Liam

I gave up editing because of this recently, was never very good, and took time away from shooting for me.

I guess it all depends. On so many factors. 
Do you have the time to multi-task? Everyone works at a different pace. I feel I can, on an average, do things at a much faster pace than the average person. And yet, there are many things I do slowly, because either I like to take my time doing doing them, or I am genuinely slow at those particular taste. So I should, maybe assign those take to someone else, or improve my skills and speed doing them. The first seems easier as ab option.
While I have learnt how to play a fee instruments and can carry a tune, I know Absolutely Nothing about composino music. I am genuinely interested in it, but right now, trying that, may be a bad option. I should only indulge in it when time is a luxury and when I can find myself some easy and quick instructions/ instructor.
I love writing, first and foremost,  and I have realized that I am pretty decent at cinematography too. But when you direct your film, you shouldn't get too tied down with too many other distractions. Also and lot of directors realise that cinematography is something they do only till such time as they find a great cinematographer (ala Nolan and Wally Phister).
Filmmaking is a group effort, at the end of the day. And filmmaking is a LOT more about management skills, that creativity. You have to be able to get work out of people, in completely the way you imagined things. And since the director leads a film, he is actually the de facto head of the management team. 
 

If you only suck at half of it you're way ahead of most of us.
I think the advice that you should specialize is mostly given as career advice. It makes sense. If you spend half the time doing something, you won't get as good as if you spent all your time doing that one thing. And it's difficult to market yourself as someone who does two things okay instead of one thing well. (This isn't as true in smaller markets. Outside LA, London, NYC, Vancouver, etc. generalists or people who run their own one-man companies can thrive. It's harder in a big market.) If you're not that worried about supporting yourself in a big market, just do whatever you want! If you're excellent at one technical, often tedious thing and good at networking (say, you learn Avid or Nuke relatively well, which can be done in six months, or you learn to pull focus and join the union) you can make six figures right off the bat, or close to it. And then from there you can support yourself in a big city (well, barely), learn from others, and see and observe how it's done. Then you can either learn more about what you're doing or observe what other people in entirely different departments are doing. David Fincher took this route, not because he wanted to do it all himself, but because he wanted to be able to so he knew no one was slacking on set. Or you can take that same route but find other people to bring onto your projects instead of learning from them! Once you get signed to a major agency like CAA or get a creative director job at a big company (which can take five years or more, admittedly) or get signed to a production company as an advertising director, then your agent or company will put together packages of talent for you when you direct. I worked on a project with a first-time director who had no technical skill, but he did a really good job writing and directing because of the team they put together and that he collaborated with. Another friend of mine was signed to one of CAA's top agents right out of school and he didn't know what an f stop was. Maybe he did, he just didn't care. He was a storyteller with a great crew. Another friend had a similar experience, signed to a major company right out of high school. Again, not technical, but visionary.
A LOT of festival winners and Vimeo sensations secretly have major agencies and production companies (think CAA, WME, the Mill, etc.) doing the dirty work. They say if you wear every hat you get judged by the one that first you worst. But if you wear them all well (or even half of them), more power to you. Maybe you will have to pick up the slack for someone some day, maybe it will help you run the set faster. That knowledge will help out every step of the way. But you DEFINITELY don't need it. At all. And the fear that you do can hold you back. 
If money is not your main consideration, and if you're not struggling to pay the bills in a big city (which can kill your success; it's not always a good idea) just follow your bliss. I think Robert Rodriguez and Steven Soderbergh would do every job on set if they could because they come from a technical and formal background. But a lot of people are simply very passionate about one thing, and that one thing is why they get hired. Most directors aren't super technical, they just have great taste and people skills and management skills and are good storytellers.
This is even true of film schools. Some of the best (Columbia, for instance) provide less technical education than a day on this forum would. Some of the best (AFI cinematography) provide more technical experience than you can find on the entire internet. By far. It depends what the student wants!
If you can do what you want, do what you want. I wish I had the luxury but I gotta pay rent lol.

I feel you. I love doing my own cinematography , maybe because it's kind of challenging to me, and I'm kind of a control freak, but recently I've worked a few times with a really talented and nice DP who owns a Red with Schneider lenses (he's even shot stuff for Schneider for their booth at NAB) on another director's project and he's offered his services. Ed David on this board has offered too. And lately I've been thinking I'm not really doing myself any favors by doing my own cinematography, and that I might even be holding myself back. But I still have that nagging feeling driving me to do it all myself. It's compulsive. Maybe if I let a good DP shoot one thing for me, I'll never ant to go back to doing it myself.

