the world in every shop. What matters most to me in any story is that they care.
Whoever it is, I have fairly specific thoughts regarding what scenes to use, and about timing (as in cut points, natural sound, etc) , sometimes down to individual frames. Based on your posts, that would probably bother you, but your fear, anger, or whatever, would be baseless. If you had a better idea regarding any aspect of the piece, including the writing, I'd listen. It's a give and take. Two heads are better than one.
By the way. Busse is the best all-around broadcast journalist I know...and he shoots. But Busse could do anything.
No smoke, bro.
[ June 15, 2005, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Fedora
Open Line Veteran
Member # 1276
|
posted June 15, 2005 10:36 PM
That's funny U&D, I log my stuff out to the frame too. When other people see my scripts they're like "what the hell is this?"
Back on point: I rarely have enough b-roll as it is, not having clean a-roll drives me nuts.
We have one specific shooter who, until recently, never ever shot any cut-aways. I don't mean ones with me in them, I mean period.
I ran into the Topic situation a couple weeks ago during a pretty big story about a commercial boat accident. photog kept panning off during an interview to the boat and we missed a couple compelling bites. I wrote the pkg in the car on the way back and had to re-think quickly in the edit bay because what I thought would be there, wasn't. I still made slot though.
Posts: 3455 | From: OFF THE BEACH! Republic of Texas! | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh
Open Line Veteran
Member # 4892
|
posted June 15, 2005 10:37 PM
Nice to have a real debate aboutt he biz for once, eh?
--------------------
"Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
- George W. Bush
May 1, 2003
Posts: 3516 | From: Midwest | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LunchPenalty
Open Line Veteran
Member # 5248
|
posted June 15, 2005 10:40 PM
What was that you said earlier tonight about assumptions?
I guess we are just in different solar systems. In my shop the photographers are the driving force behind our stories. Visual. Creative. Show and tell emphasis. Nat heavy. Most of us have 10+ years in the business. We know what we are talking about, and what we are doing when we shoot something.
Sorry you do things differently. Believe me when I say the reporters I work with are quite 'pleased' with our stories when we finish them.
Oh, and for all those who got worked up over my negative comments about reporters? My apologies. I take what I said back. I understand that you guys are just as important in this endeavour as phtographers are.
--------------------
The Detroit Tigers' biggest obstacle to a championship will be keeping a straight face. The Tigers in three. (OK, make it four.)
-Bob Nightengale, USA TODAY
Posts: 4889 | From: Toddler Hell | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
upandown
Open Line Veteran
Member # 384
|
posted June 15, 2005 11:14 PM
A nice way to end the day.
Posts: 2104 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
