Does anybody else agree that the cinematography in "Batman '89" was better than the one in "Returns"?
http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3625.0
DP Roger Pratt shot the film on Eastman 400T 5295 film stock, which has a higher degree of granularity and less exposure latitude than the EXR 100T 5248 used by Stefan Czapsky on Batman Returns. Consequently the picture quality is not quite as good as in Burton’s second film and is noticeably grainer. The contrast between light and dark also isn’t as distinct as in Batman Returns. The stark chiaroscuro lighting in Burton’s second Batman film is typical of German Expressionist cinematography, while the lighting in the 1989 movie is more typical of film noir.share
Filming the Gotham scenes on an outdoor back lot allowed Burton to use natural daylight for the exteriors; an advantage he didn’t have in Batman Returns, which was shot entirely on a soundstage. The difference between the natural daylight in Batman 89 and the artificial daylight in Batman Returns is quite obvious. Also note the grainier texture to the Batman 89 picture quality.