I hear a lot that you should focus on one job, especially in filmmaking, because it's a "collaborative process". But my spirit guide lately has been Jim Lujan (writer/character designer/animator/voice actor/composer/editor). Today I was looking a lot at where to start learning to compose music for films.. which is a job made up entirely of skills I don't have (but with time, anyone can do basically anything of course). Then I started thinking I was being dumb.. I still want to believe at least learning some of everything is going to be helpful, even if you never end up doing it, just for ease of communication with your team maybe (actually I'm keen to do it all as well) - but I know I'm closed minded at times and possibly in the minority, so I'd like to hear some opinions.
I know Tarantino was very relieved to get the advice from Terry Gilliam "As a director, you don't have to do that. Your job is to hire talented people who can do that -- Your job is explaining your vision. Your job is articulating to them what you want on the screen."
Is the biggest risk that I do it all and just don't realize that I suck at half of it?

I hear a lot that you should focus on one job, especially in filmmaking, because it's a "collaborative process". But my spirit guide lately has been Jim Lujan (writer/character designer/animator/voice actor/composer/editor). Today I was looking a lot at where to start learning to compose music for films.. which is a job made up entirely of skills I don't have (but with time, anyone can do basically anything of course). Then I started thinking I was being dumb.. I still want to believe at least learning some of everything is going to be helpful, even if you never end up doing it, just for ease of communication with your team maybe (actually I'm keen to do it all as well) - but I know I'm closed minded at times and possibly in the minority, so I'd like to hear some opinions.
I know Tarantino was very relieved to get the advice from Terry Gilliam "As a director, you don't have to do that. Your job is to hire talented people who can do that -- Your job is explaining your vision. Your job is articulating to them what you want on the screen."
Is the biggest risk that I do it all and just don't realize that I suck at half of it?

I hear a lot that you should focus on one job, especially in filmmaking, because it's a "collaborative process". But my spirit guide lately has been Jim Lujan (writer/character designer/animator/voice actor/composer/editor). Today I was looking a lot at where to start learning to compose music for films.. which is a job made up entirely of skills I don't have (but with time, anyone can do basically anything of course). Then I started thinking I was being dumb.. I still want to believe at least learning some of everything is going to be helpful, even if you never end up doing it, just for ease of communication with your team maybe (actually I'm keen to do it all as well) - but I know I'm closed minded at times and possibly in the minority, so I'd like to hear some opinions.
I know Tarantino was very relieved to get the advice from Terry Gilliam "As a director, you don't have to do that. Your job is to hire talented people who can do that -- Your job is explaining your vision. Your job is articulating to them what you want on the screen."
Is the biggest risk that I do it all and just don't realize that I suck at half of it?

I hear a lot that you should focus on one job, especially in filmmaking, because it's a "collaborative process". But my spirit guide lately has been Jim Lujan (writer/character designer/animator/voice actor/composer/editor). Today I was looking a lot at where to start learning to compose music for films.. which is a job made up entirely of skills I don't have (but with time, anyone can do basically anything of course). Then I started thinking I was being dumb.. I still want to believe at least learning some of everything is going to be helpful, even if you never end up doing it, just for ease of communication with your team maybe (actually I'm keen to do it all as well) - but I know I'm closed minded at times and possibly in the minority, so I'd like to hear some opinions.
I know Tarantino was very relieved to get the advice from Terry Gilliam "As a director, you don't have to do that. Your job is to hire talented people who can do that -- Your job is explaining your vision. Your job is articulating to them what you want on the screen."
Is the biggest risk that I do it all and just don't realize that I suck at half of it?

Thank you guys! Kisses from me and Ebrahim!

Anyone else getting blockiness in the woman in the left's wrist? Maybe my editor ruined it somehow? Maybe it lost something when it was downscaled from 6k? Also the shadows seemed a little blue to me. But my screen might not be great. I definitely don't want to scare anyone off either. I know nothing, and it's obviously a great file

Agreed...and I was actually just expanding on your point of how rare 4K requirements actually are, but I would not buy a non 4K camera today unless it was a used Alexa classic, a F35 or F900R...the 3 Cine cameras that are positively droolworthy...still I'm reading more and more about clients asking about 4K delivery and this is bound to increase...
 

thought 1: those people just don't understand budgetting at all. it was minimal enough of a setup, that when factoring in the volunteers, they could have made a feature film on half of that. this part isn't evil probably, just weirdly ignorant
thought 2: it must not actually have been a passion project. which it seems like you agree with? again, not evil, other than it being a lie. "I even chipped in a couple thousand dollars of my own money," was not spoken.
 
their careers can survive my poo poo
but yeah, let's all use our resources. 

Fincher doesn't come to set anymore. From what I heard, literally Spacey didn't want to direct, and she said "hey, I'll do it" *cough, two paychecks*. They said sure, because there are so many people it can't really go wrong.

