Director vs DP responsibilities

[Shawn Nelson]

I've shot for four years on my own, and other indies. But my experience on pro sets is rather limited (only three). So on a pro set (let's say for an arbitrary line, movies of budget $1 mil or higher), I'm curious as to the line between the Director's and the DP's job. I get the obvious, but it's where the lines meet that has me. I also know that this varies based on the power of the individuals, but I'm curious as to the general rules.

1) Who creates the storyboards? I've heard that it's the director's job to oversee them made and that it's the DPs. This would apply to the shotlist as well.

1-a) If storyboards are created ahead of time by the director, is the DP supposed to follow them or is this simply a guideline of suggested shots?

2) Who decides when to shoot the master and when the closeups, etc.? Again, I've seen both.

3) Who decides the lighting? This seems like an obvious slam dunk for the DP. But I've seen the director give the mood, then the DP just turns to the Gaffer who then designs it out for the grips. In these situations it appeared the DP was a go-between for the director and gaffer.

[David Mullen ASC]

The director is in charge. He collaborates with the DP but it's not a relationship of equals -- the DP is there to serve the director's vision. Hopefully, though, the director hired that DP because of the DP's particular skill and aesthetic sensibilities and wants the DP's input on the visual approach, same as the director solicits creative ideas from other key players (production designer, editor, etc.)

There is no official "line" because no two directors are exactly the same. But somehow the work has to get done no matter what. Nature abhors a vacuum, so if a director is weak, disorganized, doesn't know what they want, etc. then other people will start to take over more of the director's job, whether it is the AD, DP, script supervisor, producer, actors, etc.

But even with good directors, they all have different priorities, different skills. Some are great with actors and breaking down text, but couldn't block a scene or plan the coverage to save their lives. Some are great at that but don't know how to talk to actors. Some are very visual, and some are not so interested in that aspect. And some are honest about their strengths and weaknesses, or can communicate their priorities, while some are confused, delusional, and have the worst combination of arrogance and ignorance. Some are real film history connoissuers while others hardly watch movies or have very ordinary tastes.

All of this is to say that after working with some 40 directors or so in my career, I can't really say that any two were alike in their approach, even on something as by-the-numbers as a TV series. (They'd probably say the same thing about the DP's they worked with, that they were all different.)

Storyboards and/or shotlists are really the domain of the director, although they often choose to collaborate on them. I've drawn the storyboards myself on several features (since I can draw) -- you can see some samples in this article on "Northfork":
http://www.cinematography.com/articles/northfork/
But the storyboards I drew were based on notes and conversations with the directors, some broken down shot-by-shot, some more open-ended conversations where I filled in the blanks. But still, everything has to be approved by the director.

As for following the storyboards, it just depends. On commercials, it can be more or less mandatory that the director and DP follow the agency's boards, but on a feature, storyboards and shotlists are just guides for coverage, not written in stone (unless these are efx storyboards.) On the movies where I've drawn the boards, we tend to follow them more closely because I've drawn shots that can be filmed by a camera. Storyboard artists sometimes draw things that aren't quite filmable since they cheated so many things.

You are organized so that you can be free to improvise on the shooting day, because by shotlisting or whatnot, you have a good grasp on what you hope to accomplish with the scene visually. But having done that homework, you are now more free to alter or depart from your plans on the shooting day. It's important to always be open to new ideas on the set, especially when dealing with performances.

The director tells the DP and AD what order he'd like to shoot the coverage, but most of the time, the order is really based on what's most efficient and the director will ask the AD and DP for their opinion on that (how much time to light, who gets out of the make-up chair first, etc.) Generally I always like to work from wide to tight because it makes more sense for lighting to light the space first and the widest possible angle. This determines the look of the room and the scene so you know what to match to when going in tighter. But occasionally there are good reasons to shoot a close-up first or some unrepeatable action.

As far as lighting goes, again, the director has the final word on the visual approach of the movie, which includes lighting, but obviously most directors hire DP's for their lighting skills and expect the DP to step up to the plate and deliver something. But it's also a collaboration, depending on the interest of the director in lighting. In terms of the Gaffer, some DP's leave a lot up to Gaffers but I'm not one of them -- I like lighting too much. But again, I have to collaborate with the Gaffer to make sure we come up with a workable efficient plan.

I always describe how I'm going to light the scene in general terms beforehand to the director to make sure I'm not off-base -- I don't want the director walking back to the set and going "what the heck is this?" because I don't have time to do much relighting. Sometimes a director will surprise you because they have more power to change or ignore some aspect on the script page that as a DP, I tend to follow. So if the script says "she comes into the kitchen and turns on the light" I start thinking in those terms, but a director might say "oh, I hate it when the room lights are on -- can't the kitchen be lit by moonlight and she never turns on the light?" Now sometimes I may also question a script note on scene action if I have an interesting lighting idea I want to toss at the director.

But it's not unusual for a director to question some bit of lighting -- it's within their right to do so. As long as it all can be worked out efficiently on the set. Sometimes a director will design a complicated moving shot which forces your lights in certain hidden locations that are not always optimal -- I've had a director question some angle of light and I've said "well, to get you this camera move you want, that's the only place to put the light where the camera isn't going to shadow it or see it during the move" -- and maybe when the director sees the lighting problem, he modifies the shot, or maybe not. Partly it can come down to time -- he may design a moving shot that may add 45 minutes to the lighting time, which he doesn't really have the time for. So something has to give.

I was working on a soundstage once with a house interior set and the scene said something like "He comes into the kitchen and says hi to his wife, who is washing dishes in the sink" but the director wanted to Steadicam with the actor coming through the front door, through the living room, into the kitchen, and then circle 180 degree around so that we also saw the family room and backyard -- all on a soundstage where every bit of daylight had to be faked, there was no natural light.

Well, it came done to having to light the front and back exteriors plus four large rooms of the house just to show the guy coming home and saying "hi" to his wife -- an hour of lighting. At this point, the producer had to step in and talk the director out of the shot (this is partly because we had a 16-hour shoot the day before) because we were falling behind trying to pull off one complicated moving shot after another, sometimes for fairly unimportant scenes. So we simplified the shot and it was lit in fifteen minutes instead of one hour. I mean, it was a cool shot before but what we finally came up with wasn't bad either, it just didn't see so many rooms in one move.

Now hopefully when a director has a very ambitious shot in mind, it was worked out in preproduction so if there was any chance of some advance lighting and rigging work that could be done, that could be arranged. But it's hard to do that advance work if every shot on the shooting day is going to be that complicated.

[Bruce Allen]

Wow, awesome summary. This is why I read Reduser.net. Thank you David!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Shawn Nelson]

Wow, thank you David! I really appreciate such a thorough and helpful reply. I asked for a $10 and you gave me a $100. RedUser needs to sticky this in a new Cinematography section. I'll definitely be saving this one.

[Joel Kaye]

Gotta agree - very helpful answer David. Thanks for taking the time out to post it.

[David Mullen ASC]

Obviously I'm describing the director/DP relationship on a more conventional narrative production.

If you're worried, Shawn, as young director about doing the right thing, I'd say not to worry so much, just hire supportive people and direct the movie the way you want to direct it.

The Number One thing most crews complain about is when the director doesn't know what they want, because indecision is a time-killer. Especially when the director keeps changing his mind.

[Jason Francois]

Good God David, that was amazing.

On most forums a person always feels the need to share their knowledge or impart a bit of knowledge that they've learned, but why bother because you've covered so much.

Very thoughtful and precise response. Shawn, you struck gold with your question.

thank you so much,

Jason

[David Mullen ASC]

It's a very big topic -- one could write a book on it. I'm not sure a couple of posts will really scratch the surface. You might look at some directors you admire and see how they collaborate with their DP's for some guidelines.

[Brook Willard]

Great post, David. I'll be sure that it finds its place if a new section is opened on these forums.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Yeah, directors can be all over the place in terms of how they work with the DP. Some I have worked with are totally locked into the angles they want, no budging. One of those guys was very open on the lighting style however....

Another director I recently worked with was great, he said "I totally trust the other creative people to do what they do better than me." Yep, I was the creator of the whole films lighting and color correction (he chose most angles but totally grabbed all my onset suggestions), but I ALWAYS pick the mind of the director. I just feel its only right, and, it yields better results. Plus I feel a need to create a very chummy relationship with a director, after all, everything I do can affect how the story is perceived buy the audience, and on big projects, you almost live with these people....

I actually did! My last TV pilot was shot in Maryland, instead of driving up everyday, I just stayed at the directors house with his wife. Were great friends now :)

[Sam Druckerman]

I'd like to thank you as well, David.

I hate to point out the obvious, but....

Your contributions here at reduser are quickly rising above and beyond. And that's awesome.

Cheers!

[Shawn Nelson]

So now the follow up question: if I want to be a Director first and foremost, how much should I be studying lighting, framing and camera control?

Carrying on, in an ideal situation, should I be capable of taking over for the DP should (s)he get hit by a bus?

[Craig Ryan]

Invaluable information David! I think posts like these are the reason most of us spend half our lives browsing the Red forums. This touched on a lot of things I have been dreading about when working with directors in the future. I've always been concerned about the ability to adapt to changes in the script, and what to look for/ask when talking with the director about a scene. I'm glad you cited examples with the "walks into the kitchen and turns a light on"; I'll remember to look out for that kind of thing. Thanks!

[Craig Ryan]

While we're at it; when it comes to shooting format, I have always assumed it was the director's decision, then they find a DP who is familiar with that format right? Is it appropriate for DPs to suggest using a format if they are hired before hand? And lenses and other camera-related decisions for shots, I'm assuming it depends on the director's involvment/interest/priority with the technical aspects like mentioned? :detective2:

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I say study lighting. It helps me out when the director knows that the shot he wants will be KILLER expensive to light.... You don't need to be a master, but a good base knowledge always helps you make better decisions in pre production.

[David Mullen ASC]

So now the follow up question: if I want to be a Director first and foremost, how much should I be studying lighting, framing and camera control?
Carrying on, in an ideal situation, should I be capable of taking over for the DP should (s)he get hit by a bus?

Shouldn't actually be necessary if you have an experienced Gaffer and camera assistant to help you out, but if it's a really small shoot, it wouldn't hurt either.

This is a bit paranoid, but Alexander Mackendrick once said that a director should know enough to know when the crew is lying to him...

As a director, you should be studying visual storytelling, which includes framing and camera movement, and mood created by colors, light, etc. (and of course, you should be studying drama, talking to actors, etc.)

Now if you're asking if you should know how to technically expose a shot or set the lights, it just depends on if you want to know that stuff. If you are always planning on working with a cinematographer, you don't necessarily have to delve as deeply into those details. But you should know what you are trying to accomplish visually with the scene and why. You should develop a visual design aesthetic and opinions on lighting so you can communicate more clearly to others what you want.

I would say that my favorite directors were always very interested in lighting and framing (Lean, Kubrick, Welles, Kurosawa, Ridley Scott, Malick, Michael Curtiz, Spielberg, Bergman, etc.) but that's probably why I ended up in cinematography.

I'm sure you've read this quote from Ingmar Bergman's autobiography:

"Sometimes I probably do mourn the fact that I no longer make films. Most of all I miss working with Sven Nykvist, perhaps because we are both utterly captivated by the problems of light, the gentle, dangerous, dreamlike, living, dead, clear, misty, hot, violent, bare, sudden, dark, springlike, falling, straight, slanting, sensual, subdue, limited, poisonous, calming, pale light. Light."

[Bruce Allen]

So now the follow up question: if I want to be a Director first and foremost, how much should I be studying lighting, framing and camera control?

Carrying on, in an ideal situation, should I be capable of taking over for the DP should (s)he get hit by a bus?

Definitely study lighting, framing and camera control! But if you learn one skill above all, it should be to work with the actors to tell the story, because if you've done the job right, all of the other people you've hired will be better than you at their speciality fields. If you're capable of taking over from the DP if they were hit by a bus, and doing as good a job, then you didn't hire a good enough DP, because they were only at your level. Work with people better than yourself! I always do...

The other thing you need to learn is how to lead and work with a creative team. Your primary responsibility is to the creative integrity of the film. The best way you can serve this film is by gathering, inspiring and leading the creative team - and most importantly, listening to your team and fostering collaboration - not just between the DP and you, but between the DP and the actors, the DP and the sound people, etc...

Only after this, should you worry about mastering the other disciplines (acting, DP, sound, editing, etc). Theoretically, you should be able to do everything - eg take over from actors, sound, etc too... but in practice this is impossible.

