It's official, anyone now can be a colorist!

[jake blackstone]

Have a nice Sun Day, Jake.

As you probably know, it's always sunny in California, Hrvoje.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

As you probably know, it's always sunny in California, Hrvoje.

Yes, I met Captain Obvious a while back and he informed me.

Jake, we can be cool or play sarcastic ping pong all day, so I propose considering which option is more fruitful. If toning down and ignoring the BS is being interpreted as a fertile ground for further, the approach can easily be adapted. You started a thread years back related to the perception and valorization of your craft and now throw sarcastic comments when reminded that's not the only craft to value here. On a camera forum.

 

[jake blackstone]

Hrvoje.
So far, I got from you posts, that you don't approve post camera manipulations of any kind. For obvious reasons, I disagree. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a job. Clearly we have diametrically opposing views on the subject. So, what would be the point of further discussion?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Hrvoje.
So far, I got from you posts, that you don't approve post camera manipulations of any kind. For obvious reasons, I disagree. Otherwise, I wouldn't have a job.

You got it wrong. I've been doing what you do for the last 13 years. And did in post years back stuff which some of the current post tools companies brag about recently to sell their high-end tools. Yay, I must be so cool then, as many of others in this domain, not feeling the need to fluff themselves. I may have modified image brightness here or there since then. I also develop new solutions, some of which are for DI so that "new kids/resistant to change" rhetoric was kind of funny. Though I tolerated your venting because my "dicking in post" remark was likely the culprit, so the reaction was understandable. No it was not attacking you nor the DI domain and no, there was no douche there giving you a hard time over what you like or find helpful for your work.
So in good will, I will invest more effort to try to help in consideration.

My approach to creative domain and work is more interdisciplinary, so the input shared here does not come from one perspective.
It also does not come from wishful thinking and fluffing oneself.

This is a philosophical matter.
Let's tone it a bit differently.


What you tolerate you propagate. Sure, there is no drama in "just" having a depth channel in DI to help with things when necessary. What matters is the principle which it propagates and where that principle leads to. More and more stuff done in post and faking and compensating. To save time, money, or due to just plain laziness. If chosen, the "easy way out" in this case has the potential to negatively affect the Arts and Crafts of this domain by sterilizing it of its primary element.

Which is Light.
Light is vivifying, inspiring part of Nature, fundamental element of photography and cinematography.

The day this domain, based on capturing Light replaces it with algorithms faking it, is the day it deteriorates into hamburger zombie land, void of Soul.

When you have Craftsmen investing heart, thought and effort on every aspect of a creative work, they put Soul in it, with additional magic which comes as gift and happens when creative minds resonate together and connect in the moment, magic which has to come from Nature itself. That is felt by the very Soul of the person consuming what is crafted. It cannot be quantized or passed on through a tutorial. Even from the ancient times there were various analogies taught of known Nature's active principles, motivating the Creative to create. When one sits behind the computer a whole day, that is much more difficult to understand and today's urbanized society of the 21st century, confined in concrete and steel beehives has disconnected from Nature, with many of the subtle faculties deteriorating.

To anyone interested in the Craft of color grading I would recommend spending time with photographers and cinematographers. And in Nature. Observing, Listening. Feeling. They will learn much more than from a tutorial talking about which knobs to push. Much of it being beyond words. And the latter alone is incapable to compensate what is missing.

The chosen principles of reasoning and functioning are creating a chain reaction, affecting everyone down the chain, and this "culture of fake" is getting out of control. It already happened in music, with hyper compressed, digitally overly enhanced, error corrected , polished up garbage. One doesn't have to sing or play an instrument properly and as long as the engineer compensates and makes it "juicy" in mix and master and marketing pushes it enough, mass mind will get to assimilate the fast food. What is completely ignored here by everyone caring just about his own plate, is that it affects everything which will come out of it.

As overly processed food with fake tastes stripped from its natural essence is inadequate to feed the body properly, artistic works with faked essences are inadequate to feed the Soul. That is just garbage tricking the Mind it's food. So you don't get fed. So you need more. So the garbage multiplies and the slop never feeds. Soul without its food starves. So the state of Man deteriorates.

