If I get this loaded correctly you will be looking at portraits of Frank Lloyd W right and General Pershing, photographed by Yousuf Karsh...
Would anyone like to comment on the techniques of one of the truly great cl assical portrait photographers? What was his lighting set-up? What filters are u sed? Is there a book available on Karsh's style of portraiture?
Any and all comments are welcomed and appreciated, as always... -Dave
Dave: Frank Lloyd Wright's portrait is lit with the "T" or "arrowhead" lighting layout. A strong light is placed to the side and slightly to the rear of the subject and high, and a weaker light beside the camera. A fourth light may be used to lighten the background very slightly (I don't see it used here) and at times a hair light was used. Filters were not used, but Ortho film was often used on men. Gen. Pershing's portrait was lit with the main light on the right side of the picture, with a lesser fill light on the right. A background light of low intensity was used and I believe the background burned in to leave the slight line. An overhead light was directed to the hands and hair. I saw an exhibition of Karsh's portraits a few years ago, and it was magnificent. What was amazing was that his portraits of Krushev, taken in Russia with a Rollieflex, still had the skin tones and sheen on the skin as does the 8x10 shots. I believe these two shots you showed are made with the 8x10 camera and 14" lens. Along with the exhibition was a video tape of Karsh making a portrait, which showed the arrowhead lighting with spot lights. The rest is pure talent.
Regards,
Doug.
Dave: Sorry. The lighting for Gen. Pershing should read "a strong light to the right side of the camera and slightly high and a weaker fill light to the left of the camera.
Doug.
Hi Dave, I've got another question to go with yours. What would be an afordable portable light to achive these results, and could you use a small flash for the soft light? I mean, I know they are lights, but how big are they in terms of watts or size or cost? Thanks
I should give credit to the "George Eastman House". I "borrowed" these scans from their wonderful website at www.geh.org/ It's a great website that everyone should check out.... - Dave
Note to David C. Most of the studio hot lights were either 500 or 1,000 watts. You can get nearly the same effect with electronic flash without umbrellas. Use a layer of cheese cloth to smooth out the light just a tiny bit. This may sound funny, but it seems hot lights stay on the surface of the skin and give a smoother sheen, whereas electronic flash penetrates the surface of the skin. I am not the first photographer who has noticed this effect. However, electronic flash can be just about as good and it is certainly easier on the subject. You can't seem to get the sparkle on the skin tones with umbrellas or soft boxes, as that is their purpose. They smooth out the skin and eliminate a lot of retouching. To answer your question, the small flash will work for fill or background light.
Good Shooting,
Dave: I'll get this right yet. I was in too big of a hurry and didn't proof my answer as I should have. The arrowhead lighting on Frank Lloyd Wright's portrait uses TWO lights to the side and slightly to the rear, one on each side. Sorry for the errors.
Doug.
Just a guess: Looks like Pyro was used, as well as a fair amount of retouching by hand probably with a pencil on the negs.
One aspect of Karsh's portrait of note is the emphasis on the lighting the subject's hands separately. He felt that the hands are a very integral part of the subject's character. You can see this in the two pictures you posted. (In Pershing's portrait, there is one light gunning at the hands from behind to the left of the viewer), On the whole, the lighting is fairly hard which is why on negative retouching is required.
One book to see is "Karsh : A Sixty-Year Retrospective" he has two others I believe. I have this one. Some of the lighting schemes (not detailed in the book) were really amazing.
Thanks for the thoughts guys... There are several dozen Karsh portraits, as well as well as many other photographs from great photographers to be seen at the George Eastman House website at www.geh.org/ It is a "MUST SEE" website!
Doug...thanks for the ideas... I too had the opportunity to see about 100 Karsh portraits in an exhibit. There just isn't anything like seeing the actual poster-sized photographs!!! -Dave
From a dissenter. I can't deny the strength of the photos but in the long run am not impressed by someone who approaches every subject in the exact same way. It's the difference between the mystic-who impresses their will on life-and the poet-who lets it run through him or her: interpreting; guiding; but respecting and loving and being amazed at the world as it presents itself. Shouldn't some portraits be light-hearted; some serious;some bright; some dark; what is the personality and so on. More technically; some in-close; some showing the figure in the environment; some from the side; from above; from below; whatever. Karsh could photograph my next door neighbor and he or she would look like Gandhi or Sir Edmund Hillary or Albert Schweitzer or Bernard Baruch or Queen Elizabeth. Doesn't make sense to me. The oft-praised concept of STYLE reveals limitations as much as successes.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks