Q: In the last 10 years what has been the biggest change for you as a cinematographer?
A: It has to be the invention and constant upgrading of the technology of digital capture mediums and the ending of film prints and processing. When we did our pick-ups for Tracks out of Deluxe Sydney it was the last piece of film to be processed there. The camera department is now set up differently with the addition of the DIT and data wranglers. Also, the other significant change is the way images are seen on-set with better quality monitoring. This has changed the way people look at their own work in other departments on set. By seeing that what is on the modern monitors is potentially pretty close to what they will see in the end product.

Q: What do you feel are the biggest challenges facing cinematographers today?
A: To maintain the role of the cinematographer on a movie where VFX are controlling more and more the pre-visualisation, and post production of the images. I always try and set up a collaborative relationship between the with the director and myself with the VFX supervisor, so they understand the visual language that the director and I have decided on. That way, when we are finished shooting, they don't go off on their own tangent and make images that don't fit the visual style of the film. It has happened to me that at the last minute some scenes have been manipulated so much that it looks like another film. Also, those relationships are important during pre-production, and especially if the film has a lot of pre-visualisation and VFX storyboarding. Again, you don't want to be told by them what the shots are. It's an important relationship and you need to be communicative with each other at all steps of production.

Q: How do you feel digital compares to celluloid imagery and acquisition?
A: I am still using both, and I feel that film is still the best choice for some situations and digital for others. I would be sad if film went away as a choice. On Tracks, both the director, John Curran, and I were adamant that we shot on film as we felt that the many varied landscapes, weather (some harsh and some with subtle beauty), and colours could all be recorded with the best resolution and contrast range possible with negative. We were in isolated in hot dirty locations and we could always grab a camera and quickly shoot, not worrying about cables, monitors, and overheating, etc. Even though after shooting film for 25yrs, I still got a thrill watching the printed film dailies, and nearly every time it would look better than I thought, like those skies with their detail. However, I shot a TV pilot on ARRI Alexa, as the project called for large theatre and hotel lobby locations, where I used minimal lighting and embraced the available light fittings, and night urban scenes. For me that camera worked really well in those low-light situations and had more detail in the shadows than film.

Q: What developments would you like to see in the future?
A: That digital capture does not go down the path of some of the latest television sets, in that the manufacturers think sharper and less motion blur means better images. I'm always using older lenses and trying to not have a super sharp image on digital as it can look like reality TV and not drama. I would like the camera manufacturers to make the images have more colour resolution and handle larger contrast extremes, especially in the highlights. Just because a camera has more than 4K resolution, it doesn't necessarily mean a better image. I'm not after sharper images ­­­– it can become a harsh look on an actor’s skin, showing every wrinkle and pore.

Q: What has been the most significant technological development in the last 10 years?
A: The technology to do on-set looks and grading of your dailies. I find shooting digital can be a positive experience, when you have your LUT on-set and can show the director pretty much how the end result will look. Then you can light to that image and control things in the image that previously one couldn't do until later on in post.