What is a Beauty Dish ?

[Paramount bokeh]

All,

A question: I read somewhere that George Hurrell used a beauty dish – but in all the books/photo's I can find of him at work, I cannot see any evidence of one in use. Can anyone throw any light on this (no pun intended). I am not skilled enough to recognise one by its pattern on a print.

Look forward to your enlightenment (no pun intended :)).

PB

[C. D. Keth]

It's a type of reflector on a strobe. It just looks like a big wok. If you were to google "beauty dish" you would see many, many photos of them in different sizes.

[Paramount bokeh]

Hi Chris, thanks for the reply – I apologise if I have caused confusion – I know what one looks like hence my question about not seeing one in the pictures....

[C. D. Keth]

Oh, I'm afraid i can't shed any light on George Hurrel's use, or not, of any specific piece of equipment. Very often writers get confused and see some stuff on a studio wall and assume it gets used a lot when it doesn't.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Apparently Hurrell made use of a scoop, which was mistaken to be a beauty dish, at least on model mayhem.

[Leigh]

... which was mistaken to be a beauty dish, at least on model mayhem.
There's an error on MM??? :eek: No, can't be.

Oh, the shame of it all. We'll never live it down. Our reputation is ruined. :D

Back on topic... I don't think beauty dishes existed when Hurrell was working, did they?

- Leigh

[ROL]

Back on topic... I don't think beauty dishes existed when Hurrell was working, did they?

- Leigh

Right back at ya – Oh I dunno, I always thought Hurrell photos were all about beauty dishes.

[Ed Bray]

I think you will find that a lot of his models were lit with light from a spotlight shone though a 'Fresnel Lens'.

The hard shadows with sharp edges are a bit of a giveaway. Fortunately the models were very well made up with great make up as this type of light is not very forgiving to blemishes.

Portrait photographers tend to use softboxes and umbrellas to light their subjects these days, it takes a lot more skill to light a portrait well with a hard light.

[Alan Gales]

I have a book on Hurrell that contains quite a few photos that show his set up with the models and there are no beauty dishes used. No snoots or barn doors either. It mentions in the book that he used arc lights, lightweight Mole-Richardson spots and a Bardwell-McCallister boomlight. It does mention that sometimes he would drape material over his lights to soften them.

I'm not saying that he didn't use any light modifiers but the pictures in my book don't show any.

[Brian C. Miller]

"Balcar, an innovator in lighting since 1952, invented the beauty dish (as far as I know)." (PDF link (http://theprosight.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/beauty-dishes1.pdf))

So the beauty dish definitely wasn't in use, as a product anyways, before 1952. BTW, that's a nice comparison of some beauty dishes. They all have a slightly different character to them.

This isn't to say that photographers weren't using them prior to 1952. It's basically a big flat reflector, maybe with something in front of the bulb.

[Paramount bokeh]

Thanks for the replies. Alan – which book is it that you have showing his set up – I would like to get it. Many thank.

[soeren]

See link for examples of lighting including beauty dish.


http://strobox.com/

Perhaps the book "Hollywood Portraits" by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos could be helpfull?

or try this thread
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?88200-George-Hurrell-lighting

Beautydish

[Alan Gales]

Thanks for the replies. Alan – which book is it that you have showing his set up – I would like to get it. Many thank.

Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits by Mark A Vieira

[Alan Gales]

The book has a photo of Joan Crawford and Franchot Tone on the front jacket. It's a neat book that tells about Hurrell's professional life and there are a lot of photographs in it including a few of Hurrell with an actress. Of course you can see some of his equipment in these shots.

This book is not an instructional book at all.

[Alan Gales]

If you are trying to exactly reproduce what Hurrell did today it would be impossible. He purchased a huge batch of outmoded Eastman Commercial Ortho film from a wholesaler who wanted to unload it when panchromatic became available a year earlier. This is the film he used for most of his photography. He had huge ceilings in his studio on the Movie grounds and used Arc lights which are the same kind of lights which movie crews used to light sets to look like sunlight. Sometimes the amount of lights he used was unbelievable. All of his photographs are heavily retouched by retouch artists which was customary in the day.

There are books available that teach how to get that "Hollywood" look using hot lights or even strobes. You can get a very similar look today.

[Paramount bokeh]

Thanks Alan, – and thanks all for good advice. However, impossible is a word I don't recognise.
Cheers. PB.

