Panning the camera during interviews

[upandown]

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 ]

[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'.

[LunchPenalty]

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 Fedora]

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.

[LunchPenalty]

Oh, you deleted your reply. See...editing is EASY.

[Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh]

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. ;)

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:

[ June 15, 2005, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Pagan Bastard ]

[Wes Mantooth]

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 ]

[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.

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.

[upandown]

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).

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 ]

[Michigan J. Frog]

Do Photogs get to tell you Reporters how to interview effectively as well?

[Signature on File]

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! graemlins/horse.gif

[upandown]

Tape.

But let's remain on-topic.
Can't we just work together?

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! graemlins/horse.gif

[ June 15, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]

[LunchPenalty]

Collaboration?

Does your photog know you logged on Medialine and pi$$ed all over him today? Is that how YOU colaborate?

[upandown]

Lunch...what's that old saying about making assumptions?

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?

[LunchPenalty]

I always thought assumptions were statements, not questions?

I'm asking, not assuming.

[ June 15, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: LunchPenalty ]

[Signature on File]

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.

[upandown]

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 ]

[MacG]

"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!

[Lazlo Toth]

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.

[Michigan J. Frog]

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.

[upandown]

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?



Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.</font>[/QUOTE]

[ June 15, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: upandown ]

[Sultanosurf]

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...

[booyah]

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.

[upandown]

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 ]

[Diggin' Bear]

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!

[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?

[Trench Worker]

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.

[Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh]

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.

[upandown]

Lunch,

Read it again.
I never said "Never."

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?

[Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh]

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. graemlins/icon_kidra.gif

[Sultanosurf]

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...

[upandown]

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 ]

[LunchPenalty]

I've obviously stumbled upon a conclave of reporters who edit their own stuff. My apologies.

I edit every story I shoot, period.

[David R. Busse]

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.

[Sultanosurf]

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.

[upandown]

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 ]

[The Fedora]

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.

[Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh]

Nice to have a real debate aboutt he biz for once, eh? :cool:

[LunchPenalty]

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.

[upandown]

A nice way to end the day.

[southwesternguy]

This is a great topic. Nicely done. I have had the pleasure of working with u&d as well. He wouldn't remember me because I was but a peon at the station back then ;) .

Anyway, I now work at a top 15 station that has a real "talent emphasis". The photogs aren't that concerned with shooting sequences or cutaways at all. Over the years (only 5 of them so far), I've really become one of those frame-by-frame guys, too, since I come from a one-man-band background. At first they hated working with me, and I them. They thought I was overbearing and picky, I thought they were lazy and unmotivated. But through trial and error, we've learned to work together, and that's the key.

They've learned from me coming from a the background I came from (heavy on cutaways, quick edits, nat sound, and I'm obsessed with good sequences). I've learned from them about interview tecniques and other things just because some of these guys have over 20 years experience.

One theme through this topic is working together. Wherever you are, and whatever your attitude, always keep the collaboration in mind. No one is above learning new things.

[Judge]

Hey U&D, and Lunch:

How about this...I agree with BOTH of you.

Seems like there are many times when I wish the Photog WOULD NOT have panned to whatever was going on behind the mayor...
...but other times I wish he WOULD have panned off the mechanic's face while changing the oil (so we wouldn't have missed, for example, the oil unexpectedly squirting his co-worker in the face).

Either way, I'm rarely upset, because I know it's probably been shot the way we planned it...as we make it a point to be on the same page before we even start rolling. Sometimes we decide, "hey, this guy's pretty animated, let's shoot it a little loosey-goosey, and clean it up after (with b-roll)."

Other times we realize the guy (or the story subject) may be a little more reserved, poignant, etc... Then we might decide to lock that interview down.

Many times, I say, "hey, I've got some great words for what's going on here...how do you see it?"
Or, he/she says, "Hey, I got a great shot a second ago, maybe you'll want to write something to the effect of ___________."

Either way, we get great moments, or we get burned together...but we're always sure find a solution before we leave the field (and certainly before we enter an edit bay).

That way, neither of us has to come here and vent about "how this reporter or that photog screwed me!"

[jrat33]

The only complaint I have with photogs is when they try to get the perfect frame up while the interview is going on. Get your shot, lock it down, and if you have to move it, wait until I start asking a question. I can't count the number of times I get a good soundbite that gets screwed because the camera is jerking around because the photog had to get that 1/3 more of an inch of head room.

[Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh]

I think you both have legitimate points, but Lunch...calm down. Why is it that most of the photogs I've come in contact with over the years are so defensive when a reporter makes a suggestion?

Ok, I'm sure there are reporters who say "Don't tell me what to do," but man...U&D was just making a suggestion. If it helps with the overall product and you both are happy with the final result, why get angry?

Any words of adivce that can be passed on - good or bad - have merit. Everyone should be open to criticism. Otherwise, go sell shoes.

[ June 16, 2005, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Pagan Bastard ]

[Sultanosurf]

Nat snd, birds chirping; choir up; lock out; heavens part; FTB...

((Whups, wrote above before seeing Page 2, when the cowboys & indians were singing round the campfire. Carry on.))

[ June 16, 2005, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Sultanosurf ]

[TV's Frank]

Maybe I've just been lucky, but in 20 years I've never had a photog pan off from an interview to shoot something else that was happening at the time ... and I can't imagine why anyone would do that short of having a plane go down behind the interviewee or something similar.

Talking heads are boring, but when you're doing the interview, you simply don't know what a person is going to say ... the mayor could be talking about garbage collection and then admit to molesting puppies ... so you stay on your subject, period. Wide shots for more expressive people and for demonstration-type interviews, but otherwise you better have them in the frame.

Lunch, I appreciate your passion for your job, but there's got to be some give and take ... and less of a knee-jerk reaction towards reporters who have the occasional gripe or suggestion.

And 'yay!' for an entire thread about an industry topic.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by jrat33:
Get your shot, lock it down,Yeah. Good advice.

Until the subject shifts in his chair or leans if he's standing. Then he's half out of the frame.

But, hey, you said you wanted it locked down...

[s'news]

Nice thread.

[ June 16, 2005, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: s'news ]

[LunchPenalty]

My point was that there ARE exceptions, and that a soundbite is NEVER lost. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough. No one is saying its ok to pan off the mayor while he is saying he is molesting puppies.

[Sultanosurf]

Frank, yes, you've been lucky.

As said before, I've seen it all, including shooters who weren't even rolling, or forgot bat packs and TAPE -- let alone just pan off. And these were 10 year vets, too.

Then again I've also seen plenty of days like one not-a-newbie bimbette from a competitor bounce up in front of the dais during a grieving family's heartfelt presser, SMILE & GIGGLE, then finally duck down -- blowing EVERYBODY'S bite.

I'm STILL willing to listen to anything my colleagues have to say, as long as we've got the money shots, AND they don't have an imposing attitude.

Let's all sing along w/ Rogers & Hammerstein:

"Oh, the farmer and the cowman should be friends.
One man likes to push a plough,
the other likes to chase a cow,
But that's no reason why they cain't be friends.

Territory folks should stick together,
Territory folks should all be pals.

Cowboys dance with farmer's daughters,
Farmers dance with the ranchers' gals!"

(Except -- stay away from my daughter...)

[SigSauer]

Originally posted by Judge:
Hey U&D, and Lunch:

How about this...I agree with BOTH of you.

Seems like there are many times when I wish the Photog WOULD NOT have panned to whatever was going on behind the mayor...
...but other times I wish he WOULD have panned off the mechanic's face while changing the oil (so we wouldn't have missed, for example, the oil unexpectedly squirting his co-worker in the face).

Either way, I'm rarely upset, because I know it's probably been shot the way we planned it...as we make it a point to be on the same page before we even start rolling. Sometimes we decide, "hey, this guy's pretty animated, let's shoot it a little loosey-goosey, and clean it up after (with b-roll)."

Other times we realize the guy (or the story subject) may be a little more reserved, poignant, etc... Then we might decide to lock that interview down.

Many times, I say, "hey, I've got some great words for what's going on here...how do you see it?"
Or, he/she says, "Hey, I got a great shot a second ago, maybe you'll want to write something to the effect of ___________."

Either way, we get great moments, or we get burned together...but we're always sure find a solution before we leave the field (and certainly before we enter an edit bay).

That way, neither of us has to come here and vent about "how this reporter or that photog screwed me!"Great post! That's the way it should work all the time. I'm fortunate that it usually does go like that for me and my reporters...

[TV's Frank]

Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
My point was that there ARE exceptions, and that a soundbite is NEVER lost. I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear enough. No one is saying its ok to pan off the mayor while he is saying he is molesting puppies.As long as you're rolling, the AUDIO isn't lost ... but I would rather have the audio and the talking head ... and then have the option/choice of covering it later. If the photog is wandering, that option is lost. And the point was you never know WHAT a person might say, even in the midst of a very dull-sounding bite. Be safe and stay on them. And again, maybe it's just me, but I still can't believe that this is a problem anywhere.

