Don’t Film People, Film With People

Institutional films, short informational videos, educational documentaries, promotional videos, etc., require a specific approach, halfway between technical rigor and creative flexibility.

Preparation: Anticipating to Better Improvise

Scripting the Unknown

The question often comes up: how do you prepare to film something when you don’t know how it will unfold? In the cultural sector, for example, an ongoing mediation session, an exhibition with visitors, a live event, etc. I think the first mistake would be to believe that nothing can be anticipated. On the contrary, it’s precisely because the situation is uncertain that you need to structure your approach. But how? And how do you do this without closing yourself off to opportunities for discovery?

The project framework determines everything: how much time do I have to shoot? How much time to edit? Half a day of shooting and one day of editing is not at all the same approach as five days of post-production, for example. This preliminary assessment prevents you from being overwhelmed by impossible-to-manage rushes. As documentary filmmaker Frederick Wiseman, who often films institutions without a pre-established script, says: « The structure of the film is found in editing, but only if you filmed with intention. » (Frederick Wiseman, cited in « Reality Fictions: The Films of Frederick Wiseman » (Thomas Benson & Carolyn Anderson, 2002)

Developing a Work Plan

I always suggest creating what we call in audiovisual jargon a “work plan.” Not to lock yourself into it, but to maintain control of time. You arrive at 9am, you film visitors entering for twenty minutes, then you do an interview with the creators for half an hour, then fifteen minutes of close-ups on the displays, etc. This time breakdown allows you to keep an eye on the clock without losing sight of your objectives, and especially to avoid finding yourself without having been able to film something important.

The work plan is not a prison: it’s a framework. If something fascinating emerges, you can completely abandon what you had planned to capture the unexpected. But without this structure, time flies so fast that we often end up regretting not having filmed an essential scene because people have already left. Discuss this work plan with your contacts: “We plan to arrive at such time, film this then that.” They might tell you: “No, I’d prefer you interview me after, not before, because I need to focus on my mediation first.”

Making the Film With People

This is probably the most important advice I can give: make your films with the people you’re filming, not about them. This nuance changes everything. Making a film “about” people means adopting a posture of distance, almost voyeurism, where you capture without really dialoguing, because we’re in that posture. Making a film “with” people means involving them in the creative process, considering them as co-authors, and we go much further, in my view.

Concretely, this means discussing in advance with the people concerned. Explain your approach, the film’s duration, what you’re trying to show. If you need to film a museum mediation session to make a three-minute capsule, ask the creators to prepare a two-minute summary of their explanation. Work with them on the content. They can even rehearse. This isn’t “cheating”: your subject isn’t spontaneity, it’s understanding a mediation. Speech can be prepared without losing its sincerity.

This approach has a double advantage: in the moment, it mobilizes the filmed people more and allows them to give you more, and then, at the editing stage, you save considerable time. Rather than having to extract two minutes of gold from a twenty-minute interview, an exhausting exercise that produces unsightly jump cuts, you already have structured and coherent material. I sometimes even suggest asking people to write their text, to really master the content. During editing, it will be surprisingly easy, and the substance is there, solid, chosen by those whose place it is.

Sound Recording: The Invisible Element That Makes Everything

Choosing the Right Tool

Sound is as important as the image, sometimes even more so. A viewer more easily forgives a shaky image than an inaudible voice. For institutional films, where speech often conveys essential information, sound quality is non-negotiable.

I discovered the Sony ICD-TX660 voice recorder on YouTube videos a few years ago, that little bar you see clipped on the collar of many content creators. It has become my tool of choice for interviews and voice capture. You activate it with a simple button, then slide a safety lock that prevents accidental shutdown. You wear it upside down from its intended use, inside the collar, and the result is remarkable. The sound is incredibly clear, even in noisy environments, because the microphone primarily picks up the voice of the person wearing it.

The benefit of this system goes beyond simple technical quality: it gives you freedom during shooting. You know the sound is running continuously, even if you’re not filming everything. You can use these recordings as voice-over during editing. In many documentaries and institutional films, you hear someone speaking while seeing illustrative images. With this voice recorder, you’re certain not to miss anything that’s said. And you can also place them on several people, which allows you to capture, very naturally, words, nuances, details, much better than with a conspicuous boom. And to have a boom, you need a boom operator! Thanks to these microphones, you can, alone, capture voices you never could have captured, even with a team of several people.

