PDA

View Full Version : technique to get the "Karsh, Hurrell" look from sharp lenses??



stradibarrius
23-Dec-2014, 06:51
Is there a way to get that softer look from lenses that are really sharp. I have heard of using Vaseline on the lens...
I really like the old portrait style of Karsh and Hurrell. It seems that using something like vaseline would give to much of a "soft focus" look and that is not exactly what I have in mind. I have a 150mmSF lens for my RB67 and that look is not what I want.
Obviously I would like to be able to use the lenses I have...Symmanar-s 180mm, Fujinon-W 300mm, Claron-G 240mm.

jp
23-Dec-2014, 07:00
Karsh isn't terribly soft. You could easily get a commercial ektar to do a similar look.
Hurrell's style changed over his career, but perhaps the biggest portion of it was with the Verito.
Sell your 150sf and get one of these. Not what you asked, but you can sell the Verito or ektar for what you bought them for if you take care of them and don't overpay.

Peter De Smidt
23-Dec-2014, 07:11
There are all sorts of filters/techniques (Softars....) for softening portraits. If you could give an example of what you're after, that would be helpful. In addition, what about your 150SF don't you like? Too soft?

kmack
23-Dec-2014, 07:16
Try a piece of panty hose stretched over the lens.

goamules
23-Dec-2014, 07:29
Each technique gives a different look. The often repeated "smear Vaseline" technique (which I doubt was ever done by anyone with any sense) would probably give you a "smeared, blurry look."

A good soft focus lens has a sharp image, underlying some glow and unsharpness.

Obscuring the lens somewhat with gauze or paper with holes in it may give you a good affect. I haven't tried. I do know the Hollywood cinematographers used that technique sometimes, for movies.

jnantz
23-Dec-2014, 07:49
stradibarrius :

you might consider experimenting with the lenses you have. expose your film at different apertures
and change where you focus ... also try obstructing your lens' view ( like goamules suggests ) it works well.

stradibarrius
23-Dec-2014, 08:38
Yes that was what I wanted to do was use the lenses I have. I have heard the panty hose trick..

Jac@stafford.net
23-Dec-2014, 08:44
The lens is the of least concern here. You won't get images like this (http://pleasurephotoroom.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/george-hurrell-veronica-lake-1941.jpg) by obfuscating good, sharp optics. (Veronica Lake by G. Hurrell)

Keep in mind that the look of Karsh & Hurrell's work was largely due not to the lens, but the lighting, chosen plane of focus, the film's color sensitivity, a lot of *makeup work for Hurrell's subjects in particular and for both photographers, expert on-negative retouching, and manipulative printing.

*(Read up on Pancake (Panchromatic Cake) makeup, and Ortho makeup if you can find it.)

Peter De Smidt
23-Dec-2014, 09:31
Hurrell, at least, tended not to use pancake makeup. He used lip and eye makeup, and then, and Jac says, a lot of negative retouching, as in a number of hours per negative. In one of the books about him there's a picture of Joan Crawford before and after negative retouching.

Here's a link to a typical Hollywood style portrait session: https://pleasurephotoroom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/on-her-first-trip-to-hollywood-after-finishing-roman-holiday-audrey-hepburn-is-photographed-in-the-portrait-gallery-of-paramount-studios-by-bud-fraker-1953-photo-bob-willoughby.jpg

Tin Can
23-Dec-2014, 10:34
Hurrell, at least, tended not to use pancake makeup. He used lip and eye makeup, and then, and Jac says, a lot of negative retouching, as in a number of hours per negative. In one of the books about him there's a picture of Joan Crawford before and after negative retouching.

Here's a link to a typical Hollywood style portrait session: https://pleasurephotoroom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/on-her-first-trip-to-hollywood-after-finishing-roman-holiday-audrey-hepburn-is-photographed-in-the-portrait-gallery-of-paramount-studios-by-bud-fraker-1953-photo-bob-willoughby.jpg

Looks like all you need is a Saltzman Studio tripod holding Ansco tailboard, with 5x7 slider, 2 spot lights, 1 bouncing off black flag as bounce card, 1 as hair hair light and 2 big dummy's to hold the backdrop. The rest is all show and no go.