Carrying on, if your DP gets hit by the bus, you should be the one calming everyone down, deciding whether you're going to go on with the shoot, and if it really is the right thing to do to continue, then you've got to work with the producers to get a new DP and get them inspired and on board :) The film should be an organic sum of everyone's talents - if you have a new DP, you should expect to make a different film.

I hate committees more than anything else so I kinda suprised myself with this thread... but I think it's true.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Jason Francois]

If you're capable of taking over from the DP if they were hit by a bus, and doing as good a job, then you didn't hire a good enough DP, because they were only at your level. Work with people better than yourself! I always do...

www.boacinema.com

very nicely put Bruce.

[Rob Lohman]

Great stuff David!


You might look at some directors you admire and see how they collaborate with their DP's for some guidelines.

Any advice on how to get to such information? Most DVD's for example show you how stuff was done, but not how they arrived at that point and don't show the discussions they had.

[Sean Rawls]

David,
Speaking of writing a book on this subject, did you co-author the book "Cinematography" with Kris Malkiewicz? It might just be a coincidence, but I'm half way through and its very informative!


Cheers,
Sean

[krd]

Any advice on how to get to such information? Most DVD's for example show you how stuff was done, but not how they arrived at that point and don't show the discussions they had.

Don't know what David might suggest, but there's a terrific book called "Masters of Light", which features extended interviews with world-famous DPs about the films they worked on. It was published in the 90s, but is still available.

Also, there's the documentary, "Visions of Light" by Todd McCarthy, with many DP interviews.

If the want to go at it from the other direction -- researching the directors first -- many currently available books will offer comments from their collaborators about working methods, etc. For example, if you want to know how Kubrick worked, with comments from his DP, check the Michel Ciment book.

[planet e]

Great stuff David!



Any advice on how to get to such information? Most DVD's for example show you how stuff was done, but not how they arrived at that point and don't show the discussions they had.


sidney lumet has also written a very good book, "making movies" where he unveils the collaborative processes which resulted in some of film's most memorable moments. in my opinion, he is one of the most under-rated of all the great directors. his diverse body of work shows his incredible range--he rarely tells the same story twice, which is very unusual, in an industry where genre and repetition are handsomely rewarded.

[Sean]

Wow. What an insightful post. I'm curious about something along these lines. I'm used to doing my own camera-work when I direct (they're ultra-low-budget affairs after all). But on a recent shoot, I had a great DP. As I was feeling time pressure, having taken on an overly ambitious shot list for the day, I announced we were moving on to the next shot. The DP felt I should check with him before moving on--he didn't like the take (it turned out he didn't feel focus was nailed, but I hadn't noticed that). Would I be well advised to check with the DP that he's satisfied before announcing that we're moving on? Or should I just assume that if I'm happy we're moving on, and if someone like the DP saw something they're not happy with they'll raise it. I certainly WANT to know if the focus wasn't nailed.I just am not entirely sure of the protocol of a larger set.

[Leo Ticheli]

David Mullen's post on the relationship between Director and DP is the best I've read on this or any other forum.

Bravo!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

[donatello b]

"he didn't like the take (it turned out he didn't feel focus was nailed"

IMO the DP/operator should mention any concerns at the end of the take so Director & DP can decide if another take is needed ...

[Michael Schrengohst]

And don't forget about editing! A DP with some editing experience will be very helpful, especially for first-time directors.
And on the same note, if you come from an editing perspective don't kill your Dp with unnecessary coverage that bogs
the whole production down. I come from both perspectives, I have been editing where adaquate cover footage was not shot
and I have been a Dp on shoots where the director shot every angle and perspective so many times that it was just overkill.

[Dan Blanchett]

Reflections: Twenty One Cinematographers at Work (http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Twenty-One-Cinematographers-At-Work/dp/0935578161) is a pretty good book that goes into some detail about the director-DP relationship from many perspectives. There is a great chapter about Jack Green, ASC, as he discusses at length Clint Eastwood's approach to directing. Very interesting read.

[David Mullen ASC]

In the enthusiasm after a good take, it's not unusual for a director to exclaim "Perfect! Print that! We're moving on!" only to find out there may have been a problem with the take (focus, audio, etc.)

