Nestor's Light

In the film world digital advancements are being made faster than filmmakers can keep up with them. In the amount of time it takes to master a new digital camera or technology it has already become obsolete. There is a fetishization of equipment, placing technological prowess over aesthetic skill. This affluenza within the film world drives artists away from the language and practice of filmmaking and towards the technical means to fulfill their vision. While digital technologies can make filmmaking more approachable as an art form, many of the medium’s intricacies are lost due to simplicities afforded by digital cameras, such as loss of detail and color latitude. While these seemingly minor differences may not affect every filmmaker, for cinematographers it results in both a visually and emotionally dulled craft. Some major players within the film community, such as George Lucas, do not believe we have a need for celluloid film any longer. Cinematographer Néstor Almendros’ (1930-1992) work makes a strong case against the beliefs of Lucas, and his subsequent technophiles, because of his highly evolved understanding of cinematography and the true-to-life emotionality he is able to create using celluloid film.
Néstor Almendros understood how to work with his environment, and make the most of what was available. He knew how to manipulate light in order to evoke the most emotion out of any given circumstance or location. His work won him an Academy Award in 1979 for Days of Heaven. This film is best known for its amazing achievement of being captured almost entirely during magic hour. Magic hour is defined as the twenty or so minutes after the sun sets where everything appears golden. (See Figure 1)

Figure 1: “Days of Heaven Still” By Néstor Almendros.

Objects in the background become silhouetted while the subject’s faces are illuminated with golden light. Everything appears to glow in the last glimpse the sun.
According to Francis Truffaut, Almendros knew “How to reconcile elements both natural and artificial, timeless and dated, in the same frame. How to give homogeneity to disparate material. How to struggle against the sun, or bend to it’s will” (Trufautt viii). Almendros truly understood light. This is an art that has been lost in the digital age of filmmaking. The brightness of direct sunlight is something that a digital camera does not know how to process. In working with digital media true white, if over-exposed, will lose all detail and will become unprintable. When using film this problem is avoidable because of the flexibility of film’s latitude. When shooting on digital, because of the risk of over exposure, it is common practice to replace natural sunlight with an HMI (Hydrargyrum Medium-Arc Iodide) so one has complete control. However, the look of artificial sunlight rarely appears entirely natural. With digital film there is always a need to find a technological replacement for something that could easily be fixed by understanding light in all of its qualities.
The differences between celluloid and digital filmmaking are far-reaching, going beyond simply the physical production of a film. Film is advantageous, in that it gives the artist the greatest level of control in deciding the look of a film. When working with celluloid the cinematographer has three decisions to make that can drastically alter how the final product will look. The first choice in this decision making process is what film stock to use. Each film stock receives and interprets light in a different manner. In his book Film Lighting Malkiewicz explains, “The characteristics of the stock chosen will affect the color or tonal rendition of the image and the exposure levels…” (51). Beyond choosing a film stock the difference between celluloid and digital remains significant. The latitude (definition of the color spectrum, especially white and black tones) of film is much larger than that of digital. Almendros took great advantage of this spectrum while filming Days of Heaven, which this paper will elucidate further in its explanation of his technical practice. The third step, which involves choices in the development of the film, invites participation of the cinematographer as well. Malkiewicz clarifies some of these options; “The film can be processed normally, it can be forced processed, flashed, or otherwise manipulated to achieve a desired result” (51). There is nothing that can rival these aspects of film in the digital world. Sure, there are digital ways to try and mimic these filmic looks, but nothing quite compares to the look of film. Furthermore, the importance of understanding these aforementioned inherent processes of filmmaking is something that is overlooked in the digital world. Without this knowledge the quality of filmmaking and light sculpting is diminished. The importance of understanding every step in the cinematographic process is apparent in the work of Néstor Almendros.
Almendros was a master of light. He used his deep understanding of light to create pure and evocative images. In his book A Man With a Camera, he explains his unique approaches to cinematic lighting; “The images a director of photography records have less to do with technical trickery or special equipment than with sensibility. The main qualities a director of photography needs are plastic sensitivity and a solid cultural background,” Almendros explains. (Almendros 10). This attitude elevates his work above and beyond that of the modern cinematographer, who relies on equipment and digital effects to create emotion. In the article “Myth-making With Natural Light” in Movie Maker magazine Rustin Thompson gives his insight into Almedros’ art;
Perhaps he was just lucky to work in a time before digital enhancement, before the 12-second attention span, before special effects became more interesting to look at than the human face. But there is something more- he was always true to a light's source, true to the emotion evoked by the cast and color of light as it changed through the day. (Thompson 1)
His naturalistic approach gives way to a more artistic process. The art of cinematography is understanding the effects of light upon its subject, and using it to create a moment or an image filled with emotion. If one simply lights to key (exposing only for the subjects face) the potential power of the image is lost, and it becomes flat. Just as if a painter did not understand quality of light, the image would become lifeless.
There is an artistic freedom that accompanies film because of its great latitude. It allows a cinematographer to represent light in the same fashion a painter would, creating emotion through highlights and shadows, and choosing what to illuminate within the frame. Almendros’ work in Days of Heaven utilized natural light in this way. He often used paintings as a jumping off-point in his stylistic approach for his films. Andrew Wyeth’s painting, “Christina’s World” ( See Figure 2), was the major aesthetic influence for Days of Heaven.

