George Hurrell lighting

[John Conway]

I am preparing myself for for a few portraits of friends and family. One friend, an attractive middle aged girl, is a singer and she really digs the arts. She asked me if i could do a portrait of her like the old hollywood style portraits. I of course said that it would be no problem. I am looking forward to the project. So I have been studying Hurrell images since he was always one of my favorites. I just love George Hurrell's work. But sometimes I have a hard time trying to figure out what lighting sets he used on some of the images. It seems like the lights are coming from everywhere. I read that he used as many lights as he could get his hands on. My research continues.

[Jay DeFehr]

Yes, you can drive yourself crazy trying to locate all the lights in his setups. Instead, it might be more useful to simply identify the lighting pattern/ direction of the main light, lighting ratio, and quality of the light. It's almost always, Butterfly, 1:2, or less, and hard. You can throw in a few kickers, hair lights and background lights, but I think the real challenge becomes controlling all that light spilling everywhere, so add at least as many flags/gobos as you have lights. And shoot with a big Verito!:)

[William Whitaker]

This is a good primer:
http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/0817440208/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331259119&sr=1-2

Not specifically Hurrell, but then there were several very talented photographers of that genre.

[Drew Wiley]

A family member has a big 40X60 Jane Russell print. I think Jay has the
right idea. And at least one of his assistants is still alive and I've chatted
with him. I don't try to copy what he did, but have been able to arrive at
a similar effect at times. I just use big sheets of polyester or silk as semi-diffusers, then place a big Arri focusing fresnel light behind them, which is
old movie-style and very fast to control the diffusion. Add a few reflectors
and a fill-in hot light or two, and it seems to work. I'm not a portrait pro
by any means, but am perhaps more skilled in the dkrm for the final necessary tweaks. I would be curious if anyone knows his actual lens selection. I know that at times an 11X14 camera was involved.

[John Conway]

There are not many pictures of him in the studio working but a few that I have seen show four light set ups and always a boom light. He really liked that boom. It's also interesting how strong and hard the lighting was, but yet the pictures had that intense glow.

[Mark Sawyer]

I would be curious if anyone knows his actual lens selection.

I've always heard a Verito early, and a Celor later on.

[John Conway]

This is a good primer:
http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/0817440208/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331259119&sr=1-2

Not specifically Hurrell, but then there were several very talented photographers of that genre.
I will be ordering this one for sure.

[John Conway]

One of my favorites is one of his later portraits. I think the the woman, Shannon Tweed, was a model or an actress. The lighting seems more simple in the later work.

[Harrison Braughman]

Attempting to create the Hollywood portraiture look of the 1930's is more difficult than it appears. Hurrell, C.S.Bull, Robert Coburn, Ruth Louise, and others had a great understanding of light, light quality, an amazing ability to "see" light and had masterful compositional skills.

In trying to recreate the Hollywood look of the 1930’s keep in mind modern flash units cannot replicate the “hardness” of the fresnel focusing spots nor produce that wonderful intense glow created by the high UV content carbon-arc lights of the 1930’s. These lights rendered lips dark and made rosy complexions look more dramatic than they were. Now, having said this, an easy way to mimic this “hardness” look and intense glow is to bring your lights close to your subject. You may find you have to feather or skim your lights to mimic the effect of the spots. Additionally, you may find it necessary for your model to wear heavier than normal lipstick and blush.

Hurrell sometimes employed as few as one light and as many as five or more in his set-ups. It was not the number of lights, but his ability to “see” light coupled with his compositional skills which made his work great.
Although I have never seen Hurrell's actual lighting ratios, his images suggest a ratio range from 2:1 to around 9:1 or higher. With today's film combined with modern coated lenses, I would start with an 8:1 ratio (3 stops) for dramatic character portraits and somewhere near a 4:1 (2 stops) for soft romantic images.

Finally, Hurrell’s basic lighting scheme centered upon three distinct styles, butterfly (called paramount in the 1930’s), loop and Rembrandt. He employed other lighting schemes but these were his default patterns.

