Practically speaking, the securing of true tones in a photograph depends entirely upon the exposure.

I do want to make it clear that the success of the picture does not depend entirely upon the beauty of the subject, but mainly upon the manner in which the picture-maker uses his pictorial material.

...I want to make it clear that the success of a picture, as a picture, does not depend upon topographical interest of the subject, but on the ability of the photographer to convey impressions of beauty or interest by his manner of treating it.

The making of a picture involves two processes: a taking in of the impression and giving out of it by the visible expression. (....) The degree of beauty in a picture depends upon the feeling for beauty in the artist and his power to express it.

...he (a photographer) forgets that unless he has learnt when the tones of a picture are right or not, he will not know whether his work is good or bad, nor know what to try and overcome in future.

I believe that producing pictures, as I do, is almost solely a question of wanting so very much to do it well.

When a scene is being shot, it is very difficult to know what one wants it to say, and even if one does know, there is always a difference between what one has in mind and the result on film. I never think ahead of the shot I'm going to make the following day because if I did, I'd only produce a bad imitation of the original image in my mind. So what you see on the screen doesn't represent my exact meaning, but only my possibilities of expression, with all the limitations implied in that phrase. Perhaps the scene reveals my incapacity to do better; perhaps I felt subconsciously ironic toward it. But it is on film; the rest is up to you.

...shading is of great importance, and good shadows can best be secured when the sun is low, and when one side of all objects is more strongly lighted than the other.

I mean, there is a certain amount of exposition you have to have in films and how that exposition is handled tells you whether it's a good script or not, whether it's a good filmmaker or not. You know, the more exposition that can be handled without a character speaking it, the more thematic metaphors that you can do visually, to me that’s a better situation.

Photography has never been a problem for me, [what is important] is looking, the way of looking, of questioning with your eyes: I don’t think; I am impulsive, it is /looking/ that’s important, not photography. Now, since I have started drawing, I’ve merely switched tools, but it is still looking that’s important. To look the right way, one should learn to become a deaf-mute.

Expression, sentiment, truth to nature, are essential: but all those are not enough. I never care to look at a picture again, if it be ill composed; and if well composed I can hardly leave off looking at it.

To me the most important thing [in a picture] is roundness captured in height and breadth. Roundness in the plane, depth in the feeling of the plane.

The film has to tell the composer what it need, then it's in the lap of the gods, isn't it, as to whether others think it works or not.

There's an old saying in Hollywood: It's not the length of your film, it's how you use it.