So yeah I’m a gaffer, and I really enjoy the most Kate’s vision of collaboration, rather than Ben’s vision. I think gaffers must be creative, and it’s even better when gaffers wish to eventually become DPs because they understand the creativity of designing lighting for scenes that he or she is in charge of executing. And, as a gaffer, I have such a deep knowledge of the technicality of lighting, that I’m now able to use that technicality to play around with my creativity. And also Kate is really right about that collaboration aspect. We, as gaffers, are the experts of the light, and the DP is the expert of the design, so let’s gather around our same goal : light that scene, and let’s work the details by both bringing ideas. There’s absolutely no worst feeling than suggesting something as a gaffer (a different light, an addition, a substitution, a different diffusion, etc...) and having the DP rejecting it by saying that it is not your role to suggest and create, but to execute. In the end, I believe that gaffers are also creators and artists. Yes the main job is to work the technicalities, but we are the experts of lighting, and we have a need for creative collaboration with the DP to simply feel alive in this industry. Otherwise I would stick to being an electrician on set. But fortunately for me, I find myself mostly working with DPs that let you a lot of freedom while still giving you his or her ideas (albeit very specific or not).

Gaffer here - agree with the collaborative workflow. It's much less rewarding working with DPs who treat you purely as a technician - specifying each and every detail. Having worked with both higher-end DPs and newer less-experienced DPs - I find suggestions to be important, but one does need "read the tone" of the DP to understand how they will interpret that; sometimes taking offence at suggestions thinking you're over-stepping your role, but making suggestions is totally part of the role. Many newer DPs don't realise that the gaffer probably has plenty more hours on-set than them and they tend to refuse each and every suggestions, eventually coming back-around to the suggested setup after wasting countless hours - you often only have enough time to do one setup, nothing spare to "play around" - trust your gaffer.

I see some miffed with Ben's vision in the comments but that's the thing. I've come across gaffers who do not wish to be pulled in creatively at all. The beauty of this roundtable is that a DP exists for every gaffer. So you may not find Ben to be your fit but he isn't being reductive of anyone's role in the process. He is just explaining "his unique" approach. I personally do plan out with my gaff but again, that's what works for me. May not work for Ben. Look at it like a very similar situation in our jobs where there's a hundred ways to create a big soft source. And each way is right if in the end it benefits the vision of the director.

I think its super important to treat Gaffers as collaborators rather than Ben Smithard's way of treating Gaffers as just getting you out of a rut. It's kinda reductive to say this as I find a lot of Gaffers are artists in their own way and if you are very restrictive and controlling over how you light your image you miss the joy of learning some amazing stuff from talented individuals. Of course you know how you want your image to look but including the talents of other people can really bring it to another level.

What i would like to hear.. is how did they all start out .. i mean I'm always stressed out because I'm still a ONE-MAN ARMY and i always feel down when i realise i don't know a lot (or everything) but then i look at high end filmmakers and they don't know everything either and they always rely on different departments... so that's what i would like to hear... how did they all start before they reached a point where they have a full crew to do the work

Amazing 👍👏

Shame the lighting in this conversation is so poorly lit :P

Are there no Black or Brown filmmakers in the UK?