Ladies and Gentlemen,
For any of you calling yourselves "Wedding Cinematographers" I wanted to point out that you are also editors, sound designers, lighting techs, grips, gaffers, and to a certain extent, directors, and producers, and publishers of your own work. It is selling you and all of us short by calling yourselves cinematographers. I don't know what to call us, but that one just rubs me the wrong way. It's as if you know the general public doesn't know what that means and it makes you sound "fancier" than videographer. Sorry about the rant, I just had to get that off my chest.
Bill

I'll be a videoTographer :)

When something new comes along, words tend to be invented to describe it. Producing videos of weddings is one of those relatively new things. I believe the various names that people call this is just their attempt to differentiate themselves from "Uncle Charlie".

I have to agree with you on the technical point. To be entirely fair, there just really isn't a proper term that correctly applies to what most of us do. Even videographer doesn't apply .. since you do more than just video-tape the event. We simply wear too many hats.

Like it or not though, what you choose to call yourself DOES have an impact on the client. I use the term cinematographer because our style is very cinematic and I want to bring that point across to our clients. We don't produce the type of work that the general public would associate with 'videography' or 'videographer' .. so it makes no sense to apply those terms to ourselves.

I'm going to play the other side of the coin here, and just remind us all that calling ourselves "Cinematographers" is downright misleading to those already in the entertainment industry, and, in some ways, actually insulting. True Cinematographers spend years training and learning various film (NOT video) cameras, techniques, film stocks, lenses, gates, and a whole host of other things related specifically to film production (16mm or above). To consider ourselves in a league with them is really neither accurate nor fair to those who are true film Cinematographers.

I will agree that the line is being blurred, due to Cinematographers now beginning to use DSLRs just as we do, but there is a definite expectation of skills and experience in the film community around calling yourself a Cinematographer, and it has very little to do with video.

I'm not trying to upset the applecart here, just wanting to bring a certain reality check to the conversation. For years, the word Cinematographer meant something completely different than in the context we as wedding videographers are now wanting to use it. That doesn't mean it won't become distinct in the future and also synonymous with videography - but I do not call myself a Cinematographer simply because I have some real Cinematographer friends who would beg to differ (strenuously) over this use of the word.

I'm just sayin' ;)

Bill

That's a good point Bill. I think a lot of people are trying to find the right term to describe what they do. Another word that some use is film or films even though they aren't using film cameras. Others sidestep the problem by using a name such as XYZ Productions and then use a tag line to describe what they do.

Bill, of course you have it right, very few of us are cinematographers in the sense of having the training and certification. And it further dilutes the term when companies that seem to pay little attention to how their videos look will call their shooters cinematographers.

How about the term filmmaker? It carries the implication that you are an artist and that telling stories with moving images is what you do and who you are. Also, that you are an independent producer overseeing all aspects of production, which is certainly true for most of us.

Audio/Video Artiste!

Or...
Multimedia Maven...

Or... since it's primarily "digital"...
Bit Wrangling Expert Extrordinaire...

Since the Digital revolution it's getting really hard to define things that all can be broken down into manipulating a series of 1's and 0's... from capture/creation to edit/recombination to delivery/distribution!

I know "job titles" have always had a certain value, but for the modern entrepreneur/small business person it becomes more a matter of ego, since you very likely are both the CEO and the janitor... the latter of which isn't far afield from tossing out (editing) the bits that shouldn't see the light of day!

Bill,
If I might put that a different way, we are like the hometown mechanic that could rebuild a big block chevy top to bottom with our eyes closed, vs those guys who are the transmission guys for a high end Italian racing team. I don't think the two relate. I always say "video producer" but that conjures up visions of porn guys. ( and that's not me) but relating it to filmmaking is really not accurate. What we do is in alot of ways such a step above what filmmakers do it's not funny. They would never take on what we do with the crew and budget that we do, yet I bet the vast majority of us could step into alot of roles on a film set and wonder what all of the fuss is about. I just cringe when I hear videographer as well because that's not really a word. Unfortunately each of us have to show our work for people to really understand it. There's no description that will suffice...
Bill

There have been a lot of great films made with neither crew nor budget.

Lately I have been moving toward a designation as Wedding Media Producer or Consultant - since what we do really encompasses much more than just video. Media is being used before, during and after the wedding to inform and entertain the guests (as well as videotape the wedding). I think it sums it up pretty well for me, and I think it gives more of a current and authoritative tone than just "videographer".

This idea/title really has become part of our marketing efforts lately, since I'm trying very hard to work with couples early on to show them all the ways to use media. Much like a wedding planner, we want to work with them throughout their planning and even after their wedding. A videographer (to the average bride) is someone who shows up with a video camera. We provide comprehensive media ideas and solutions for the whole process - which is a different concept and, I think, a better approach for us.

