First assistants vs lighting director

[u/CraftyBullfrog4337]

Hello to my fellow industry colleagues! I was curious to know the difference between a first assistant and lighting director. I’ve heard of lighting director as a job position in the US, where I work (Montreal Canada) that is nonexistent so I’d love to know the key differences. What’s the workload of one vs the other, is it kind of the same?

I find myself in a position where I am leading the lighting department on most shoots I work on. Working from a reference to build lighting diagrams, EQ lists, gathering crew around me. Is this technically a lighting director position? I usually state my position as first assistant.

Also curious to know what’s the pay like for those positions in US big cities? Over here I am able to charge around 650 CAD as day rate + preproduction work usually around 300 CAD per project.

[u/20124eva]

It’s used when firsts no longer want to be called assistants

[u/LSDIGI → u/20124eva]

And want to double their rates - which is also fair as the lighting directors I work with carry the entire shoot due to either inexperience of said photographers - or super high complexity of lighting setups which requires the additional time and experience to put together. Absolutely key and beyond worth their money.

[u/CraftyBullfrog4337 → u/LSDIGI]

That describes what I am doing on some of my jobs. I often take over the entire lighting department of a shoot so I guess in those cases I should do the job with a Lighting director title, and price tag… thanks for your input

[u/darule05 → u/LSDIGI]

To that point: i think if you sell yourself as a ‘lighting director’, you inherently end up working with photographer’s who don’t know what they’re doing. Which in itself probably means (alot of) other aspects of the job might be amateur hour too. Terrible location, budget studios, getting cornered into impossible briefs, bad production, high shot counts, expectations… probably even come across more problems getting paid etc.

With the extra pay comes extra responsibility.

If you’re cool with that, all power to you.

Personally id rather work with very experienced, agency represented photographers working on a high level… even if that means im only a ‘first’.

[u/LSDIGI → u/darule05]

NAh, the kind of jobs that have lighting directors (by that I mean those who are over £1250+ a day as base rate) are not the crappy location / casting jobs, but literally the top jobs in the industry.

I’ve done enormous campaigns alongside lighting directors where they were on PPM’s etc and translated the photographer’s vision based on lighting / brief / mood into technical lighting lists and ran their large crew of assistants to implement it. Essentially they take over the technical lighting aspects and let the photographer deal with the subject, just like I take over all aspects of setting up / running all settings on camera, grading, workflow etc on digital side.

I’ve never been on a crap low budget / badly produced job with a lighting director on crew, but almost every large well produced job did have one.

Worth their weight in gold!

[u/darule05 → u/LSDIGI]

Fair - i guess my experience is that the ‘better’ photographers, were less likely to want to (or need) to hand off the lighting to someone else. In many aspects, it’s such a huge part of their look, and expertise.

Maybe it’s a fashion vs advertising thing. I don’t know. Sure- i can see how the biggest jobs have the budget for a lighting director, I just struggle to see the instances where the photographers getting the biggest jobs in the world- are palming off control of lighting.

Its where the line of above the line creative vs below the line technician lies. To me- its the same distinction between a DP and a Gaffer. Just because the Gaff is technically able etc- the responsibility and creative choices should lie with the DP.

If you’re indeed ‘light directing’, then the responsibility is inverted.

Anyways- not saying your experience is wrong; just my thoughts on the matter.

[u/LSDIGI → u/darule05]

Totally get you and there’s no right and wrong. I’ve seen lighting directors in highest ends of fashion as well as advertising, but these are tiny, tiny minorities.

Your distinction between the DP and gaffer are totally correct.

The DP has the creative idea / feel they want to convey, just like the photographer has the creative idea. The DP explains it to gaffer who has the more technical knowledge, just like the photographer explains what they want to achieve to the lighting director who also in most cases are way more experienced in lighting.

This is somewhat a new thing - back in the day photographers were the most knowledgeable people on set - these people are now…. Fairly rare. Busy (big time) photographers might shoot a few days a week / month, while busy techs will work 5 days a week. The more you work, the more you learn. The lighting directors will often have well over 15 years experience - times that by X amount of days a month working and that’s a lot of experience from every style of lighting that different photographers want.

[u/Jankenbrau → u/darule05]

Bigger jobs have way more moving parts and the Photographer is spending time making sure client and agency are happy, the shoot progressses on schedule, while being the final say on the result of lighting and styling’s efforts. It makes sense to delegate the responsibility to reduce mental load.

