American Cinematographer - The DI, Luddites... DEAKINS

American Cinematographer – The DI, Luddites and Other Musings

Roger Deakins

October 2008

Source: American Cinematographer, October 2008, Vol. 89 Issue 10, p78, 6p

Item: 505343250

From my many sources, I learned a lens operated to its best advantage at an aperture of T4-5.6. I learned lighting involved the use of a key light, a backlight, a fill light, an eyelight, and something referred to as a kicker. I learned my negative needed to be meticulously exposed so as to print at a mid-light of 25, and that a true cinematographer used Brute Arcs to light a set and a geared head (operated by a specialist) to achieve smooth camera-panning shots.

But I also learned Raoul Coutard operated the camera himself, and that he would often shoot with a handheld Camiflex camera and sometimes light his shots using household bulbs and tinfoil reflectors. I learned John Alton, ASC was ostracized in his time for his radical approach to lighting, eschewing the use of green beds and declaring, "It's not what you light, it's what you don't light" that's important.

Some time ago, I was privileged to see a newly restored print of Citizen Kane (1941) that had been made from a negative found in Belgium. The film is universally (well, on this planet, at least) acclaimed for its innovative and masterly cinematography. Watching the film again, in awe of its visuals, I was drawn to study the variations in image "quality" from scene to scene. The print was excellent, so good that variations -- caused, I imagine, by stock inconsistencies, uneven or deliberately forced development, variation in lens resolution at different apertures, and the optical manipulation of certain images -- were quite apparent. What, I wondered, would Gregg Toland, ASC think of modern film stocks, the T1.3 Arri Master Prime lenses, the Steadicam and the remote head, let alone digital compositing? With all our modern inventions and innovations, there are few films that manage to achieve the "quality" of Citizen Kane, though there are many that have far less grain and considerably higher resolution.  

Today, there are many more toys and more people who want to play the game. A majority of films are probably finished digitally, 4K has become something of a standard, and 6K imaging is no longer an impossible goal. Yes, the DI is a powerful tool, but it holds no threat to the filmmaker, only opportunities. How quickly we forget that when fast lenses and film stocks were introduced, some producers said lights were no longer necessary! Since then, I've managed to overload and blow out the transformer at Wilmington Studios, and we've seen the development of the 18K HMI, the 12K Par, the 100K SoftSun and so on.

Contrary to popular belief, the manipulation of images in the digital world takes a great deal of skill. It offers no easy fix for those who are careless with their exposures, and there is no software that can compensate for poor lighting or shot conception. The closer the photographed image is to the filmmaker's intent, the more control the DI suite avails the cinematographer.

Every shot I have ever made has been a compromise in some way. That's a sweeping statement, but true nonetheless. No image has ever been as good as the one I envisioned in my mind's eye. Maybe that's what keeps me going: just once, I want to see that image onscreen!

Is it so wrong that the DI process is used to soften a few wrinkles? It is certainly easier to make a selective "fix" using contemporary digital software without compromising the whole frame; with digital tools, any cut between shots can be made less jarring than a cut to a shot that utilizes the complete coverage that traditional lens diffusion or Vaseline has to offer.

From time to time, it crosses my mind that I am somehow cheating, until I remember how I dodge and burn my darkroom prints, or that the widely admired photographs of George Hurrell owe as much to their retouching as they do to the original negative.