True Cinematographers spend years training and learning various film (NOT video) cameras, techniques, film stocks, lenses, gates, and a whole host of other things related specifically to film production (16mm or above). To consider ourselves in a league with them is really neither accurate nor fair to those who are true film Cinematographers.

I get what you're saying, Bill, I really do. I guess I'm just not too concerned if some true film cinematographers are upset over me using the term. I feel there really isn't a term that describes my profession. I shoot .. I capture footage .. I edit footage .. I perform color grading .. I author DVD's .. I do graphic design for my projects .. I process and edit audio for my projects .. I do the pre-planning for my projects .. I manage my team when we are shooting .. I train employees .. I handle sales .. I handle equipment research and purchases .. I manage all the marketing and advertising .. I answer phone calls .. I answer emails .. and on and on and on .....

What would those true film cinematographers propose I refer to my profession as? Videographer? That certainly doesn't encompass it properly. Video producer? That doesn't either. Film maker? Nope. People who create wedding videos don't have a title that fits .. it's that simple.

So again, I choose the title that I feel will best convey my intentions to my clients .. and for me that is 'cinematographer' because I strive to create something 'cinematic' for them. On a side note, many of today's 'cinematographers' are shooting digital now .. not film. Would your friends be insulted by their use of the term?

Personally, I don't think the terms that are floating around in the wedding industry today are worth anyone getting insulted over.

Have you ever noticed on news broadcasts they refer to the camera operator as a "photographer"? Doesn't make any sense.

At the end of the day, no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, we will ALWAYS be referred by the bride and groom as "our videographer". A word that isn't recognized by any spell checker.

It's our fault this has happened. Who ever chose this word to describe our work should be shot and hung, and buried alive, but now it is forever too late.

So, call yourself a cinematographer or whatever, it really doesn't matter...we're going to be the first to get cut out of the budget.

I just had to come back and say that just this past year I had several brides who, on my behalf and on their own, corrected others and informed them that I was their 'cinematographer'. I'll admit I was surprised by it, but also very happy that to the bride it was important how I was viewed. In their eyes they didn't hire a 'videographer', and they didn't want anyone else thinking that either.

I'm a firm believer that the face of wedding video can and IS changing. We don't have to be known as 'videographers'. We can change that, and we can change the stigma that goes along with it. It just takes lots of work and patience and time. We can also change the fact that we're often the first to get cut. We're now working almost exclusively with couples that would just about cut everything else before they cut us. We've had a number of couples change their date to fit OUR availability, including one of the couples we met with just today.

I don't mean to argue, but I wanted to offer a different point of view. Change CAN be accomplished. If we can do it in the backwards/repressed market of Boise, ID .. then you can do it where you live too.

Hey Travis et al,

I have to scratch my head a bit at the use of the term cinematographer. And I was all prepared to back that up with a dictionary quote. But dictionary.com says the first definition is "1. a person whose profession is motion-picture photography."

I've always looked at it as their number two definition, the director of photography "the person who is responsible for all operations concerning camera work and lighting during the production of a film."

The first actually fits pretty well, so why not use it? The second doesn't have much to do with us. On most sets I've been on, the DOP didn't shoot anything. He just lit.

I shoot .. I capture footage .. I edit footage .. I perform color grading .. I author DVD's .. I do graphic design for my projects .. I process and edit audio for my projects .. I do the pre-planning for my projects .. I manage my team when we are shooting .. I train employees .. I handle sales .. I handle equipment research and purchases .. I manage all the marketing and advertising .. I answer phone calls .. I answer emails .. and on and on and on .....

Your list makes you sound way more like a producer than a cinematographer to me. Unless you are attempting to give the word a new meaning for your own purposes in your market. And if that works, then all the more power to you.

Personally, I don't think the terms that are floating around in the wedding industry today are worth anyone getting insulted over.

Agreed. I've never had a problem with the word videographer myself. I don't know why it bothers people.

I usally answer to "The video guy" myself:)

Have you ever noticed on news broadcasts they refer to the camera operator as a "photographer"? Doesn't make any sense.

Well, this isn't exactly true. Camera operators are the technicians that man studio cameras in a multi-camera live shoot. Photographers are the men and women out in the streets with the reporters, shooting, lighting and editing. They are two entirely different jobs and skill sets. The term photographer is a holdover from the days when they used to shoot news on film. Now most stations refer to the these men and women as videojournalists.

