Cole Parker Christine

Your correlation to "appropriateness" is what I'm driving at, although I think of it as "definition"; visuals that we deem to be "good" because of how well they convey the intentions of the story they represent. I recently watched an action-adventure film with a serious script, but which utilized campy lighting for some unknown purpose; it took me out of the story, as I was constantly distracted by the duality of the visuals versus the script. It could almost be a combination of both. Some setups are dreadful, despite making all the supposedly right moves. A film can "look the part" by utilizing all the conventions of its genre, but unless done with some polish the result can terrible. It's this sense of what we consider to be "polished" that preoccupies me; how we distinguish between amateurism, professionalism and finally classicism.

One of the more common tenets of cinematography is that there is no "right way" to accomplish a look. However, in the pursuit of a high-quality image that will best convey a story visually, some standards exist that can assist in the creation of a professional image. My question to everyone is: What are these standards for you, and why? In thinking about this question, permit me to ask the same question in the context of musical composition. There is no correct way to compose a song, but many artists utilize musical scales as guidelines to aid them in creating quality music. What would you define as the equivalent for lighting, or the "musical scales" of cinematography? In my endeavor to create quality images, I often find myself asking questions about what separates a professional image from a non-professional one, aside from the limitations imposed by equipment quality; great images can be captured with poor equipment, and great equipment can render poor images. What standards do you apply for yourself when creating quality images?