DI exists because of the Craft which captures the image. Not the other way around. It is a symbiotic relationship. If DI takes over essential parts from that Craft, there is no more symbiosis but parasitic principle and that Craft deteriorates. This is easy to comprehend if one imagines a young creative person interested in Cinematography, faced with multitude of post production options, while lacking will and/or capacity to learn Cinematography. It doesn't matter how much tool makers will profit or how much a colorist will make by "re-lighting"a scene. It matters where this leads to and la-la land is playing a significant role in affecting the status quo. It matters what happens later, and if future cinematographers will appreciate, understand and shape Light or scratch their ass in post while someone specializing in something else is painting with algorithms instead of them with the real stuff. It matters if future humans will use corks on forks to avoid hurting themselves while convinced ancient Greeks didn't see blue.
Or they will evolve based on the wealth of knowledge many before them ventured to explore, learn and master and have left behind.



This all may seem as overly dramatic, but it really is a huge issue which can be seen if one looks outside the window (real one, not sugar coated digital one), having the capacity to think few nodes ahead and cares not just about his own ass. I've seen it happen in other domains, and the "easy way out" always leads to the same outcome.
The outcome is deterioration.

Because things of value are built, despite the challenges.
And inertia, if left to its own devices, destroys.




Let's see...

....right now we are heading into a zombie la-la land with one foot already deeply into a pile of slop for the brain dead.

I'm expecting an 8K 120p wide gamut HDR, super hyper color exploding, fast strobing kiddy music video with a dolled up brain dead sexy puppet riding a robot dildo while stabbing baby seals with a crucifix, singing "La-La Fun Happy party 1-2-3". Written by 60 writers, produced by a crew of 100 and post produced by another 100. Cost = 20 million. Diamonds on the robot dildo alone were 5. Post was 10. Director wanted to emphasize every stone independently by animated pulsation in the rhythm of Lemmings in the background and in 3D, with the feel like the light was shining from Mars and passing through a burning atmosphere of Venus, symbolizing the ever present challenges between man and women. The director is an artistic genius and a visionary and if you say something you just don't understand art. And new specialists philosophizing online about special techniques used to emphasize the skin tones of the ass and to re-light the robot dildo. And masses glued to a shiny wall, desperately seeking new "excitement" at all cost, due to sensory overload caused chronic numbness, passively assimilating, feeding off the "artwork", collecting body fat and shit in brain, bedazzled with how it all looks "better" than the real world. It is so colorful and hyper real. Like moths to a shiny light bulb. Until they burn. And grab a gun and start shooting folks outside, when a fuse blows somewhere deep in an overcooked steaming pile of shit which was once their brain. While everyone else jawdropped stares stupefied wondering where oh where it all went wrong. It must be the weather. Or milk. Frikkin' milk. Damn those crazies. DR Oz suggesting this awesome new medicament preventing the state of "wanting to shoot people", while stretching some internal organ across the table to prove a point. Cut to CU in 8K. Check this bladder when it rots. That may be you if you don't buy "Fuckitol". Cut to pale but happy and wide grinning Zombstones family comedy show, with everyone enjoying their Soylent with a taste of "freshness". It has eeeeverything you need.



Unless some finally wake up and grab the rudder from the hands of inertia.
And look beyond the walls of their sandbox.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Quite the manifesto Hrvoje. I agree with the vast majority of your rant. Just hope it wasn't aimed at Jake in particular...

Cheers - #19

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Quite the manifesto Hrvoje. I agree with the vast majority of your rant. Just hope it wasn't aimed at Jake in particular...

Cheers - #19

Of course not.

He just raised some notions which had to be addressed in general and first impression is often the personal one.

 

[Matt W.]

Hey Jake,
I'm trying to become a Colorist myself. Got a long way to go I'll bet. What is the educational, apprenticeship, testing and/or licensing requirements to become a Professional Colorist in the State of California? Is there an Association I can join? Does any college offer a degree in Color?
Any info you can give is appreciated!

This whole topic is ridiculous because it's good that people can do what they want if they have the ambition and intelligence. Why are we mourning a feudal class system dominated by expensive hardware? I mean this thread is literally based on a high end colorist getting offended because a construction worker offers a service where he helps choose paint colors, at least as best I can tell. Maybe hairstylists are the next target.