Oops, I forgot 1 lady movie star dressed to kill.

Am I missing anything?

Richard Wasserman
23-Dec-2014, 10:44
Yep—staff of experienced assistants to anticipate your every need.


Looks like all you need is a Saltzman Studio tripod holding Ansco tailboard, with 5x7 slider, 2 spot lights, 1 bouncing off black flag as bounce card, 1 as hair hair light and 2 big dummy's to hold the backdrop. The rest is all show and no go.

Oops, I forgot 1 lady movie star dressed to kill.

Am I missing anything?

Alan Gales
23-Dec-2014, 10:44
Like Peter says, Hurrell had his subjects to come to the shoot without pancake makeup and just eye and lip makeup. If you saw one of his photographs with and without retouching you would be amazed at the difference. Those Hollywood retouchers sometimes had a very "heavy" hand.

Karsh mostly used a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar on a Calumet C1 8x10 camera. Commercial Ektars are sharp without being "clinically" sharp. They are definitely not a soft focus lens.

Like said earlier, both Hurrell and Karsh were masters at lighting but quite different in style. I'm a big fan of both.

Bernice Loui
23-Dec-2014, 10:46
The film retouching department and print making department.

All of these glamor stills made and published as publicity images had their film negatives significantly altered. This note was from a photographer I knew who worked at these studios in Hollywood during this era.

It was not the lens/film alone that produced these medial images, there was an entire department and crew related to their production.



Bernice



Looks like all you need is a Saltzman Studio tripod holding Ansco tailboard, with 5x7 slider, 2 spot lights, 1 bouncing off black flag as bounce card, 1 as hair hair light and 2 big dummy's to hold the backdrop. The rest is all show and no go.

Oops, I forgot 1 lady movie star dressed to kill.

Am I missing anything?

David A. Goldfarb
23-Dec-2014, 10:51
Hurrell switched from soft lenses to a sharp Goerz Celor fairly early on. The rest is all lighting, and pencil and knife on the negative. Karsh's Commercial Ektar, as mentioned, is also not a soft lens. Retouching is part of the art.

Jac@stafford.net
23-Dec-2014, 10:54
2 big dummy's to hold the backdrop.

Two big dummies in crisp white shirts, press-pleated trousers and spit-shinned black shoes.

Dummies? More likely professional photographers collaborating.

Tin Can
23-Dec-2014, 10:57
Let's then add the Mad Men who used the images, with their words, to sell us anything and made us fall in love with the 'Look'.

I still subscribe to W magazine for the photography, as I have since WWD first published it in 1972.

W also has pretty good Art features once in a while.

And now it's a miserable APP!

Bernice Loui
23-Dec-2014, 11:00
Which involves stuff like scraping, pencil action and a lot more.
The film alterations were not minor, they were a very significant aspect of these images. Much like how Photoshop could be used today.


Bernice




Retouching is part of the art.

Tin Can
23-Dec-2014, 11:05
Two big dummies in crisp white shirts, press-pleated trousers and spit-shinned black shoes.

Dummies? More likely photographers assisting a friend.

Jac, I knew somebody would object. I was kidding, but I am sure they felt 'used' as simply backdrop holders. With all that gear, they 'needed' 2 grown, well dressed men to hold a doily? PR shot for sure.

lenser
23-Dec-2014, 11:11
Strad,

Here's a run down on some of the "filter" techniques I used on both RB67 and Haselblad lenses back in the portrait studio days.

All are home made and work very well in their own ways.

Heavy diffusion: a very small amount of Vaseline or even skin oil from the side of one's nose can be smeared in a circular fashion around the edge of filter (NEVER THE LENS FOR GOD'S SAKE) in to about a half in from the edge to combine both a heavily softened overlay of the sharp center image. In the right light, this also gives a bit of swirly bokah effect to the background.

Moderate and light diffusion: Two essential ways to approach this. One is the home made Softar style. The Hasselblad Softar filters are essentially plano parallel filters with several raised bumps molded into the plastic to create defocused regions to overlay the sharp areas. The Nikon soft focus filters were of this same style. They could be found in grades one through three for more of the diffusion. Few little bumps on grade one, many on grade three. Do the same general thing by using drops of model airplane cement randomly placed on glass filters. I've made them with the bumps, with a general spiral, and with intersecting lines like an old Kodak diffusion disc. All worked very well indeed.

