ALWAYS CONSIDER THE VIEWER

The decision seems simple enough. How the viewer might be affected or impacted by your choice to...

• Tripod this shot or just shoot it off the shoulder?
• Set up some lights or just use available lighting?
• Get in close or just stay back and compress the shot?
• Shoot a sequence or just look for some file tape later?
• Pull out that wireless or just get it off the shotgun mic?

The common thread running through all of the above questions is the word "just"-- that lackadaisical approach to television production I call, "just gonna" television. Not to be confused with the "do 3 packages today and while you’re resting, pick up a couple of VO’s and don’t forget that I’ll need a live shot at 5 and 6 tonight" method of television production. I’ve heard enough stories to know this method is alive and well all over the country. I also realize that it requires no creativity, extreme mobility, short cuts and valium. Both methods compromise the quality of the product- one, in exchange of time and effort, the other in exchange of resources and common sense. Both methods represent a trend in television production today. But it’s the first method, the "just gonna" method, that I’ll address in this article.

There is nothing easy about television and we shouldn’t pretend that it is. It’s takes a lot just to generate a picture, so why hit the brakes after going to so much trouble in the first place?  ‘Just gonna" television is making bad decisions, the result of which can’t readily be seen. Photographers often have a lot of help making bad decisions. Reporters, producers will say, "Oh, you don’t need that tripod. We’re ‘just gonna’ run up here and grab a quick sound bite." Well, that bite then turns into a 20-minute interview and the key component of your story- and then you’ve got the entire image at about 4.2 on the Richter scale. The result to the viewer is an unmotivated, shaky interview and they’re distracted by it.

Here’s another common choice and result. Someone will say, "Oh, we’re not gonna need any lights for this. There’s plenty of available light already. Besides, we’re ‘just gonna’ be a couple of minutes." While technological advancements have made cameras very forgiving in low light situations, color temperature is still compromised without a proper amount of lighting. The viewer may not immediately notice an under-exposed image, but provided the choice over time; they’ll become comfortably attracted to the better images.

The intent here is not to implore style over substance. When the choice becomes get the shot or miss it by fumbling with lights or tripods, then by all means, get the shot. After all, content is still king. But understand that every decision made in the field and in the edit bay will impact your viewer, either positively or negatively. It may not happen immediately. But over time, viewers will either like or dislike the images they see. We must be conscious and knowledgeable of exactly what affect each decision made has on the viewer.

Former three-time NPPA editor of the year, John Hyjek, calls it "remembering what the haystack looks like while you’re searching for the needle". He occasionally steps back from the editor and just watches the story like a viewer would. Knowing what the piece looks like to the viewer presents Hyjek the opportunity to make better editing decisions.

We can’t just guess at what might work well for our viewers - we have to know. We can’t presume that just because we see others swish pan and cut fast and it looks cool that we can emulate it well without thorough exposure and experience of the techniques and how best and when to perform them There’s a great amount of logic and reasoning behind that particular style. Most of which is centered on basic visual language skills.

That great American icon, Dilbert, once said, "Wild guesses are a surrogate for knowledge." Don’t guess, know—and if you don’t know, learn.

And always consider the viewer.