The alternative is wireless lavalier microphones, Boya brand for example, which connect directly to a smartphone via a small USB module. The advantage: the sound records directly into the phone, synchronized with the image. Editing is greatly simplified. The disadvantage: unlike the voice recorder which records all the time, here you only have sound when you’re filming. It’s up to you to choose according to your working method and your relationship with editing. You can also place two microphones on the person.

Thinking in Units of Sound Location

Beyond equipment, there’s a question of sound method that completely transforms the perception of a film: the notion of location unity. What creates the sensation of being in the same space during the sequence of different shots, for the viewer, is the continuity of sound. Even if you change shots, even if you film from different angles, if the ambient sound remains the same, we feel we’re in the same place.

Here’s how I proceed: when I film in a given location, a museum hall, an exhibition room for example, I identify “scenes,” that is, units of location. For each scene, I choose one single ambient sound that I run over all the shots in that scene. It doesn’t matter that each shot has its own direct sound: I cut them and replace them with this continuous ambiance.

Professional sound engineers know this well: after shooting a scene, they ask everyone to leave, place a microphone in the middle of the room and record ten minutes of silence. This “silence” is never truly silent, it contains the resonance of the place, background noises, the acoustics specific to that space. This is what’s called the ambiance or “room tone.” This ambiance then serves as a sound binder during editing: it runs over the entire scene, and we add other sounds on top.

When you change location in your film, change ambient sound. This variation is very pleasant for the viewer: we move visually and auditorily. On the other hand, within the same location, maintain sound continuity. If you still want to hear a specific noise, for example someone jumping, or applause, fade in and out of that particular sound, and slightly lower the general ambiance at that moment. The specific sound will be added without creating a break.

Improving Voice Intelligibility

Sometimes, despite all your efforts, a voice lacks clarity. Ambient noise covers the words, or the person speaks too softly compared to the background noise. There’s a simple technical trick to correct this during editing: the equalizer.

Sound consists of frequencies, air vibrations ranging from bass (low frequencies, around 80 Hz) to treble (high frequencies, up to 15,000 Hz). The human voice is mainly located between 800 and 2000 Hz, and what makes us understand the details of speech well are the “high mids,” that is, the treble of the voice, around 2000-4000 Hz.

With an equalizer, present in all editing software, you can increase these high-mid frequencies on the voice track. The voice becomes clearer, more “present.” Be careful not to overdo it, or it becomes nasal. And if you want this voice to really stand out from the music or ambiance, do the opposite on the other sound tracks: lower the high mids of the music playing at the same time. Thus, the voice and music no longer compete on the same frequencies, and both can be “loud,” without interfering with each other.

Also think about normalizing your voice tracks. Normalization is a function that automatically raises the volume to the maximum possible without distortion. If your recording is too low, normalize it first, then adjust with the equalizer if necessary. These two combined tools, normalization and equalization, solve the majority of vocal intelligibility problems.

Aesthetics: Building Visual Coherence

Framing and Movement

In an institutional film, aesthetics is not an end in itself, but it serves understanding. A beautiful shot is not beautiful “to look pretty”: it’s beautiful because it helps the viewer grasp what we want to show them. That said, aesthetic coherence matters enormously. A film where each shot seems to come from a different universe is confusing and tiring.

I always advise making your framing choices conscious before shooting. Will you film more in fixed shots or in camera movements? In close-ups or wide shots? Camera at eye level or at another height? None of these options is better than another, but it’s better to choose and stick to it. For example, if you’re filming mediation for children, filming at adult height or at child height radically changes the perspective. Choosing to film at child height means adopting their point of view, a strong and coherent choice.

The question of zoom also deserves reflection. Zoom or physically move closer to your subject? The difference isn’t just a matter of convenience: the geometry of the image changes. In wide-angle (without zoom), vanishing lines are pronounced, you feel the depth of space. By zooming, perspectives flatten, space seems flatter. Mixing the two in the same film creates inconsistency. If you have to choose, I recommend favoring short focal lengths (without zoom) and moving closer. It’s more dynamic and gives a sense of presence. But if you decide to film everything with zoom for a certain style, do it systematically (but your camera will then need to be very stable, because zoom amplifies vibrations).

Depth of Field: A Major Aesthetic Choice

Depth of field is the zone of sharpness in the image. When you photograph someone and the background is blurred, that’s what’s called a shallow depth of field. When everything is sharp from the foreground to the background, that’s what’s called a deep depth of field.

