The talent that resides in New England is astounding. We need to let more producers and studios know that a most talented, innovative and creative lot live and prefer to work here where they can raise their families and enjoy the beauty, sensibilities, and built-in rewards associated with all that New England has to offer.

Boston Cinematographer, Tom Robotham, is one talented cinematographer who has chosen to remain in New England even though his work frequently takes him elsewhere, sometimes for long periods of time. He has tempered his career with choices that allow him to remain in the region more often, although, those choices might not always net just the creative work he would like. I like how the word “true” figures throughout what he has to say about his work, what he admires, and the importance of aspiring to it.

We asked Robotham a series of questions and received the following thoughtful responses (PUB):

IM: When did you know you wanted to be a cinematographer?  What did you do to prepare for your career? 

TR: I was taught composition and exposure by my dad. When I was 12 and 13 we would go out with a medium format camera, 25 ASA black and white film and a light meter or two. Then home to develop and print. Even my granddad took pictures, back at the turn of the century. We have glass plates from him, a Leica A (the first 35mm still camera) and a few view cameras, printing frames, etc. So it's really in the family.

Then in college, I studied fine art, sculpture in particular, and design. I've made sculpture in bronze, wood, stone, bamboo and fabric, welded steel. I've had work sold in corporate collections, and some may remember my large scale floating works in the Charles River in the late 80's. Sculpture was excellent training in having to figure everything out for yourself, which is basically what you have to do on set. Also, composition for sculpture is dependent on motion of the viewer (and work, if it moves), so it's very similar in conception to moving camera/ moving subject blocking. Thinking in three dimensions, with dynamic elements, just sort of makes sense to me.

I spent 15 years making a living in print advertising. That was when I saw how it could take a day for a single shot. Even though that is a luxury that doesn't really exist in filmmaking, the meticulous care does. We just have to do it to that level five, ten, twenty or forty times in a day!

IM: How would you describe yourself as a cinematographer now?

TR: I would say that I am a cinematographer in the service of the material, whether it is tight control of lighting, 35mm film camera on a gear head, or handheld with a DVX 100 and a handheld LED light. What counts is the material and how the audience can be brought to it; how their attention can be directed or held in the way that is appropriate. And especially how the lighting and frame can inform and deepen the experience for the audience.

IM: What was your most challenging assignment and what did you learn from it?

TR: The next job is always the most challenging. Even if the photographic aspects are not novel, no shoot should be a repeat of some prior work. Why bother? I could get a job in a cubicle if I wanted safety or predictability on the job.

IM: What was your favorite assignment and why did it appeal to you?

TR: Feature films are the things that excite me the most, because the entire world is made up, yet if done right, are more real, more "true" than everyday life. What will make that happen? What lenses, camera, mounts or moves? What color and light quality? And of course, how on earth will all that happen within the budget? These are questions that can fully challenge the intellect, the artistic self, and the social self (this is after all, a collaborative art).

IM: Who is your favorite cinematographer?

TR: No such thing. Or at least, it changes from work to work, day to day. I love Sven Nykvist's work because it is "true", whatever that means, but it always feels that way to me. It never feels like a performance, it is always "inside" the script. I really like Frederick Elmes, because whether he is shooting for David Lynch or Ang Lee, he always shows the emotion within the script and does it in a way that calls attention to the movie, not the cinematography (which is always lovely).

I love Conrad Hall's work, because it is never a surface, he is always in a real world. I don't have patience for people who say cinematographers work with a flat image and have to "create" depth. Perhaps in a lock off on a piece of architecture, that might be an issue, but all else in the world moves and breathes and changes, all in depth. I love the old dudes like James

Wong Howe for their black and white iconographic images. There is no way to pick from Ballhaus, or Kaminski or any of the people who make the movies we love. For "young guns", I really like Tami Reiker, for what it's worth.

IM: Briefly describe your body of work.

TR: I have shot five features and start my sixth in June, my seventh in August. I have shot commercials, and in a strange twist of fate, non-fiction filmmaking. I started out loving fiction, even though I watched documentaries, so I was surprised in a way that the tools transfer quite nicely. You just have to have a different sense that "now" in non-fiction does not include time for lighting tweaks. Once you back off from the "constructed" vocabulary of set-ups for fiction, and embrace the characteristics of the subject's environment, it all flows in similar fashion. Anyone who wants to view little QuickTime’s, can go to www.tomrobotham.com and see some of my work.

I do a lot of work either out of town, or for out-of-town clients who want a "film" type person behind the camera. (They want the sensibility that used to distinguish the film person from the video person, even if that is really not something that exists anymore.) There are production companies in LA or Chicago who need a Boston area shooter for greenscreen or white limbo shoot, or local scenics, and sometimes they come to me. In the last few months I have shot at basically all the local soundstages. Then I do longer form projects mostly out of town. In the last year or so I've worked in LA, Washington DC, NYC and Virginia Beach.

I also re-discovered teaching, and that is very exciting. When I was first in college, I started with fine art and teaching, thinking that someway or another they would be complementary. But at that tender age, kids were too much for me. But now that my beard is gray, I feel like I have a useful perspective. I have been teaching at Boston University's extension school, the Center for Digital Imaging Arts (CDIA), which has a vital and forward thinking stance, and also at the Maine Workshops, which are renowned for their artistically and technically rigorous culture. Teaching has become important to me.

