“The Motion Picture.” This phrase necessarily implies that the picture is, indeed, moving, and in the absence of this trait the world of cinema would not exist. Yet it does exist due to the motion picture camera. Those who master the trade of camerawork with respect to motion pictures are cinematographers. And the work that these talented individuals do for the quality of films is nothing short of invaluable.

The Academy Award for cinematography is, in my opinion, one of the most impressive Academy Awards an individual can win. So much of a movie is captured in the way it is shot. From lighting to framing to camera positioning to much, much more, mood is set, story is told and the film experience is affected...all due to the camerawork. In all fairness, I am not always thrilled with the winners in the category or even the nominees. “Prettiness” is rewarded a lot here. And while making a beautiful image is certainly an accomplishment, and one that usually makes the film better, I hardly think that it makes the achievement automatically award-worthy.

I would say that cinematography that most adds to the film is ultimately the “best,” and this can be done in many ways. I lso must add that I do admire innovative work that pushes the medium forward (seen in Emmanuel Lubezki’s work on “Children of Men” last year). Also, the category does show a distinct tendency to reward period pieces and films that are Best Picture nominees or, at the very least, contenders. Last year was an extreme oddity as none of the nominees were Best Picture nominees – the only time this has happened since the “black-and-white” and “color” categories were merged. But who knows? Maybe a new trend is emerging.

Another interesting trait about the cinematography category is that, while certain cinematographers certainly have been singled out by their branch relatively frequently, they also tend to spread the wealth around. I noted last year that, with the exception of the late, great Conrad L. Hall, no D.P. (director of photography) has reached a career tally of five nominations in over twenty years! That said, I fully expect this last statistic to change this year in the person of Roger Deakins.

The veteran British D.P. first garnered stateside fame due to his collaborations with the Coen brothers on films like “Barton Fink” and “The Hudsucker Proxy.” He’s since lensed such memorable films as “Dead Man Walking,” “A Beautiful Mind,” “The Hurricane” and “The Secret Garden.” And that’s just mentioning the films for which he hasn’t been nominated. Who can forget his work on “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Fargo,” “Kundun,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “The Man Who Wasn’t There?” He is again collaborating with the Coens this year on festival sensation “No Country for Old Men.”

Many directors and cinematographers have great working relationships. That of Deakins and the Coens is one of the best known and most successful. In “No Country for Old Men,” widely considered a return to form for the brothers, Deakins is has the task of capturing a sparse Texan landscape in what looks to be (quite literally) a dark light. Normally, I would say Deakins working for this duo and filming such atmospheres has all the makings of an assured nomination. However, Deakins is also the man responsible for the photography of Andrew Dominik’s “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.”

Even those who do not like Dominik’s film have tended to heap praise upon the camerawork. But will the cinematography branch go for it even though it’s not in such traditional AMPAS fare? Or will they look to the Coens once more? Or can Deakins double dip? Personally, I think he can. Deakins has also lensed Paul Haggis’s “In the Valley of Elah,” though I highly doubt he’ll end up with a nomination for it. The work is likely to do no harm with respect to his overall reputation this year, however, especially among his peers.

From where I’m sitting, the biggest obstacle in his race to a long overdue statuette for Deakins is Seamus McGarvey for his shooting of Joe Wright’s “Atonement.” McGarvey, whose work has previously been prominently displayed in films such as Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” and Stephen Daldry’s “The Hours,” has a fantastic opportunity here. The work will have the potential to be intimate yet epic and a particular tracking shot is already the subject of immense praise. I expect this film to be a major player this awards season and I certainly think McGarvey is going to be a major part of that.

Not far behind, I would argue, is Robert Elswit’s work on Paul Thomas Anderson’s “There Will Be Blood.” This seems to be the sort of film the cinematography category loves to embrace. If Anderson and his lenser do as well as they ought to on this effort (they’ve previously worked very well on “Magnolia,” “Boogie Nights” and “Punch-Drunk Love”), I expect to see Elswit back in the race. It’s been just two years since the veteran received his first Oscar nomination for George Clooney’s “Good Night, and Good Luck.” Elswit also has “Michael Clayton” this year. I can’t see him pulling off a nod for that, but I see the extra effort as only helping his cause.

