Simone Fary's definition of good cinematography as "how meaningfully the images presented are used" is surely as limited and self-serving as any other she's come across. It seems to me there is more to cinematography than its effect on the viewer. Some shots are hard to make, and making them well constitutes good cinematography even if we don't quite notice--perhaps, especially if we don't quite notice. Let me give a current example, from VERTIGO which will soon be available for many to see again. The redwood sequence of this film was shot inside a forest of very tall and old trees which severely obstructed the natural light, and it was both complicated to run electricity and difficult to hide the arc lamps. The depth of field is important--difficult with low light. The characters must move--again difficult with low light. The cinematography is heroic, not just good; but the scene will go right by us if we don't stop to consider these things. One could go on at some length--there are so many other detailed, different, demanding examples. I would recommend that for starters readers interested in good cinematography have a look at Nestor Almendros' enlightening book, A MAN WITH A CAMERA, in which some of the basic stories are told. Murray ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]