I always direct/DP my own stuff. I think it's easier, no delegating and no explaining, I just put the camera where I want and shoot.

IMO, I think they should have always been the same job, but with film this just wasn't possible. You needed someone who knew the film stock, exposure meters, ect... it USED to be a full time job. So it made sense that this is where the DP position came from, but just seems out-of-date in next-gen production. I think one of the big advantages of digital is that it now allows the director to shoot his own stuff, yet so many people seem adamant on keeping them separate. The unions in hollywood want them to remain separate because then there are more jobs, guilds, and bureaucracy for them to take money from. So there's that. Then I think there is also support from the people that somehow fell into the director position, for some reason or another, and can't actually shoot their own films... so they pretend like a DP is a necessary position to cover up for the fact that they don't know what they're doing. This is most of hollywood unfortunately. Directing is apparently, and unfortunately, more of a "ceremonial" position than anything these days. Of course, there are the artuers and greats, like Kubrick, who have complete control and mastery over photography. This is the only pure form of directing if you ask me. I think that the title director should be changed to "story/performance supervisor". Otherwise, "Director" implies that one has complete mastery and control over all artistic/creative aspects of a film, when allot of the time they don't.

I've herd more than a few times around hollywood here that if you want to direct... don't get good at anything else. This to me, is probably the most insulting and disgusting statement I've ever heard. Directors should be good at ALL aspects of film-making... not just people who hire others and then throw their opinions around.

BTW, your trailer looks great! I wouldn't hire a DP and compromise your vision just because some people think "it's the professional thing to do". You know what you're doing... keep doing it!

Thanks guys for your great responses. Bwhitz; you hit the nail on the head. Thank you guys so much!

@brianluce: Exactly. I'm a professional DP, but I couldn't direct at the same time. As a director you need to focus on the story, script and always working with your actors. While the director can (and in my opinion, should be) involved with the visuals, they still shouldn't worry about something like we need to worry about, like negative fill, filtration or bounce. If one was to DP and direct, I think either side could be lacking (and if it is, then let it be the visuals, acting is still the most important), especially on a feature.

The real question, IMO - does it make sense for you to do both? Can you benefit from dividing the roles, how could you divide the roles and who would you like to work with?

For instance, If I were to direct and DP a feature simultaneously I would most likely try to find a) an assistant director that I trust or b) a lighting designer that I trust or most likely both. For me, the assistant director would need to have good eye for the story / scrutiny over what the actors do.. Similarly, the lighting designer would go about his work without me having to do any adjustments. In this instance (as director / DP) I would be more geared towards action that takes place in the frame and how it looks, rather than working on the actors' performances - hence a second eye / voice from a different perspective would be good to have. Another thing, I would need plenty of time for planning (shot by shot), and a plan that is good enough to stick with. It would take ages to get everything in place otherwise and most likely end up in chaos.

Sure, the last part is much similar if you have separate director and dp - but there is more leeway to make on-the-fly adjustments.

Basically - I don't care about established roles since long before, but I care about synergy. That each and every one involved can bring something good to the table. I think that is what you should consider, when drawing up the "roles". Industry standards are one thing, they serve a purpose - but those purposes might not serve the conditions for your production.

@rsquires And Bo Jackson played pro baseball and pro football. There are very few Bo Jacksons. Don't fool yourself.

@brianluce is without a doubt correct. The fact that they are separate roles is not an industry conspiracy. On a film set, there is a limited amount of time to get anything done, and it needs to be done at a high level of execution. Having different people focus exclusively on smaller constituents of the whole will make each area better. By communicating with the cast and crew, the director ensures that all of those individual areas are bringing what's needed to make the film he or she has imagined.

At least since going digital, Robert Rodriquez has been his own DP, editor, production designer, special effects supervisor, writer....and occasionally caters, ;P. Seriously everything but the catering, he's said he does it because it saves money and he has the right vision for what he wants and it's fun to do all those jobs.

Though, to be fair, you can't do all those jobs without something suffering, and in his case it's writing. He's not a very good writer, or at least he doesn't put as much time into writing as he should.

He's said he does his own DP'ing because with HD monitors now, what he see's in the monitor is what he sees when editing so he just lights it until it looks good in the monitor. So, what kind of monitor will you use?

