Great advice thepalalias, thanks for your insight.

Next question: Will having a separate DP make it easier to get funding?

The answer is likely yes. Ive grown up around a lot of people with experience starting, running and funding everything from small businesses to large corporations and Ive also grown up several screenwriters. Funding is a question of what you present vs. the experiences, preconceptions, hopes, desires and instincts held by the people with money. If they are more familiar with failure than success in the scenario you provide, then they will be unlikely to provide support (monetary or otherwise).

A problem often shared by entrepeneurs and young directors alike, is to (unconsciously or consciously) consider everyone involved an extension of themselves, like additional limbs. This makes it very difficult to delegate because there is a sense that everything would fall apart without them and they have to do everything themselves.

When a venture capitalist sees this, they see two things: 1) a venture that will have difficulty expanding because the force behind it can`t delegate and 2) a disaster waiting to happen.

Once you prove your success with a given approach (financially) then it will be easier to get additional funding. But if you want people to give you money, it often helps to look at what they require in order to feel comfortable doing that.

Second question: Can the results of collaborating with someone you work well with (either as a director or DP) exceed what you create on your own? Can it make it easier to work and less likely that mistakes will be made?

I would say the answer is yes and some of the most respected and visually evocative directors of all time (Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, etc.) would agree.

If you think shooting a film is hard, ..... my respect goes to the good Wedding shooters ... now that's pressure ....and i don't shoot weddings.

Wow... Didn't expect this response! Lots to consider. Thanks guys for you different view points and support. From my point of view, I guess I love doing both so it's a tough call but in the end of the day it's the story that counts. And what's going to be the best method of getting the story done.

Well, I guess I'll put it another way... Does it make sense that there are DP's? Yes. But, does it make sense, in the philosophy of filmmaking, that these jobs should remain separate... especially now when we're seeing cinema-grade images in real time with tiny cameras? Nope. I don't think so. If a director truly has a vision... aka see's the shots in his head... then there is no need. A director should be seeing the shots, edits, and music in his mind before they even start shooting. If you can't... well you're not a director then. Sorry.

Many say that the director should just focus on the story and performances, but EVERYTHING effects these! Every angle... every cut... changes the audiences perception of the performances, so to say that a directors responsibility is only the "performances" and "story" is removing about 90% of what makes films... well, films. They aren't live theater. An oscar worthy emotional performance shot with a 14mm lens from 30 feet away at a 20 ft high angle with circus music is not going going to play to the audience the same way as a 70mm close up with a single violin music track.

There are no performances. The visual aren't separate. The story doesn't stand on it's own. They are ALL ONE continuous stream of aural and visual information! To really "direct" you need to understand how they ALL work to make ONE experience. Sure you can hire the best of the best and crank out something that audiences will like, but this is kind of missing the point. There is a difference between having a VISION, and having an IDEA. Anyone can have an "idea" for something they would like to see, then hire a bunch of people to make it work. But it takes a specific talent to actually see a movie, before it exists, deliver that experience to others, and have them respond the way you did upon first visualizing it.

I mean seriously... If you hire a great DP, oscar winning screen writer, the best actors, the best editors, have an amazing composer, and the best AD's and script supervisors money can buy... then I'd like to meet the person that CAN'T direct that movie. Sure, some people might botch it up. But I think those that could, would strongly outweigh those that couldn't. Because at that point, directing becomes nothing more than "opinion giving". I can't count the number of sets I've been on where the director just sits in a chair watching a monitor and telling everyone to "do another one" until they see something they like. As an aspiring director myself, I never want to be this person, and find it insulting to the artform that some just gets to sit on their ass while others slave to create a professional product for them to take credit for.

There's a big difference between hiring an editor and cinematographer to save time vs. hiring an editor and cinematographer because you can't do those jobs. And, sadly to day, I've seen more of the latter. I've heard more times that I can count, people saying things like "oh I don't know how to shoot anything... I'm a director" or "Oh, I don't edit, I'm just involved with the creative stuff." These people deserved to get punched in the face. How they got to the director position is beyond me.