The other method is to use black netting (tulle fabric) in one, two or three layers stretched and locked between two filters or mounted on some sort of plastic or cardboard mount and used in your matte box like a Lindhal bellows shade. The netting alone does a good job of general diffusion. Even better is to use something like the end of a lit cigarette in size to burn a few holes through the fabric to allow sharp areas to intrude over the diffused field. Use black netting for low key and white for high key. I think my favorite of those was one with a central hole about the size of a quarter and several smaller holes about the size of a cigarette tip.

In all cases, on a portrait, have your focus point on the catch lights in the subject's eyes. With diffusion, facial skin can fool you an a good focus point.

Jim Noel
23-Dec-2014, 11:51
Try a piece of panty hose stretched over the lens.

This may be the best answer you get. I can remember portrait photographers in the 40's and 50's who commonly used a piece of hose stretched tightly with a cigarette hole burned in the middle. This gave an underlying sharp image with nice soft flaring. Film is also important. During this period and before, orthochromatic film was much more prevalent than panchromatic. You might try Ilford Ortho. My personal preference is Kodak Ektascan B/RA X-Ray Film, which is a true orthochromatic film and can be handled under a red safelight.

Mark Sawyer
23-Dec-2014, 11:55
Just adding to the trivia, Hurrell used a Cooke Knuckler, as well as the Verito and Celor. He usually used the Verito closed down enough to subdue its softness, and I usually don't see much difference in Hurrell's results from these three potentially very different lenses.

Jim C.
23-Dec-2014, 12:03
Jac, I knew somebody would object. I was kidding, but I am sure they felt 'used' as simply backdrop holders. With all that gear, they 'needed' 2 grown, well dressed men to hold a doily? PR shot for sure.

I'll have to agree with Jac, and add there was a dress code back then too.
I'm sure the carpenters and prop makers got away with dungaree's and t shirts, but if you're interacting with celebs
I don't think casual/work attire will cut muster with studio heads. :)

Leszek Vogt
23-Dec-2014, 14:35
Try a piece of panty hose stretched over the lens.

This seems to be a good advise, but I need to add couple of things to it. Many Holly DP's used the panty hose (during production) attached to the rear of the lens. Also, it had to be TRUE Dior type, to make sure the eyelets were highly consistent. By the way, good luck finding those. Some of the lenses were biting sharp; therefore, a softer lens was used on purpose + the 'hose' to soften the lines. Some of the cinematographers had the technique so so perfect, that a particular actor would request this person to be filmed. I'd like to try this, as well.

Les

richardman
23-Dec-2014, 14:44
...
Am I missing anything?

Don't forget film :-) Yes, most "Hollywood look" require a lot of lighting and retouching. They would have loved Photoshop - oh wait, they do!

(*do you know that they have routinely used the movie version of photoshop to touch up actors in the past decade, on top of the lighting and makeup etc.?*)

Bill_1856
23-Dec-2014, 15:06
Apparently you've never seen a show of Karsh prints.

8x10 user
23-Dec-2014, 16:10
I once spent a couple of afternoons a with fellow who said he worked for Hurrell for a period of time. He said that Hurrell preferred to work with sharper lens. He mentioned the Cooke Series II, Heliar, and commercial Ektar. I was told his style had a lot to do with complicated lighting scenarios often consisting of up to 8 lights. Lighting would be customized to a persons personality and face. This fellow sent me neat lighting guide entitled "Classic Noir Portrait Lighting" but unfortunately I don't have the rights to share it. I'm sure that similar guides exist.

Oh and yes the negatives were retouched on an adams retouching machine.

Jac@stafford.net
24-Dec-2014, 15:05
I once spent a couple of afternoons a with fellow who said he worked for Hurrell for a period of time. He said that Hurrell preferred to work with sharper lens. He mentioned the Cooke Series II, Heliar, and commercial Ektar. I was told his style had a lot to do with complicated lighting scenarios often consisting of up to 8 lights. Lighting would be customized to a persons personality and face. This fellow sent me neat lighting guide entitled "Classic Noir Portrait Lighting" but unfortunately I don't have the rights to share it. I'm sure that similar guides exist.

Oh and yes the negatives were retouched on an adams retouching machine.

Peter De Smidt
4-Jan-2015, 20:28
http://dailydimmick.com/2013/07/29/unattainable-beauty/

Shootar401
16-Jan-2015, 16:47
I don't have the rights to share it.

If he shared it with you, you can share it with us. Upload it to a Dropbox or someplace.

jnantz
16-Jan-2015, 18:32
there used to be a photographer in LA named mark wangerin ( not a long time ago but within the last 10? years )
he had a website and a message board that a lot of people interested in this sort of photography used to frequent.
mr wangerin became a master of the "hollywoodland lighting technique" using a verito portrait lenses.
he even had people on his messageboard who worked with hurell ( retoucher? printer? i can't remember anymore ) who shed light on some of the techniques used.
mr wangerin used fresnel lights and a long lens ... i don't think he used more than a few lights, certainly not 8...
maybe david goldfarb remembers i remember seeing him on the message board .. my memory is terrible.
his website might be accessible ( and his message board ) through the way back machine ....
i do remember that i worked for someone who made portraits like karsh. she used the classic key, fill, background and hair light and that is it
exposed all her 5x7 negatives at around f11,5 and if she wanted diffusion she had me use cellophane when i printed it ...
i processed it all in dk50 in hangers ... we retouched the film on an adams desk ( we used tri x ortho of men and regular old tri x for women )
we blended and smoothed the skin a lot filled in crows feet and laugh lines for women a little bit and that was it men not so much the same but lesser.

when i worked in the coffee trade a russian friend came up to me and told me the trick of making russian tea .. he said " you add just-enough water"
the same goes for retouching with leads, using cellophane or photoshop .. you do it "just enough" too much is like watery tea .. bad

appletree
19-Mar-2015, 12:26
Bumping a semi-old thread. Can someone please explain to me the nylon and cigarette burnt holes trick?
Do I take two clear filters and sandwich stocking between them (real tight). Then singe a hole in the middle and some holes a tad from the edge. I am sure there is no exact science, but trying to understand it.

Would be neat to be able to make one that can be used over and over, without needing to remake it.

This would be used on a 210mm Symmar-S, and I just want a way to gently soften the details in portraits. I know I won't get the look from a Heliar or anything.
I don't even own a full set of lenses so buying a specific portrait lens at this point seems moot. Maybe after I get a 90mm and 150mm, but a ways away. I don't do a ton of portrait work, but would like to do more of it.

Jac@stafford.net
19-Mar-2015, 13:08
Austin, there is a related post/topic here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120973-Lens-flare-as-quot-contrast-contol-quot&p=1227801&viewfull=1#post1227801). This one points to contrast filters, including a Soft Contrast filter that might interest you.

Another approach is to explore true soft-focus lenses but I was taught, Hurrell used sharp lenses, and did a lot with light and pencils.

Good luck!
.

Alan Gales
19-Mar-2015, 13:23
I always heard that you stretched the the nylon hose tight across the lens and then secured it using a rubber band. If I was going to burn a hole in it using a cigarette I would place a cheap filter in front of the lens before I did so. It doesn't take much to melt nylon. I learned this the hard way. I was welding once and a spark landed on the hole in the knee of my jeans and burnt a hole in my polypropylene long johns. You could always reuse the nylon if you want. Just make sure the hole is centered in front of the lens if that is where you want it.

You can also use vaseline on a filter or one of the soft focus filters available. Cokin used to make various soft filters and they are dirt cheap on Ebay. The effect of course not the same as a true soft focus lens but you may be happy with the results.

Alan Gales
19-Mar-2015, 13:52
I checked and I have six Cokin P series (the larger series) filters I'll let you have for shipping costs from St. Louis to Cypress.

Diffuser 1 (A minimal bit of softness)

Dreams 2 (This filter has a diffusion spot in the center surrounded by 9 other diffusion spots. It is used to best effect with a back lit subject)

Pastel 1 and 2 (A pair of soft focus filters. They show landscapes on the packaging but they could be used for portraits)

Net Filter Black 1 and 2 (Supposed to mimic the panty hose or screen effect)

You will need a Cokin P filter holder and the correct size adapter ring for your lens again cheap on Ebay.