This question depends on two factors: the focal length (zoom or not) and the size of your device’s sensor. A phone has a very small sensor, which produces a deep depth of field: everything is almost always sharp. A reflex camera has a larger sensor, which produces a shallower depth of field: it’s easier to have a blurred background. I won’t go into the optical explanations of the phenomenon.

This difference has important aesthetic implications. In cinema, shallow depths of field are traditionally favored: the character stands out from the background, we feel a certain “cinema quality.” In classic video, everything is sharp, which gives a more “reportage” aspect. In 2009, the arrival of the Canon 5D Mark II, a reflex camera capable of filming, revolutionized audiovisual production: for the first time, you could obtain cinema aesthetics at an affordable price. Large sensors with video function democratized shallow depth of field.

For your films, the choice depends on what you’re trying to express. A shallow depth of field (reflex, zoom) creates softness, isolates the subject, gives a “cinema” touch. A deep depth of field (phone, wide-angle) anchors more in reality, shows context. No choice is better, but be aware of what your equipment imposes or allows. Sharpness is in fact more difficult to achieve when depth of field is shallow, but today’s autofocus systems are increasingly excellent at properly tracking focus on subjects.

Fixed Shots: An Underestimated Resource

I really like prolonged fixed shots, especially for capturing ambiances or situations where something interesting might happen, which we’ll then extract during editing. Imagine you’re filming a museum reception area with visitors arriving. You frame the museum display, you place the camera on a tripod (or hold it stably), and you let it run for five, even ten minutes.

Why? Because things will happen. After six minutes, maybe a group arrives, laughs, gets enthusiastic. You couldn’t have predicted it. You couldn’t have decided to film precisely at that moment. But because you let it run, you captured the scene. During editing, you only use ten seconds of this shot, the best ten seconds, those where something really happens.

Some will say: “But you have ten minutes of footage for ten seconds of film!” That’s true, but it’s not a problem. A single shot, even long, remains easy to manage. You view it in fast-forward, you spot the interesting moment, you extract it. It’s simple. The real problem would be having twenty different shots, poorly organized, poorly anticipated, that get mixed up during editing. A well-thought-out long fixed shot isn’t superfluous footage: it’s creative margin.

Editing: Saving Time Through Anticipation

Limiting the Amount of Rushes

Video editing can quickly become exhausting. You spend nights sorting, cutting, adjusting. The problem often comes from a lack of anticipation during shooting. The more rushes you have, the more complicated editing will be. It’s mathematical. So the first rule is: film less, film better.

Let’s take the example of an interview. You interview museum staff who created a museum mediation, for example. They have a lot to say, they’re passionate, they talk for twenty minutes. Your video capsule, however, must last three minutes. You find yourself with twenty minutes to condense into three. It’s a nightmare. You have to cut, restructure, connect. With each cut, there’s a slight shift in the image (what’s called a “jump cut”) that makes the editing visible and sometimes unpleasant.

The solution? Prepare the interview in advance. Tell them clearly: “The film lasts three minutes. Can you synthesize your explanation in two minutes?” Work with them on the content. They will think, structure their remarks, perhaps even rehearse. And when you shoot, you’ll have two perfectly usable minutes, which you’ll place as is during editing, interspersed with illustrative images. Ultimately, you do the editing before shooting. This may seem counterintuitive, but it’s what will save you hours, even days. And you can even shoot in sequence shot! (that is, the whole film, or parts of it, without editing, with the sequence of situations made during shooting itself).

Validating Your Technical Method

Another frequent pitfall: technical problems discovered too late. You shoot with a certain setting, a certain device, a certain microphone. You go home, you start editing, and there, catastrophe: the images don’t mix well, or the sound is unusable, or a weird setting distorts everything.

I systematically suggest doing a test before the actual shooting. You use your complete configuration, such phone, such microphone, such editing software, you film two ten-second shots, you record a voice, and you do a micro-edit. It takes fifteen minutes. If everything works, you’re safe. If you encounter a problem, you have time to change methods. And you note your good settings, so you no longer have technical questions to ask yourself later, and just apply the settings you know will work.

This technical validation avoids bad surprises. Jacques Tati experienced this with his first feature film Jour de fête in 1949: he had shot his film in color with experimental film from Thomson. Thomson never managed to develop its innovative film... Fortunately, Tati had made safety takes in black and white. The film we know is therefore the “backup” version. It’s an extreme case, but the lesson remains: anticipate technically.