Of the barriers to entry that are most offensive, money is up there as the worst offender. Cheap software and cheap hardware are great. They put artistry and business skills first. This forum is full of people who invested $50k-$200k in cameras and turned that into successful businesses billing six figures plus a year. Maybe relative newcomers to film or film school grads started their own companies and are now thriving financially; I know many of them myself who did that with a Red (especially in the earlier days), making hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars a year now. If you respect that, it seems silly to get offended by the same math scaled back cheaper for software. Isn't starting your own business or career as a freelancer what this site is really about? Isn't that why the Red system was a big deal? Anyhow, Resolve on an iMac is great, it can't do everything Nucoda can and definitely isn't as bullet proof and real time, but it can get close enough until you can afford a more expensive system and have developed the talent to use it well. Many of the biggest vfx houses started as macs in a garage. I don't know what's wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with interning at a Flame hours and working your way up to Flame artist. It's just cool that different paths exist. Both present their own challenges. Resolve (with beefier hardware) is the system of choice most places, and most colorists know both Resolve and Nucoda so it's a good starting point. The Autodesk stuff is still a bit less accessible, and that's still more the apprentice path. I think a middle path is what you're probably after. Just teaching yourself, buying and iMac, and starting a business is hard unless you're brilliant out of the gate. (But it is possible.)

For aspiring colorists, a really popular and effective route in LA is working as an assistant at CO3 or Deluxe (same parent company). The work is hard and the wages are low (both understatements), but you'll learn from the best and be working on blockbusters right out of the gate. Many people assist there then go on to work as freelance colorists at high rates. I believe both are Resolve houses so you can download Resolve at home and practice and build your reel at home if you want, too, with the same skills. Or you could apply as an assistant at smaller houses, but this is the fastest route to really learning what you're doing properly and from the best. No one is stopping you–if you have the talent and some money now you can just open up shop, but that doesn't usually go that well unless you have exceptional business skills and an established network to begin with.

I'd recommend applying as an assistant at one of the above places or Technicolor or something. Just apply for jobs online or network until you're talking with some guys there, it's pretty easy to get your foot in the door if you're smart, hard working, and dedicated. Hunt down the email addresses of colorists you like. If you can't find their emails, you're not working hard enough. Network network network.

 

[jake blackstone]

You got it wrong. I've been doing what you do for the last 13 years. And did in post years back stuff which some of the current post tools companies brag about recently to sell their high-end tools. Yay, I must be so cool then, as many of others in this domain, not feeling the need to fluff themselves. I may have modified image brightness here or there since then. I also develop new solutions, some of which are for DI so that "new kids/resistant to change" rhetoric was kind of funny. Though I tolerated your venting because my "dicking in post" remark was likely the culprit, so the reaction was understandable. No it was not attacking you nor the DI domain and no, there was no douche there giving you a hard time over what you like or find helpful for your work.
So in good will, I will invest more effort to try to help in consideration.

My approach to creative domain and work is more interdisciplinary, so the input shared here does not come from one perspective.
It also does not come from wishful thinking and fluffing oneself.

This is a philosophical matter.
Let's tone it a bit differently.


What you tolerate you propagate. Sure, there is no drama in "just" having a depth channel in DI to help with things when necessary. What matters is the principle which it propagates and where that principle leads to. More and more stuff done in post and faking and compensating. To save time, money, or due to just plain laziness. If chosen, the "easy way out" in this case has the potential to negatively affect the Arts and Crafts of this domain by sterilizing it of its primary element.

Which is Light.
Light is vivifying, inspiring part of Nature, fundamental element of photography and cinematography.

The day this domain, based on capturing Light replaces it with algorithms faking it, is the day it deteriorates into hamburger zombie land, void of Soul.

When you have Craftsmen investing heart, thought and effort on every aspect of a creative work, they put Soul in it, with additional magic which comes as gift and happens when creative minds resonate together and connect in the moment, magic which has to come from Nature itself. That is felt by the very Soul of the person consuming what is crafted. It cannot be quantized or passed on through a tutorial. Even from the ancient times there were various analogies taught of known Nature's active principles, motivating the Creative to create. When one sits behind the computer a whole day, that is much more difficult to understand and today's urbanized society of the 21st century, confined in concrete and steel beehives has disconnected from Nature, with many of the subtle faculties deteriorating.