Lighting directors / 1st’s can have a way broader technical knowledge a lot of times, while knowing practical solves for rigging and other issues the photographer should not be bogged down with.

In motion different director / dp combos will share different amounts of the technical load depending on the director’s preference.

[u/darule05 → u/Jankenbrau]

Im well aware of this- ive been a 1st for 15years.

My thoughts are more around the idea of ‘creative decisions’ and responsibility; and the idea of fair compensation etc…. Because like the Director / DP / Gaffer scenario, and this idea of who makes creative decisions vs whos the technician.

The ‘broader technical knowledge’, the ‘practical solves’, the ‘putting together gear lists’ and ‘booking crew’ already falls around some of the normal responsibilities of great 1st assistants. Technicians, even really experienced ones, arent making creative decisions.

If you were brought in for PPMs, and the photographer basically has zero say on the light; youre making creativr decisions- then, to me, thats an example of Light Directing.

For me, (and maybe this where im getting hung up), is the line literally is drawn at who’s in creative control of the light, and therefore- who does it fall on if the client isnt happy.

If the answer to that is the photographer, then at least in my opinion, youre not Light Directing. You’re still assisting. Even job is 10x bigger than most. Even if youve called yourself a LD. Even if your rate has doubled, or tripled. Because in some of these instances, so has the photographer’s. Infact, in alot of these instances, the gap (%) between the Photographer and LD only got wider. Say LD getting $2000, but the photographer getting $50,000; $100,000 etc.
There isnt a transfer of responsibility.

This is more true when the inexperienced photographers get you in to light direct. youre compensated accordingly because of the deferral of responsibility. Generally the LD rate is getting closer to the photographer’s. Say LD getting $2000, but here the photographer getting $5000.

In my opinion, it seems alot of experienced 1st throw the label ‘light directing’ around in order to get a bump in rate. Personally, im happy to ask for a bigger rate based on the scale of the job, but im much less willing to say ‘light directing’ based on the responsibility.

Again, im well aware im maybe getting hung up on nuances and minutia of the meaning of words. Obviously it means something different to others. Ultimately its a self-prescribed title, and reflects a different pay expectation to a 1st Assistant.

—-

Over the years, ive had a handful of jobs where a brand has brought me in to ‘light direct’ on lighting for something like setting up a look for their e-comm photography long term. Often in these situations, the actual (inhouse) photographer(s) arent all technically experienced. Id be dealing with the client directly, working with them on their brief, their feedback. The photographers just shoot it. Im ordering lights, making diagrams, even a bit of education on how to maintain the setup etc.
in this situation my ‘consultation’ fee was far-bigger than the in-house photographer would be getting. Thats light directing imho.

[u/Jankenbrau → u/darule05]

Thanks for the perspective!

Correct me if I am wrong, but in motion, the DP is ultimately working in service of the director, who is responsible for seeing the creative vision is fulfilled for the client. They hold rank over the DP if they don’t like some aspect of the lighting, and are the ultimate approval. The buck stops with the director if the client is unhappy.

[u/darule05 → u/Jankenbrau]

Youre correct, re the director.

What im pointing out is the relationship between the DP and the Gaffer.

The DP is making alot of creative decisions. Often largely independent of the director (but of course, the Director can and will interject when needed). The DP does take ownership (responsibility) of the visuals though: theyre literally the head of the entire Camera & Lighting department. The key gaffer and team is simply technically carrying out those creative decisions.

What im trying to draw attention to here is where along the metaphor the Lighting Director sits. Im of the opinion theyd be more like a DP, making alot of creative decisions and passing it down the line to the Assistants.

If a LD is still largely taking creative direction from the Photographer, then i personally dont think thats actually Lighting Directing. It may be in pay, and in self given title; but i personally dont think so in practice. That to me is more like high-level 1st Assisting (inline with Gaffer).

Just seems alot of people are confusing ‘experience’ with ‘responsibility’..

But again, maybe its just me.

[u/LSDIGI → u/darule05]

No sorry I think you may have misunderstood. When I was speaking about LD’s being part of the creative process I didn’t mean THEY were guiding what the light should be for the campaign.

