Yes, lighting is only one aspect of cinematography. In a very general sense, cinematography is everything having to do with the image. So yes, composition is just as important as lighting. And yes – DP is the same as cinematographer (assholes will contend that cinematographers operate their own camera while DPs do not but that’s inside baseball nonsense that’s not really true – these terms are used interchangeably).
The role of the DP really varies depending on the project and the director. Some directors like to be very hands on and play an integral role in the cinematography (a lot of these kinds of directors tend to use DPs who are not big name, iconic DPs but rather craftsmen who essentially do what they’re told – think Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay). Other directors are fairly hands off and allow the DP a lot of leeway, even so far as letting them create the shot list. Mostly though these collaborations happen more in between these two extremes.
When you are assessing the visuals, it really just depends. Even you are responding to the exposure, that’s probably the DP. But if you’re talking about composition or movement, that could well have been the idea of the director. Think about Scorsese – most of what you see in a Scorsese film is constructed by Scorsese, especially in terms of shots, coverage, and camera movement. But then you look at a guy like Gordon Willis and Harris Savides and the way they light is so specific that you can assume most of the films they shoot look the way they do because of them (even Fincher, who is in full control of the image, said that he wanted Savides to shoot Zodiac because he liked his “style”, his “aesthetic”).
“My understanding of cinematography is that it involves the use of light in movies. At the same time, the use of the word suggests that is something more—something closer to photography, involving composition, as well as the use of light. I’m not sure if this is correct or not, but this is the impression I get. So is cinematography also synonymous with composition and framing? Where does mise-en-scene factor in, if at all?”
I think cinematography also involves composition and framing. After all, those two elements are tightly interwoven with lighting to create a unified effect — it’s hard to take any of them in isolation.
The Director, together with the Production Designer, are responsible for WHAT is shot: that is, how the actors, props and sets are arranged. The Cinematographer usually does not get involved in those decisions. However, the different departments must talk to each other all the time in order for it to work as a whole. On a production where I worked as a translator for a production designer (Hollywood shoot in China), he talked with the director and cinematographer often and made reference to the storyboards to decide how to design his sets in a film-able way.
“Now, I assume that the title director of photography (DP) is synonymous with cinematographer.”
Yes, it’s generally a regional thing. I might be wrong, but it seems DP is more British/European and Cinematographer is the term more used in the States.
“If that’s true, then does that mean the the DP basically deals with the way a film is lit?”
Yes, usually the electricians and gaffers answer directly to the DP, who plans the lighting.
“My sense is that the role of the DP is more complex and depends on the director. The levels of responsibility a director may give to a DP may vary, including allowing them to frame and compose a shot.”
Some directors are basically their own cinematographer — Stanley Kubrick, who made so many decisions for his cinematographer on 2001 that he/she complained — comes to mind. They have a good grasp of the technical side of things and basically plan everything themselves, down to the exact film stock and lens settings. Other directors are much more hands-off. Sam Mendes comes to mind — he comes from a theatre background, so technical knowledge of filmmaking is not his strong suit. In American Beauty, he would work with the actors to decide what they’re going to do, then describe the overall mood of the film to the cinematographer Conrad Hall, but the specific framings and even the choice of shots is left to be decided by Hall.
More often than not, a director would be in the middle of those extremes — he would have a good idea of how he’s going to tell his story visually and would choose the shots himself, but the cinematographer would decide on how to translate that shot into reality. In this case, the cinematographer would also act as a sort of “advisor”.
“Finally, when one is impressed with the visuals in film, what is the appropriate terms to use? For example, sometimes a film has the quality of a good photograph—the lighting, contrasts, the composition, etc. What’s the right term to use to describe that?”
Many adjectives can be used — picturesque, photogenic, balanced, evocative, well-lit, etc. Depends on your specific meaning.
Aside from lighting and composition, they also can be involved in a lot of nuts-and-bolts stuff like selecting film stocks, camera selection, lens and filter choices, camera movement, etc.
I don’t think I have much to add at this point, but thanks for the responses!
put in very general terms the DP helps the director express the screenplay visually. There are all manner of directors and dp’s so the collaboration can range from a more limited technical basis to a deeply collaborative artistic one and all stops in between.
For me personally, my DP is a very supportive role to what I’m trying to do as a director. I’ve always said that there is no one on the set that I am closer to than my actors and my DP. With my DP, it’s everything technical, it’s everything that doesn’t involve the actors. Yes, I know composition and I know what lens I want but I still need my DP. It helps that the two DPs that I’ve used are also very good friends of mine because I really need to trust them. I think for a director, trusting your DP is as critical as an actor trusting their director.
Re: the role of the DP.
To wow me.
“Aside from lighting and composition, they also can be involved in a lot of nuts-and-bolts stuff like selecting film stocks, camera selection, lens and filter choices, camera movement, etc.”
Jack Cardiff talked about how his main job in his early films was just teaching crew members how shooting in colour (with the three strip process) worked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezcj4kAF3w8
Jazzaloha
My understanding of cinematography is that it involves the use of light in movies. At the same time, the use of the word suggests that is something more—something closer to photography, involving composition, as well as the use of light. I’m not sure if this is correct or not, but this is the impression I get. So is cinematography also synonymous with composition and framing? Where does mise-en-scene factor in, if at all?
Now, I assume that the title director of photography (DP) is synonymous with cinematographer. If that’s true, then does that mean the the DP basically deals with the way a film is lit? My sense is that the role of the DP is more complex and depends on the director. The levels of responsibility a director may give to a DP may vary, including allowing them to frame and compose a shot.
Finally, when one is impressed with the visuals in film, what is the appropriate terms to use? For example, sometimes a film has the quality of a good photograph—the lighting, contrasts, the composition, etc. What’s the right term to use to describe that?