Photography differs from Cinematography - - Cinematography as seen by a Photographer - - - Discovery Technology

These are random notes, in no particular order. - April 14, 2025

Photography differs from cinematography -- What can each one learn from the other?

At the lowest level, they are the same -- lens - camera body - film/sensor. As we move to higher levels, cinematography increases in complexity

Photography is art Movies are entertainment and emotion

Photography captures a moment Cinematography can tell a story Note: Multiple photos can tell a story

Photography has fewer limitations

Cinematography projects take a long time

Every cine frame is a photograph With cinematography and photography, the process of getting to the finished image is very different.

In the end, it's all about money, but this is just the beginning, so keep reading

First, some background - I've been involved in photography since 1957. I've done it all. From shooting on movie and TV sets, industrial, studio work, nature, sports, and I've written for photography magazines, had pictures in Life, Look, NY Times. And even some drone photography. So I consider myself an expert when it comes to photography. - I am not a cinematographer. I've built tools for cinematographers.

Opportunity vs reward Photography, has more opportunity Cinematography has more reward

Entertainment moves Art stands still

- Photography is not magic - Movies are magic. Therefore, everything about making movies must be magical. Even the tiniest detail must be made wondrous and complex. How to add complexity to an area that previously was simple. How to add a "look" Newest improvements, in many cases, only add more complexity No one is working to make it simple.

To a photographer, it seems like cinematographers get extra points for degree of difficulty. Just sayin'.

* Whatever the task, find a way to do it in the most wondrous, complex, difficult, and heroic fashion possible. *

Look no further than the modern cine camera setup -- a tangled mess of wires, cables, gears, motors, antennae, radar transmitter and receptor, all put together like a bad science fair project.

Photography evolves rapidly, with new technology and techniques continuously introduced. Photographers take advantage of this.

Cinematography evolves very slowly. The basic techniques and equipment have, in some cases, changed very little in the last fifty years.

Cinematography and photography are two separate worlds -- people rarely travel between them.

Should cinematographers start as photographers? Stanley Kubrick is the only well-known one I could find. He was a magazine photographer. Also found Gordon Parks, Jerry Schatzberg, Howard Zieff

Cinematography has "intermediate artists."

* Is the director/cinematographer still in charge of what the camera sees? Or is it the Steadicam operator?

Movie goes by quickly, no time to study detail Photograph viewed more closely Greater need for precision

Cinematographer can shoot sex scenes with no limits. Just give an R rating or an X rating. If a photographer shoots the same scene and puts it on a web site, it's pornography This might be a good test as to whether a questionable scene should be included in a movie

A movie (or video) is meant to be seen only once A photograph is meant to be viewed many times

The regard of a photograph vs the regard of a movie

The commitment to watching a movie versus a photograph

Cinematography has no sense of humor Not same as: Cinematographers have no sense of humor

There are no movie museums, but there are galleries Cineplex is a movie gallery

No money in photography Gazillions in movies

Cinematographers don't have a signature style in the way that still photographers do. They create a new style for each movie. And they attack problems differently for each movie

Zoom lenses, multi-focal, etc. Lots of things to say.

Making a movie vs telling a story

Most new cine equipment is just a sequel or a remake or it's vintage. A better Steadicam A better geared head - Lights inside the wheels that get brighter as you turn a wheel faster. A better car mount or crane A better light A vintage lens, rehoused for the twenty-first century But will they make it possible to do something you couldn't do before?

Movies are gambling. Some win, some lose. I just read about a movie that lost $300 million. As a photographer, I'm trying to get my mind around this.

No one ever spent $329 million on a photograph. No one ever made a billion dollars from a photograph.

The photography market died when the magazines died and when technology made photography easy.

No more famous photographers (Avedon, Penn, Sokolsky)

Photography works at a higher resolution than most cine film.