It's just a minor annoyance but the more experienced directors will take a moment to ask the camera and sound people if that was OK for them, and if so, then exclaim loudly that they were moving on.

Sometimes I've noticed a minor focus mistake even on the video tap, so after the director has told everyone to move on, the focus puller will come up to me and say "but I buzzed the actor when they turned and walked away..." and I've had to tell the AC not to worry about it because it was not worth doing another take over. AC's will try to get focus perfect from action to cut, but if you know how the scene will be cut, you know when you'll be off that angle so it doesn't have to be 100 percent perfect, especially when there's no reason for the actor to have to do it again. I'd rather have a few minor focus mistakes but not wear-out the actor, than to do it over and over again trying to achieve technical perfection. There is something to be said for maintaining momentum on a film set. It's like a shark, you have to keep it moving.

[Casey Green]

Yes, thanks for the great reply, David. This type of information not only benefits Directors and DPs, but all cast and crew members on a production. The better we understand what each other's challenges are, the smoother the production goes. I've witnessed many of the things that you referred to on various sets over the years - it couldn't have been summarized more concisely... thanks again, I appreciate the chance to learn more.

[Tom Lowe]

David, what director have you worked with who was the most interested and knowledgeable about cinematography, lighting and visual storytelling? Was it a good experience? I can imagine trying to work with someone like Kubrick and being a little intimidated by his incredible knowledge of photography and visual storytelling. Then again, it might be a real thrill. I guess personalities come into play at that point.

Also, have you ever had a director really spend time with you in pre-production talking about ideas for the photography? Maybe inviting you over to his house to watch some classic movies and talk about the way they were done, etc?

[Sanjin Jukic]

Watch a video (14 min) about the troubles happened during a collaboration between Andrey Trakovsky and Sven Nykvist when they were shooting "The Fire Scene" in "The Sacrifice".

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/THE_SACRIFICE.jpg

Download Quicktime file (114 MB) during the next 24 hours. For FTP download the best use Firefox on both OS platforms.
ftp://84.112.86.213/Library/FTPServer/FTPRoot/Movies/THE_SACRIFICE.mov

[Tom Lowe]

damn i want to see that clip but the download speed is like 6.5KB/s.

[Poi Boy]

I'd like to see it as well but not enough to change browsers.
Aloha
-A

[David Mullen ASC]

David, what director have you worked with who was the most interested and knowledgeable about cinematography, lighting and visual storytelling? Was it a good experience?

Well, I've been talking to Roberto Schaefer, ASC about shooting a movie that he wants to direct someday, so I suppose if that ever happens, it would be Roberto as being the most knowledgeable about cinematography among my directors...

There have been several that were good with visuals and understood lighting - Michael Polish being the best. As for knowing cinematography, some had enough knowledge to shoot their own smaller projects in Super-16, Super-8, or HD, etc.

Dale Launer, a screenwriter (Ruthless People, My Cousin Vinnie, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels) and director, has posted once here -- he owns his own F900 and has a reservation for a RED camera. I saw a short film that he shot himself on the F900 and it looked very good.

[Tom Lowe]

So it sounds like, so far, you really haven't met your match in terms of a director who is a photography or visual genius, unless Polish might fit that description.

BTW, I'm still working on seeing Northfork, and I just know I'm going to love it from all the clips and stills and trailers and descriptions. Expect a lengthy thread from me once I see it! :)

[Sanjin Jukic]

damn i want to see that clip but the download speed is like 6.5KB/s.

I will extend downloads to 48 hours. They were already about 20 successful downloads from all over the world.

Watch a video (14 min) about the troubles happened during a collaboration between Andrey Trakovsky and Sven Nykvist when they were shooting "The Fire Scene" in "The Sacrifice".

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/THE_SACRIFICE.jpg

Download Quicktime file (114 MB) during the next 24 hours. For FTP download the best use Firefox on both OS platforms.
ftp://84.112.86.213/Library/FTPServer/FTPRoot/Movies/THE_SACRIFICE.mov

[Sean Rawls]

I just watched that clip. Pretty ridiculous. After the first debacle, the camera jam, Sven Nykvist looks like a kid that just broke a lamp. I can't believe they rebuilt the entire house in three days. Really emphasizes the importance of good communication between director and DP (and the pyrotechnics crew).