Figure 2: “Christina’s World” By: Andrew Wyeth, 1948.

The silhouetted distant farmhouse in the background is re-created in Days of Heaven. One of the most beautiful parts of the film is the delicate mirror-like sky that alludes to the sky in “Christina’s World”. Almendros explains that, “Blue sky…makes landscapes look like picture postcards or vulgar travel brochures. Exposing against the sun for the shade produces a burned out sky white and colorless” (Almendros 170). This look was possible to achieve because of the latitude of film. The sky turned a washed out white-gold with large luminous clouds lined with grey. Even though it was overexposed, allowing the faces to have shadow and luminosity, there was still definition. This look would be impossible to achieve with a digital camera, which does not have the same capacity for interpreting whites.
A cinematographer cannot utilize light to its fullest capacity when the machine receiving it cannot comprehend all of the information it is being given. Federico Fellini stated, “Films are light” (Malkiewicz 1). If this is true what does it mean for film, when light is no longer pure, and is obscured by digital processing? In her book New Digital Cinema; reinventing the moving image Holly Willis explains, “With analogue video recording the images is quite different. Rather than hitting the emulsion, light strikes a censor, such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) or charged coupled device (CCD), which momentarily captures a representation of the light” (Willis 5). Light in its true form is altered during the process of digital capturing. When capturing on film light is directly hitting the emulsion so there is no need for translation of light and no room for interpretation. This allows for the cinematographers exact vision to be translated directly onto the film. In digital cinema some of the artist’s vision is lost through a game of “telephone”. Information must be passed and translated numerous times before it is finally stored in the machines memory.
In order to make a great film both story and image must work together to create a visceral experience for the audience. The technical process of digital cameras makes it extremely difficult for the cinematographer to know exactly how light is being processed by the camera and therefore how it will be projected back to an audience. George Lucas refuses to acknowledge some of these major setbacks in the digital world. While the job of a cinematographer may be to realize the director’s vision, his or her own artistic vision can be lost when the director believes this is their sole purpose. Lucas has been quoted as saying, “The medium that I’m in – and that most people are working on at this point – is the story telling medium. For those of us who are trying to tell a story, the agenda is exactly the same. It doesn’t make any difference what technology you shoot it on” (McKernan 31). This point of view puts images second to story when in fact one cannot stand without the other. It is the job of the cinematographer to deliver images that provoke visceral feelings. Significant emotional force is lost when their vision is obstructed by technology.
Digital cameras are more readily available to a larger quantity of people allowing more films to be made, but as the number of films being made rises, the amount of effort being put into these films declines. The invention of an affordable and portable camera is something that people have longed for since the inception of filmmaking. Jean-Luc Godard dreamed of “a 35mm camera that would be small enough to fit into the glove compartment of a car.” A camera he would be able to use to “sketch” ideas with (Willis 19-21). Now that this fantasy of convenient cameras has become a reality the pitfalls of “sketching” ideas have become apparent. Digital tape and micro-chips are so affordable in comparison to film stock that people do not find the need to limit themselves in the amount they are shooting. The availability of the medium does not call for the same kind of mastery of craft that film does. This results in less planning and preparation for a project because if something does not work, it is possible to erase and start over with no financial penalties. This reduces both the quality of the images themselves, as well as the fundamental vision of the project.
The issues that coincide with an infinite supply of digital space are accompanied by a lack of understanding the constantly evolving equipment in digital media. These digital video technologies can act as a crutch for thoughtless filmmaking. In his book The Motion Picture Image Barclay explains, “In the end, regardless of the equipment at one’s disposal, individual skill is still far more important. An advantage is to be gained by using the latest device only is that device can justify its application in the eyes of the user”(211). There are so many options that it is difficult to know which one is best suited to your project, and beyond that the correct way to use that specific technology. Filmmakers are no longer taking the time to gain a full understanding of the equipment they are working with because when using a digital camera very little effort and skill are required to produce an image. In contradiction to working with film stock where the cinematographer must have a developed knowledge of the camera and how it interprets light.
Although one hundred years have passed since the invention of the first film camera, no technological advancements in the digital world have been able to compete with film’s original format. Barclay addresses this point in The Motion Picture Image,
… The most recent digital video cameras continue to strive to achieve a film-like image by means of complex circuitry and increasingly higher resolution CCDs, and thus the situation can be called paradoxical because one is trying to replace a medium which is still superior to that which is the implicit replacement itself. (210)
Although this book was published in 2000, this sentiment now rings true more than ever, when there are those out there trying to call film an obsolete form.
Celluloid film and digital cameras are two completely different mediums. There is no need to eliminate film from the movie making process simply because new technologies have emerged. Last year USC’s School of Cinematic Arts made the transition from teaching film to strictly teaching digital, as demanded by George Lucas in exchange for his donation. Students will no longer be learning the art of filmmaking on film. This is not so say that learning the technological advancements of film is not important but there is no reason to eliminate the very medium it was founded with. In the book Digital Cinema McKernan includes an interview he had with George Lucas back in 2001. Lucas states “I think that I can safely say that I will probably never shoot another film on film. It’s the same issue with digital editing. I’ve been editing digitally for over fifteen years now, and I can’t imagine working on a Moviola again” (30). It is impossible to compare celluloid film to working on a Moviola because they are not of the same category. Film is a medium, not a tool.
The digital process, although easier, with fewer decisions to be made and less knowledge required, cheapens the emotional power of a film. There is no reason to eliminate the medium for filmmaking that allows the cinematographer the widest range of possibilities. Admittedly, there are certain advantages to digital filmmaking, however, there is no reason the two mediums cannot coexist. When analyzing digital technology’s replacement of celluloid film in today’s film schools it is helpful to look at artistic mediums taught in different schools. At the advent of acrylic paint, oil painting was not ignored simply because it was more complicated to work with. The mediums produce very different looks, and different artists may prefer one or the other for aesthetic reasons, just as with film and digital mediums. Néstor Almendros exemplifies the finesse of great cinematography that cannot be achieved using digital cinema. Néstor truly understood and dedicated himself to his craft. Digital media will continue to evolve and outgrow itself while film remains steadfast in its verisimilitude.