[Newsluv]

This post is the perfect example of why its so difficult sometimes to work with certain photogs.

I think many photogs are so defensive and they often say, "Well, we don't tell you how to report, you don't tell us how to shoot." You know what, at the end of the day MY face and name are attached to the story so if you F*** the viewer associates it with me.

This all really comes down to attitude. Reporters, you need to respect your photogs and communicate with them.
On the same token, it takes a special type of person to be a photog. Those with an ego, and who hate when they are given direction, DON'T need to be in this business. The smart ones know it's not personal, it's all about the story.

If one of our photogs says something like, "Sarah, I think the mother of the murder victim is to your left, go grab her." I'm going to head straight there to get her. I'm not going to huff and puff and say, "You don't tell me how to do my job!" We're a team for goodness sake.

Now I know some photogs will say, "You shouldn't be telling them what to do," well, you're the photog I'm talking about. When I ask you to get me a sequence of so and so, DO IT. I'm the one writing to your video for goodness sake.

[LunchPenalty]

I guess I was refering to feature type stories, types where you can get creative and shoot off the shoulder and follow the action. Surely you've done those types of stories and know what I'm talking about.

Again, I'm NOT talking about press conferences, sit downs with grieving families, or mayors molesting puppy dogs.

Can you see the difference?

[TV's Frank]

Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
I guess I was refering to feature type stories, types where you can get creative and shoot off the shoulder and follow the action. Surely you've done those types of stories and know what I'm talking about.

Again, I'm NOT talking about press conferences, sit downs with grieving families, or mayors molesting puppy dogs.

Can you see the difference?Yes. But I don't think that's what u&d was referring to in his original post ... and that's what you seemed to be defending in your initial response. Now that it's all cleared up, how 'bout a big group hug? graemlins/hug.gif

P.S. World Champion Boston Red Sox

[ June 16, 2005, 08:50 AM: Message edited by: TV's Frank ]

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Newsluv:
You know what, at the end of the day MY face and name are attached to the story so if you F*** the viewer associates it with me.
When I ask you to get me a sequence of so and so, DO IT. I'm the one writing to your video for goodness sake.If you're so worried about "your face" that they'd better just DO IT, then may I suggest you start one-man-banding so you never have this problem again?

"DO IT"? Who the hell do you think you are?

I'm tired of talent using the "my face" argument to justify telling other employees what to do. Do you also go into the control room and instruct the Director and TD how to do their jobs? How about the anchors--do you make sure to tell them how to read the intro and tag scripts so YOU look good? How about the News Director--you might go tell him or her that you'll only do certain stories (supply a list, perhaps) because "your face" is on them.

Get over yourself. You're no one special and the idea that you know best because "your face" is on the product is insulting to millions of others, in this industry and outside of it, who do at least as good a job as you and get no credit at all in their jobs.

[Newsluv]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Newsluv:
You know what, at the end of the day MY face and name are attached to the story so if you F*** the viewer associates it with me.
When I ask you to get me a sequence of so and so, DO IT. I'm the one writing to your video for goodness sake.If you're so worried about "your face" that they'd better just DO IT, then may I suggest you start one-man-banding so you never have this problem again?

"DO IT"? Who the hell do you think you are?

I'm tired of talent using the "my face" argument to justify telling other employees what to do. Do you also go into the control room and instruct the Director and TD how to do their jobs? How about the anchors--do you make sure to tell them how to read the intro and tag scripts so YOU look good? How about the News Director--you might go tell him or her that you'll only do certain stories (supply a list, perhaps) because "your face" is on them.

Get over yourself. You're no one special and the idea that you know best because "your face" is on the product is insulting to millions of others, in this industry and outside of it, who do at least as good a job as you and get no credit at all in their jobs.</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly Frogman, you're the kind of photog I'm talking about! You chose to take that one portion of my post and take it personally. If you suggest something to me, if you point out something I didn't see OR if you have questions that I didn't think to answer, I am grateful to you, because we work as a team. So why is it, when the tables are turned, photogs like you are SO defensive. Get over YOURSELF. That's right, at the end of the day my name is one the story so when I ask you to get a shot and I know I'm going to write to it, DO IT. Don't *****, moan or just ignore me. Now, I've worked with photogs who were so good, they got the shots I asked for before I had a chance to ask. They went into the edit bay and worked magic.
In the end it's all about the story.

