Most production workflow advice sounds good in theory. Some of it works in practice. Most of it produces more prep work than time saved on set. After thirteen years of actually working through production schedules, the patterns that genuinely save hours separate from the patterns that just sound good.
Here are seven workflow patterns I keep coming back to, plus a list of patterns that sound good but don't deliver.
1. Pre-blocked monitors at video village
What it is: Before the day starts, the DIT or AC sets up the monitors so the director, AD, and script supervisor can see what they need to see without setup time on set.
What it saves: 10-30 minutes per setup that would otherwise go to monitor adjustments.
How to do it: Pre-determine seating positions and viewing angles in production prep. Set up the day before when possible. Run cable routes that don't require redoing each setup.
Why most productions skip it: It feels like over-prep. The minutes per setup feel small.
Why it works: Monitor setup time accumulates. Across a 12-hour day with 8 setups, the savings compound to substantial hours.
2. Lens charts at the camera cart
What it is: Specific lens charts (focal length to coverage at various distances) printed and mounted at the camera cart for instant reference.
What it saves: 5-15 minutes per setup figuring out coverage and lens choice.
How to do it: Print specific charts for the lens set being used. Laminate. Mount visibly at the camera position.
Why most productions skip it: Crews assume the AC and DP "know the lenses." Reference is faster than memory for specific decisions.
Why it works: Specific decisions about coverage are made faster with reference than without. The charts also help conversations between DP and director happen faster.
3. DIT-driven LUT management
What it is: The DIT manages all LUT work — on-set monitors, dailies, cards going to post — through a single coherent system rather than each department managing separately.
What it saves: Hours of post-production confusion. On-set hours when monitors don't match.
How to do it: Brief the DIT during prep. Establish single source of truth for LUTs. Verify everything matches before first day of shooting.
Why most productions skip it: DIT scope expansion costs money. Productions that don't see the savings cut the DIT scope.
Why it works: When everyone is looking at the same image, decisions are faster and more consistent. The post-production handoff is also substantially smoother.
4. Lighting plot before each new location
What it is: Before crew arrives at a location for the first time, the gaffer and DP have walked through and established a specific lighting plot — what fixtures go where, what order they're lit in, what the contingencies are.
What it saves: 30-90 minutes per location setup.
How to do it: Tech scouts with the gaffer well in advance of shoot day. Specific notes about fixtures, positions, power requirements. Communication with the unit before arrival.
Why most productions skip it: Tech scouts feel like overhead. They're always done; they're often not done with sufficient detail.
Why it works: Lighting time on day-of is the largest variable in setup time. Pre-planning compresses that variable.
5. Camera A and B in defined relationship
What it is: The two cameras have a specific defined relationship for each setup — A wide and B tight, A profile and B head-on, A handheld and B sticks, etc.
What it saves: Decision time on set. Confusion about coverage. Sometimes whole setups when both cameras are positioned suboptimally.
How to do it: Block in pre-production with both camera positions explicitly considered. Document the planned relationships in the shot list. Adjust on day with intent rather than improvising.
Why most productions skip it: Two-camera coverage often emerges as "let's also have a B-cam" rather than as planned-from-start coverage.
Why it works: When both cameras are working with intent, coverage is more comprehensive and faster to capture. When B-cam is improvised, much of its footage doesn't end up usable.
6. Pre-rigged lighting for known setups
What it is: For known setups (ones you've already established the lighting plan for), the rigging crew pre-rigs the lights before the camera unit arrives.
What it saves: 30-120 minutes per setup that would otherwise wait for lighting setup.
How to do it: Schedule a pre-rig crew with sufficient time. Communicate setups clearly. Verify the plan with the gaffer before pre-rigging.
Why most productions skip it: Pre-rig labor costs money. Productions that don't budget for it can't use it.
Why it works: Camera waiting for lighting is the most common single source of on-set delay. Pre-rigging removes the delay.
7. Honest call sheets with realistic timing
What it is: Call sheets that reflect what the day will actually take rather than aspirational timing that everyone knows isn't real.
What it saves: Crew morale. Clear communication. Accurate planning.
How to do it: Build call sheets with the AD based on realistic setup times for the specific work. Don't pad; don't shortchange. Plan for what's actually going to happen.
