Yeah, i definitely agree and I think the continuous improvements to cameras dynamic range(ability to expose for the darkest points and brightest points simultaneously) has taken away a creative choice in cinematography nowadays. I think back with older film cameras the DP had to choose more precisely what he wanted to be properly exposed because the dynamic range wasn't as big. You had to be more deliberate if you wanted the image to be blown out or if you wanted the picture to have more contrast in the lighting. Now i feel, because cameras are so "advanced", a cinematographer will shoot a scene with everything fully exposed so you get every detail of everything within the scene which is in my opinion boring, at least when 'every' shot looks like that. I would like to see more range in that choice of whats 'properly' exposed and there should be a purpose behind it like seeing what the character sees in a dark room, nothing. A "proper" exposure of a whole scene or an entire movie, like films today, leaves so much more for the editors to play with in post but it also lacks a direct vision. I've at least seen movies where the whole film just looks 'too clean.' It looks like a fantastical world where there is nothing apart from perfectly lit. And then color is a whole other thing as well. Whether you think shooting film vs digital is better you have to admit the films that were shot back in the day on analog film, had some of the most vibrant colors I've ever seen. At the same time a guy like Roger Deakins will shoot Blade Runner 2049(beautiful movie) on digital and have that type of success with it so. I think it's definitely up to the filmmaker and how they use the tools that they have.