Like McGarvey, Dariusz Wolski will be having his best chance to date for a nomination this year. Wolski’s career has been largely commercial in nature, but after memorable work on films such as “Crimson Tide,” “Dark City” and the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series, one could make a very solid case he’s due for his first trip to the Kodak. He turns to Tim Burton this year as the D.P. on “Sweeney Todd.” Musicals tend to have a fair amount of luck in this category, and camerawork will undoubtedly be key to the creation of mood in this latest effort from Burton (as indeed it always seems to be). If the film delivers (and this is a big if in my opinion), expect Wolski to be a major player this year.

Rodrigo Prieto has already garnered great acclaim for his work on Ang Lee’s latest, “Lust, Caution,” winning the award at Venice for Outstanding Technical Achievement. Prieto, like Elswit, received his first Oscar invite two years ago for “Brokeback Mountain,” also directed by Lee. The jury still seems to be out on how much love “Lust, Caution” will receive and/or how if American audiences will embrace it. But if it manages to score anywhere, Prieto’s work would be near the top of the list of potentials.

If we’re looking for pretty landscapes, Marc Forster’s “The Kite Runner” may very well deliver. The film certainly has potential (if totally unproved) to be a major player and cinematographer Roberto Schaefer was able to earn a 2004 BAFTA nod for a previous effort with Forster, “Finding Neverland.” Let’s wait for reception.

Also receiving a BAFTA nod in 2004, but failing to convert it to an Oscar citation, was Eric Gautier for his capturing of South America in “The Motorcycle Diaries.” Generally considered a bigger snubee than Schaefer, Gautier actually won the award at Cannes for his collaboration with Walter Salles. This year, he tries to capture the American western frontier in Sean Penn’s “Into the Wild.” Deemed by many to be Penn’s most accessible film to date, Gautier’s landscapes could very well bring him the attention from AMPAS many people feel he deserved three years ago.

A cinematographer who has been a consistent critical favorite this decade is Harris Savides, who garnering much acclaim for his work on such experimental features as Jonathan Glazer’s “Birth” and Gus Van Sant’s “Elephant” and “Gerry.” These are the sorts of films which obviously have a very difficult time getting any sort of traction in the Oscar race, but Ridley Scott’s “American Gangster” is his most mainstream effort to date – it could be an opportunity for brooding, gritty, memorable work. Having also lensed “Zodiac” and “Margot at the Wedding” this year, Savides, like Elswit and Deakins, is having a busy 2007. Let’s see what sort of footing Scott’s film can grab.

Other possibilities? “Charlie Wilson’s War” doesn’t seem like a classic cinematography nominee, but it could be a big hit with AMPAS and Stephen Goldblatt is respected. I wouldn’t rule that out.

Phedon Papamichael, meanwhile, is a D.P. who I am convinced is eventually going to be cited in this category. Could “3:10 to Yuma” be the film? I personally loved the western but I don’t know how well it’s going to be remembered come the end of the year.

Remi Adesafarin earned a nod for the first “Elizabeth” nine years ago. His work on the sequel looks impressive, though it’s my suspicion that the film’s overall reception will keep its nomination tally down.

Ed Lachman also got a nomination the last time he collaborated with Todd Haynes (“Far From Heaven”) and his work on “I’m Not There” does seem interesting. But somehow I doubt that the film or the work will be the sort this category tends to embrace.

And then there is the case of Henry Braham, being chosen by Chris Weitz to shoot “The Golden Compass.” This film will undoubtedly look gorgeous. But will that really be due to the camerawork? I’m not so sure. And even if it is, I can’t help but wonder if the cinematography branch will be hesitant to go to a film that is so reliant on CGI to bring its images to the screen.

At the end of the day, this category is one of my favorites. So regardless of what the Academy chooses to reward, here’s hoping to another great year for cinematic imagery.