Cinematography uses the fourth dimension -- time

Cinematographers use zoom lenses (poorly, but more about this later) Photographers use multi-focal lenses (Can't zoom in a photograph) - To get exact framing

Cinematography is more structured, in that it has to produce a very specific result -- a movie. The cinematographer has less freedom in that there is a storyboard and a script to follow and they are just one member of a larger crew.

Making a movie is a well-defined process that can take years to get from point A to point B. The cinematographer is part of the creative process and is responsible, in part, for how the movie looks and how the story is told.

Books on cinematography (there are about a zillion!) are like cookbooks in that they show how to assemble the basic ingredients to produce a result. "How to combine these five basic camera moves to make a million dollars." Cinematography does not change rapidly, so books on cinematography stay current.

Books on photography basically teach how to use the equipment and the basic rules of composition, exposure, etc. Photographic technology changes rapidly, so the Internet is a better source for up-to-date photographic information.

How to learn cinematography vs how to learn photography

Photographers take advantage of the latest tools. Cinematographers say, "We've always done it this way."

Photography is based on the real world Cinematography is based on, "Just stand in front of this green screen and we'll complete the picture in post." Also, "New York in the 1960s had a yellow tinge."

Photographers have a wider set of software tools. Some of the tools I use are over twenty years old. They have functions left out of the newer versions. So I'm using vintage software.

Cinematography uses the same basic equipment and methods as photography, but extends it into the fourth dimension.

Cinematographer knows what he's going to shoot. There's a shot list. Photographer doesn't know that much in advance. They work with broader goals.

Cinematography is limited by the moves that can be made with current equipment.

You only look at a movie once You look at a photograph 100 times

* this is a key difference when discussing equipment * Photographers own their equipment. - getting married, spending time learning how to use Cinematographers rent. - dating - different for every film - using new or different equipment for the first time. For cinematography, the exception is the Steadicam. Most Steadicam operators own their equipment. - Before I buy a new piece of photography equipment I ask, will it enable me to do something that I can't do now?

Cinematographers think lensmaking is a magical art. Photographers think lensmaking is a science.

Photographers want their lenses to be sharp Cinematographers want their lenses to be magical

Cine lenses come in series Photo lenses introduced one or two at a time For photographers, just whatever lens is right for the job

A large manufacturer just introduced a new set of 14 cine lenses. You have to choose feet or meters. So it's really 28 new lenses. (???) Plus there are 6 glass thingies that you can attach to the back of the lens. Plus a tele-converter And they have Zen philosophy

Photographers usually favor one brand of camera. This limits their lens choices. Cinematographers have too many lenses to choose from

Photographers don't say: "this has a real photographic look" But I have seen, "How to give your photos a cinematic look."

You can take any image and say: "this has a real cinematic look" No one will dispute you.

West coast builders are machinists. East coast builders are engineers. Cradle head vs geared head

Photographers use fast lenses to shoot in dark places Cinematographers use fast lenses to get shallow depth of field

Photographs don't have an audio track

The basic functionality of cine equipment has not changed in sixty years

Cinematography requires a crew It's easy for a photographer to work alone and control the entire process

Photographers have limited choices in equipment, software, and settings. For cinematographers, the choices are infinite. Lenses! Bespoke lenses!

Photography is about technique Cinematography is about technology - Magical technology

Photographers build a set of tools for their photography Cinematographers use different tools for each movie

Photographers and cinematographers pick lenses for different reasons.

Photographers shoot more situations, etc.

Learning to see as a cinematographer is different from learning to see as a photographer

Photographers do not control the lighting, etc.

Photographers use off-the-shelf lenses Cinematographers want their lenses to be unique Cinematographers like bespoke lenses.

Photographers want the sharpest lenses Cinematographers purposely detune their lenses, or use vintage lenses to get a "look"

Photographers use image stabilization in lenses and camera bodies Cinematographers use Steadicam, gimbals, Dynalens, etc.