Works Cited
Almendros, Néstor. A Man With A Camera. Trans. Rachel Phillips Belash.
New York: First Printing, 1984.
Almendros, Nestor. “Days of Heaven”PhotoOfilia.Files.Wordpress.comAug.2008
http://images.google.com.
Barclay, Steven. The Motion Picture Image: From Film to Digital.
Boston: Focal Press, 2000.
Days of Heaven. Terrance Malick. Richard Gere. Brooke Adams. Paramount Pictures. 13 Sept, 1978.
Malkiewicz, Kris. Film Lighting. New York: Prentice Hall Press, 1986.
Mckernan, Brian. Digital Cinema: The Revolution in Cinematography, Post Production, and Distribution. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
Rustin, Thompson. “Myth-making With Natural Light” Movie Maker. 30 June
1998.
Truffaut, Francois. Introduction to A Man With Camera, by Néstor Almendros. New York: First Printing 2000. viii.
Willis, Holly. New Digital Cinema: Reinventing the Moving Image. Great
Britain: Wallflower Press, 2005.
Wyeth, Andrew. “Christina’s World”. Photo. 1948.
http://images.google.com
2.5 prompt: Make an argument for or against a single, compelling “advancement” in your artistic field in relation to preparation, practice, process, aesthetics, theory, and/or technology while utilizing an artist or an artistic movement as a case study.