To Good Light.
Harrison

[Jim Galli]

In the classic image of Hurrel leaning over the big studio camera, the lens is recognizably, a Cooke knuckler. Somewhere I read it was an 18" Cooke on the 11X14. The picture with the lens by his head, seems to be a Goerz lens. I'll just bet he had 'em all! Heck, all I lack is talent and pretty women.

[Peter De Smidt]

For at least part of his golden period, Hurrell used an 18" Verito lens, but he stopped it down more than usual. I have a bunch of books on him and can look up some particulars tomorrow.

[CP Goerz]

His later work was with a Turner Reich triple 12-19-25, he used hot lights with no diffusion(at least from the images of him working that I've seen). The lens has a nice soft glow wide open that can be reduced as its stopped down, his retoucher is who made him truly famous though, she was alive and well as of a few years ago, an asian woman I believe.

[SergeiR]

I will be ordering this one for sure.
dont expect much from it. Its mostly fairly simple run through with "we think this is how it was done, and oh, there is retouching involved , so we dont really know".. Nothing you couldnt have figured out yourself.

[Jay DeFehr]

His later work was with a Turner Reich triple 12-19-25, he used hot lights with no diffusion(at least from the images of him working that I've seen). The lens has a nice soft glow wide open that can be reduced as its stopped down, his retoucher is who made him truly famous though, she was alive and well as of a few years ago, an asian woman I believe.

I have a Verito and two Turner Triples, and to be honest, I prefer the look of the TTs. And your point about retouching can't be overemphasized.

[SergeiR]

Hurrell sometimes employed as few as one light and as many as five or more in his set-ups.

considering that old school movie style lighting is 8-9 lights per subject (i cant even remember all proper names anymore, but it is a bit terrifying to list them all :)) - he was not any more "light-crazy" than typical set :) But hot lights and funky emulsion - yep..

Heavier makeup is a must for any kind of stage/flash shooting anyway, so that is definitely right on.. :)

----

I am rather curious about lens selection as well..

[Alan Gales]

George Hurrell is one of my favorite photographers. I own a book about him and it says that he was always pursuing sharper lenses and brighter lights. If you look at his early work it was soft focus and continually got sharper in time.

Just know that all of his photographs were very heavily retouched as per what the studios commonly did at the time.

[Alan Gales]

considering that old school movie style lighting is 8-9 lights per subject (i cant even remember all proper names anymore, but it is a bit terrifying to list them all :)) - he was not any more "light-crazy" than typical set :) But hot lights and funky emulsion - yep..

Heavier makeup is a must for any kind of stage/flash shooting anyway, so that is definitely right on.. :)

----

I am rather curious about lens selection as well..

One of the surprises in my book about Hurrell was that he requested that his models wore no make up. Of course back then the studios had full time retouching artists to "doctor" all photographs. They were very heavy handed in their retouching!

[Alan Gales]

I am preparing myself for for a few portraits of friends and family. One friend, an attractive middle aged girl, is a singer and she really digs the arts. She asked me if i could do a portrait of her like the old hollywood style portraits. I of course said that it would be no problem. I am looking forward to the project. So I have been studying Hurrell images since he was always one of my favorites. I just love George Hurrell's work. But sometimes I have a hard time trying to figure out what lighting sets he used on some of the images. It seems like the lights are coming from everywhere. I read that he used as many lights as he could get his hands on. My research continues.

If you already own a kit you can use flash with barn doors to recreate the look. Of course it is easier to do using hot lights because you can actually see what is going on.

There are several books out there to explain it all in detail. It's pretty easy to do unless you are trying to illuminate a large background like Hurrell sometimes did with multiple 500 watt lights.

Where is Frank? He is an expert at this stuff!

[SergeiR]

One of the surprises in my book about Hurrell was that he requested that his models wore no make up. Of course back then the studios had full time retouching artists to "doctor" all photographs. They were very heavy handed in their retouching!