Also document your settings. If you find a parameter that works well in your phone, take a screenshot. Note it somewhere. In three months, when you shoot again, this setting that seemed obvious will be forgotten. By noting everything, you save precious time and avoid making the same mistakes again.

Normalizing and Equalizing: The Basics of Sound Treatment

I’ve already mentioned the equalizer for improving voices. I want to emphasize normalization, because it’s often neglected. When you record sound, the level may be too low. During editing, you raise the volume, but you don’t dare too much to avoid distortion. Result: often, the voice volume is too low.

Automatic normalization solves this problem. The software analyzes the file and raises the volume to the maximum possible without distorting. It’s risk-free, without sound transformation and immediately effective. In all editing software (Premiere Pro, Vegas, DaVinci Resolve), this function exists. Use it systematically on your voice tracks.

Once normalized, if the voice still lacks clarity, move to equalization. But normalize first. That’s the basis. And don’t forget: these treatments apply track by track. Normalize voices, not music. Equalize the voice to make it clearer, and possibly equalize the music so it leaves room for voices. Each sound element must find its place in the frequency spectrum. And finally, to have a film whose sound volume is always at its loudest without being distorted, you can apply a “dynamic compressor” effect on the final mix. I won’t go into the details of this here, but it changes everything, your film will be as loud as others on the Internet.

Legal Aspects: Between Caution and Pragmatism

Right to Image, a Question of Distribution

Filming people inevitably raises the question of image rights. Do you need to have authorizations signed? The answer is nuanced. Legally, image rights only concern distribution, not the capture itself. In other words, if no one ever sees your images, no problem arises.

Imagine you filmed visitors in a museum without having them sign anything. Your video is then publicly broadcast on a YouTube channel for example. A person recognizes themselves and is not satisfied because they believe they didn’t give their consent. To sue you, they will have to prove that this distribution caused them harm. In the context of a benevolent institutional video, this harm is generally impossible to establish. You’re actually quite free, it’s your freedom of expression, which goes hand in hand with your ethics.

This doesn’t mean you should neglect image rights. A signed document has symbolic value: it testifies to people’s agreement, even if legally it doesn’t protect you at all. If the distributed content is defamatory, even with a signed authorization, the person can sue you. Conversely, a simple complicit look, a smile exchanged during shooting, is sometimes worth as much as a signature.

My advice: be transparent with people. Explain your project, where the video will be distributed, in what context. Show them what you’re filming. Ask them if they agree. In most cases, this transparency is enough. If the institutional framework requires it, prepare a sober and clear authorization document. But don’t let yourself be paralyzed by legal fear: ethics, benevolence and dialogue solve the majority of situations.

The Special Case of Minors

For children, the rules are stricter, because it’s their parents or legal guardians who exercise their rights on their behalf. If you film children, it’s preferable to ask for parental consent, ideally in writing. In the school context, institutions often have a general image rights authorization signed at the beginning of the year. You can rely on these pre-existing authorizations.

If you intervene in a context where you don’t have access to parents, for example a school trip to a museum, rely on supervisors (teachers, facilitators). They will tell you which children cannot be filmed. Then, if certain children cannot appear, find solutions: film them from behind, film their hands manipulating an object, simply avoid their face.

I personally don’t like blurring faces. It’s a technical solution, but it creates visual strangeness. Filming from behind or from above seems more elegant and just as respectful to me. The essential thing is to show the action, interaction, engagement, not necessarily people’s identity.

Respecting Filmed People

Beyond the legal, there’s ethics. Filming someone means capturing a part of their intimacy, their image, their voice, their existence. This responsibility should never be taken lightly. I’ve sometimes seen people interview someone, ask a destabilizing question to get emotion, the person starts crying, and congratulate themselves on having “emotion in the film.” It’s a form of manipulation, it should be avoided in my opinion.

I much prefer a collaborative approach, where the filmed people are also co-authors. Show them what you’ve done. Ask them if it suits them. Integrate their feedback. You have nothing to lose from this dialogue, on the contrary. Recently, I shot a documentary for a school and I showed them several successive versions so we could discuss them together. Not only did this reassure them, but their remarks enriched the film. They even encouraged me to embrace my subjectivity more.

This approach doesn’t take anything away from your role as author. You keep responsibility for aesthetic, narrative, technical choices. But you make them in dialogue, not from above. And paradoxically, it’s often when you accept sharing control that films become most accurate, because they’re made in trust.