If you have read anything I've written here on FaithVisuals, you already know I'm a proponent of keeping it simple, using the tools you already have, and not overdoing it. That's not to say you should never try something new. Rather, when we live within the limitations of our circumstances, those limitations force us to be more creative, to solve problems in a unique way, or to achieve a desired effect without spending loads of cash. Often, being forced to use a certain method affects the artistry of your work and as a result the work reflects something truly original. It's not like making lemonade with lemons; it's like making lemonade without lemons.

Every limitation you face in the production of media (staffing, talent, skill, equipment, money, whatever it is … ) is an opportunity to creatively find a way to communicate your message using what you already have. It might seem like a setback if you can't afford a new camera. But really, it's a chance to record some renegade-style footage that "feels real" and is potentially more impacting than a film-style interview that seems disconnected or manipulated. It could be an opportunity to play with effects that mask the poor quality of your camera, but turn the result into something more edgy and fun.

The best way to explain what I mean and encourage you to embrace your limitations is to tell the story of The Worldview Project, a documentary film I shot in China for the purpose of educating American teachers about modern Chinese culture.

The film was to be used for training. These teachers were about to go to China for the first time. I needed to let Chinese students talk about themselves; how they view China and the world. I needed to show China for how it really is, not the stereotypes you see on television. But I also needed it to be professional!

My limitation? Well, everything, really. I went to China to teach advertising. All I had was a PowerBook and Final Cut Pro. I didn't have a camera, lighting, or a make-up artist. What a life! So, after begging our non-profit organization for some money, I got $2,000: barely enough for a prosumer camera and certainly nothing more. I bought a Sony PDX-10 (PAL version, since I was in Asia) and a $30 plastic tripod. That was my whole rig!

If you're unfamiliar with the PDX-10, check it out. It's much cheaper now (used) and it's a great camera. It's also very small and looks like a consumer camera unless you have the XLR shoe and mic mounted to the top. And it captures a great picture for the size/price of its 3CCDs. It's not HD, but then again … not many people can even use HD right now. If you want HD, check out Sony's A1U, which is essentially the HDV version of the PDX-10, but without 3CCDs. In either case, there are forums of videographers that exclusively and passionately use these tiny cameras to get great quality video.

Still, I was grateful. The images would be of decent quality now, but I still had huge obstacles to overcome. 1) I had no lighting. 2) There was no way I could ever move the camera on the tripod and expect a smooth shot. And 3) I had no one else to help me—all of these things forced me to make pivotal decisions that shaped the look and feel of the film.

For starters, I just flat-out decided that I couldn't move the camera. Everything would be static: no zooming in for the tear, no panning across the street, no following a subject's hands … nothing. Sound boring? It wasn't. It gave a totally unique feel to the film that I am now glad I had. For one, it made my job as the cameraperson much easier. All I had to do was frame the shot, press record, and stand back. That was great for a lot of reasons. In China, the people are fascinated with foreigners (that's me!), especially one with a camera. Any time I stood behind the camera, I only got shots of people looking at me or looking right into the camera! But once I locked down the shot and took a few steps away, no one even noticed the camera because they were looking at me off-camera.

Artistically, the rule of not moving the camera forced me to see China's streets through a single frame. I had to look around and find that one interesting shot. It was almost like taking a still photo, but with movement inside the frame of the picture. It was like giving my audience a literal window into each scene. Since the camera didn't move, it felt as though with each shot the viewer was instantly transported from one window to another. Brilliant! And exactly what I wanted to achieve.

But I have to admit, I couldn't limit myself to having no moving shots at all. After wandering the streets of Chongqing for a whole day, I stumbled upon a cable car that crossed the Jialing river (think Mississippi). It went from the middle of downtown all the way across to the mountain on the other side with pure cable-tight balance and stability. To be fair, I didn't break my rule of not moving the camera. As soon as I got in the cable car (for 25 cents) I set up my camera and tripod right out the window of the car. As the cable car made its journey, I had instantly created a helicopter scene moving over downtown Chongqing, a city bustling with 14 million people. It was beautiful and probably the best shot I've ever gotten. So I did it again going the other way!

To overcome the lighting obstacle, I chose to shoot the interviews outdoors. In China, there's not a stitch of ground that isn't swarming with people, so finding a good quiet spot was hard. As a result, I always did the interviews right at 1 p.m. when the rest of China was taking a shou-shee (a nap). Lighting was neutral if not too bright (not too many places where backlighting could be a problem), but the best part of all was that I was shooting my subjects out in the culture that they were describing. What if I'd had a studio and light kit? My interviews would not have been nearly as compelling if I'd shot them against a lit wall. No, having them outside was a solution that helped me communicate my message. Here was a Chinese student bragging about the fast pace of China's development as a skyscraper was being built in the background. That's something I simply could not have done in the studio.

As far as not having anyone to help, I'm used to it, so it wasn't a big deal. The biggest problem was conducting the interview and trying to baby-sit the camera at the same time. Since my shots were not to move, it was a less of a problem. I simply set up the camera, pressed record, and started talking to the students. Not having an extra body there to operate the camera probably helped the students be at ease and forget about the camera. It was much more like having a conversation. But it did have its drawbacks. One interview was totally useless because of poor audio and another one I chose to shoot again because I didn't like the shot and the background. I could have avoided these problems if I had been focused on the operation of the camera alone.

In the end, the project looked professional (even though it wasn't!) and despite all my limitations, I was able to find creative ways to achieve what I needed. Those limitations actually served to shape the outcome of the film in a profoundly positive way.

My family and I lived in China for four years. This project was one of the best things I did. It's one thing to live in a place and let everything pass you by. It's a totally different experience to go out looking for something you want to show people because you always end up in the most unexpected places. Plus, it makes for a great story.

My hope is that as you continue your mission of producing professional media for the church, you'll embrace the limitations that church work naturally brings as opportunities to create art that you would otherwise not have created. So stop begging the committee for more money. Go and figure it out yourself. You'll be glad you did!