To anyone interested in the Craft of color grading I would recommend spending time with photographers and cinematographers. And in Nature. Observing, Listening. Feeling. They will learn much more than from a tutorial talking about which knobs to push. Much of it being beyond words. And the latter alone is incapable to compensate what is missing.

The chosen principles of reasoning and functioning are creating a chain reaction, affecting everyone down the chain, and this "culture of fake" is getting out of control. It already happened in music, with hyper compressed, digitally overly enhanced, error corrected , polished up garbage. One doesn't have to sing or play an instrument properly and as long as the engineer compensates and makes it "juicy" in mix and master and marketing pushes it enough, mass mind will get to assimilate the fast food. What is completely ignored here by everyone caring just about his own plate, is that it affects everything which will come out of it.

As overly processed food with fake tastes stripped from its natural essence is inadequate to feed the body properly, artistic works with faked essences are inadequate to feed the Soul. That is just garbage tricking the Mind it's food. So you don't get fed. So you need more. So the garbage multiplies and the slop never feeds. Soul without its food starves. So the state of Man deteriorates.

DI exists because of the Craft which captures the image. Not the other way around. It is a symbiotic relationship. If DI takes over essential parts from that Craft, there is no more symbiosis but parasitic principle and that Craft deteriorates. This is easy to comprehend if one imagines a young creative person interested in Cinematography, faced with multitude of post production options, while lacking will and/or capacity to learn Cinematography. It doesn't matter how much tool makers will profit or how much a colorist will make by "re-lighting"a scene. It matters where this leads to and la-la land is playing a significant role in affecting the status quo. It matters what happens later, and if future cinematographers will appreciate, understand and shape Light or scratch their ass in post while someone specializing in something else is painting with algorithms instead of them with the real stuff. It matters if future humans will use corks on forks to avoid hurting themselves while convinced ancient Greeks didn't see blue.
Or they will evolve based on the wealth of knowledge many before them ventured to explore, learn and master and have left behind.



This all may seem as overly dramatic, but it really is a huge issue which can be seen if one looks outside the window (real one, not sugar coated digital one), having the capacity to think few nodes ahead and cares not just about his own ass. I've seen it happen in other domains, and the "easy way out" always leads to the same outcome.
The outcome is deterioration.

Because things of value are built, despite the challenges, and inertia, if left to its own devices, destroys.

Right now we are heading into a zombie la-la land and one foot already deeply into a pile of slop for the brain dead.
I'm expecting an 8K 120p wide gamut HDR, super hyper color exploding, fast strobing kiddy music video with a dolled up brain dead sexy puppet riding a robot dildo while stabbing baby seals with a crucifix, singing "La-La Fun Happy party 1-2-3". Written by 60 writers, produced by a crew of 100 and post produced by another 100. And hypnotized masses glued to a shiny wall, collecting body fat and shit in brain, bedazzled with how it all looks "better" than the real world. Like moths to a shiny light bulb. Until they burn. And grab a gun and start shooting folks outside, when a fuze blows somewhere deep in a pile of shit which was once their brain. And new specialists fluffing themselves online while philosophizing about special techniques used to emphasize the skin tones of the ass and to re-light the robot dildo.

Unless some finally wake up and grab the rudder from the hands of inertia.
And look beyond the walls of their sandbox.

I don't disagree with your notion, that cinematographer is the driving force behind the images on screen. What I think you're missing is the reasoning for the tools I had mentioned- depth information. Right now there is plenty of image manipulation, including relighting, that occurs on a regular basis. Sometimes the need for those manipulations can be creative reasons, technical limitations, nature not cooperating or even mistakes. The job of colorist is to create the desired look or to try to hide or at least to reduce those issues. Obviously, that is just a small sliver of what color grading is frequently confronted with. Right now relighting is based on a twenty years technology and it is incredibly crude. Lights are added, but they have no volumetric qualities and objects do not interact with those added lights as they display no shadows. So, that is where depth information comes into play. You can wax poetic about all those artists and craftsmen creating images, but the fact of the matter, those images are and will be manipulated, regardless of what you say. So, instead of creating caricatures of those every carefully crafted mages using outdated technologies, I propose, that with care and taste, image manipulation will become more subtle and realistic. That's just the reality, it is on the way and you can't possibly argue with that...