Haha, I learned that the hard way

Some House of Cards crew, and star Robin Wright, made a six minute short film, set in one location, shot in two days. I guess the crew volunteered their time and resources. And they still ended up crowdfunding $50,000 to make it happen. So just a bunch of millionaires not willing to put a cent of their own into a film they call a "passion project". From the stills I've seen, I have no idea where $50,000 would have gone. And it sounded like they got accepted to CANNES before they were even finished. For Wright's directorial debut. Just because it looked pretty and had a big name. (My source was an interview on Colbert, if you want to look it up, sorry for not posting it here)
How is that okay? And how far back in time to you have to go to see Sundance and Cannes as the home of brilliant films that don't fit Hollywood's bill? (Sundance appeared to be a mess this year too. Apparently Nick Offerman and Kristen Stewart are the great talents of our generation)
Let me know if I'm just being a dick, but wow

thought 1: those people just don't understand budgetting at all. it was minimal enough of a setup, that when factoring in the volunteers, they could have made a feature film on half of that. this part isn't evil probably, just weirdly ignorant
thought 2: it must not actually have been a passion project. which it seems like you agree with? again, not evil, other than it being a lie. "I even chipped in a couple thousand dollars of my own money," was not spoken.
 
their careers can survive my poo poo
but yeah, let's all use our resources. 

Worked for a german short film one day, directed by the then-unexperienced daughter of a famous TV producer. A friend of mine was the production designer/set dresser/prop maker (the first being her profession), and I helped her. Everbody got paid after profits, which means nobody. Regular medium sized crew, credits ran long, including a long list of sponsors (???). The regular TV cameraman had a RED, he also worked three 12-14 hour days without payment. Well-known TV and stage actors (in part "borrowed" from the father's TV shows). Everything looked promising, but at the premiere (free buffet with champagne for the crew) I found the result rather mediocre. Couldn't tell a moral from this.
My friend also worked for Cronenbergs A Dangerous Method, and out of curiosity I volunteered to help demount the studio sets. I liked this film very much, but the actual sets were really amazing, I expected the visuals to turn out much more spectacular than they eventually were. To be more precise, I expected a much higher production value. Again, I don't know what to think of that. Both experiences were inspiring.

Some House of Cards crew, and star Robin Wright, made a six minute short film, set in one location, shot in two days. I guess the crew volunteered their time and resources. And they still ended up crowdfunding $50,000 to make it happen. So just a bunch of millionaires not willing to put a cent of their own into a film they call a "passion project". From the stills I've seen, I have no idea where $50,000 would have gone. And it sounded like they got accepted to CANNES before they were even finished. For Wright's directorial debut. Just because it looked pretty and had a big name. (My source was an interview on Colbert, if you want to look it up, sorry for not posting it here)
How is that okay? And how far back in time to you have to go to see Sundance and Cannes as the home of brilliant films that don't fit Hollywood's bill? (Sundance appeared to be a mess this year too. Apparently Nick Offerman and Kristen Stewart are the great talents of our generation)
Let me know if I'm just being a dick, but wow

Shocker, I know. I just find there to be some tacit misogyny here and disrespect to actors, too.
About ten years ago, I had a long talk with one of the directors of Mad Men. Back when he was working as a DP on the Sopranos and I think directing some episodes, too, I'm not sure. One of the lead actors on the show directed an episode and it was the first thing directed. And this guy was DPing it and was pretty frustrated at first that the actor/director didn't know much about blocking or lens choice and left a lot of those choices up to the DP. But later, he realized that the actor was getting incredible performances out of everyone, and ended up contributing a lot to the episode, just in a different way from someone with another background. 
I don't know if Robin Wright knows her stuff technically, but I won't assume she doesn't. And if she doesn't, I wouldn't assume she's a bad director for that reason alone. Being on set is the best form of film school. There are plenty of great actors turned directors.
Anyhow that's just my opinion. 

I guess that's how Mel Gibson got best director for Braveheart lol...anyway...I get the frustration though!

Fincher doesn't come to set anymore. From what I heard, literally Spacey didn't want to direct, and she said "hey, I'll do it" *cough, two paychecks*. They said sure, because there are so many people it can't really go wrong.

I'm available.

Haha, I learned that the hard way

That's how it works.  Who you know... The creative world is not meritocracy.  And Cannes plays the celebrity game probably better than all other film fests I can think of.
BTW, Angelina Jolie is a director too.

lmao hell yes it does.
jeff koons wouldnt infuriate me if he wasnt worth so much MONEY. theres a huge imbalance. its disproportionate
that should piss you off – how they have so much and you have so little. thats a component of what fuels your fighting spirit ?