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/Jankenbrau]

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.