Back on topic. We refer to ourselves simply as filmmakers. It's the one term that encompasses producing, directing, shooting (film or video) and editing. It's not perfect, but it's the closest to the the truth of what we do.

Well, after 21 years producing all kinds of video, I stil cringe when people call me "El Señor del Video" (something like "That Video Guy")

Cheers

Alex

Im happy enough to refer to myself as a cameraman when interacting with clients.
The fact that im many other things too isn't relevant to them.
Im a trained cameraman. Im a cameraman on the day.
Thats what they can call me.

I dont like 'videographer' either.
Its implications are that I somehow stumbled into this job and am just a getting by at it.
And basically that is the truth of the term.
It was initially conceived by photographers back in the 80's.
They really didnt care what way it reflected on the business.
The only reason they were providing the service was because they were afraid it was going
to take over. It was always a half assed effort up until the late 90's. Now its only a half assed
effort from a certain percentage of the service providers.

Since 1983-video guy, video cameraman, videoAHgrapher, videoTOgrapher, (never could figure that one out) photographer, camera guy, hey you, many others I can't mention here including some referring to an inappropriate relationship with my mother... ;-)
Honestly, I don't care what they call me, call me anthing you like, just spell my name right on the check!!!

Honestly, I don't care what they call me, call me anthing you like, just spell my name right on the check!!!

That's exactly right! I can call myself a cinematographer, and sometimes I may make a small, self deprecating joke about the "high and mighty cinematographer" if I feel like correcting someone, but as long as the couple are respectful of me and what I have to do they can call me whatever they please.

I tell people just call me "Roger." Before I retired from the clinical laboratory, there was this big controversy between two professional organizations if people doing my old job were "Medical Technologists" or "Clinical Laboratory Scientists" and then listing all your degrees and titles and certifications and specialties and ... after your name. The bigger our egos, the bigger our signatures can be.

I guess we could be Professional, Certified, Award Winning, Renowned, Celebrity Videographer, Cinematographer, Digital Artist Extraordinaire or what have you, but no matter what we call ourselves, or what other's call us, doesn't really affect who we are and how good we are at our work. Life's too short to worry about it.

S
Honestly, I don't care what they call me, call me anthing you like, just spell my name right on the check!!!

Don, I like the way you think :)

I also agree with William that we are simply filmmakers. we produce, direct, shoot, edit.

I've gone back and forth on this one as well. Being that I have worked on several feature films in various capacities from DP to producer to sound mixer to whatever. I feel I can justify the title of cinematographer just fine, but as I recently ordered new business cards I finally decided against having multiple "titles" so I finally settled on the one that covers it all for me in this case.... that being "Filmmaker". After all, I market my work to brides as "wedding films" as my way of distancing myself from all the "videographers" in my market that are cranking out sub-par videos. It seems to be working, like Travis pointed out earlier, I too have had my brides introduce me as their cinematographer and not their "video guy"... not that there is anything wrong with video guy, I answer to anything.

Originally Posted by Bill Vincent:
calling ourselves "Cinematographers" is downright misleading to those already in the entertainment industry, and, in some ways, actually insulting. True Cinematographers spend years training and learning various film (NOT video) cameras, techniques, film stocks, lenses, gates, and a whole host of other things related specifically to film production (16mm or above). To consider ourselves in a league with them is really neither accurate nor fair to those who are true film Cinematographers

Now, by definition of the Australian Cinematographers Society - "a cinematographer is a person with technical expertise who manipulates light to transfer visual information by the use of a camera into aesthetic moving images on motion picture film or electronic recording systems."

So it is not limited only to film cameras.
Having said that, I am a trained cinematographer, have worked with film & electronic camera systems, shot films, TVC's, corporates, and I also run a wedding video production company. Surely it is not misleading or insulting to other cinematographers for me to call myself a cinematographer. If you don't think you have the required skills or training to use that title, then don't. But to say I'm being misleading is actually an insult to me.

And sure, there are many things that go into producing a wedding video - but in my opinion, the actual shooting of the wedding is the most important part. Get that wrong and the whole video suffers. So I'll keep calling myself a cinematographer. What other people call me is up to them.

Originally Posted by Bill Vincent:
calling ourselves "Cinematographers" is downright misleading to those already in the entertainment industry, and, in some ways, actually insulting. True Cinematographers spend years training and learning various film (NOT video) cameras, techniques, film stocks, lenses, gates, and a whole host of other things related specifically to film production (16mm or above). To consider ourselves in a league with them is really neither accurate nor fair to those who are true film Cinematographers

Now, by definition of the Australian Cinematographers Society - "a cinematographer is a person with technical expertise who manipulates light to transfer visual information by the use of a camera into aesthetic moving images on motion picture film or electronic recording systems."

