photo courtesy © Bruce Christianson
Last night I dropped by MCAD again to attend another ASMP-MSP meeting, this time in conjunction with MNDigiTechs, to address some of the issues that photographers and others in the photo community are having when it comes to distinguishing the role of a digital tech, and just how they should to be used in a specific workflow. Much of the discussion focused on what a digitech does, and why they do what they do.
The comparison of digitech vs. traditional photo assistant came up more than once, and it’s the opinion of this photo assistant that my role as a photo assistant is much different than that of a digitech. A few members on the panel made the definition of what goes on in front of the lens is the responsibility of the photo assistant, and what happens behind the lens, or after capture and in the computer, is the responsibility of the digitech. I 100% agree with this most basic job description.
But, of course, there will always be the exception when I’m asked to download of a CF card from camera to computer. Even so, it is rare for me to do much raw editing, color correcting, or retouching during production. And, if so, it’s done on the fly, only in a mock-up sense, the photographer knowing that he will be doing his own digital imaging in post. While some digitechs are expected to perform such tasks while on set during production, many feel this practice is futile and distracts from primary file management, camera ops, and hardware/software optimization. On the flip-side of the same topic, if a digitech is expected to act in the capacity of a photo assistant setting lights, wrangling cords, helping the producer, getting lunch, and attending to the set, then the role of the digitech is again compromised and the workflow will suffer. What the digitech is primarily doing is taking on the job that the film lab used to fulfill, but now it’s done real-time.
The panel consisted of four local digital techs… Jeremy Wilker of Tweak Digital, Rick Haring, Ben Saltzman, and Jim Niehart. Also on the panel were two guest digitechs… Kat Andrews, a tech from Smashbox Digital in Los Angeles, and Todd Schweikert, the V.P. of Industrial Color in New York City. The panel was humorously moderated by Clark Patrick, who is a co-founder of MNDigiTechs.
The presentation was well attended and I feel that there was a good quorum which will help address some of the pressing concerns going forward. Hopefully, a precedent has begun to take shape on this debate, and now budgets and production expenses are able to be adequately quantified, so that photographers won’t have to be so bogged down with the learning curve of our digital age, and can be photographers once again.
[New Post] Is A Photo Assistant The Same As A Digital Tech? – via @twitoaster http://aphotoassistant.com/2009/11/18/is...
@aphotoassistant Assistant is an assistant. A digitech is a digitech. Sometimes they cross on small gigs but they both have their jobs to do
I have to say it depends on the market. I live in Montreal and things work slightly differently. I’m a photo assistant and have been for 3yrs now. I work with about half a douzan photographer on a regular basis and I do it all. Well almost. As u mention I agree with the example you gave in the post. Photo assistant responsable for all in front of lens and digi for everything behind it. From my experience on fashion (commercial and editorial), advertising stilllife, food, architecture, etc. Photographer hire one or two photo assistants. We split the work. I’m fluent in all forms of lights and grips and blah blah blah! As well as most medium format software and LR, PS, bridge, Nikon, Canon, etc. Not to memtion the occasional retouching job done on abs off site.
As far as I know, there is maybe one or two digi tech/retouchers in Montreal that do the traditional sens of the work.
I’m sure, unless you work in NY or LA, most of us work the same way.
Love to hear your thoughts.
Great recap on the meeting. I think the best point made is that digital techs ARE the lab now. They carry the responsibility of how a file will look once the client or printer gets it. And that’s a big responsibility.
When working on my own projects I can get by and I’ve certainly dl’ed CF cards to a computer but wouldn’t market myself as a full-on digital tech. I’ve done some digitech work but not enough to be in the leagues of anyone on the panel.
I have worked with Ben Saltzman a few times and he is a consummate pro. I’ve tried to take as many mental notes on how he approaches the job as possible. He’s always checking focus, color, and exposure all while the client is making picks. That’s a full plate.
I agree that geography determines to some extent what the roles of assistant and digital tech are.
But having said that I find it pretty much universal in most cities in the US that as a general assistant you need to know lighting and grip, digital capture and good data management, and color workflow on both Mac and PC platforms in addidtion to having a strong back!
It’s only been on the bigger jobs with lots of images, medium format and higher end clients that I’ve worked with a digital tech. Then there are usually 2 or 3 “regular” assistants whose work includes PA type duties in addition to grip and lighting. Very interesting how things have changed for assistants in the last 5 years or so.
In a way, the same thing has happened in the film business, which is where I got started. Now there is a digital imaging tech (on HD projects) in addition to the other camera assistants, minus the film loader, of course, if it’s a 35mm film job.
Bottom line is to be a good photo assistant, you need to know a lot more these days and the more you know the more you are going to be called. Good discussion.