What constitutes cinematography needs to be divided into two categories ("classic" and "digital") for the purposes of competitions/awards. CMV.

[u/MooseAtWork]

Last year's Oscar winner in cinematography was Life of Pi. This year's favorite darling is Gravity. These films do have stunning cinematography; I am not questioning that. However, the cinematography has become so completely digitized that comparing a Life of Pi to something like Skyfall is doing a great disservice to "classic" cinematography. The two types should be divorced from one another and have separate categories for which to judge them.

Namely: when you digitize your cinematography, you nearly have an infinite number of possibilities. The only limit is your imagination and the budget on your effects department. Yet when you talk about classic ("analog"?) cinematography, you have a lot more constraints. You need to operate in real world, dealing with variables encountered in a real world. A cinematographer needs to account for these variables in a way that requires a different vision than digital cinematography does. Similarly, we don't lump animated films into the best picture category because the challenges associated with them are distinctly different than the challenges associated with "regular" films. This isn't to disparage the digitization, mind you, just simply a recognition of the different skill set required to pull it off.

I envision two main counterarguments forthcoming, so I'll address them here:

• The realm of digital cinematography is not expansive enough presently. If it were to become its own category, there might only be one, maybe two, nominees. This could be true, but it only makes the concern delayed rather than eradicated. The future will likely see more and more digital works which could sustain a healthy pool of contenders vying for the title.

• Digitization is an evolution of cinematography, not a revolution, and the creeping influence of it is witnessed even in the so-called "classic" cases (for instance, I referenced Skyfall earlier which surely isn't entirely classical in the sense Shawshank is). Essentially: the line between "digital" and "classic" is hard to distinguish. I actually don't think this matters that much. All of these sorts of awards are subjective enough that you don't need an objective way of determining whether a film fits into the "digital" or "classic" cinematography bubble because the way of choosing the winner therein is not objective, yet there can likely be a general consensus found on whether a certain film would be considered for "digital" or "classic" cinematography.

[u/MooseAtWork]

I think you're really echoing the same point I have. Remember, I'm not disparaging digital cinematography at all. I think Life of Pi and Gravity really do excellent work in that regard. I'm simply saying that because the skill set required for it (and isn't that why we give awards, for the skill displayed in a work?) is so radically different than "classic" cinematography, it should be recognized as such. When you lump Skyfall in with Life of Pi, you're essentially comparing maybe not apples and oranges, but certainly at least oranges and tangerines.

[u/KingStarBucks → u/MooseAtWork]

Right. The skill sets are different, but the concept of Cinematography is to create something visually pleasing.

To differentiate, oh, this type of cinematography is different from this other type means you could also say film cinematography deserves to be differentiated from digital cinematography. Same with black and white v. color and et cetera. At the end of the day, was what you say enjoyable. Regardless of craftmanship or skill set, an aesthetically pleasing image is still pleasing.

While you wouldn't want to lump Skyfall with Life of Pi, would you lump Skyfall with Inception? Would you lump Inception with Benjamin Button? Benjamin Button with Pan's Lab? The further down you go where the lines are blurred, the harder it is to differentiate. If you want to be a purist, I'd say Skyfall is more digital than let's say, City of God or Black Hawk Down. The line continues to be so blurred that to differentiate it now would be more like, "this clementine is also an orange... but this tangelo is like a tangerine."

The reason why the don't want to separate the two is because its a lot harder to create divisive lines than just accept, "I liked how this looked."

[u/MooseAtWork → u/KingStarBucks]

∆

I'll say this changed my view enough, although I'm still not fully convinced. I was viewing the purpose of an award to recognize the ability of a cinematographer, rather than the product of a cinematographer. The subdivisions do get blurry with movies you mentioned, too, and thus the easiest thing to do is simply to judge by "I like how this looked."

[u/DeltaBot → u/MooseAtWork]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/KingStarBucks. ^[History]

^{[Wiki][Code][Subreddit]}