P.M. me with your address if you are interested.

appletree
19-Mar-2015, 18:32
Thank you all for the great information and generous offer. Very kind!!!

Now to go to eBay and pick up a filter holder and ring adapter. :)

sun of sand
23-Mar-2015, 23:09
Hairspray on a filter gives a better look than Vaseline
Foggy

He used a celor which is a semi soft lens. Sharper than soft. Id suggest finding any old simply made lens of suitable focal length
Cheap and gives a closer look than any "filtering"

Perhaps just tap on the tripod as taking the picture

Peter Yeti
24-Mar-2015, 17:15
The Celor isn't a soft or semi-soft lens at all. It is a dialyte design, constructed to give very sharp and high resolution images (for the time). It was the predecessor of the Dogmar, which was closer to Hurrell's time, so I'm a little surprised that he used such an old hog. Anyway, this seems in agreement to what others posted earlier.

You are right, hairspray is a better way to make a cheapo Zeiss softar (or Sinar diffusion filter). But the centre should stay clear in both cases, which is a bit more difficult with hairspray.

Peter

sun of sand
24-Mar-2015, 22:17
Put a penny in the center spray the spray
Remove penny
Spray again lightly


Spray a mist into air and let fall onto filter
Dont spray directly onto filter
Better atomization or more regular dots whichever


The celor is a great lens imo. It is somewhat soft glowy wide open with nicer bokeh and quite sharp by f16
F11 or so I think is at its best
It's a versatile and cheap lens

sun of sand
24-Mar-2015, 22:21
The dogmar improved the celor but many believe took away the special character
Softness
That the celor had
Probably why he stuck with the celor

Peter Yeti
25-Mar-2015, 15:14
I think your instructions to make a simple soft filter are excellent!

You are right that the Celor is slightly soft wide open and that it has nice bokeh. But that was pretty general to all fast lenses of that period, wasn't it? The Dogmar "improved" that mainly by reducing internal flare as far as I know. But when I look at the soft portraits of Hurrell, I don't see the subtle effect of softness wide open. He either used a real soft-focus lens (which other more knowledgeable people here say he didn't) or used a softening device. In some of his images you also see softening by the heavy retouching that was done. But the sharp images of his could have been taken easily with a Celor - or almost any other period lens. I can imagine that he wasn't too much concerned about the lens. Too sad we can't ask him anymore.

Peter

mdarnton
25-Mar-2015, 15:49
We have a giant Hurrell print in our shop, and to me it just looks like an enlargement made through a stocking, like I used to do printing portraits in the studio I worked at in high school in the 60s, except we did it for 50% of the exposure, and the print looks like 100%

jp
25-Mar-2015, 17:40
I think he started with a verito and eventually moved to the celor lens. Vieira's book on p51 says with the celor lens, diffusion was added in the darkroom, and a new retouching artist was hired because it was sharper than needed. Prior use of the verito made retouching easier. I think elsewhere it says he took only his verito with him when he changed studios previously.

Peter Yeti
25-Mar-2015, 17:59
What puzzles me most is why he got a Celor at all. This lens was outdated a good 20 years when he started business and I doubt it was very common in the US. The Dogmar was way more widespread but also disappeared soon after the fusion of Zeiss and Goerz in 1926. Maybe this was just a random pick and not that important to him due to the other parameters in his work flow.

Peter

richardman
26-Mar-2015, 19:56
On a FB group, this subject came up a few weeks ago and I mentioned that Hurrell used retouching extensively and a Russian photographer says that he has done portraits for over 20 years using the same lens etc. and got the same results etc. without retouching etc. etc. I'm not much into debate so I just let it passed.

Willie
29-Mar-2015, 04:10
Don't forget the lighting. Hot lights were used often by these photographers.

Lightbender
30-Mar-2015, 18:39
Regarding the diffusion.. there are also filters designed to add diffusion, or a cross-screen, etc.