 

[jake blackstone]

Hey Jake,
I'm trying to become a Colorist myself. Got a long way to go I'll bet. What is the educational, apprenticeship, testing and/or licensing requirements to become a Professional Colorist in the State of California? Is there an Association I can join? Does any college offer a degree in Color?
Any info you can give is appreciated!

https://csi2.wildapricot.org
http://icolorist.com

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

I don't disagree with your notion, that cinematographer is the driving force behind the images on screen. What I think you're missing is the reasoning for the tools I had mentioned- depth information. Right now there is plenty of image manipulation, including relighting, that occurs on a regular basis. Sometimes the need for those manipulations can be creative reasons, technical limitations, nature not cooperating or even mistakes. The job of colorist is to create the desired look or to try to hide or at least to reduce those issues. Obviously, that is just a small sliver of what color grading is frequently confronted with. Right now relighting is based on a twenty years technology and it is incredibly crude. Lights are added, but they have no volumetric qualities and objects do not interact with those added lights as they display no shadows. So, that is where depth information comes into play. You can wax poetic about all those artists and craftsmen creating images, but the fact of the matter, those images are and will be manipulated, regardless of what you say. So, instead of creating caricatures of those every carefully crafted mages using outdated technologies, I propose, that with care and taste, image manipulation will become more subtle and realistic. That's just the reality, it is on the way and you can't possibly argue with that...

I'm not arguing what you are saying nor missing what you suggest. That is all clear.
I'm arguing that the "reality" is not something one just rolls over to and that it should be considered while unfolding.
And steered with consideration.

The part of manipulated appearing more realistic (not becoming) has a huge negative potential on many levels, much deeper than discussed here, and beyond the domain of DI, and is already taking its course in many aspects of today's society. That is a serious topic all by itself and I just touched a part of it with that satirical rant at the end of the previous post.

I'm also thinking about the future creatives relying on this technology and the "cinematographer" of tomorrow bringing crap to post to "re-light" from scratch. And I'm thinking about "I got this 8K 20 stop ISO 12800 camera and shot some stuff, please re-light it and re-frame it to look good" posts on Reduser. And I'm thinking about production/agency rubbing hands while grinning on the notion of saving lighting time/money, expecting the colorist to work it all out. In that scenario and mental environment, clueless entitled client with high expectations and zero invested effort is *not the best client* one might have.

That is not development, regardless of the technological advancement, that is deterioration, so your "reality" may vary in ways less attractive than the initially targeted and idealized outcome. I propose taking human psychology into that equation and doing some re-calculations. There are enough post related trends pointing to the likelihood of the outcome. Again, humans have a pretty shitty track record of embracing new technologies, especially where money is a driving force and when it allows one to work less, and going from the armchair and trackballs back to hauling lights on the set is not a likely route if the principle of "the easy way out" is one's M.O.

 

[jake blackstone]

I'm not arguing what you are saying nor missing what you suggest. That is all clear.
I'm arguing that the "reality" is not something one just rolls over to and that it should be considered while unfolding.
And steered with consideration.

The part of manipulated appearing more realistic (not becoming) has a huge negative potential on many levels, much deeper than discussed here, and beyond the domain of DI, and is already taking its course in many aspects of today's society. That is a serious topic all by itself. I'm also thinking about the future creatives relying on this technology and the "cinematographer" of tomorrow bringing crap to post to "re-light" from scratch. And I'm thinking about "I got this 8K 20 stop ISO 12800 camera and shot some stuff, please re-light it to look good" posts on Reduser. And I'm thinking about production/agency rubbing hands while grinning on the notion of saving lighting time/money, expecting the colorist to work it all out. In that scenario and mental environment, clueless entitled client with high expectations and zero invested effort is *not the best client* one might have.

That is not development, regardless of the technological advancement, that is deterioration, so your "reality" may vary in ways less attractive than the initially targeted and idealized outcome. I propose taking human psychology into that equation and doing some re-calculations. There are enough post related trends pointing to the likelihood of the outcome. Again, humans have a pretty shitty track record of embracing new technologies, especially where money is a driving force and when it allows one to work less, and going from the armchair and trackballs back to hauling lights on the set is not a likely route if the principle of "the easy way out" is one's M.O.

