On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 16:55:03 -0600, Tom Phillips <nospam777.RemoveThis@aol.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Peter De Smidt wrote:
>>
>> Tom Phillips wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > If your intent is to recreate Hollywood glamour effects
>> > you won't want to use strobe. Tungsten is what was used
>> > to create this effect. Flash just doesn't have the same
>> > look. You might also consider George Hurrell was a
>> > retouching artist and did a great deal of that to his
>> > classic photographs of hollywood stars. He used a single
>> > main incandescent key light, but then shaped the lighting
>> > using additional lights. A guy named Mark Vieira has a
>> > book on Hurrell (Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits.)
<font color=brown> >> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.thestarlightstudio.com/hhppage.htm</font" target="_blank">http://www.thestarlightstudio.com/hhppage.htm</font</a>>
>> >
>>
>> It's true that Hurrell used coninuous output lights, and it's also true
>> that film responds differently to different types of lighting (strobe,
>> tungsten, fluroscent...). Nonetheless, light source size and position
>> matter most for the character of lighting. So flashes with appropriate
>> reflectors will give results with a very similar character to tungsten
>> movie lights.
>
>Well, similar style is different from recreating. Given Hurrell's
>retouching played a major role, similar lighting style is easier
>to achieve. Nevertheless, there will be a different look and feel.
>
>> Morever, tungsten movie lights are very difficult on the
>> model if he/she has to look near them. Movie stars of the golden area
>> were used to this type of thing, and they paid for it with such maladies
>> as "klieg eyes", but modern models will probably not be. Moreover, movie
>> lights are hot, and you need to use screens to protect the model if the
>> halogen lightbulb were to shatter. My experience shooting "Hurrell"
>> style has been that I prefer flash. Flash also helps limit problems with
>> subject movement. (In my case, I used an 8x10 studio portrait camera
>> with a Veritas lens. Like Hurrell, I prefer to stop this lens down to at
>> least f11 or f16. Even with HP5+ and a 2000 watt "blonde" mainlight, I
>> had fairly long exposures.)
>>
>> As someone alluded to already, Hurrell, or his assitant, would spend
>> hours retouching the negatives, mainly with pencils. He often had his
>> models wear only eye and lip makeup, as heavy retoucing where models
>> used foundation would lead to "plastic" looking skin. In one of the
>> recent books on Hurrell, there is an example of a print from an
>> unretouched negative of Joan Crawford next to one from a retouched
>> negative. There's a huge difference!
>>
>> -Peter
<font color=green> >> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.desmidt.net</font" target="_blank">www.desmidt.net</font</a>>
If I may pop in here with a few words. I've read the various posts
and agree with some of whats said. Let me ad that alot is being
forgotton here.
The classic movie studio portraits for instance were all shot on 8x10
simply because thousands upon thousands were being contacted printed
and given out. Contact prints were the cheapest and quickest to make.
When I attended Brooks Institute in the late 60's this was still
common and I actually knew a guy who made his living at it. He used a
military surplus contact printer with 37 lamps and switches (for
didging) and used 500 foot long rolls of paper that were processed in
a Versamat.
The most common portrait film of the day was Kodak Super XX rated at
64 and under developed. Combine that with the need for massive depth
of field to do a head and shoulders shot on 8x10 and your almost
frying the subject. You will notice in so many of these shots how
shallow the depth of field actually is for a close up. Even an 8x10
full length needs F:16 to keep all of the body front to back in focus
and I frequently had to shoot at F:32 with 8x10 and my Norman-2000
strobe set up with ASA 200 E-6.
There was also mention of retouching and thats quite true. Karsh of
Ottawa for instance had these marvelous highlights in his 8x10
portraits and these were put in with a red dye called "Newcosine".
His second wife was a master retoucher and was probably the best in
the world at Newcosine work.
I had a side hobby of trying to (and succeeding) in doing Karsh like
portraits but only lacked the famous models. Kenny Rodgers also
published a book of his 8x10 inch negitive work bak in the mid-80's
He had the advantage of things like super fine grain asa 400 T-Max
films and strobes though. These can be amazing in 8x10. I once did a
scenic on some of this stuff and when the good one was shot I threw
the 4x5 back on the B&J and shot a 4x5 with the same kind of film and
blew it up on the wall (Using an MCRX) to the size of what would be 10
foot tall if the whole 8x10 was used and the grain was almost not
there!
Photography is taking a big hit these days because of visually
illiterate yuppies and digital cameras in control of things these days
but quality is quality. It is too bad that the level of quality
demanded before I retired to Australia is not the norm today.
THOM<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: B&W Hollywood style portraits. 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