Photographers follow their eyes Cinematographers follow a script

Movies are unrealistic in how they treat human vision -- depth of field, focus shifting, peripheral vision, color temperature adaptation

I can host my photographs on my photography web site. Simple, and no maintenance issues I can't host video on my web site (Have to use Vimeo or YouTube - maintenance issues)

Cinematographers love awards. If you're a cinematographer and you don't have any awards yet, it just means you haven't been in the business long enough. Photographers don't get no stinkin' awards

The promise (or problem) of: Generative AI Virtual production Magic lenses Higher-resolution cameras

There's a cinematography-related event almost every week Film festival Cinematography festival Awards presentation Equipment show Manufacturer's event Organization event Conference Salon

Photography equipment shows are large Cine equipment shows are small

Photographers use post-processing like Lightroom and Photoshop Cinematographers use LUTs, color grading, VFX, green screen, CGI, etc.

The world of photography equipment is huge and affordable Cinematographer's world is smaller and more expensive

There are more photographers - Photography is a hobby

Photographers have more latitude in cropping, aspect ratio, vertical-horizontal, etc.

Cinematography, in many ways is both technologically advanced and incredibly primitive.

A photographer is always engaged, always looking for pictures. A cinematographer is much more focused on current scene or the current project

A cinematographer will be engaged on a single project for months or longer Photographers work by the day. • Photographers like Gene Smith used to do photo essays that took months or years, but there is no longer a market for this.

Lots of cinematographers shoot film • Some to get a specific look • Some because it enforces discipline - every take has to count • Also, no one edits film anymore, it's scanned, then edited in digital

Very few photographers shoot film • It may be because of who processes the film - difficult because of low volume - has to be scanned - - adds long delay - Also, film will just be scanned and then edited and printed digitally

Photographers don't use color grading and LUTs (We actually do, but we don't have a name for it. It's just finishing a photo.)

Most photographers develop a distinctive style

Some photographers shoot raw, but it's not really necessary Shooting raw disables important camera features such as automatically correcting for lens defects. Photographers don't shoot in log, or other cinematic modes

Cinematography has a well-defined workflow Every photographer has a different workflow

Cinematography has too many choices - lenses - LUTs - which log to use - frame rate - film format

Photographers shoot mostly handheld. Lens and camera body are stabilized. More and more, cine cameras are some form of handheld, or steadycam. But they are not the same. For photographer, tripod or handheld result will look the same. It's just a moment. For cinematographers, tripod is not the same look as handheld.

Photographers use auto exposure and auto focus. Cinematographers have made staying-in-focus into an industry. Focus-pullers say autofocus doesn't work with cine lenses. My smartphone camera can identify my face and track focus on me as I move. Just sayin'

--------------

I'm a photographer, not a cinematographer, so my lens needs are very different. I've been at this since 1957, and every lens that I've bought had one main requirement -- to deliver the most faithful, accurate image possible. With digital post processing, I can add just about any lens effect or defect. In the end, I will have far more possibilities. The reverse doesn't work. Try or not try, there is no undo. - In 1959, my kit included 5 prime lenses, fitted to a like number of bodies. Now I use a single zoom lens that covers the same range.

Cinematographers want their lenses to add something Photographers want their lenses to be neutral

Photographers prefer sharp new lenses Cinematographers prefer vintage lenses, rehoused lenses, and detuned lenses

Imagine a senior cine lens designer having nervous breakdown after being told their lenses are too sharp, and can they maybe add back a little of the flare that they spent years removing.

I just watched a video about how to take apart a $35,000 cine lens, using a $5,500 tool kit, with the sole purpose of changing the performance of the lens. And not knowing how it was going to turn out until the lens was reassembled and used to shoot something.

Cinematographers want the newest technology in their cameras and the oldest technology in their lenses.

It's as if the techno-cinematographers looked around one day and decided that they had gone too far. The lenses were too sharp. The image quality had gotten too good. If they kept advancing like this, the only people who will show up at the theaters will be dermatologists and plastic surgeons.