[Jim Noel]

There's an error on MM??? :eek: No, can't be.

Oh, the shame of it all. We'll never live it down. Our reputation is ruined. :D

Back on topic... I don't think beauty dishes existed when Hurrell was working, did they?

- Leigh

Absolutely he used them. I have pics of him working and they are included. . They are for strobes, but they were first used with hot lights.

[C. D. Keth]

If you are trying to exactly reproduce what Hurrell did today it would be impossible. He purchased a huge batch of outmoded Eastman Commercial Ortho film from a wholesaler who wanted to unload it when panchromatic became available a year earlier. This is the film he used for most of his photography. He had huge ceilings in his studio on the Movie grounds and used Arc lights which are the same kind of lights which movie crews used to light sets to look like sunlight. Sometimes the amount of lights he used was unbelievable. All of his photographs are heavily retouched by retouch artists which was customary in the day.

There are books available that teach how to get that "Hollywood" look using hot lights or even strobes. You can get a very similar look today.


Why would that be impossible? You didn't say a single thing that's impossible.

[vinny]

What Chris said.
I know a guy who has a bunch of arc lights which still work. It's pretty rare but there are a few people who still use them on occasion.

[Alan Gales]

Why would that be impossible? You didn't say a single thing that's impossible.

I guess I should have been clearer. It would be impossible to exactly do everything the way Hurrell did it. It would be impossible to use the same film, lighting equipment, and professional retouchers that Hurrell used. Some of Hurrell's models actually had their vision permanently damaged from his lighting equipment.

As far as results go, sure you can approximate what he did if you have the room, equipment and learned to retouch negatives. You could also do it safely today.

[StoneNYC]

I guess I should have been clearer. It would be impossible to exactly do everything the way Hurrell did it. It would be impossible to use the same film, lighting equipment, and professional retouchers that Hurrell used. Some of Hurrell's models actually had their vision permanently damaged from his lighting equipment.

As far as results go, sure you can approximate what he did if you have the room, equipment and learned to retouch negatives. You could also do it safely today.

Permanently damaged? That's bad.

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 :)

[Paramount bokeh]

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?

[Alan Gales]

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.

[StoneNYC]

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?

I'm an actor actually and acting has changed even more than modeling haha :-p

But I know what you mean.

[jp]

George Hurrell was always after two things, sharper lenses and brighter lights.

I wouldn't say "always". For half his career at least he used a verito.

[Alan Gales]

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.

[Paramount bokeh]

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.

[SergeiR]

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.

[Jac@stafford.net]

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.

[StoneNYC]

For fun, I wanted to share this image of my beauty dish :) it's a Polaroid so not LF :/

94118

[SR95RACER]

Hurrell never used a beauty dish ,at least not as the ones used today .Retouching was often done with a Adams retouching machine or the retouching desk .

[Peter De Smidt]

There is a before and after retouching example in one of the books on Hurrell. It's a picture of Joan Crawford. I can hunt it down tomorrow. They also show his typical lighting setups.

[Jac@stafford.net]

There is a before and after retouching example in one of the books on Hurrell. It's a picture of Joan Crawford. I can hunt it down tomorrow. They also show his typical lighting setups.

Peter, that is great information. Thank you. With just that information I can browse our local libraries. If I find the book I will share it.

[SergeiR]

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.

Well.. No he didnt. First of all there was C.Bull who worked at exactly same direction. Secondly there were plenty of other folks. You just happen to know his name, thats all :) Marketing is great thing, isnt it.

As of "before and after" - not a whole lot of chance, b/c it was done on negatives. So once "after" was there - "before" was dead.

But to give you better idea on what people did with those retouch stands - i just did article recently, so i happen to have scans handy.. book on "amateur photography" circa 1911.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8120/8677503444_76f1ec2257_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8677503444/)
Before retouching (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8677503444/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8544/8676396807_9c43843497_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8676396807/)
After retouching (http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergeistudio/8676396807/) by Sergei Rodionov (http://www.flickr.com/people/sergeistudio/), on Flickr

[Armin Seeholzer]

I think it was Hensel were it invented, but maybe you are right:
https://www.google.ch/search?q=hensel+beauty+dish&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Eo19UdjTLqaQ4gTCiIHABw&ved=0CDwQsAQ&biw=2318&bih=1324

Cheers Armin