Definition June/July 2026 - Web

COLOUR IN MODERN FILMS DEBATE

DRAMATIC FLAIR The Devil Wears Prada (2006, above left) was more vividly lit than The Devil Wears Prada 2 (2026, above)

across the whole production. It isn’t just the lighting; it is the locations, casting, wardrobe, production design, writing, framing, grade and the overall lack of a strong point of view. Everything starts to feel clean, legible, polished and safe – but not necessarily alive – resulting in projects that feel bland, flat and emotionally thin. Digital sensors have a part to play in this. Modern cameras have incredible dynamic range and low-light sensitivity, which is a great tool when used with purpose. However, it can also remove some of the pressure to make strong lighting decisions on-set. If the camera can see into every shadow and hold every highlight, it becomes easier to make something visible but not expressive. Digital gives you more control but fewer natural guardrails; the discipline has to come from the filmmakers themselves. The grade can only enhance what is already there. If the image is not being built with intention, post can only do so much before it starts to feel artificial. Strong images usually come from alignment all the way through the pipeline, from prep to set to grade to final delivery. On top of that, there are layers of approval that happen before the image ever reaches your screen. There is a lot of work right now with an overly even look, but the bigger issue is not just colour or contrast; it is the absence of bold visual authorship.

an exercise in pastiche rather than purposeful filmmaking. That said, I do feel a certain nostalgia for the rigorous craft of the classical era. We must acknowledge, however, that those masterworks often had a level of artisanal attention and production timelines that the highly compressed schedules and financial constraints of contemporary filmmaking rarely permit. DEF: Terms like ‘Netflix lighting’ and ‘Hulu lighting’ have been thrown around, referring to a lacklustre image – but as filmmakers, we know that gaffers, DOPs, colourists and others are all responsible for the final image. Who is ‘to blame’ here? ADP: The gaffer and the colourist are vital extensions of the cinematographer’s intent. I seek out collaborators who don’t just execute a plan, but who actively

challenge my plans and elevate the visual language. The ‘Netflix lighting’ critique, or the tendency to blame the colourist for a lacklustre image, is often a reductive diagnosis. A ‘bad’ image is typically a systemic failure. This might include a production schedule that forced a scene to be shot under unfavourable natural light or a location that prohibited the necessary modifications to control the frame. Or, when the production design, wardrobe and lighting are not in a state of harmony, the image inevitably suffers. On the outside, it's impossible to pinpoint what aspect went wrong when something feels off, but it’s also completely subjective. NA: As a cinematographer, I do appreciate the discourse, but it is less about one platform and more about a broader flattening, which can happen

DEFINITIONMAGS