Documentarian/Filmaker Worth Following

[SRV1981]

this guy is amazing. Love his process and personality. He also shot a full feature film. 

[kye]

I saw that one in my feed but haven't watched it yet.  I highly recommend watching the YT film-makers that actually do real work.  They have a balanced perspective and speak from experience.  

Like Luc Forsyth, who has shot major network TV shows:

Finding good people on YT is quite challenging now, because they tend to just use their own names and the good people aren't talking about brands etc all the time so finding them can be a challenge.

[SRV1981]

38 minutes ago, kye said:

I saw that one in my feed but haven't watched it yet.  I highly recommend watching the YT film-makers that actually do real work.  They have a balanced perspective and speak from experience.  

Like Luc Forsyth, who has shot major network TV shows:

Finding good people on YT is quite challenging now, because they tend to just use their own names and the good people aren't talking about brands etc all the time so finding them can be a challenge.

Agreed, great share. Now this video is just a single training session and not a narrative but only shot on the a6700 and 18-105 f4. Looks aesthetically pretty good. 
 

 

[kye]

4 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Agreed, great share. Now this video is just a single training session and not a narrative but only shot on the a6700 and 18-105 f4. Looks aesthetically pretty good. 

Saying "even the a6700 can look good" is sort-of like saying "even the cheapest Ferrari can go fast"..  the a6700 is a very modern camera and high-spec camera.

I can understand why you would say something like this though - you've been watching too much "camera YT" and have fallen prey to the two biggest hidden problems:

Older cameras are invisible on YT, despite being the majority of what is used
People that talk about cameras, or even mention them in the video or description so they're searchable, are using the most recent cameras, or relatively recent cameras.  The reason for this is simple - if you shot a video with the Sony a4000 then you're obviously not into the "tech" so it's not something you're thinking about , and putting that in the description isn't going to benefit you because no-one is searching for a4000 anymore.

However, the people making videos about anything else other than cameras might be using the a4000, the a3000 or their phone from 5 years ago.  I recently discovered a woodworking / renovation channel I like shoots with a C100, which records 24Mbps 1080p but his YT uploads are in 4K and the image is basically flawless.  It's over a decade old and you can get entire setups with lenses batteries etc for $500 or so if you snag a deal.

The camera body is the most discussed film-making item, but is the least important
Go watch almost any video that talks about camera equipment in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the camera body is less important than the lenses or tripods etc.  Watch and video about film-making equipment in a balanced way and they'll  tell you that the camera rig is less important than lighting or cinematography etc.  Watch and video about technical film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that equipment is less important than location choice, production design, hair & makeup, etc..  Watch and video about creative film-making in a balanced way and they'll tell you that the technical stuff is important to get right, but is far less important than writing, casting, acting and directing, etc.

So...  the camera body is the least important item in the least important sub-category of the least important sub-category of film-making.

[Tim Sewell]

8 hours ago, kye said:

Like Luc Forsyth, who has shot major network TV shows:

I like Luc, but it does seem that since he started really pushing his paid courses the channel seems to have shifted emphasis from practical stuff to more talking head stuff.

[kye]

2 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

I like Luc, but it does seem that since he started really pushing his paid courses the channel seems to have shifted emphasis from practical stuff to more talking head stuff.

I haven't been following him for very long so haven't seen a change, but I can tell you that I'd much prefer to hear the thoughts of someone as qualified and experienced as he is versus the gaggle / hoarde / confusion / seething-mass of "film-making" YouTubers that only know how to shoot a product review YT video!

One thing I find in severe scarcity is people that have worked in professional settings and know how the real pros do things, that also know what it's like to make videos from idea to upload by themselves, and can also communicate it in a way that is clear and concise and doesn't have some sort of off-putting trait (like being an arrogant asshat and talking to the audience like they're morons - yes I am thinking of someone specifically).

I also like the fact he's selling courses.  The alternatives are that they do YT for a while but get no return and stop doing it, or they go full shill, or they somehow keep the channel going but you have no idea where their revenue or equipment to run it come from and so trust and credibility just erode over time.

I wish more people from the industry would create a YT channel where they share their knowledge for free as advertising for their own courses.  Imagine if Deakins etc had a YT channel where they did a 5-minute piece to camera per week!

[Ilkka Nissila]

3 hours ago, kye said:

The camera body is the most discussed film-making item, but is the least important

Of course this is true; but the main business in photography, as far as the consumer market (and businesses that target it) is concerned, is selling gear and not the art or teaching techniques for making that art.