[Sanjin Jukic]

The next clips are coming soon about how Kubrick, Kurosawa, Antonioni were doing. Stay tuned.

[Michael Schrengohst]

That was funny....Boys and their toys...today they would have
shot the actors on a green screen and the VFX crew would have
a created a virtual house. Ahhhhh the good old days.

[Sean]

I can't believe they only had one camera for the first try! Jeeezus. Even I'd insist on two or three or four cameras if I only had one chance to burn down the house. I noticed that when they tried the second time with the re-built house, there were TWO cameras on separate dollies.

[Sanjin Jukic]

After "Seven Samurai" Kurosawa was always shooting with three (3) cameras simultaneously.
Now I invite you to visit his crew in this short clip (6 min, 49.2 MB, Quicktime mov file).

http://www.sanjinjukic.com/extras/KUROSAWA.jpg

FTP link below open for download in the next 48 hours:
ftp://84.112.86.213/Library/FTPServer/FTPRoot/Movies/KUROSAWA.mov

[scriptor]

this is the cinematographer responsabilities according a ASC 2003 publication:
http://www.imago.org/main/public_html/_htm_cinematography/responsabilities.htm
++

[Sanjin Jukic]

this is the cinematographer responsabilities according a ASC 2003 publication:
http://www.imago.org/main/public_html/_htm_cinematography/responsabilities.htm
++

Very nice writtings. But one is a written word document and another is a reality of movie making.

[scriptor]

well it is just for doc and maybe it have been wrote by people confronted to this reality
after all the precedent post i dont have a lot of think to say to contribute to the reality(ofmakingamovie) well i m an editor, i choose editing as a first step to learn this reality because in my mind, the movie is almost done in the editing stage
i use to not see a lot the DP in the post-prod in any picture format i have work
just for technical purpose (and fault) or wiz other people for the preview etc they liked to see the shot they love or they have light during hours of preparation but they are not interrested by the picture final destiny and dont have and want any responsabilities about the story structure, what or what is not say to the spectator etc
the director is alway here from the begining to the end and have this responsabilities to finish the film when other are gone, in my POV he must think about that all the time on the stage because the light must tell the story too just as anything in the picture
in my own experience of a stage i see that thing are not all in there right place and the shot are never all done if at least one person dont really really want that

but on my last editing, a 35mm, the DP come and say think like "you can't show this shoot, it's impossible" or "you have to put this one" and other thing like that he finished "i m gonna talk to the director"
then some day after the director come i start to say "well the DP says that..." the director look at me and grabbing my arm with furious eye he shouts "FORGET THE DP"
there is something i d like to say but offtopic: the editor can cut or not against the director opinion if the producer agree and the director have to thrust the editor or remember very well all of his shot
finally in my last idea, the director have the responsabilities to replace any people in the production from the DP to the editor because sometime people die and you dont have time or money to replace them and the movie have to been make and as far i know movie are making prior with light so i dont understand how you can be a director without any idea of light
++

[KETCH ROSSi]

Obviously I'm describing the director/DP relationship on a more conventional narrative production.

If you're worried, Shawn, as young director about doing the right thing, I'd say not to worry so much, just hire supportive people and direct the movie the way you want to direct it.

The Number One thing most crews complain about is when the director doesn't know what they want, because indecision is a time-killer. Especially when the director keeps changing his mind.

Hi David,

I'm very pleased that you are also in our Reduser forum, I have followed severall of your posts here and there, all very informative and to the point as in particular the Digital vs. film.

I first had the placer to post exchange with you on the Cinematography forum wen I was buyng equipment for my new production co., I was researching the best camera to buy and settle for the Viper but then Red come across my path and after reserving 3 of them I just purchased a XH-A1 camera for Prep.

But in this particular post of yours I fill great about your ansewr as I'm not a young Director I will be first time Director, so no expirience but a very very large Soul filled with passion to be the STORYTELLER I wanted to be since I drove by Sofia Loren in Rome wile they were shootting, I was Just a young boy then.

I know wath I want, just do not know very much how to get it, but as you say, I will strive to get very supportive crew, and wile I will tell them wath I want I will leave planty of room for them so to use there knowlege.

Thanks again for your time spent in responding and informing those of as that needed most in the begin of our journey in to the biz.

Ciao

KETCH ROSSI