Are lights a worthwhile investment?
If <PERSON> can get such gorgeous images using almost entirely natural/available light, why do filmmakers bother with artificial lights?
From behind-the-scenes material, you learn that much of the time on a set is spent waiting for gaffers to set up lights. In addition to the equipment itself, that's a huge cost--the time of the gaffers and the waiting non-gaffers. Of course, relying on natural light can be costly, as you wait on the right sun/cloud combo, but <PERSON> and others get great images off of available (i.e., there anyway) light bulbs too.
From The Revenant to <PERSON> to Swingers to selected scenes in Amadeus and The Bourne Identity, natural/available light is used seamlessly and beautifully.
So, why do the other 98% of movies spend millions of dollars a piece on seemingly unnecessary equipment, labor, and time? What benefit is there that I'm overlooking?
Update:
I guess I didn't make my question clear. It's not "explain light to me" or "does artificial lighting produce a different image". Those answers are all obvious and unnecessary. The question is more about a cost/benefit analysis. So let me clarify:
How much time/money is spent waiting for gaffers/cinematographers vs how much time/money would be spent waiting for natural light or using available light that would yield a similar --but not identical-- image? Of course this will vary based on the setting, time of day, etc., but if you have some estimates of particular scenarios, that would be great.
It's clear from the comments/answers that many people value a stylized, deliberate visual aesthetic. I don't. I prefer the look of available light and, perhaps more importantly, incidental camera placement. I would expect these two strategies to be very cheap and fast. And since I am --at best--ambivalent whether a scene is "well-lit" or has a distinctive color palette or a purposeful mise-en-scene, then I was thinking that those things are an unnecessary cost. Therefore, since moviemaking is a business, I would expect more films to favor incidental camera placement and natural/available light. Since they don't, I'm wondering what my knowledge/logic gap is. 233
Which of the following may be true:
1. I overestimate the relative cost/time of lighting a set/location;
2. I underestimate the value that others place on the visual aesthetic;
3. Lighting practices are vestiges of a time when inferior film technology necessitated massive lighting setups, and inertia has kept them around;
4. Studio contracts require the filling of potentially unnecessary positions (in part, because of option 3)?
From the answers so far, my thinking is that at least the first three are true, with number 2 being the most important factor.
What other variables am I not accounting for?
=== Update II: Electric B...you get it.
Let me try rephrasing/clarifying one more time.
Can we estimate (perhaps from comparisons of box office performances, production budgets, etc.) whether/how the rate of return on movies would change if natural/available light were used more?
And before people make more assumptions: I'm well aware that there are a lot of other variables at play; a big part of what I'm asking is how one might go about isolating lighting styles as a variable. My research is in natural sciences; I have no experience in social/economic sciences, so I don't have a familiarity with the available data/metrics/methods.
This site is not a representative sample of movie audiences. All the presumptions about the importance of visual aesthetic need to be backed up to be valid. That is, I'm asking about the impact that the visuals have on revenue--I'm not asking about personal tastes. (Yes I stated my preferences, to provide an impetus and context for the question, by giving an example of at least one movie-goer who would still turn out to see movies with non-traditional lighting. Providing evidence of individuals on the other side is a non-answer--it's ineffectual and therefore irrelevant.)
I'm asking if there is any way to determine (without conducting my own crazy expensive study) whether audiences would shun a movie shot with more natural/available light--or even with lower quality images, or with inconsistent lighting.
In order to compare that elusive result with something, I'm also asking about the relative costs of filming that way. That has, sort of, been answered. The answers and comments give contradictory answers but offer no data to determine who is correct. If there is no data because the costs haven't been isolated to the relevant level, then that's understandable. 862