Jac@stafford.net
30-Mar-2015, 18:45
What puzzles me most is why he got a Celor at all. This lens was outdated a good 20 years when he started business and I doubt it was very common in the US. [...]

Perhaps he used the Celor (if that is what he used) because suited his technique or habit. As many here will testify, later technology does not insure greater aesthetic qualities.

About hot lights - incandescent bulbs are diffuse unless put through a fresnel. They have a beautiful diffuse quality - at the expense of the model's discomfort. They were not on all the time.

And as many here have noted, his pre-visualization included extensive retouching, pencil and scalpels.

Tin Can
30-Mar-2015, 18:52
In the back of my Karsh book 'Portraits of Greatness' he says he primarily used only 8x10 camera with 127mm to 14" Ektar, occasionally 4x5, TLR, Leica. He says he prefers tungsten lighting and used strobe when abroad. Page 207 paraphrased.

Every page in this book could be cut out and framed. Made in Netherland by sheet fed gravure, I bought this 1960 reprint for $13 in excellent condition 6 months ago in a hipster bookstore.

I really should stick them all on my wall.

Jac@stafford.net
30-Mar-2015, 18:58
Every page in this book could be cut out and framed. Made in Netherland by sheet fed gravure, I bought this 1960 reprint for $13 in excellent condition 6 months ago in a hipster bookstore.

I really should stick them all on my wall.

Another reason to visit Randy.
.

CropDusterMan
30-Mar-2015, 21:31
I'm a little confused with the Karsh part of the OP's original Q...I have seen some Karsh prints in person, and although
it was years ago, I do remember them being very sharp...look at the portrait of Hemingway for instance. The lighting
was spectacular...a lot of technique there...flagging, serious light control and critical focus, not to mention an obviously
well done neg and awesome printing.

Drew Wiley
31-Mar-2015, 09:57
Here we are after a year of thread and I still don't get the connection. To me, Karsh and Hurrell did things quite differently. I've had long conversations with one
of Hurrell's longtime assistants, and we have a big Hurrell print in our family collection. A lot of pencil smudge on the negatives was involved. Karsh, on the other hand, tended to render some very crisp prints with hard lighting if the subject was appropriate for that. I don't see much resemblance at all.

Alan Gales
31-Mar-2015, 10:13
Here we are after a year of thread and I still don't get the connection. To me, Karsh and Hurrell did things quite differently. I've had long conversations with one
of Hurrell's longtime assistants, and we have a big Hurrell print in our family collection. A lot of pencil smudge on the negatives was involved. Karsh, on the other hand, tended to render some very crisp prints with hard lighting if the subject was appropriate for that. I don't see much resemblance at all.

Well, they both shot b&w portraiture with an 8x10 and were very good at what they did. ;)

I'm a big fan of both and I agree, Drew. They differ more than they resemble each other.

John Kasaian
31-Mar-2015, 11:06
Geez!
How come nobody here wants to sucker punch Hurrell and deck Karsh?
I took on Ansel, Kerestz and Weston with one arm tied behind my back in that other thread.
What a bunch of panty waist poltroons!:rolleyes:

Tin Can
31-Mar-2015, 11:12
Geez!
How come nobody here wants to sucker punch Hurrell and deck Karsh?
I took on Ansel, Kerestz and Weston with one arm tied behind my back in that other thread.
What a bunch of panty waist poltroons!:rolleyes:

May the Force be with you.

Peter Yeti
31-Mar-2015, 11:49
Funny, I missed the point that all this was about punching and decking.:confused: As Drew pointed out correctly, the original question may be a little beside the point. Karsh had a very consistent style while Hurrell changed frequently. The closest common denominator may be the light, though they used that quite differently, too. It's also interesting to see that basically all posts (mine included) assumed that stradibarrius indeed meant Hurrell's soft look. It made for an interesting thread anyway. I think my own preference doesn't matter in this respect.

Peter

Alan Gales
31-Mar-2015, 12:29
Funny, I missed the point that all this was about punching and decking.:confused: As Drew pointed out correctly, the original question may be a little beside the point. Karsh had a very consistent style while Hurrell changed frequently. The closest common denominator may be the light, though they used that quite differently, too. It's also interesting to see that basically all posts (mine included) assumed that stradibarrius indeed meant Hurrell's soft look. It made for an interesting thread anyway. I think my own preference doesn't matter in this respect.