 

The attitude in online forum discussions is that everything should be easy and automatic, and people are willing to pay significant money towards that end, but many people are not willing to accept that there is a skill component to photography. If skill is required to get results, the camera is considered flawed. People spend more time online complaining about (perceived) camera flaws and performance comparisons than learning the skills that they would need to do meaningful work. And the youtubers who talk about gear target this population who has been mislead to believe that if they shop for the next great thing, then they will become great artists. They get paid to promote gear, and have been misnamed "influencers" or so some such strange term when in reality it is what used to be called advertising. Somehow the social media "influencers" are supposedly more genuine and authentic than professional actors and models in advertising but this is really just an act.

[kye]

1 hour ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

Of course this is true; but the main business in photography, as far as the consumer market (and businesses that target it) is concerned, is selling gear and not the art or teaching techniques for making that art.

 

The attitude in online forum discussions is that everything should be easy and automatic, and people are willing to pay significant money towards that end, but many people are not willing to accept that there is a skill component to photography. If skill is required to get results, the camera is considered flawed. People spend more time online complaining about (perceived) camera flaws and performance comparisons than learning the skills that they would need to do meaningful work. And the youtubers who talk about gear target this population who has been mislead to believe that if they shop for the next great thing, then they will become great artists. They get paid to promote gear, and have been misnamed "influencers" or so some such strange term when in reality it is what used to be called advertising. Somehow the social media "influencers" are supposedly more genuine and authentic than professional actors and models in advertising but this is really just an act.

Well said.

It's also worth pointing out that while manufacturers will do whatever they can to sell you an item again and again, it's hard to get people to buy a $3,000 tripod every year or two, or $4,000 worth of lenses every year or two, etc, but the camera body is one thing they can convince people to buy and re-buy over and over again.

I also think there's an element of "hangover" where old ideas live on even after they no longer make sense.  In the days of standard definition, wanting more resolution in the image was a sensible request, but since getting 1080p / 4K it is no longer a sensible response.  No-one looks at a high-quality uncompressed 1080p / 4K image and thinks "the thing that is limiting my ability as a film-maker to express myself is the lack of detail in the image"....  but the idea that "more resolution is more better" lives on, endlessly pushed by people with vested interests in selling you something you already own.

[Tim Sewell]

2 hours ago, kye said:

One thing I find in severe scarcity is people that have worked in professional settings and know how the real pros do things

Have you checked out the Shotdeck channel? There aren' a huge number of videos there yet, but those that are seem very good. Basically hour-long Lawrence Sher interviews with directors/DPs etc about their movies, using the images from the site as jumping off points.

[eatstoomuchjam]

One of the things I find hilarious about YouTube is that a lot of the big camera influencers talk about leveling up channels and increasing production value, etc.  A lot of the bigger names have between 50-200k subscribers and a lot of them had the advantage of being early to starting camera channels.  Newer, theoretically popular people like Cam Mackey have like 65k.

Meanwhile, a friend of mine decided to do something with his YouTube channel a couple of years ago after the news did a story about his having purchased the monorail for $1/car from our local zoo when they stopped running it and turning it into a private campsite on some land in Wisconsin.  He mostly repurposes junk that he finds at garage sales and thrift stores into things like push-pull carts on railroad tracks and satellite dishes coated in aluminum foil.  The cameras he uses are mostly potatoes - like 25-year old camcorders and Hero 3-type stuff.  He has a pretty decent natural grasp of editing and story, though, and he's a funny guy.  He also would freely admit that he neither knows a lot about cameras nor cares to know any more.  Last I checked, he was at about 187k subscribers (including me - I like watching his stuff).

So if the goal is just to grow a YouTube channel, the quality of the camera is probably the least important bit.  Making half of your video be slow motion slideshow garbage so that you can put "cinematic" in the title doesn't really get views if the rest of the content is garbage.

I buy too much gear for my own mediocre talent, but that's partly just because I want it and after a lot of years, I can almost always find something to trade in to make stuff more affordable.  I have no illusions that buying a Komodo-X will substantially improve anything I do, but I might do it anyway.  If I get it, I'll probably like it a lot for a while and then after a couple of years, I'll probably trade it in toward something else.