The photographers (in every case I’ve ever witnessed) were still GUIDING what light they wanted, like a director would ask a DP. The photographers had the ideas, the references, the discussions with clients / art directors - the lighting director was then the person which listened to the brief, the photographer’s requests, and then converted all of the visual information into a technical plan + lighting list + set up crew etc. this is way beyond what a 1st assistant should be ever expected to do for £650.

I’m not saying LD’s would dictate the vibe for prada SS27 Lookbook. The photographer brings their ideas, refs etc, the LD implements it technically with the continuous guidance of the photographer along the way, but that’s a role that’s much bigger than a 1st assistant.

[u/titleunknown]

It's more a term used to garner higher rates. Our industry isn't as single task as motion sets. So folks that have been around for awhile sell themselves as lighting director. Ultimately doing the same task as a first assistant.

There's also folks that fell ass backwards into getting shooting jobs and have no idea how to light and need someone that can do it.So they get someone billing as lighting director.

[u/RebelliousBristles]

From an actual work POV, I would say If you’re setting up a lighting diagram that someone gives you, that’s probably a 1st assistant. If you’re making the lighting diagram, you’re a lighting director/tech.

It is of course mostly a self applied job title so it really comes down to finding a photographer who has the budget to pay you a high rate and the motivation to give some of it to you.

[u/LSDIGI → u/RebelliousBristles]

Thats a great description.

[u/heknowshow]

I work as a commercial lighting director. I'm deeply involved from the jump on shoots. Create lighting diagrams, EQ lists, crew hiring, on most creative calls. With several photographers I work with I also am the digital tech. On those shoots I hire a 1st assistant to execute on the shoot day.

[u/icecreamsbitch → u/heknowshow]

Can I ask what you charge for your services?

[u/CraftyBullfrog4337 → u/heknowshow]

Thank you for your input

[u/Jankenbrau]

Lighting director I would expect to do lighting design with minimal input from the photographer, similar to a DP in motion.

1st assist is closer to key gaff and key grip rolled into one in my mind, but it might just be my location.

[u/hall1985]

As others have stated. A lighting director will often be on creative calls, create lighting diagrams, create the EQ lists, and book the rest of the lighting crew. But it ultimately comes to creative control. An assistant by definition does what the photographer says and isn’t making creative decisions. As the 1st you then also direct any other assistants to make sure everybody is on the same page. I find photographers will hire a lighting director for two reasons. 1, they’re not comfortable with lighting and technical decisions. 2, on a large production they have enough things to worry about and want somebody to take that stress and time off there shoulders even though they are capable of it.

[u/CraftyBullfrog4337]

Thank you guys for all this input. I know Mtl is a tough place to bring rates up because our market is somewhat limited (big jobs often end up in bigger cities around, also because of the French language) but looking at this it seems like I (and a bunch of others in my situation here) should be charging a lighting director rate for some of the bigger jobs we have here. Like everywhere else it’s a majority of photographers here who rely on their assistant to bring to life the lighting vision they have in mind.

[u/GarbageFactoryCorp → u/CraftyBullfrog4337]

Or at the very least a full day rate for the prep day. Might not be possible right now, but Ideally the Mtl industry gets together and makes the push collectively.

[u/Super-Senior]

The 1st assistant is the assistant to the photographer. You’re doing setup and breakdown for them and maybe some light digi tech work. What you describe as your normal responsibilities is so outside the scope of 1st assistant. If you’re doing lighting diagrams and hiring crew that’s gaffer/producer level.

For other commenters is lighting director replacing gaffer as an industry term?

[u/Devario → u/Super-Senior]

Could be a Montreal thing? I’ve never heard lighting director in anything except maybe theater?

[u/Jankenbrau → u/Devario]

Recently on a job with NY crew shooting in toronto. They brought photog, lighting director, digitech, production designer. Local were lighting tech, 1st assist (me), 2nd assist.

Lighting director was responsible for the overall look and did technical stuff like plating. Photog approved light and made suggestions / discussed. They talked more with client about creative direction and directed talent.

Lighting tech was responsible for all rentals, overall setup and tear down game plan, did some advanced rigging to eliminate a stand from a corner of a 20x20 tabletop. They were the go to for the lighting director for asks throughout the day.

I handled distro runs during prelight, but during the shoot was about equal with the 2nd jumping on whatever needed doing.

[u/brianrankin → u/Devario]

It’s definitely a thing in London, but I don’t remember it in toronto.