Well i got other book on him, by Whitney's Stine (which talks about Verito as lens for earlier photos) . And i have very hard time to believe he would be able to convince Marlene to take off makeup, unless he used chloroform.. But you are right about retouchers - from all the notes its fairly obvious that there was plenty. Which isn't all that terrible. Good retouchers back then and now - are vital part.

[John Conway]

One of the surprises in my book about Hurrell was that he requested that his models wore no make up. Of course back then the studios had full time retouching artists to "doctor" all photographs. They were very heavy handed in their retouching!
I am curious about the retouching they did. What exactly did they do to those negatives to make them look so good? As far as the lights, I'm good to go. All of my lights are hot lights, Mole Richardson fresnel spots and redhead hot lights. The other thing I have to consider is the film. I think I'm going with Delta 100 (4X5)

[jnantz]

its much easier to figure out the lights if they are barndoor/hot lights
too bad mark wangerin doesn't still have his site / board.
from time to time someone who used to retouch some of hurrell's work ( i think? )
mark was able to really recreate the look of the hollywood portrait.

from what i remember, nothing was really shot wide open but it was still open enough
to let the lens do its thing...
and some of what hurrell was doing wasn't with new/fresh film+paper so there was a little
of that expired-mystique as well.

maybe the wayback machine has something ...

[Alan Gales]

Well i got other book on him, by Whitney's Stine (which talks about Verito as lens for earlier photos) . And i have very hard time to believe he would be able to convince Marlene to take off makeup, unless he used chloroform.. But you are right about retouchers - from all the notes its fairly obvious that there was plenty. Which isn't all that terrible. Good retouchers back then and now - are vital part.

You are right about Marlene Dietrich and her makeup. She didn't like Hurrell and said that he was crazy. Joan Crawford absolutely loved him and the way he made her look.

[Alan Gales]

I am curious about the retouching they did. What exactly did they do to those negatives to make them look so good? As far as the lights, I'm good to go. All of my lights are hot lights, Mole Richardson fresnel spots and redhead hot lights. The other thing I have to consider is the film. I think I'm going with Delta 100 (4X5)

Yeah, the retouching that they did is definitely a lost art. Sometimes though they retouched a bit too much.

[Alan Gales]

You are right about Marlene Dietrich and her makeup. She didn't like Hurrell and said that he was crazy. Joan Crawford absolutely loved him and the way he made her look.

I'm sorry. I told you wrong. It's been a long time since I read the book. I looked it up and it was Garbo who didn't like Hurrell and thought he was crazy.

[SergeiR]

You are right about Marlene Dietrich and her makeup. She didn't like Hurrell and said that he was crazy. Joan Crawford absolutely loved him and the way he made her look.

Again.. according to same book - they shot many times and he loved working with her ( i can't question this.. i know i would :)). Including in her later years when she was hitting night clubs.

Anyway. Back to the look and question.

Cheapest possible way to experiment with Hurrel's style stuff - getting some snoots / wee grids for flashes, remembering that he was often shooting bare arc (still means you got to stick small diffuser or funky reflector in your flash gun though, b/c reflector size was about 6-8" at least) . And reading books on posing and portraits. Lots and lots of good books (or taking workshops :)). There is not much technical super stuff going there with lights, but there is really good inner sense of how light SHOULD work with particular POSE. At least in ones that got published.

Oh and of course - diffused lens with uncorrected aberrations (remember - we shooting b&w) or just black veil (instead of diffusion lens) on lens will help.

Rest is all about practice - trial/error/rinse/repeat. (oh and btw - Elinchrom got really interesting zoom heads that suppose to be able to come very close to fresnel lensed hot lights in terms of light style).

In that sense - having digital camera might be something to consider, even small one - just use to get whole thing lined up, and then shoot film to achieve perfection ;)

[John Conway]

Among the many actresses that he photographed, the Jean Harlow pictures are my favorite. I read that baby oil was used to get that shine. He must have used it a lot on Harlow. She seemed to glow more than the others. Then there is that overall physical mood of the subjects that seems to suggest the whole thing was very laid back. I mean Harlow looked like she was laying on a tanning bed with a buzz.