Why most productions skip it: Producers want optimistic call sheets. ADs sometimes acquiesce.
Why it works: When call sheets reflect reality, departments can plan effectively. When they're aspirational, departments work in confusion about what's actually happening.
What sounds good but doesn't deliver
Patterns I see recommended frequently that don't actually save time on most productions:
Detailed shot lists with exact framing planned. The detailed shot lists rarely survive contact with on-set reality. The prep time often exceeds the on-set savings. Loose shot lists with clear coverage intent typically work better than detailed framings.
Storyboards for non-VFX work. Storyboards have value for VFX-heavy work and for specific complex sequences. For typical narrative coverage, the time spent on storyboards rarely produces commensurate savings on set.
Detailed lighting schemes for every scene. Lighting plans should be specific for complex scenes. For straightforward dialog coverage, detailed lighting plans add prep time without saving on-set time.
"Fly" days with no lighting. The "let's shoot fast and cover the story without elaborate lighting" approach sometimes works for specific applications. For most narrative work, the time saved on lighting comes back as time spent in post trying to fix what wasn't lit.
Department head pre-meetings every day. Daily department head meetings sound good. They consume substantial time. The information often could be communicated more efficiently.
"Innovative" workflow patterns. Workflow innovation has its place. Most productions benefit from established patterns rather than experimental ones. The experimental patterns often produce learning rather than savings.
Heavy second-unit work. Second unit can save time for specific applications. For most narrative work, second unit produces footage that gets cut. The savings on first unit often don't materialize.
What productions actually do with this
The patterns that work require investment beyond the script and shot list.
What the investment looks like:
Sufficient prep time. The patterns can't happen without prep.
Department leads who plan with detail. Gaffer pre-planning. AC organization. DIT setup.
Producers willing to pay for the patterns. Pre-rig labor, DIT scope, sufficient tech scout time.
ADs who plan call sheets honestly.
DPs who lead production planning rather than only executing on the day.
The patterns exist; using them requires production culture that supports them.
What I've learned across thirteen years
Major lessons from working through production schedules:
The variable that matters most isn't equipment or process — it's crew quality.
The second variable is planning depth proportional to the project scale.
The third variable is willingness to invest in preparation rather than over-relying on day-of improvisation.
The fourth variable is producer support for the patterns that work.
The patterns I've described above operate on top of these variables. They don't replace them.
What the most efficient productions have in common
Across the productions I've worked on, the most efficient share specific characteristics:
Substantial prep time before shooting begins.
Strong department heads who plan within their disciplines.
DPs who participate in production planning rather than only camera planning.
Producers willing to invest in efficiency-producing infrastructure.
ADs who run honest schedules.
Crew chemistry built across multiple days of working together.
Specific established workflow patterns rather than constant innovation.
The least efficient share opposite characteristics — insufficient prep, weak planning, ad-hoc workflow, no investment in the patterns that compound across days.
What I tell prospective DPs about workflow
For DPs developing their craft:
Learn workflow as a craft itself. The patterns matter; mastering them takes years.
Build relationships with crew leads who plan well. Working with strong gaffers, ACs, and DITs across multiple productions develops shared workflow that compounds.
Invest in prep. The temptation to skip prep to make budget targets often costs more than it saves.
Develop your own workflow toolkit. Specific patterns you trust to deliver. Specific people you trust to execute. Specific approaches to specific common challenges.
Resist constant innovation. Workflow patterns get more efficient when used repeatedly. Constantly trying new patterns prevents the patterns from maturing.
The honest takeaway
Production workflow is craft. Like any craft, it develops through practice over years.
The patterns that work share characteristics: substantial prep, clear communication, investment in efficiency-producing infrastructure, established rather than experimental approaches.
The patterns that don't work share opposite characteristics: insufficient prep, ad-hoc execution, reliance on day-of improvisation, constant pattern-innovation that prevents maturation.
For DPs trying to work efficiently: invest in the patterns that compound. Build relationships with crew leads who plan well. Resist the patterns that sound good but don't deliver.
That's how the actually-efficient productions operate. Not through innovation but through mastery of workable patterns applied with discipline.
That's the trade.