[Sultanosurf]

Hmmm. That group hug didn't last long.

It's raining pitchforks & cowpies...

[Tripe Face]

What the hell is going on with this topic?

Not one mention of politics, trivia, Rio by Duran Duran, sports, sex, too much eye liner, race!

It's nothing but a discussion of the best way for people in TV to do their job!

We can't have that, this is Medialine, the last thing we want to discuss is how to do our jobs.

UpandDown I blame you for this.

[upandown]

I accept responsibility.

[ June 16, 2005, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: upandown ]

[LunchPenalty]

Originally posted by Newsluv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Newsluv:
You know what, at the end of the day MY face and name are attached to the story so if you F*** the viewer associates it with me.
When I ask you to get me a sequence of so and so, DO IT. I'm the one writing to your video for goodness sake.If you're so worried about "your face" that they'd better just DO IT, then may I suggest you start one-man-banding so you never have this problem again?

"DO IT"? Who the hell do you think you are?

I'm tired of talent using the "my face" argument to justify telling other employees what to do. Do you also go into the control room and instruct the Director and TD how to do their jobs? How about the anchors--do you make sure to tell them how to read the intro and tag scripts so YOU look good? How about the News Director--you might go tell him or her that you'll only do certain stories (supply a list, perhaps) because "your face" is on them.

Get over yourself. You're no one special and the idea that you know best because "your face" is on the product is insulting to millions of others, in this industry and outside of it, who do at least as good a job as you and get no credit at all in their jobs.</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly Frogman, you're the kind of photog I'm talking about! You chose to take that one portion of my post and take it personally. If you suggest something to me, if you point out something I didn't see OR if you have questions that I didn't think to answer, I am grateful to you, because we work as a team. So why is it, when the tables are turned, photogs like you are SO defensive. Get over YOURSELF. That's right, at the end of the day my name is one the story so when I ask you to get a shot and I know I'm going to write to it, DO IT. Don't *****, moan or just ignore me. Now, I've worked with photogs who were so good, they got the shots I asked for before I had a chance to ask. They went into the edit bay and worked magic.
In the end it's all about the story.</font>[/QUOTE]I'm guessing all of your photogs *****, moan and ignore you because you treat them like they are beneath you. Try not ordering him or her around and I'm guessing you'll get some edit bay magic.

Realize that you aren't anyone's supervisor. You aren't anyone's boss. The photog does not answer to you, so be prepared for trouble when you start saying "DO IT". If you have a problem with someone's work ethic, talk to the boss. It's not your place to bark orders.

So at the end of the day, when YOU are soley responsible for YOUR story, if it's jacked up, does the ND call YOU alone into his office to answer as to what went wrong?

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Newsluv:
Exactly Frogman, you're the kind of photog I'm talking about!Tragically for your argument, I am not a photog.

And that's exactly the problem here. You assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be taking it personally as a photog.

But that isn't the case. I don't have to be a shooter to see that your ego needs to be put in check. As I said, I'm willing to bet you don't insist the rest of the staff that puts "your face" on the air do what your want.

No, you've chosen the person over whom you believe you have some control to direct. You know you couldn't get away with that with anyone else.

It's not about taking things personally, it's about having some humility and playing on a team. And not thinking you're the most important element of the story.

[ June 16, 2005, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: Frogman ]

[jrat33]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jrat33:
Get your shot, lock it down,Yeah. Good advice.

Until the subject shifts in his chair or leans if he's standing. Then he's half out of the frame.

But, hey, you said you wanted it locked down...</font>[/QUOTE]You know what I mean. Don't move unless you have to. I know guys that have a perfectly good shot and then decide for some reason, mid sentence (mind you the subject hasn't moved) to try to adjust the shot to make it just perfect, when it was fine to begin with.

Smart Ass! ;)

[I'm a Ninja]

Nothing bothers me more than when a reporter is interviewing someone suspected of murder and asks them straightforward questions about the case but the audience misses most of the suspect's reaction to the question b/c we're too busy seeing a cut to the reporter asking the question.

MANY in your audience are aware of different nonverbal cues and are looking at your interview subject for any signs of whether they're lying or not.

The best interview like that would be to have the camera focused tight on the suspect's face no matter who is talking so that your audience feels they are getting to see the whole picture of the interview.