 

Anyway, another thing to remember with these YouTubers that are in the business of making day 1 review commercials for various channels - when they're showing "what this camera can do," go watch their older stuff with a camera from last year.  Most of the time, it looks almost exactly like whatever they're doing with the new camera because they're really not that different.  One of the most laughable things that people say on various camera forums or YT comments is "I can't wait for (creator name here) to get it so we can see what that camera can really do."  Wanna know what that camera will look at when your favorite creator gets it?  Go watch the review they did of the camera before it.  It'll look pretty much like that.

[kye]

19 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

So if the goal is just to grow a YouTube channel, the quality of the camera is probably the least important bit. 

The majority of YT that I watch has nothing to do with cameras, and in general the people that have the most followers have the least fancy camera equipment.

I mean, there are probably more channels that have over 500K subscribers and are just shot with a smartphone than all the active camera YT channels combined.

[kye]

13 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

They get paid to promote gear, and have been misnamed "influencers" or so some such strange term when in reality it is what used to be called advertising. Somehow the social media "influencers" are supposedly more genuine and authentic than professional actors and models in advertising but this is really just an act.

With all the discussions recently about YouTubers I've been thinking about this as I watch YT videos and I remembered this comment and wanted to come back to it.

I think that perhaps one of the things that would help a YouTuber achieve success on the platform is having a clear idea of what business they are really in.  For example, and off the top of my head, YouTubers likely fall into one of the following:

• Advertising (as has been discussed)
• Entertainment
• Education
• Journalism

These are pretty broad, but I would suggest that each has a clear definition and purpose, with clear principles on how it is done, how to make money, and what is to be expected from a good (and dodgy) channel.

I'm guessing that if you don't really know which category a YouTuber is in, then perhaps they're drifting into dodgy territory.

Did I miss any?

[eatstoomuchjam]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Did I miss any?

Self-indulgence?  😉 
 

Entertainment is probably an overly-broad category, but that's splitting hairs.

[kye]

12 minutes ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Self-indulgence?  😉 
 

Entertainment is probably an overly-broad category, but that's splitting hairs.

LOL, yeah, or self-importance or narcissistic or megalomanianism etc 😂😂😂

I guess in that case they don't have a clear idea of the industry they're in, likely because they're thinking about themselves rather than their audience.

Entertainment is very broad and is sort-of a catch-all for the other categories, but I think it's still useful as it firmly defines that the purpose is to engage and entertain.  

I think that because YT was new and people didn't really understand what it was or how it fit into the world people weren't clear that it still fit the definitions that had been previously established, but (as usual) the pros had figured it out already and there (almost never) isn't anything new under the sun.

[MrSMW]

Luc Forsyth

Jacques Crafford

Cam Mackey

Mark Bone

[kye]

Brady Bessette

WanderingDP

Crimson Engine

Jeven Dovey

D4Darious

Andyax

Lewis Potts

Clever Ghost Chili

Beyond the game

Singularity Film

Neal Howland

Jimmy on Film

Scott Jeschke

[Tim Sewell]

Spenser Sakurai

Tenfold Productions

Robert Machado

- also deserve a mention.

[Clark Nikolai]

On 4/29/2024 at 10:46 PM, kye said:

Older cameras are invisible on YT, despite being the majority of what is used
People that talk about cameras, or even mention them in the video or description so they're searchable, are using the most recent cameras, or relatively recent cameras. 

Right. I find it odd when the camera is in the subject line. Unless it's specifically a camera test, then it should be in the description along with the other information about the shoot.

[kye]

4 hours ago, Clark Nikolai said:

Right. I find it odd when the camera is in the subject line. Unless it's specifically a camera test, then it should be in the description along with the other information about the shoot.

I think it's just creators responding to the searches people make.  I suspect there are far more searches on "A7S3" than there are on "three point lighting" because if there weren't then why is everyone making equipment videos?

It makes sense too.  I've just gone down a rabbit hole of searching about the ZV-1, despite it only being idle dreaming about having a slightly smaller camera.  Obviously I have searched for many things associated with skills, I've done far more searches that were equipment focused, and despite the fact I'm not in the market for a new camera, for those people who made those videos, a watch / subscribe on a video still counts.

[eatstoomuchjam]

Slight digression from the topic, but unless you really need the flippy screen, you might consider the RX100 V over the ZV-1.  The V is even smaller, but weighs just a hair more (probably due to having more metal and less plastic in the body) (and I think the V is cheaper on the used market).  The flippy screen was just about the only difference between the two cameras.