[John Conway]

Again.. according to same book - they shot many times and he loved working with her ( i can't question this.. i know i would :)). Including in her later years when she was hitting night clubs.

Anyway. Back to the look and question.

Cheapest possible way to experiment with Hurrel's style stuff - getting some snoots / wee grids for flashes, remembering that he was often shooting bare arc (still means you got to stick small diffuser or funky reflector in your flash gun though, b/c reflector size was about 6-8" at least) . And reading books on posing and portraits. Lots and lots of good books (or taking workshops :)). There is not much technical super stuff going there with lights, but there is really good inner sense of how light SHOULD work with particular POSE. At least in ones that got published.

Oh and of course - diffused lens with uncorrected aberrations (remember - we shooting b&w) or just black veil (instead of diffusion lens) on lens will help.

Rest is all about practice - trial/error/rinse/repeat. (oh and btw - Elinchrom got really interesting zoom heads that suppose to be able to come very close to fresnel lensed hot lights in terms of light style).

In that sense - having digital camera might be something to consider, even small one - just use to get whole thing lined up, and then shoot film to achieve perfection ;)
I was thinking about using the digital camera to get a good idea of how everything will look under the lights before making exposures on film.

[Alan Gales]

Again.. according to same book - they shot many times and he loved working with her ( i can't question this.. i know i would :)). Including in her later years when she was hitting night clubs.

I'm sorry. I told you wrong. It's been a while since I read the book. I just looked it up and it was Greta Garbo who didn't like George Hurrell and said that he was crazy.

[BOB MURPHY]

PM sent

[Peter De Smidt]

One of the surprises in my book about Hurrell was that he requested that his models wore no make up. Of course back then the studios had full time retouching artists to "doctor" all photographs. They were very heavy handed in their retouching!

They didn't wear foundation, but they did have lip and eye makeup. Some of the negatives had six hours of pencil retouching done to them. In one of the books there are pictures showing before and after retouching versions of a Joan Crawford image.

The baby oil thing was something that he did fairly early on.

[brucetaylor]

I'm late to this party. I am also a big Hurrell fan. I had a cinematography class assignment a few years ago for a portrait (they were teaching exposure/some lighting we had to use 35mm Ektachrome and an incident meter) and I decided to copy Hurrell's lighting style. What fun! I studied the shadows and fill carefully to guess on the lighting, a boom with a small fresnel was in almost all of them. Personally I would stay away from the open face tungsten fixtures unless it's bounced fill. Lots of modifiers, well controlled spill. I didn't have a lot of space to work in, but he did-- getting the fresnels farther away from the subject gives a different light quality. Watch the background lighting. I don't know if Hurrell did it, but soft focus by putting a black nylon on the back of the lens is still a common cinema technique. I want to do some more of it myself.

[John Olsen]

I also can recommend the book that is mentioned above. I've used it as a guide and learned a lot.

[John Conway]

I also can recommend the book that is mentioned above. I've used it as a guide and learned a lot.

Just ordered that book and another, "Hollywood Portraits for Pro Photographers" by Lou Szoke, from Amazon. This is a great book. It shows the lighting set up for every shot.

[Drew Wiley]

One common retouch trick was to take soft pencil to the tooth side of those big negs and
smear it around with the fingertip to diffuse things and soften blemished. Allowed a whole different kind of control than the kind of airbrushing of prints so common later, or the kind
of hokey things wedding photographers used to do, like smearing vaseline over the neg or
lens.

[John Conway]

One common retouch trick was to take soft pencil to the tooth side of those big negs and
smear it around with the fingertip to diffuse things and soften blemished. Allowed a whole different kind of control than the kind of airbrushing of prints so common later, or the kind
of hokey things wedding photographers used to do, like smearing vaseline over the neg or
lens.