Nonverbal cues come not only when someone answers the question but also when they are not aware they are being scrutinized as closely. This is why it's important to keep the camera on the subject in between questions when they can be caught preparing to sound and look convincing.

[Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh]

Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
[QB]Try not ordering him or her around and I'm guessing you'll get some edit bay magic.

Realize that you aren't anyone's supervisor. You aren't anyone's boss. The photog does not answer to you, so be prepared for trouble when you start saying "DO IT". If you have a problem with someone's work ethic, talk to the boss. It's not your place to bark orders.[QB]Damn, lunch...you are way off.

This is such a defensive response it made me laugh. Listen to yourself - talking about ownership, talking about who works for who. How about working together? Every one of your responses, with the exception of one, has been horribly defensive. It sounds like you're threatened at your job or something.

Attitudes like this contribute to the problem, not help prevent it.

Other photogs...take note: stop being so damn defensive and angry and please work with your reporter. Stop going to work with a chip on your shoulder and just go to work and do your job. If the reporter gives you crap, YOU go to YOUR boss and complain.

Like I said, if you don't like what you do...stop coming to work and go sell shoes. You make it more difficult on everyone with a bad attitude and defensive behavior.

[Sultanosurf]

Look, Lunch admitted he wasn't talking about moves during money shots, even begrudgingly apologizing for his attitude on reporters (Although you later seemed to take that apology back). And U&D got his message across and apologized for this unseeming swerve into actual work-related business.

But isn't the real issue what I first anticipated? Underlying antagonism between professions?

Lean back on the couch and tell us all about it...

[LunchPenalty]

Originally posted by Pagan Bastard:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
[QB]Try not ordering him or her around and I'm guessing you'll get some edit bay magic.

Realize that you aren't anyone's supervisor. You aren't anyone's boss. The photog does not answer to you, so be prepared for trouble when you start saying "DO IT". If you have a problem with someone's work ethic, talk to the boss. It's not your place to bark orders.[QB]Damn, lunch...you are way off.

This is such a defensive response it made me laugh. Listen to yourself - talking about ownership, talking about who works for who. How about working together? </font>[/QUOTE]Thats exactly what I'm saying. The crew is a TEAM and the reporter is NOT the boss. I'm not generalizing, but speaking to a specific person who showed an attitude of superiority.

The majority of reporters I work with, have worked with and know from Medialine are NOT included in this group. But there are those out there, just as there are photogs who are painfully sour to work with.

[Lá Fhéile Pádraig Sona Daoibh]

Ok, I hear ya.

How about this? We all agree to work together, and the next time we all post we're actually talking about the love fest that is the newsroom?

graemlins/iloveyou.gif graemlins/hug.gif graemlins/moon.gif graemlins/icon_kidra.gif graemlins/icon_pidu.gif graemlins/cheers2.gif ;)

[upandown]

In what market do you work, Lunch?

It seems to me that you work in a photo-strong shop, and that's good. But often in such shops, the photographers run amuck and the stories suffer. Not that this would be you.

Stories need balance...invisible writing, shooting, editing.

[TV's Frank]

Originally posted by upandown:
In what market do you work, Lunch?

It seems to me that you work in a photo-strong shop, and that's good. But often in such shops, the photographers run amuck and the stories suffer. Not that this would be you.

Stories need balance...invisible writing, shooting, editing.Gotcha covered on the writing part.
http://www.maxmax.com/images/Inks%20cnd%20Phosphors/UVPenLargeOpenA.jpg

[NoName]

As always, the real truth lies somewhere in between...

Greener photogs more often tend to drift unnecessarily during interviews. Yet shots should never be locked down. The real issue here is that photogs need to be attentive. Of course you'd like to maintain the standard interview shot, but there are many exceptions. I had one yesterday: during an interview, the subject kept citing points and pointing to her clipboard of evidence. It was an obvious call for a move, and it would've been unnatural to remain glued to her face when she's trying to show us something. My photog quickly tilted to the clipboard for a second then came back up again to her face. That move saved us during editing. (FYI - we also shot a closer cutaway of her paper afterward.)
Bottom line, An experienced photog should have a feel for what is or isn't right.

[LunchPenalty]

Originally posted by upandown:
In what market do you work, Lunch?

It seems to me that you work in a photo-strong shop, and that's good. But often in such shops, the photographers run amuck and the stories suffer. Not that this would be you.

Stories need balance...invisible writing, shooting, editing.Tried to pm you with the answer to your question, but your mailbox is full.

[upandown]

upandown54@hotmail.com

[JoinUsForCake]

Originally posted by The Fedora:
Lunch I have to disagree with you. Our photogs here do not edit, we reporters and anchors do.What market are you in? 203?

And YES, if the sound is on tape (shaky pan/zoom or not) - you CAN make it work. If it's that important, it can be used. Today's lesson in Editing 101: COVERING soundbites with b-roll.

And I completely agree with jrat33 - It should be second nature to adjust an interview shot ONLY while the reporter is asking another question. If the interviewee is a wiggler, widen up. And my fellow photogs, it's not too hard to pay attention to what is going on!!!

Honestly: I am a photog, and I HATE what I term, "Photog Dorks" - ya know - the ones who want to talk color temperature in the back of the pressroom. SHUT UP! These tend to be the same guys who think it's illegal to take advice from a reporter. You can't afford to have an ego when you're behind the lens.

[ June 16, 2005, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: JoinUsForCake ]

[TV Lady]

I don't mind a photog panning off, if I'm working with a photog that listens to the interview. I've worked with some photogs that don't listen to what is being said, so you can miss a good bite because of that. In that case, stay locked on the interview and get cutaways later.

But if a photog is listening, and the person says this house right next to this church used to be a crack house and they are pointing to the church as they say that, by all means pan over to the crack house. Sometimes I will give the photog a cue to let them know to get that.

I think it's about trust. If you are working with a photog that you trust will shoot the right thing, it's no problem. However we all know every photographer is not deserving of that trust. There are posts about the reporter/photographer relationship. It is about working together, but sometimes the reporter could be the dominant one in the relationship, sometimes the photographer could be the dominant one, other times you could be equals. I am less hands on with a photagrapher who I trust is experienced or is on the same page as me. Other photogs I have to get them on the same page. While I've worked with photogs who told me the best way to execute the story. While ego plays a role for many people, I think a lot of it is about trust, ability in experience. Some people need direction, some don't, simple as that.

[LunchPenalty]

Well said Joinusforcake and TvLady. TvLady, I bet you always have very nicely shot packages.

[The Fedora]

Cake,

I'm not sure why you took a nasty tone but it wasn't warrented. I did not slam anyone above.

At one time I was a photog and had to edit so I get the job done, but I still like to have as much video as I can. You know, to be creative and stuff.

As for market size, I have heard of reporters editing their own stuff into the 20's. It helps if a reporter can edit well, you write to the video better.

I also agree with TV Lady, Trust is a major, major factor for the creative team in the field.

[ June 16, 2005, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: The Fedora ]

[JoinUsForCake]

Originally posted by The Fedora:
Cake,

I'm not sure why you took a nasty tone but it wasn't warrented. I did not slam anyone above.

At one time I was a photog and had to edit so I get the job done, but I still like to have as much video as I can. You know, to be creative and stuff.

As for market size, I have heard of reporters editing their own stuff into the 20's. It helps if a reporter can edit well, you write to the video better.

I also agree with TV Lady, Trust is a major, major factor for the creative team in the field.Sorry I was a bit perturbed at the moment. I wouldn't call that 'nasty' but more like a 'sharp' tone. I never really understood the "photog just shoots, reporter edits" philosophy and I was trying to rip into that, not you personally.

Anyhow, please learn how to spell "warranted" before your next post. Now THAT'S being "nasty!"

[The Fedora]

Duly noted Cake. I was typing quickly and no paying attention.

Plus dinner was ready, and after a day of golf where exactly do you think my mind would be? smile.gif

Hey I agree with having the photog edit, it isn't my idea. I'd have more time to fact check instead of sitting in an edit bay with cranky Beta SX decks.

[ June 16, 2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: The Fedora ]

[JoinUsForCake]

Originally posted by The Fedora:
Hey I agree with having the photog edit, it isn't my idea. I'd have more time to fact check instead of sitting in an edit bay with cranky Beta SX decks.My point exactly. Reporters editing when they're not one man banding just seems absurdly inefficient to me. Beta? Oh dear goodness, I feel so bad for you! graemlins/eusa_doh.gif When that stuff goes, it really goes.

[The Fedora]

Well, it's Beta SX not SP so at least it's a digital tape. The quality of the tape is very good, the machines are another story however. I will not get into a debate about our engineering staff though.

[JoinUsForCake]

Oh yeah, Beta SX. Good LOOKING format on TV. I just can't get over the bulky tapes.

Our DVC Pro stuff is really biting it big time en masse. Nobody feels like investing any time into repairs because we're going tapeless soon. So the random pixelized video, bewildering machine to machine playback incapabilities, and oddball tinny audio will be tolerated for a little while longer.

I feel your pain, brother.

[Shot A Load]

Does the microphone stop working when the camera isn't pointed at the subject. NO! I encourage show and tell interviews in some cases. If it's an emotional interview, stick with the emotion. All the photogs edit the pks in our shop and I have yet to hear a reporter complain. All you need is a 5-10 second talking head after that I like to cover the bites as to show something more interesting than the talking head.

[Newsluv]

First of all, I never disrespect the photogs.
When I said in my last post, JUST DO IT. What I mean is, when I ask a photog to get a shot for me and he says in a nasty tone, "WHY?" and I explain I'm writing to it and they huff and puff and then after 10 minutes of wasting time before shooting it, I feel like screaming, "JUST DO IT."

You must admit, photogs need to have a certain attitude to succeed in this business. They can't be put off when a woman asks them to do something, or when a young guy asks them to do something. Check the ego at the door.

[Michigan J. Frog]

Originally posted by Newsluv:
You must admit, photogs need to have a certain attitude to succeed in this business. Check the ego at the door.Good advice for reporters, too.

[Newsluv]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Newsluv:
You must admit, photogs need to have a certain attitude to succeed in this business. Check the ego at the door.Good advice for reporters, too.</font>[/QUOTE]Absolutly.

[Sultanosurf]

Just a BUMP to share again all the love...

[Shaky &amp; Blue]

I'm not shocked that there are attitudes like LunchPenalty's out there. I've seen plenty of photogs who shoot in the style he described for his shop ruin good stories with what they consider "good" photography and editing. It's photography and editing for its own sake to impress other photogs, and to hell with journalism or the viewer.

I am a little puzzled, however, that upandown would have this kind of problem with photogs at his level. Somehow I would have expected them to be better, or at least good enough to justify the kind of salary paid at his station.

Originally posted by LunchPenalty:
My point was that there ARE exceptions, and that a soundbite is NEVER lost. Not true.

There isn't a whole lot of extra time in a 1:10 package, and sometimes there just isn't enough time in the package to set up the identity of an interview with an introduction line. Doing an introduction line on every soundbite really gets cumbersome and distracts from the story. Perhaps the reporter wants to use the one soundbite that Lunchpenalty panned away on and let the super identify the speaker instead of introducing him with other video.

But now the reporter is stuck. He doesn't have picture of the person saying the soundbite. A "voice of" super is crappy, because the viewer wants to SEE who is talking. The reporter either has to pick a different soundbite, in which the speaker is actually on camera, or he has to rewrite his script to introduce the person speaking. Maybe there isn't another suitable soundbite. Maybe the package will become really awkward or too long with that introduction.

If there's no solution, the soundbite gets dropped. So yes, for all intents and purposes, the soundbite is LOST. Lunch wants the reporter to work around HIM in those instances, around HIS photographic masturbation, instead of both of them working for the best story presentation. But to the rest of us living in the real world, such a demand is unreasonable.

There actually is a time and place for those demonstration style interviews that do pan away during the interview itself to show what's going on. That's when you have a reporter who can, and likes to, work that way. I have worked with reporters who were really good at making that shooting style work. I've worked with those who weren't. A true craftsman photog will learn what works with each reporter's style and not try to force the reporter to bend to HIS style.

That's why I'm puzzled over upandown's complaint, because I would have expected photogs at that level and with the kind of experience required there to have learned that. There are quite a few photogs who would give their left nuts to work with a true writing talent like upandown, and it's just disappointing to hear that the folks he gets are that amateurish.

[The Fedora]

wow shakey, you just decribed several instances that I have run into here. you dabbling in some ESP lately?

Oh, have you checked out this thread? (http://www.medialine.com/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=039327;p=1)

I think you might have something to offer, especially to some of the things on the 3rd page.

[Shaky &amp; Blue]

Originally posted by The Fedora:
Oh, have you checked out this thread? (http://www.medialine.com/ubb/NonCGI/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=039327;p=1) I started reading that thread, then said to myself, "What the ***** is this? Nobody can be that stupid." Then I realized it was the same asshat from the KDUH thread, so I quit reading. He's a waste of time, and by extension those threads have become a waste of time as well.

Sorry.

[The Fedora]

No worries. I just wanted you to see the part about photogs not being journalists. I thought you'd get a kick out of it.