Peter

I've got a book on Hurrell and the beginning of the book starts out with his very early work and progresses to his later work. It's obvious that his images got sharper over time and were not soft focus later.

If we read the OP's original post it says that he owns an RB67 150mm soft focus lens that he is not happy with. I think what he is looking for is sharp but not clinically sharp like Karsh's work and Hurrell's later work. Today's modern lenses are sometimes too sharp for portraits unless you desire to show every little detail and imperfection.

John Kasaian
31-Mar-2015, 12:31
Funny, I missed the point that all this was about punching and decking.:confused: As Drew pointed out correctly, the original question may be a little beside the point. Karsh had a very consistent style while Hurrell changed frequently. The closest common denominator may be the light, though they used that quite differently, too. It's also interesting to see that basically all posts (mine included) assumed that stradibarrius indeed meant Hurrell's soft look. It made for an interesting thread anyway. I think my own preference doesn't matter in this respect.

Peter
Here you go, Peter;)
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?121130-Ansel-Adams-Do-you-fight-or-embrace-his-influence-on-your-landscapes&p=1231319#post1231319

Drew Wiley
31-Mar-2015, 13:22
Hurrell matched the work to the need. Movie stars needed to look like movie stars, even if it meant chainsawing a wart off their nose. They had all the necessary
tricks long before Photoshop. One doesn't go about making Charles Bronson and Jane Russell look the same. I mean ... one needs wrinkles and character marks,
the other needs everything blended and covered up. Every portrait photographer knows that much.

UnSean
1-Apr-2015, 05:10
If I may chime in, 20 years ago I tried to copy the Hurrell look, I found a beautiful fresnel light that gave a glow to the skin, I used a very thick 8x10 film I cannot remember which one but it had to stand up to a lot of pencil work, I found that I did not need to soften the lens because the combination of light and the pencil work gave the desired effects, having said that the skill the retoucher's back then must have been exceptional and after trying these techniques I just could not match the skin glow he had, so I gave on on portrait work.

Karsch on the other hand was great at capturing the subjects character not only the lighting but the mood and pose, as Drew said, these two are very different, I love Hurrell for immortalising woman and Karsh for men.

Give me Photoshop any day.

Drew Wiley
1-Apr-2015, 12:11
I don't do portraits often. But I've kept my big Arri Fresnel and a 14" dagor for the 8x10. My problem is finding classic graded papers with a lot of silver that snatch
develop well - a VERY different technique than I use for typical landscape photography, but ooohh so subtle in the midtones and highlights. I've got a bit of EMaks paper left. Otherwise I've made MGWT work nicely, but in a different manner. I've got a lot of respect for those old timers who did this kind of thing on a routine
basis. But they knew about pyro too.

Christopher Nisperos
9-Nov-2017, 14:28
Hurrell's look didn't rely so much on make-up as retouching. Therefore, I wouldn't exactly say, "a lot of" make up.

Jim Noel
9-Nov-2017, 14:36
Looks like all you need is a Saltzman Studio tripod holding Ansco tailboard, with 5x7 slider, 2 spot lights, 1 bouncing off black flag as bounce card, 1 as hair hair light and 2 big dummy's to hold the backdrop. The rest is all show and no go.

Oops, I forgot 1 lady movie star dressed to kill.

Am I missing anything?

Yes, film. For many, or most of these portraits the film was orthochromatic,not panchromatic. Some say there are ways to imitate ortho film with filters, not quite.

mdarnton
10-Nov-2017, 08:47
When I worked in a portrait studio in the 60s, we used a tightly-stretched (to open the knit up more) piece of stocking on an embroidery hoop, under the enlarging lens, for 50% of the exposure. I believe someone has already mentioned that this isn't ideal because diffusing the enlargement spreads the shadows into the highlights, trending towards a low key effect, rather than what an SF lens does, spread the highlights into the shadows, illuminating them.

Jac@stafford.net
10-Nov-2017, 13:32
Has anyone tried Black Dot type filters? I got a lot of Harrison & Harrison filters, put them into storage without even trying them. This thread has nudged me to find them.