Permanently damaged? That's bad.Originally Posted by Alan Gales
They still use carbon rods in some movies, it's rare but some DP's or Directors want that old school lighting feel.
I think nothin can be repeated like that, even the models, models today have a different perspective, they wouldn't be able to reproduce the same facial expressions, different poise etc. but why would you? Make your own mark, each of us has a style. Embrace that
Who said anything about trying to reproduce Hurrell's work? I am simply curious from an academic pov what was used to create his work. And btw - Hurrell's subjects were mainly actors/actresses - a totally different discipline to modelling. They made/make a living taking on different persona's - models don't (generally) - possibly one reason why the Hurrell look is so hard to achieve - how many of us get the chance to photograph a pro actor?
There was a whole different mind set back then too. Hurrell's 8x10's were used to promote the actors and actresses. You didn't have television and computers back then. A lot of time was spent on these photographs. I have read that the amount of time in front of the very bright lights over and over again actually damaged some of the actresses eyes over time. Of course no one thought about this in those days.
George Hurrell was always after two things, sharper lenses and brighter lights. He eventually hired his own retoucher who used a special vibrating retouching board so the retouching would look sharper.
I'm an actor actually and acting has changed even more than modeling haha :-p
But I know what you mean.
I wouldn't say "always". For half his career at least he used a verito.
That's true but he used it stopped down and when he found a sharper lens he went with it.
To me what is most interesting is the way George Hurrell 'saw' his portraits – with his painting background it seems he viewed each shot as a painted portrait – his use of chiaroscuro is outstanding. To view the subject as an artist, not a technician, is vitally important to the finished piece and how it looks – technically, it might not be brilliant (in some cases), but artistically, superb.
Regarding retouching, I can speak of this with some authority as I am an art director/graphic designer by day, to which end I come into constant contact with professional retouchers – all mac users, using Photoshop – and believe me, these guys can do anything if given the time and raw materials – I even got one guy, a few years back, to mimic the way Hurrell had Marlene's finger's retouched (on the famous shot) – on a shot I had directed in the studio. I promise, you could not tell the difference between the two, even enlarged to building size they were virtually identical. It shocked me how close they could mimic a chinagraph or retouching pencil. Unfortunately, I no longer work at that agency so don't have access to the files otherwise I would have posted them here.
The technical debate, to me, doesn't really matter. What matter's is what you are looking at and what you 'see', and George Hurrell was a genius at that.
Well Hurrel did what he did.. he used soft ones, then it was Celor. Sharp or not - does it all that much matter.
Dishes - yes you can use them, but its not same look.
I would love to see one of Hurel's negatives before and after retouching only because I am so bad at it. I restored a large format negative retouching stand (machine), just to learn the original technique. I just suck at it.
That is not to be taken as a criticism. Hurel's work is astounding. He set the standard, IMHO.
For fun, I wanted to share this image of my beauty dish
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks