To film or to photograph, that is the question!
While lately more clients ask me if I can do both the TV and the print, it was not long ago when I was asked if I could do the photos as well as the TV. I guess my career has switched over to be better known for my directing and cinematography than for my photography.
But while more and more I am being asked to do both, either for budget reasons or just because they have learned that I can, a client is asking me to choose which one I want to do for their campaign. I am humbled to be given the choice and as I am directing the campaign in general, it really does not make any financial difference which I would choose. Well not exactly, but given the choice I am facing a decision which a year ago would have been photography (print), today, well…
As a photographer I would make a lot more money than doing TV. But today most ad agencies are truncating usages, more want worldwide in perpetuity for the $5 fee. Even websites I found to be great ideas selling my images for thousands are trying to convince me that $250 is what I should get. With everyone thinking they are photographers because they have a great eye and a great camera or phone, and having easy access to get their images, photography has become a much harder business.
So being faced with the fact that we need to shoot 30 scenarios in 2 days, all of them somewhat complex and in different nearby locations, the agency wants me to direct it all but choose the camera I want to use. I guess here is when having an agent would make my life easier, let them choose for me.
I guess if I am directing and have my fully silent Sony camera with me, I can shoot the print while my trusted DP friend can shoot the TV part. We fortunately work well together and probably can feed back and forth from each other, my client knows well I am all about having input from everyone to digest the best scenario to shoot something. “Team work baby!” is what she said.
So, to film or to photograph?