So it is not limited only to film cameras.
Having said that, I am a trained cinematographer, have worked with film & electronic camera systems, shot films, TVC's, corporates, and I also run a wedding video production company. Surely it is not misleading or insulting to other cinematographers for me to call myself a cinematographer. If you don't think you have the required skills or training to use that title, then don't. But to say I'm being misleading is actually an insult to me.

And sure, there are many things that go into producing a wedding video - but in my opinion, the actual shooting of the wedding is the most important part. Get that wrong and the whole video suffers. So I'll keep calling myself a cinematographer. What other people call me is up to them.


Yes, the actual definition varies greatly from the real world definition.

Aaron, if you wish to call yourself a Cinematographer, that's perfectly fine. I'm wasn't saying that those who feel they are qualified to take that title should not. If you believe in your heart that you are a "real" Cinematographer, great. I'm not saying that you aren't, or that you shouldn't be.

Will you ever get an ASC designation with the work you've done? I don't know. Not my decision to make. But there is a bar to get that designation, and it's fairly high. The American Society of Cinematographers does not invite members lightly. Most (and I would venture to say ALL) members have years of true FILM experience. The prospective members know very specific things about professional motion picture film cameras, stocks, lenses, lighting, etc... They have logged a certain amount of hours on professional, union-based motion picture shoots from major studios. They have EARNED that designation as a real motion picture Director of Photography or CINEMATOGRAPHER, and they are recognized by their peers in the film industry as having the skills worthy of that designation.

So, don't let me or anyone else get in your way of using that title - but all I'm doing is pointing out that the term Cinematographer DOES carry a very specific meaning in the professional film industry, and if you haven't worked with or under at least a few people who DO hold that ASC designation, you aren't going to be taken seriously using that title with film professionals. For someone who does hold an ASC designation, maybe "insulted" is not the right word. Probably the right word would be "amused", since they know what it really means to have that designation bestowed upon a peer. Being indignant about you being deserving of that title is not going to get you the title from other ASC members, I do know that.

In the grand scheme of telling brides what we do, does any of this really matter? Probably not a bit. They will never know or care about what I just said above, but the title sounds good to them. It fits into the idea of "cinematic-style" which is something that we definitely do provide. However, being a "Wedding Cinematographer" is not the same thing at all as being a true film Cinematographer, and never will be. You may be one, and/or the other - but don't confuse the two - they are not the same beast by any stretch.

Unless your stuff regularly and primarily plays in a Cinema, you are not, by any definition, a Cinematographer.

Actually, my work does not regularly play in a cinema but by MY definition I AM a 'cinematographer'. d;-p

Funny, I just read this thread for the first time.

Personally, I use the term 'video producer' for what I do. Though I call my production company a film company. I would only say that my passion is 'cinematography', as opposed to say editing, and, or directing. I went to film school 20 years ago and worked on 20 or so film sets, and there is (was) a fairly strict adherence to titles and status. Maybe DOP (director of photography - a term often used interchangeably with cinematographer) is a better term for what we mostly do.

I think you are a cinematographer when you are planning, and selecting shots, a cameraman when you are shooting (2nd camera when you pull focus), a gaffer when you move a light, an audio technician when you pin on a lav, and so on...

Hi Bill,

The American Society of Cinematographers is an industry association, not an organisation that gives qualifications. Currently there are 302 members, and membership is by invite only and reserved for the best of the best. There are literally thousands of cinematographers around the world who are not members of the ASC. So to imply that one needs to be an ASC member to use the term 'cinematographer' is incorrect.

If someone studies a medical degree, at the end of it they are a doctor. If someone studies a cinematography degree (or a film degree with a major in cinematography), surely at the end of it they are qualified to call themselves a cinematographer - regardless of what they go on to shoot, or how many years it takes for them to be invited to join the ASC.

I'm sure the 302 ASC members are well aware that they are not the only cinematographers around, but they have achieved a level very few do, and therefore get the honour of using the letters ASC after their name. That's the thing that separates the elite cinematographers from the rest of us. And the ASC is only one of many cinematography societies around the world.

And as for wedding cinematography being different from feature film cinematography - of course it is. Just like documentary cinematography is different, just like a cinematographer shooting a news story on the afghanistan war is different. All forms of cinematography are different and have their own unique challenges. But they are all forms of cinematography - capturing motion pictures to tell a story.

The term videographer is the new term in the grand scheme of things. Prior to electronic camera systems, the term was cinematographer. It is only with the introduction of 'filmless' cameras that people felt the need to differentiate themselves. But whether you are using film or not, what you are doing is the same.