Just today, while reading one of my portrait books, I found a whole page on the subject of hollywood stills and retouching. I think I will dig deep into the retouching tricks and pick up the necessary tools and supplies needed. This is something I want to try. I can hear the critics now, "just do it in photoshop". No, not me, I like the idea of smearing the lead.

[SergeiR]

I see some NICE times with wee acid brush in your future :)

[John Conway]

I see some NICE times with wee acid brush in your future :)

Yeah.... it's always been hands on for me. I've always worked with my hands to earn a living. That is why I'm working my way into the 19th century, one year at a time. One thing I don't have to worry about is roughing up my hands. They have high miles already,and that is a good thing, they never let me down.

[SergeiR]

:) And i nearly always (had to pick shovel quite a few times or work as a loader on railway at some points) worked with me head to earn living.. and look where we both are.. On large format forum, talking lighting techniques of age that is gone :) And now drifting into whole processing stuff. But damn, when i look at Stieglitz & Co work as well as Mortensen's , and what these people used to do, working with pencils and brushes and camera - i can't help but gasp in awe..

[Drew Wiley]

What's interesting is that some of these forgotten techniques are actually easier and faster than doing it in PS. But even if you are really good at the latter and want to argue
that point, the olden pencil and dye techniques don't take an investment more than a few bucks, and deliver a more subtle look in my opinion. A slightly different technique is instead
of retouching the neg itself, apply your smudges etc to a registered sheet of frosted mylar.
You can practice on these, switch them, use them in combination, and get a little added
diffusion to depending on the exact sheet material involved.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I have had some wonderful success re-touching negatives. I find it relaxing. I spent several hours on a 14x17 negative and the results are beautiful. Eliminated a shadow of a tree from top to bottom on the 17" length. I will have to try the frosted Mylar as well.

[Lynn Jones]

George used only tungsten optical spotlights and for the face he used only one light although he might have used several to illuminate the setting.

Lynn

[cjbroadbent]

If there's a lab near you that still does E6, You could try Agfa Scala (B&W transparency) film. The vintage look comes right out of the box with a little hard light. It has amazing nuance.
Here's a two and a quarter posted on the SafeHaven a few weeks ago (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?43423-safe-haven-for-tiny-formats&p=859211&viewfull=1#post859211)
Scala comes in 4x5 too.

[Christopher Nisperos]

dont expect much from it [the book, HOLLYWOOD PORTRAITS, Classic Shots and How To Take Them]. Its mostly fairly simple run through with "we think this is how it was done, and oh, there is retouching involved , so we dont really know".. Nothing you couldnt have figured out yourself.


Nothing you couldnt have figured out yourself.

Nothing? Oh, there are at least two or three useful things in there, for sure, Sergei. Certainly, Roger and I had to guess at some aspects because most of the photographers who created that work were already dead by the time we wrote the book, and almost ALL of the ones I could still get ahold of preferred to take their secrets to the grave! But I did have input and guidance from at least one, still-living Hollywood photographer, Wallace Seawell, and his former RIT chum and one of Kodak's finest technical editors, Don Nibbelink... so I would qualify our guessing as quite 'educated'! Plus, we had the actual fiber-based studio publicity portraits (hundreds of them) to analyze under a loupe. To add to this, we tried to re-find some of the angles of lighting, "ballistics" style", by pencil shadow.

In any case, you'd certainly get more out of this book than the 'Hollywood Portrait' books that just show you the resulting portraits and some anecdotes about the stars, without much effort given to the technical side. I will, however, admit that the drawings in our book are slightly off (light heights) due to someone in the writing process changing my original 'bird's eye view' lighting diagrams to a floor level version. The bottom line (as mentioned in the book) is to use the information as a starting point and then test, test, test.

Lastly, we never wrote, "Oh, there is some retouching involved". Let's be clear: There's a HELUVA LOT of retouching involved, and that's something you can figure out yourself ... but doing it takes a bit of practice.

Thanks for your criticism. I appreciate the opportunity to get things straight.

Christopher Nisperos

[AtlantaTerry]

This is a good primer:
http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/0817440208/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331259119&sr=1-2

Not specifically Hurrell, but then there were several very talented photographers of that genre.