Yes, we're pretty much on the same page here. Misuse of the tools available even today is astounding. Inexperienced wannabes now have the power of Resolve at their fingertips and it clearly shows. But that is not what we're discussing here.
Just a couple of weeks ago I was presented with a task to turn a caucasian actor into more of a latin looking lad. The spot was done for a Latin market, but no one bothered to take that into account, when casting was done. Clearly, production screwed up and no one brought up this issue until the client saw the edit. So, many hours later, the actor now instead of having a nice Irish completion ends up with an olive one. Did it look good or realistic? Of coarse not
In another, but this time positive example about the use of current tools, I'd like to mention the last two Academy Award winners- Birdman and The Revenent. Both films were massively manipulated in post. Should we dismiss those two, just because a lot of visual language was developed in post instead of on set? Of coarse not. Both director and DP realized the immense power of tools available and talent of artists involved Steve Scott and Mike Hatzer. The team managed to harness that power and the result speaks for itself. Incidentally, there were number of assistants involved with work on The Revenent, mostly creating those amazingly complex and beautiful articulated roto-masks. There was almost no tracking involved and most of those roto-masks were done by hand. I think, it was a group of seven assistants rotating 24 hours a day for three months. I could be wrong on the timing, but it was a tremendous group effort to create necessary masks, which made the relighting of the whole movie even possible. Anyway, were the scene depth information available, none of that effort and expense would have been necessary and I have no doubt the result would have been even better as well as faster and cheaper. Incidentally, both Baselight and Mistika already offering the scene depth information utilization capabilities. So, it's just one more step for camera manufacturers, before that workflow becomes a reality.
So, I propose, that with all technological advancements the line separating production and post is getting less pronounced and it is very possible, that in time it will be erased altogether. Only time will tell, if I'm right...

 

[Marc Wielage]

I'm trying to become a Colorist myself. Got a long way to go I'll bet. What is the educational, apprenticeship, testing and/or licensing requirements to become a Professional Colorist in the State of California? Is there an Association I can join? Does any college offer a degree in Color? Any info you can give is appreciated!

The joke we had at Technicolor is that anybody can do it as long as you can bring in clients that keep the room booked 40 hours a week. I like to say you're not really a colorist until another colorist looks at your work and says, "yes, this is work done by a real colorist." The danger is just being a guy who turns knobs and makes pictures.

But I get the same thing from my friends who have been editors for years and years, and they get edged out because of neophyte directors who get a laptop loaded up with Premiere and starting cutting together material. Are these directors also editors? Technically yes, but they're not good ones. On the other hand, I vividly remember back in 1997 when Fox would not give Jim Cameron a third editor on Titanic, so he took a one-week class on Avid and he became the third Avid editor. When the film won an Oscar for Best Editing, Cameron was on the stage getting his trophy. Did he deserve it? I'd say Cameron would be the exception of a guy who can do multiple things well.

There used to be kind of apprenticeship thing in post where assistant editors, assistant sound mixers, and assistant telecine colorists would start in the vault or the machine room and work their way up. I helped trained a dozen or more people on their way up; some did exceptionally well, some failed, some faded away, but a surprising number are still working today. Persistence helps, timing helps, talent helps, but I think the two single things that will get you the furthest are 1) a willingness to work very hard to get results, and 2) the ability to be a nice person with a good attitude. I know clients who won't work with great colorists because of a perception that the colorists are difficult or have a prima donna attitude; and conversely, I know sloppy colorists who are terrific, fun people who are busy every week because the clients love them as people. Ideally, you'd have a balance between the two and be technically competent and have decent people-handling skills, but nowadays, LUCK might be the most important thing of them all. You do a music video for a guy, and he winds up directing the next Star Wars movie and wants you onboard. It can happen.

As one of my former assistants used to say, "you're part technician, part magician, part psychiatrist." I find the first can be learned, but the other two are the stumbling blocks for many people.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Just a couple of weeks ago I was presented with a task to turn a caucasian actor into more of a latin looking lad. The spot was done for a Latin market, but no one bothered to take that into account, when casting was done. Clearly, production screwed up and no one brought up this issue until the client saw the edit. So, many hours later, the actor now instead of having a nice Irish completion ends up with an olive one. Did it look good or realistic? Of coarse not

Yes, that is a clear example of messing up and expecting post to fix it. I had a few of those types of adventures as well, different examples, same principle. And that is based on a current technological resources, now imagine when they evolve. This is where steering that reality comes in. Unless you want charlatans playing production multiplying and becoming a majority of your clients knocking on your door. No they won't have the funds to cover the additional required work because the principle of their reasoning is manifested on everything else. Not the best job I can think of.