I am also proud to be one of only 17 Massachusetts DPs in the International Cinematographers Guild. Several of them are quite top-notch people, and I hope to be considered in that category some day.

IM: What are you doing right now or have planned in the near future?

TR: I just finished directing a Practicum for CDIA at Children's Hospital. That was amazing and challenging and difficult. We were working on making a video for older patients and parents who are going into the stem cell transplant program, what used to be called bone marrow transplant. These people are in the middle of the biggest drama of their lives, and so we had to go against the grain and be undramatic, respectful, and even at moments a bit light, because we learned that’s what works.

We just finalized the DVD. The graduating students were great, the people at the hospital amazing, the patients and families inspirational in a very real-world way.

Now I am prepping for a 35mm feature film to be shot in Virginia. Unlike the last project, this is scary on purpose, with the working title NECESSARY EVIL. The Director is Peter Eaton, who grew up on the South Shore like myself, so it's funny and ironic that we are making our second feature together out-of-state. Perhaps we can get one in state someday. This should be an exciting project with lots of action, SFX and many opportunities for manipulation of imagery to suit different time frames and states of mind. It is exactly what I would plan for if I could invent my perfect project to go all out in subjective realms.

I am also doing long range planning for an HD feature in Boston, but I shouldn't talk too much about that yet. I hope to see an article about it soon though, in IMAGINE. Same goes for a potential television series, but it is too early to talk.

IM:  What do you hope to do most that you haven't yet done?

TR: I would like good, high level projects in New England, instead of always having to travel. It's tough to travel, since I have my boys, 9 and 11, to think about, never mind my spouse, who is left as a single working parent when I'm gone. I miss them all, and feel guilty about leaving. But Boston does not have the quantity of work that is available elsewhere, and most production companies have their one or two cinematographers they go to. These people are friends and colleagues, so I don't object, but I hope the proverbial pie gets bigger so that it is viable to consider alternative shooters without hurting a friend's business.

IM: Explain your "take" on Film vs. HDV.

TR: That is like asking if you like pastels or watercolors, oil paints or engravings. These are tools. Choosing the appropriate tool is part of my job. One thing that is nice is that it is possible to learn on less expensive mediums, such as DV. It is also nice to have incredibly lightweight gear that makes lovely pictures. But really, it is the humans that do the work, not the machinery. I've used Sony and JVC HDV and found their image quality exceptional for such small gear. But mpeg has a few issues in terms of both workflow and image quality, and the target size of 1/3 inch chip cameras limits the optical options regarding depth of field, angle of view, lens quality, etc.

There are some difficult misconceptions that still hover around all video formats, such as the strange idea that you don't have to light it or spend as much time and money to light. If you want it to look like a newscast or reality TV, of course you don't. But if you want it to look like a movie, then it actually demands more care to light a relatively "deficient" medium like small video, than one like film that has intrinsic image characteristics we all know and love. You just have to know how to use a lightmeter, and that's not too tough.

It's no secret that it is vastly easier to make beautiful, compelling images on 35mm film, or Super16, than video. It is also easier to make beautiful images with HD with a 2/3rds inch chipset than smaller chips, or SD cameras.  Every time you ratchet down in technical quality, cameras, lenses or both, you make the job tougher. You have to learn to exploit the benefits of cheaper, lighter cameras to do things you couldn't do with bigger, more expensive gear. Then it's a win-win situation instead of a compromise strictly on economy. And as the technology gets better, there are fewer problems that distract from the images and stories being told. So that is a good thing.

The newer uncompressed video formats can be gorgeous, but they also introduce visual elements that are "inorganic" and lack some characteristics that film has by its nature. It's not the technology that is lacking; it is the mindset of the engineers who make the tools that still lags a bit behind the visual artists who use the tools. In film, you might say the technology and users have "co-evolved" and that is starting to take place with digital video tools. It won't be long until the choice really is similar to choosing oil paint or acrylic.

You pick the one that is right for the picture. Technically, film is still better, but maybe by inches not yards.

Lenses are in some ways a bigger issue. Video lenses are now getting good, which is huge, but the cost of good ones scares off people. I think as more people see video without massive curvilinear distortion and poor flare handling, extreme breathing and the like, the more good lenses will get used. I personally would rather shoot DVCPRO 50 with DigiPrimes than HD with a video lens. The glass makes a big difference that "film" people have experienced, since film lenses are typically so much better than ENG style lenses, at least for non-ENG purposes.

IM: Tell me something I don't know about you.

TR: I play bass and write music. I think bass is a lot like cinematography. In a great song, you might not notice the bass, you just feel it. Even when it is out-front and noticeable, it still has to be "inside" the song or it's grandstanding and cheesy.

I asked Federico Muchnik, Director of the Film Program at CDIA about working with Tom Robotham and he had these words to offer, "Tom's a rare find in this industry - he's a turnkey guy, knows it all, from prep to post, from fiction to non-fiction - and he's an educator, knows how to teach. He understands the collaborative nature of filmmaking and he brings that spirit into the classroom. What more can a program director ask for?" (PUB)

For more information about Tom Robotham visit www.robotham.com