What do you do if there is a conflict between cinematographers and editors in film production?

The editor and cinematographer are almost never in direct contact. On the few occasions that I've seen it, the first and most common, was in coloring the film. The editor may have a view on the look of the film, based on how the story evolved from the time of shooting it. In that case, those ideas were hashed out over viewing the edit together and the director has always had the final word. The other, and less common occasion, would be when editing on set. But, in those instances, I've never seen a conflict. The editor rarely gives color/composition notes, unless for some reason, they won't edit together (crossing the line, etc...) The key is mutual respect and egos being put aside, in service of the film.

Understanding the distinct roles of cinematographers and editors is essential in resolving conflicts. Cinematographers capture visuals on set, collaborating closely with the director to achieve the desired look. Editors assemble footage during post-production, shaping the film's rhythm and emotional impact. Recognizing the unique contributions of each role fosters appreciation for their creative input and facilitates finding common ground.

As the writer or director, I would mediate as to what is the most profound, accurate and effective capture of the shot or scene. In most cases, the writer knows what and how images should appear "between" the lines.

Whether in fiction, unscripted and documentaries, some conflict may arise between field ( mostly DP team ) and post production. Both will have a point and reason. But on top of these two valuable roles are the director and the producers ( the ones that have creative responsibility ). Understanding these roles and the final say answers the question.

We might like it more or less, but the thing is that a film is not a democracy. There is a hierarchy that can't be broken, so there is no room for everyone to give an opinion. Cinematographers and editors are in different departments. Cinematographers should not be in the editing room, same that an editor should not be on set.

The editor works with the footage the DoP shoots. So they can't have problems as the footage has already been shot. Unless you have a time traveling editor. Then you have issues with causality loops.

It's all about being a good communicator, bringing up issues at the first discovery of a problem, and the golden rule of "The director is always right." Defer to him for a decision, and make sure you do not get in the middle of a hatchet fight, by giving either side ammo to use when the issue blows up at the director level. Remember, it's not your fight. Maintain a neutral position, even when you perceive one side has a convincing argument on the issue. Any more contribution than that, then the next thing waiting to become the anger focal point of everyone, is YOU.

I think the best way for an Editor to deal with conflict is to say, let me show you what I’m thinking. Showing is more convincing than talking about it. Or, let’s try it my way (or there’s) and if it’s rejected from the studio or network, we do it the other way.

By identifying common ground and shared goals, such as the mutual aspiration to craft a visually stunning and emotionally resonant film, both parties can align their efforts towards a unified vision. Encouraging open communication creates a platform for cinematographers and editors to express their perspectives respectfully, fostering a safe environment. Clarifying roles and responsibilities ensures that each team member understands their unique contributions to the project, minimizing ambiguity and potential conflicts. Moreover, documenting agreements reached during conflict resolution promotes clarity and accountability, serving as a roadmap for continued collaboration.

Communication and boundaries will keep all parties involved and there must be a final say to one person only, it’s even the producer or the director. Accepting other opinions and listening to others will reduce future conflicts

If open dialogue fails to resolve the conflict between cinematographers and editors, impartial mediation may be necessary. Engage a neutral third party, such as the director, producer, or a professional mediator familiar with film production. The mediator should attentively listen to both perspectives, identifying underlying issues causing the conflict while remaining impartial. Encouraging solutions that honor both the cinematographer's vision and the editor's narrative instincts fosters fairness and prevents escalation, ensuring seamless progress in the film's production.

I'd calmly try to mediate discussions between the cinematographers and editors separately without any mention of the intensity, aiming to find common ground and ensure their creative visions align for the benefit of the film's production.

The suggestion of involving a neutral third party, or a seasoned mediator, is a pragmatic approach when dialogue stalls. However, true resolution stems from trust and a shared commitment to the film's vision, not just structured negotiation. It's crucial that this mediator not only fosters a space where both perspectives are heard but also champions a collaborative spirit that prioritizes the project's integrity over individual interests. While impartiality in mediation is valuable, the essence of overcoming these conflicts lies in mutual respect and a collective drive towards innovation and artistic excellence. It's this deep-seated collaboration, more than formal mediation, that propels a film beyond conventional boundaries.

Actually, just this week a DP was worried about the quality on a shot in the offline cut of a film I’m editing and had questioned the director about it. At first I started saying he doesn’t have to worry about it, we are cutting from proxies in a 1080 avid project. But then I decided to make the effort to pull the shot from the raw and send him a link, so he could see there was not problem. This satisfied his concerns and helped with a smooth day of pickup shooting.

Make sure everyone’s opinion is heard. You don’t know the ins and outs of what your cinematographer or editor are thinking. Maybe specific choices were made on set that haven’t been communicated clearly down the pipeline. Maybe an issue is coming up in post that requires creative and unplanned solutions. Give these team members a platform to shine, and ultimately it’s your job to lead the creative direction of the project.

This goes back to when I stated when every provides feedback on your project; you cannot take it all personal but you must stay the cool head enough to hear all sides and respect their opinions. Have both meet you in a compromise. Lead them there. Thank them both. Keep moving toward the next goal.