[Chris Kittinger]

Originally posted by The Fedora:
No worries. I just wanted you to see the part about photogs not being journalists. I thought you'd get a kick out of it.Yeah, I wish I hadn't gotten involved with that one myself.

[interloper]

Originally posted by upandown:
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.Story subject and style.

Those two elements determine when it's proper, or not, to pan.

If it's "real" news you don't pan.

"Real" news is when the person being interviewed is so important you don't dare move off their face. Someone like the President or other high official. It could include others who are interviewed on stories of national interest.

Pan away on your little feature pieces. You're already trying to make something cute and interesting. Just be on the same page as your correspondent/reporter when you do it.

Personally I hate fake cutaways. Whether they are of the correspondent looking attentive or an emotional person or object to be found nearby. Too many times that fake emotion is edited into a time frame where it really didn't happen but is used to boost the cry factor. That's cheap Hollywood stuff. Not reality when it happens. In effect you are lying.

Yes, I know it's tv. Yes, I know we have to compress things to fit into a specific storytelling time frame. However, I don't believe that gives us license to squeeze false emotion into a moment when it really didn't happen that way.

U&D may be the victim of a workplace hiring those with less experience to save a buck. A one time respected location which now has other goals besides doing the best job. That's just an assumption on my part.

It all could have been avoided by some pre shoot communication. A fault which may lie on both sides of the lens.

When I have a new client, the first question out of my mouth is what style they are looking for. Sometimes it's obvious. Other times they want the 48 hours type look. You can't have both all the time.

In my situation I don't usually edit everything I shoot. That's the hazards of working for a large organization and another reason clear communication is much more important rather than thinking what works in small markets always translates into what works in large markets or national/international news organizations.

Next up...working with the Japanese which will drive anyone with an American television background up the wall!!!!

But they do pay so much better!

[sat op]

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.

If you need a cut away of clinton speaking, when else would you get it? you need to have a system worked out with your photog as to when it is good to start shooting cut-aways. You might have to talk to him/her on the way to the story, and get off the cell phone.

I have dealt with too many reporters that are not willing to discuss the angle of the story, or discuss anything on the way, and then get mad when I didn't shoot something they thought was important.

But back to the original question about moving or panning during the interview, in my opinion, it is about what the topic. While doing a story on two boys that were killed on the railroad tracks a few years ago. we were interviewing the conductor of the train when he began to wave, like the boys did before the train hit. I pulled out to show how the conductor was waiving, it fit well, and was the only time it would happen.

I don't think you can put a blanket statement not to get off the face during an interview. every situation is different.

[Wes Mantooth]

Just had a situation yesterday (sat) where I had to pan off to get a squadron of A-10 Warthogs doing a fly by at a local welcome home to Vietnam Vets. I apologized and told them to continue. Glad I did it because it was a one time thing and ended up being one of the nats off the top.

Yes I know it might have confused the interview subject but I'm glad I got the shot and nats.

[upandown]

For the record, this is not a slap at my shop or anyone who works there. This is a discussion about a standard practice in the field. I work in a nice place with good people who work FAST. Their ranks include an old guard, and also freelancers. They approach their jobs with different styles and good intentions, and I appreciate it. But as in other shops, they are OCCASIONALLY overactive with the camera.

Again, to clarify...if by not panning away we miss a spontaneous, one-time moment, then please follow your insinct and make the move.

But...just because an interview subject points to a tree doesn't mean a photographer must pan to it. Maybe he should go wide, and include the tree in the shot.Or maybe he gets it in a cutaway.

Interviews are about faces, and faces are often about truth or emotion.

NOW, TO BROADEN THE DISCUSSION: In most cases, I prefer to see a sound-bite finish on camera. Why? Because it adds a visual stamp.

Now another personal rule: When cutting from one person's bite to another, I usually want to seeing the jump from one face to another. Why?
Because in a 1:30 piece, a viewer cannot possibly learn to tell the difference between one voice and another. IN THIS BUSIESS, CLARITY RANKS HIGHER THAN VISUAL STLE. In it's own, unheralded way, claity IS a style.

And now back to my vacation on North Carolina's Outer banks, where the news comes infrom Norfolk. Yes, Norfolk, I am a tv spy, watching, accessing, taking notes, acting like a secret shopper.
I hope you're having fun. Seems like that kind of maket. Crossroad places usually are.

[ June 20, 2005, 04:40 AM: Message edited by: upandown ]

[The Fedora]

You lucky SOB...

How are you enjoying the OBX?