Videographer Vs Cinematographer

Are you a videographer or a cinematographer?

For some, that's a question that gets a simple "aren't they the same thing?", but for others, it's a matter of serious debate.

Lately, I've been seeing this question pop up more and more on social media, with folks clearly lining up on one side or the other.

Originally, the labels were pretty clear-cut, based on the tech being used. Cinematographers shot on celluloid – a role that was established right at the start of the film industry – while videographers used video tape. But now, with most big-budget films being shot digitally, those lines have definitely blurred.

So, what actually separates a cinematographer from a videographer these days?

Some of the online chatter suggests there's almost a class divide between the two, based on things like ambition, skill level, artistry, and the quality of the finished product. Let's have a closer look at each of these points, shall we?

One debate I stumbled across suggested the key difference was that cinematographers were masters of their craft, while videographers were just trying to get there. It was also suggested that cinematographers wouldn't dream of being videographers. For me, this argument feels very old-fashioned and stuck in the past, based on what those labels originally meant. Cinematographers who were successfully working with celluloid back in the day wouldn't have seen working with the cheaper, lower-quality video tape as something to aim for. On the other hand, those working with video probably did dream of one day getting to shoot on proper film stock.

In another online discussion, someone argued that cinematographers were masters of their craft, working with a team and focusing solely on camera and lighting. Videographers, on the other hand, were seen as 'jacks-of-all-trades', having to handle all sorts of technical roles. But this doesn't really take into account low-budget or independent film crews. Often, because the crew is small, a cinematographer might have to wear several hats.

The idea that a videographer always works alone and doesn't have a team isn't true these days either. Plenty of creative agencies have camera teams made up of videographers. And saying that videographers aren't experts in camera or lighting just isn't necessarily true, and it's pretty much impossible to measure anyway. Is the camera work and lighting better in 'The Cat in the Hat' or 'The Revenant'? Both have fantastic lighting that's absolutely right for the style and who the film is for.

The fact that Oscar-winning Emmanuel Lubezki did both just shows a different set of skills and approaches. The same principle applies here. And let's be honest, we've all seen films with dodgy camera work and lighting, and yet some incredibly beautiful visuals in professionally shot marketing stuff.

This leads us to question the artistry of the two roles. One comment I saw emphasised that cinematographers were distinct because they thought more about the deeper meaning of the story, whereas videographers just filmed real life and didn't consider the deeper aspects and symbolism. This definition doesn't really hold up for me, as most of a videographer's work is about telling other people's stories. Most marketing, promotional, and even wedding videos are communicating a story, so it's unfair to say they're just filming life. However, this definition would also lump documentary makers in with videographers. Documentarians are definitely presenting a deeper interpretation of a story, exploring questions, issues, and debates for their audience.

As for artistry itself, how it's approached really depends on the individual's interpretation, but also on what's required externally. The way an interview is lit and shot can have just as much storytelling technique, thought, and symbolic meaning as a close-up shot by a cinematographer. The use of compositional techniques is generally the same for both cinematographers and videographers. The main difference is often that videographers don't usually have the luxury of detailed pre-planning and might only get one chance to capture a particular shot.

For me, overall, the labels of videographer and cinematographer don't really fit their original meanings anymore. Instead, I think we should look at the label as representing the purpose of the work being produced. Videographers capture a story as it happens, often without retakes, and it's usually for private or business use. On the other hand, a cinematographer captures a story, with the possibility of reshoots, for the purpose of entertainment. By thinking about the definitions this way, we can also get a clearer idea of the difference between a content creator and a videographer, another visual creative role in which defining it by purpose makes more sense.

However, ultimately, I'd rather be known for what I do, the skills I use and what I produce. A label unfortunately can create perceived assumptions based on outdated ideas and historical context and we are more than a label!