Compromising in tricky situations is best facilitated by the technical people in some areas. During one of my projects, the music was drowning out a scene but apparently there was no solution despite the diplomatic possible solutions I suggested - but did not want to offend the composer who thought all was OK. Thankfully, one of the key technical sound people on my side of things agreed and said to leave it with him. Goodness knows what he did (and he did not tell me), he solved the problem beautifully and all became balanced. I often wonder if he spoke to the composer's technician 'off the record' but he may have had an IT trick up his sleeve as well.

Both has different responsibilities to play. Editor's job starts where Cinematographer's job ends. If still there emerge any conflict, then both should be advised to follow the script and Director's vision.

Focus on goals is very important simply because that’s the major essence of bringing cast and crew together to produce a project.

Some action films have over 4000 edits while some features have 34(1917) or 28(Birdman) or zero (Russian Ark). This should give perspective as how DOP's and editor's task description/contribution to film may drastically differ project to project. DOP may be "Lieutenant General" on set, but there's no vertical hierarchy between them. That being said, DOP has been fighting the battle shoulder to shoulder with the director. Hence he may have a better grasp of the director's vision. Thus, give more credence to the DOP's argument while paying utmost attention to editor's demands. Sometimes inexperienced editors may bicker to DOP for more coverage or different camera reggie, which is not DOP's call. Then editor is actually at conflict with you

At the heart of any conflict resolution within filmmaking—be it between a cinematographer and an editor or any other creative discord—the paramount objective is the film’s overarching vision and success. Highlighting the collective aim to craft a piece that resonates deeply with audiences encourages a departure from personal biases and egos, fostering an environment where decisions are made in service to the story and viewer engagement. This approach underlines the necessity of subsuming individual desires for the greater good of the project, a perspective that champions the collaborative essence of filmmaking. The best results stem from a unity of purpose while maintaining the integrity and depth of the creative endeavor.

The project objective, which the entire team works towards together, always comes first. This overarching goal must be equally recognized and respected by everyone involved. In the event of a conflict, we always refer back to the objective and question whether we are working towards it.

I'm confused, why would an editor have a conflict with the cinematographer? The two departments rarely have to be exchanging opinions, and even if such a situation arises, the creative say on a film rests with the director or the producer. The editor or cinematographer are expected to contribute with their inputs but not to the level of conflict.

Few discussions better illustrate the importance of leadership. Sadly, the audience loses when it comes to this stalemate. To say that one party or the other is "wrong" is to miss the point. If my discussions with a director lead to a certain shooting approach and the editor takes a completely different approach in cutting, a "miss" happens. It's not that a talented editor can't build a strong cut in a silo; it's more that if I know the cut is going in in a particular direction, I can craft my shooting approach to work in parallel or counterpoint for added impact for the audience. Working in departmental silos speaks more to the producing and directing than it does about the cinematographer and/or editor. Silos rarely benefit productions.

And I will add to the clever Chuck comment - and the Director direct :) The editor is more in touch with the whole story, than the cinematographer, by knowing what made it or not the “ cut “, so if new scenes are needed he will communicate it to the Director and he will evaluate the best options

As a producer, my decision is usually the final decision. However, I would not want any of my crew members to feel left out, or feel that I am imposing a decision on them. My first step would be to go to the director and involve them. Directors usually have the strongest creative opinions with great experience on audience perceptions. On a separate note, I would also seek opinions on the edit from my sound designer, music composer and the script writer. In my experience, good sound designers have also give me great feedback on edits. If it's a highly complex decision, in the past I have held FGD's (Focussed Group Discussions) if the project permits, which really helps nail the feedback from the Target Audience.

You cant expect to be an exceptional cinematographer if you can't edit yourself. You give the director what they want and the editor what they need.

A cinematographers job is to give the director what they want and what the editor needs. Give the editor well organized footage, which doesn't require a lot of putzing, making their work easy plus solid coverage and there will be no problems. Remember, at some point the editor will be sitting in a darkened room with the the director, producers and money people, if you give the editor some reason to complain, you won't know it and your already toast. Go out of your way to keep the a..hole happy!

Should the cinematographer and editor need to meet let alone disagree. Both answer to the director, one during principal photography, the other during post production. During editing, the director and editor may decide that certain scenes need to be reshot. The director recalls the cinematographer. If cinematographer and editor have to interact then the director should take charge and ensure bo friction.

The producers and directors put trust in the DP to bring to light their visions. If the editor can’t put their opinions aside they best find a new line of work as they are there to assemble the project to the liking of the creatives at hand. I do feel for the editor who has to deal with creators with terrible judgment. I’ve got many years of experience at both jobs. Use your best judgment, but in the end it comes down to what the people with the money want? That makes sense to me, but if you know better, you should fight for what’s better but bring forth a good argument for why with examples to audition etc. etc. it could be a lot of work. Good luck!

Golden Eye N64 shoot out, rocket launchers only. Winner gets to do it their way. All other solutions are simply a denial of our natural state.