On a wedding shoot, if you are the one in charge, planning each shot, which angle to shoot from, where to put lights etc etc - then you are doing the role of a cinematographer. Whether you want to call yourself that or not is irrelevant. Sure it's different from shooting a feature film where you have much more time to meticulously plan, but the role is the same.

Don't forget the CSC and BSC. They may take offense at being considered any less than the ASC. :)

All forms of cinematography are different and have their own unique challenges. But they are all forms of cinematography - capturing motion pictures to tell a story.

The term videographer is the new term in the grand scheme of things. Prior to electronic camera systems, the term was cinematographer. It is only with the introduction of 'filmless' cameras that people felt the need to differentiate themselves. But whether you are using film or not, what you are doing is the same.

I totally see your point here Aaron, and I do agree with you. It's not the definition I'm calling/pointing out - it is the expectation from the film industry of someone who calls themselves a cinematographer. A film school grad would most likely be able to live up to those expectations. I just doubt that someone who shoots on HD with little or no film experience would be able to. The point I was making about the ASC was that by their definition/expectations I doubt that your typical wedding shooter would make the grade.

People in our industry are already using the title. It's not for me to say whether anyone should or shouldn't. I agree that the definition is changing. I agree that what we do is cinematography, at least to a certain degree. But, I not sure the film world has completely accepted the idea of the broadened definition - especially when it comes to whether a person has actually worked with film - stocks, processing houses, film color correction, etc. I think anyone who is pitching their resume or CV for professional entertainment industry work and claims that title might appreciate knowing that information, because it is bound to come up in the process of getting hired for a film production. I'm just sayin'.....

Point taken Bill,
I agree that people in the entertainment industry would probably find it amusing for someone to call themselves a cinematographer if they'd only shot weddings and never used a film camera!
And I also agree that there are many in the wedding industry that probably shouldn't use the title of cinematographer.

My point is simply that there are trained cinematographers shooting weddings (as well as other things), and they should therefore be able to still call themselves a cinematographer.

In any case, whatever each person chooses to call themselves and regardless of what they are shooting, we should all be continually striving to improve our craft.

We went with Filmmaker. It covers it all off from start to finish.

I do care what people call me, on the day the photographer shall call me Danny. But often its "Video man", "Video guy". Which I find highly insulting. Not because I think im better than that. Simply because minutes before I told him my name and I remembered his name.

Do you hear me photographers!!! My name is Danny! I dont go around calling you 'flash gun boy' or 'can't shut up his noisy shutter in the middle of the vows man' do I?

Fellas,
I appreciate the broad chested defense of cinematographer as a title. MY intention was to say that we are not JUST cinematographers, and I think that point is getting lost in semantics which was the point the whole time.
Bill

Is it just me here thinking that we should call the annoying photographers "shutter bugs"?

Andrew

Digitographers cause most photographers have never touched real film.

Strictly speaking, photography is derived from the (most probably Greek word) [i]phot·os[i/] ie photon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon) / light.

It's why lighting is just about everything else when it comes to photography. After content, composition and a good optically clear lens.

Andrew

I'm going to play the other side of the coin here, and just remind us all that calling ourselves "Cinematographers" is downright misleading to those already in the entertainment industry, and, in some ways, actually insulting. True Cinematographers spend years training and learning various film (NOT video) cameras, techniques, film stocks, lenses, gates, and a whole host of other things related specifically to film production (16mm or above). To consider ourselves in a league with them is really neither accurate nor fair to those who are true film Cinematographers.

Agreed. To consider what I do and what someone like Emmanuel Lubezki does to be the same thing is absurd.

I'm going to play the other side of the coin here, and just remind us all that calling ourselves "Cinematographers" is downright misleading to those already in the entertainment industry, and, in some ways, actually insulting. l

Then they better not use those new HD cameras.. Better not see them use a RED, or help shoot the next 3D feature in an all digital medium...

If they do, we can call them "videographers".... Right?

Agreed. To consider what I do and what someone like Emmanuel Lubezki does to be the same thing is absurd.

To pose a counter-point .. if you're calling yourself a wedding cinematographer, then you're not comparing what you do to what Emmanuel Lubezki does. Kind of like calling yourself a personal accountant doesn't mean you do what a corporate accountant does.

Kind of like calling yourself a personal accountant doesn't mean you do what a corporate accountant does.

Both require certification - a better comparison might be "bookkeeper and CGA"

Perhaps all that is needed is a few adjectives to clear things up. For example:

Wedding cinematographer

Event cinematographer

Documentary cinematographer

etc.

Fair enough. I think you get my point. A wedding cinematographer isn't necessarily the same thing as a movie cinematographer.

No argument from me at all.