"Cinematography used to be a chemical romance, now days is a digital romance ."

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I don't really agree with that. How you light will be dictated by the tools you're using. And we have to often ask which is better; but it's not an overall, it's which is better for the story. Some things don't work well on film, and some don't work well for digital. We need to evaluate how we want to tell the story in lighting ect and then pick the tool, film or digital, which best suits that. Despite the fact that we go to story to motivate how we choose to light, we in the end must light to the format we've [hopefully] chosen to work with.

[Tim O'Connor]

Yes, people working with the best digital equipment with the most dynamic range and the most supportive post-production paths are in a more favorable position to light for the requirements of the scene and the story but for many people who are shooting digitally and recording to heavily compressed codecs, there is much less freedom to disregard the restrictions of the format being used. You can light for the scene more readily whether you're shooting 35mm or 16mm or with an Alexa than if you're comparing shooting the same scene between an Alexa and say a 5D or an EX1 or an HVX200 or ....

[David Mullen ASC]

It's good in the broadest terms to say that good production design, lighting, composition, etc. are more important to the look of the image than the particular camera technology. But once you get into specifics, it can make a difference. If Zsigmond was about to shoot a movie in 35mm and suddenly someone handed him a Super-8 camera instead and said "hey, you said it wasn't going to make a difference!", well, I'm sure Zsigmond would have something to say on the subject. But there is a tipping over point where the subtleties between different high-end imaging technologies, just like the differences between lenses or film stocks, start to make a less obvious overall impact on the image compared to the lighting, etc. Trouble is that we all can debate where the tipping over point is until the cows come home, there is no exact science here.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I appreciate you saying this David (although I resent you always jabbing at Super 8 ;) as I think mini-DV is an easier target personally) because I always hear that DP X can make an awesome film with even an iPhone blah blah. But the reality is that what makes many of these DPs great isnt just their eye for lighting but also their knowledge of what camera/format will look the best for the project they are doing. I mean, a great baseball hitter wouldnt be so great if they tried to hit the ball with an axe handle.

[dave olden]

I just wanted to get away from the whole "versus" thing.

 

And I didn't mean to imply that different tools are all the same. (That would be silly of me).

 

Maybe I should tweak my declaration from earlier...?

 

We're *not* lighting for camera, so much as we're lighting using situation-and-moment-dependant, toolset-specific stylistically-individuated methodologies to serve story.

 

:)

 

-- Dave Olden

[Vincent Sweeney]

I'm not the biggest fan of it usually, yet, but go see the feature Bellflower if you want to see how "digital" can be used in its own way to really kick some ass. This may be the first indie film I have seen to actually make use of the format in an appropriate and well-done, deliberate way.

 

(SI2K cam)