I am not a fan of having too much gear.

I never really considered film as a career, but I knew I didn't want to be a builder. So I went to art college, and it just gradually happened.

There's nothing worse than an ostentatious shot or some lighting that draws attention to itself, and you might go, 'Oh, wow, that's spectacular.' Or that spectacular shot, a big crane move, or something. But it's not necessarily right for the film — you jump out, you think about the surface, and you don't stay in there with the characters and the story.

I thought that was a pretty stupid argument, really, because it's the final product that matters. The look of the film, however it's done, is still the cinematographer's vision in my mind. People said the same when color film came in, didn't they? The world evolves, and image-making evolves.

You can’t learn your craft by copying me or anyone else. I hope what I do can do is in some way inspire others but I would be appalled if I thought my work was being studied as ‘the right way to do the job’. My way is just one of an infinite number of ways to do the job.

I am concerned that the subtlety is being lost and every film tends to look very contrasty and saturated.

I think of filmmaking as a form of communication. Maybe it's also an art, but that's for somebody else to decide.