Might just be the mind set of how people grew up and a cultural thing too. Back in the midwest and east cost, if you can't do something, you learn it... or don't do it. Out here in LA, if you can't do something, it must then be below you... and other people should do it for you.

Wow, that turned into kind of a rant. Sorry guys... !

My opinion may not matter much as I am just in the middle of filming my first "real" project. But just in case, here's my opinion. You can do both, but its a lot more work and you have a lot more to watch out for, so something might slip past you without noticing. I think its best to have a separate DP. That isn't too say its not possible to DP and direct by yourself, like you said, it will save you the strife of having to explain, you can just do it yourself. But you do run that risk of missing something because you are so consumed by all the different jobs you are doing. I would just say, try doing it yourself and maybe have an assistant on hand to maybe keep an eye out. Best of luck, trailer looks great.

Your cinematography and angles look great. I do both myself, but it can stress you. I usually make sure we have good rehearsals with the actors, so I don't have to do much once I am behind the lens. P.S. Cant wait to see your film. Great story and the trailer succeeds in pacing and building interest!

I think Bwhitz summed it up best....its all about what you know. The more you know about every aspect of filmmaking, from the lighting, the sound, the actual camera work, etc the more versatile you will be overall, and the less people you will need to depend on. To say that a single man cannot come up with an original idea, create storyboards, interview potential actors, create the mood/tone of the film through creative camerawork and direct those actors involved is kind of self-demeaning. Give me one person who can effectively operate a boom pole and we're in business. If it doesn't come out that well, we'll do it again..after all, we're not shooting on film here.

azza act, I like the idea of the movie, I come from a long line of Irish bare knuckle fighters. We are still one of the largest gypsy clans in Ireland. The boxing in the movie is a little Hollywoodish, but only a boxer would ever notice. The general public I am convinced likes to see non-authentic boxing as portrayed in The Fighter and Rocky...real boxing technique, while more effective at knocking people out, doesn't look as good on film. The filming is great, I love the freeze frame shot, reminds me of the movie Snatch. Good stuff!

At least since going digital, Robert Rodriquez has been his own DP, editor, production designer, special effects supervisor, writer....and occasionally caters, ;P. Seriously everything but the catering, he's said he does it because it saves money and he has the right vision for what he wants and it's fun to do all those jobs.

Though, to be fair, you can't do all those jobs without something suffering, and in his case it's writing. He's not a very good writer, or at least he doesn't put as much time into writing as he should.

He's said he does his own DP'ing because with HD monitors now, what he see's in the monitor is what he sees when editing so he just lights it until it looks good in the monitor. So, what kind of monitor will you use?

@brianluce is without a doubt correct. The fact that they are separate roles is not an industry conspiracy. On a film set, there is a limited amount of time to get anything done, and it needs to be done at a high level of execution. Having different people focus exclusively on smaller constituents of the whole will make each area better. By communicating with the cast and crew, the director ensures that all of those individual areas are bringing what's needed to make the film he or she has imagined.

@rsquires And Bo Jackson played pro baseball and pro football. There are very few Bo Jacksons. Don't fool yourself.

The real question, IMO - does it make sense for you to do both? Can you benefit from dividing the roles, how could you divide the roles and who would you like to work with?

For instance, If I were to direct and DP a feature simultaneously I would most likely try to find a) an assistant director that I trust or b) a lighting designer that I trust or most likely both. For me, the assistant director would need to have good eye for the story / scrutiny over what the actors do.. Similarly, the lighting designer would go about his work without me having to do any adjustments. In this instance (as director / DP) I would be more geared towards action that takes place in the frame and how it looks, rather than working on the actors' performances - hence a second eye / voice from a different perspective would be good to have. Another thing, I would need plenty of time for planning (shot by shot), and a plan that is good enough to stick with. It would take ages to get everything in place otherwise and most likely end up in chaos.

Sure, the last part is much similar if you have separate director and dp - but there is more leeway to make on-the-fly adjustments.

Basically - I don't care about established roles since long before, but I care about synergy. That each and every one involved can bring something good to the table. I think that is what you should consider, when drawing up the "roles". Industry standards are one thing, they serve a purpose - but those purposes might not serve the conditions for your production.