I think Bwhitz summed it up best....its all about what you know. The more you know about every aspect of filmmaking, from the lighting, the sound, the actual camera work, etc the more versatile you will be overall, and the less people you will need to depend on. To say that a single man cannot come up with an original idea, create storyboards, interview potential actors, create the mood/tone of the film through creative camerawork and direct those actors involved is kind of self-demeaning. Give me one person who can effectively operate a boom pole and we're in business. If it doesn't come out that well, we'll do it again..after all, we're not shooting on film here.

azza act, I like the idea of the movie, I come from a long line of Irish bare knuckle fighters. We are still one of the largest gypsy clans in Ireland. The boxing in the movie is a little Hollywoodish, but only a boxer would ever notice. The general public I am convinced likes to see non-authentic boxing as portrayed in The Fighter and Rocky...real boxing technique, while more effective at knocking people out, doesn't look as good on film. The filming is great, I love the freeze frame shot, reminds me of the movie Snatch. Good stuff!

Your cinematography and angles look great. I do both myself, but it can stress you. I usually make sure we have good rehearsals with the actors, so I don't have to do much once I am behind the lens. P.S. Cant wait to see your film. Great story and the trailer succeeds in pacing and building interest!

My opinion may not matter much as I am just in the middle of filming my first "real" project. But just in case, here's my opinion. You can do both, but its a lot more work and you have a lot more to watch out for, so something might slip past you without noticing. I think its best to have a separate DP. That isn't too say its not possible to DP and direct by yourself, like you said, it will save you the strife of having to explain, you can just do it yourself. But you do run that risk of missing something because you are so consumed by all the different jobs you are doing. I would just say, try doing it yourself and maybe have an assistant on hand to maybe keep an eye out. Best of luck, trailer looks great.

Well, I guess I'll put it another way... Does it make sense that there are DP's? Yes. But, does it make sense, in the philosophy of filmmaking, that these jobs should remain separate... especially now when we're seeing cinema-grade images in real time with tiny cameras? Nope. I don't think so. If a director truly has a vision... aka see's the shots in his head... then there is no need. A director should be seeing the shots, edits, and music in his mind before they even start shooting. If you can't... well you're not a director then. Sorry.

Many say that the director should just focus on the story and performances, but EVERYTHING effects these! Every angle... every cut... changes the audiences perception of the performances, so to say that a directors responsibility is only the "performances" and "story" is removing about 90% of what makes films... well, films. They aren't live theater. An oscar worthy emotional performance shot with a 14mm lens from 30 feet away at a 20 ft high angle with circus music is not going going to play to the audience the same way as a 70mm close up with a single violin music track.

There are no performances. The visual aren't separate. The story doesn't stand on it's own. They are ALL ONE continuous stream of aural and visual information! To really "direct" you need to understand how they ALL work to make ONE experience. Sure you can hire the best of the best and crank out something that audiences will like, but this is kind of missing the point. There is a difference between having a VISION, and having an IDEA. Anyone can have an "idea" for something they would like to see, then hire a bunch of people to make it work. But it takes a specific talent to actually see a movie, before it exists, deliver that experience to others, and have them respond the way you did upon first visualizing it.

I mean seriously... If you hire a great DP, oscar winning screen writer, the best actors, the best editors, have an amazing composer, and the best AD's and script supervisors money can buy... then I'd like to meet the person that CAN'T direct that movie. Sure, some people might botch it up. But I think those that could, would strongly outweigh those that couldn't. Because at that point, directing becomes nothing more than "opinion giving". I can't count the number of sets I've been on where the director just sits in a chair watching a monitor and telling everyone to "do another one" until they see something they like. As an aspiring director myself, I never want to be this person, and find it insulting to the artform that some just gets to sit on their ass while others slave to create a professional product for them to take credit for.

There's a big difference between hiring an editor and cinematographer to save time vs. hiring an editor and cinematographer because you can't do those jobs. And, sadly to day, I've seen more of the latter. I've heard more times that I can count, people saying things like "oh I don't know how to shoot anything... I'm a director" or "Oh, I don't edit, I'm just involved with the creative stuff." These people deserved to get punched in the face. How they got to the director position is beyond me.

Might just be the mind set of how people grew up and a cultural thing too. Back in the midwest and east cost, if you can't do something, you learn it... or don't do it. Out here in LA, if you can't do something, it must then be below you... and other people should do it for you.

Wow, that turned into kind of a rant. Sorry guys... !

Wow... Didn't expect this response! Lots to consider. Thanks guys for you different view points and support. From my point of view, I guess I love doing both so it's a tough call but in the end of the day it's the story that counts. And what's going to be the best method of getting the story done.