Mass trends are not something one controls and are like an avalanche. Affecting things to come starts from key figures in the chain. One side is production side and it awareness, other is post side and its awareness and input provided to production. In this example being "no" or "okay but that costs double" + some education of the clients. It brings a few sour faces along the road due to inflated Egos but it works and keeps the level from deteriorating.

In another, but this time positive example about the use of current tools, I'd like to mention the last two Academy Award winners- Birdman and The Revenent. Both films were massively manipulated in post. Should we dismiss those two, just because a lot of visual language was developed in post instead of on set? Of coarse not.

The either/or route is rarely sufficent.

Not dismiss, make a distinction.
If you don't, one craft will disrupt the other. It already is affecting it negatively.

The distinction in this case would be manifested by additional award category for visual achievement, which the whole team deserves. Post work can look great, there are great artists there and that all deserves valorization.

Meanwhile, others have to haul lights, climb buildings, trees, hills, think ahead, freeze, boil, get drenched, stressed, exhausted, while eating, pissing and thinking as a team for a month or so...and so on and so on...and stay in focus before and after "action". And cinematographer has to be skilled, creative and productive with real Light right there on the set in real time, finding ways to meet the director's intent through available means, affected by gear, location, crew and actors. Or anything else which pops out and something always does. So you design lights and shoot a scene but soon after a few takes figure out a better way and a different light setup, which needs 20 mins more to setup, but time is gone or actor(s) fell out of the role. Or kid has a tantrum. Or the generator has to move to next location. Or whatever. The opportunity has left the building. Bye bye, it's decided. You are a big shot when no one has to bail you put later.

It is not the same work. Period.

Tweaks, enhancements of the painted canvas are one thing, re-doing it completely is something else. Photography domain knows this for quote a while now and heavily manipulated/combined/dissected images don't win same types of awards.

The main category would still give room for cinematographers which craft the real light despite all the challenges. That way both routes get valorized and evolve.

Leaving it at this and putting it all into one bucket is heading towards deterioration of Craft of Cinematography. Expecting that new kids will predominantly want to learn to work with real Light, when they can sit in an armchair and use "undo" without actors and crew waiting, is completely unrealistic.

Let's see when and if the decision makers in the Academy will take that into consideration. The time to act is before the volumetric light post manipulation becomes a norm.

So, I propose, that with all technological advancements the line separating production and post is getting less pronounced and it is very possible, that in time it will be erased altogether. Only time will tell, if I'm right...

Some parts are already merged, especially in fast turnaround and broadcast heading projects. Some will likely speed up and cross links of the workflow chain. So, I'd say you are partially right.

However, fully erased and with features especially, no it won't.

Significant portion of its post production requires consideration after the project is shot. And project analysis and re-distribution of production resources. All of which take time, and cannot be done in advance because they depend on the outcome of the production. Creatively, for the director and cinematographer, the impression has to "sink in" for the objectivity to improve, so edit and color decisions (or sound, music score, etc) are subject to change. That is normal. Some need months and months for re-viewing and consideration. Then the festival or cinema distribution deals approach so the post works in double or triple shifts. That's when one has to be creative + objective + focused + technically apt, while the clock is ticking, with no room for mistakes, knowing your name will stay on end credits for what you've done, while being last link in the chain of the whole project and responsible for the final outcome of everyone's work.
And that's where the Craft gets forged.

Creatives often want to improve and improve further and want more and more time. Those who pay, organize and make sure the work ends up somewhere want things yesterday. Without them projects would be dragged infinitely and post is always in the middle between these two types of mindsets, having to adapt to and think as both sides.

Generally speaking, and in a context of a feature, if there isn't a valid reason for it, you don't rush things which took huge time and resources and are left to stay, leaving an impression to many from now till who knows when.
There is a new TV episode next week.
A feature stands all by itself.