When I read stories about cinematographers playing with lenses and spending weeks in this pursuit to achieve a certain "look," I wonder if the time could have been spent more productively. The cinematography should, in many ways, be transparent to the viewer. Siskel and Ebert never praised a movie for its bokeh. But I have seen zooms mentioned. To me, as an outsider, the lighting has always seemed more important.

I love zoom lenses. They let you pick a viewpoint, then frame precisely.

During rehearsals, the director programs the actors, but not the cinematography equipment. If they could do both...

Camera always in motion - excitement, adrenaline, action - also disorientation Camera fixed - suspense, tension, drama

-----------------------

Photography has advanced by light years - AI, auto-everything Cinematography, in many ways, is exactly where it was fifty years ago. And the parts that went forward now want to go back to the past. Photographers want the latest and the greatest. Cinematographers like vintage and "We've always done it this way"

AI autofocus can now recognize and track individual faces

Autofocus for cinematography will be different from photography Cine focus can be programmed since moves are rehearsed and repeated

The world of cine gear has been reduced to lights and lenses and LED walls

Photo cameras don't have a lot of cables Cine cameras look like a science experiment gone wrong

Cine equipment needs more work on the overall architecture. Take a look at the assortment of cables and bits that define the modern cine camera setup. One goal of architecture would be to simplify and standardize

* Theory Time - Early binding vs late binding Early binding - get it in the camera Late binding - get it in post Early binding: LED Volume wall, vintage lens, filter, etc. Late binding: Green screen, start with best image, post processing, etc Late binding offers more possibilities and ways of fixing problems.

There is a lot of cinematography invested in doing it the old way.

Cinematographers like new gear more than they like new ideas.

Many advances in cine technology don't add to the vocabulary of cinematography. Most are just incremental, like new lighting equipment or lenses. Adding to the vocabulary means new things are possible.

In many ways, cinematography meets the barest minimum of image excellence that photography can produce. There is no need for it, given the continuous movement of the camera and actors, and the concentration on storytelling. Movie projection systems have lower resolution. Stop a movie at any point and say, "Would I hang this on my wall?"

What would happen if you took a look at a scene through the eyes of a photographer?

How to give your movie a photographic look

What can cinematographers learn from photographers? - Opportunity - The main goal is to add new possibilities - add to the vocabulary of cinematography - The "photographic look" - how to think and see like a photographer - Think like a magazine photographer (Stanley Kubrick) - Study the work of photographers - Early binding vs late binding - Post-processing to add effects - Photo editing programs handle effects differently than video editors. Many more effects are possible - Make it simpler - Accessibility for cinematographers who don't have a $100 million budget

What can cinematographers learn from embracing new technology like photographers? - Embracing newer technology, like programmability, could add to the vocabulary of cinematography, and add new techniques for storytelling. (Pazoom, Baby!) - Automation and photographic AI --- AI-based programmable autofocus, with individual face recognition, etc - Add programmability where there is none - Programmability and repeatability are actually more suited to cinematography than to photography - Because the scenes and the actors are programmed by the director, and there are multiple takes

What can photographers learn from cinematographers? - Cine-speak. We can learn how to talk like cinematographers. - Add more magic to your work. Photographers aren't magical enough - If I learn cine-speak, I can make more money in my photography

Notes: From a photographer's standpoint, there are some aspects of cinematography that seem to be overly complex. Just sayin'.

Should intermediate artists get screen credits and awards?

Do photographers have better BS detectors than cinematographers?

Is it time for Hollywood to return to the studio system?

Cinematographer vs videographer

Cinematography lighting is getting too good. Starting to look like photo studio lighting.

Why isn't it Director of Cinematography?

Cinematography has a higher percentage of geeks as opposed to gurus. (Geeks are people who love complexity and difficulty.)

It's like yelling "Autofocus!" at a focus-pullers meeting.

Every time I try to talk like a cinematographer, my wife says, "Stop that!"