Golly, I have a copy of that book in one of my tubs at my Public Storage unit. I'll have to look for it the next time I go there.

I am a stills photographer here in Atlanta for film and television productions. Many of the portraits I create of actors are in the "Old Hollywood" style:
https://sites.google.com/site/terrythomasphotos/StevenEllisonasSandy.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/terrythomasphotos/PolishdirectorMarekKedzierski.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/terrythomasphotos/JimmyJohnsonasBeverlyCarlton050621AD.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/terrythomasphotos/LynneWhiteasLorraineSheldon.jpg

[Jac@stafford.net]

If you were in the studio when Hurrell was making a portrait, you might find the scene almost frightening for the very hot lights and the hideous makeup the model had to wear. It wasn't glamorous. Then there was the retouching.

[jnantz]

If you were in the studio when Hurrell was making a portrait, you might find the scene almost frightening for the very hot lights and the hideous makeup the model had to wear. It wasn't glamorous. Then there was the retouching.

hideous makeup? it was pancake / base so her face wouldn't be splotchy ...
if you ever shoot paper negative portraits of women, the same technique might be helpful
(so you don't get a slap in the face for posting a hideous, blemished, splotchy wrinkly portrait)

[Tim Meisburger]

What is pancake makeup? Is it something women know about, or just makeup artists? I think I could use some of that.

[jnantz]

hi tim

it's just a foundation
women would know about base / foundation, and still use it today ...

it was probably called pancake cause it came in a big chunk/cake ..
you've probably seen old movies where they show the lead
getting it put on with a sponge type thing ... that's it :)

[cowanw]

Panchromatic cake makeup; see Max Factor in Wiki
The development of Technicolor film required the company to develop a new line of products as its existing Panchromatic make-up left a slight sheen on the skin which reflected surrounding colors. As a result of how bad they looked in color many actors and actresses refused to appear in color films. Because Max Factor was recovering from being hit by a delivery van at the time, Frank Factor took the lead in the two years it took to develop a suitable make-up, initially called the "T-D" and then renamed the "Pan-Cake" series. It was sold in a solid cake form and applied with a damp sponge which offered the advantage of concealing skin imperfections under a transparent matte finish. Its first appearance was in the film Vogues of 1938.[4]

It was immediately a hit and its advantages led to woman stealing it from the film sets and using it privately. Its only disadvantage for every day use was that it could not be used at night as it made the skin too dark under all except under the powerful lights used in film studios. While Max Factor wanted to reserve the product for film use, Frank Factor was open to the commercial possibilities and began developing lighter shades. At the time the company was only able to produce enough to meet studio demand, which delayed commercial release until production could be increased. The company used the release of Vogues of 1938 in August 1937 and five months later The Goldwyn Follies, the second film to use the make-up, to commercially release Pan-Cake to the public, backed by a color based national advertising campaign. It immediately became the fastest and largest selling single make-up item to date, as well as the standard make-up used in all Technicolor films.

[dom]

I think most people underestimate the retouching. In my early years I was taught how to pencil retouch on LF negs, we used an adams retouching machine and various leads and dyes along with etching knives to remove density. The films back then had a "tooth" on the emulsion side that helped hold the lead that was laid down on the film. A diffusion enlarger was always used to keep the lead particles from showing up on the print. It's definitely a lost art, and I was never that good at it, but in my experience that's really what made skin look "creamy". I'm sure if you search forums somebody has done a more detailed post about it.

Cheers

[MDR]

Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos book is not bad at all another great source for Hollywood type lighting is of course William Mortensen Pictorial Lighting as well as The Command to look and The model. Bernard of Hollywood also did a book with lighting diagrams his work is much less dramatic though (Bernard of Hollywood Pin Ups). Also found this link to a Documentary about George Hurrel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn-LEt8dQQM
It can't be said often enought the great photographers of the Studio era had superb retouchers working for them or were superb retouchers themselves.

[Jac@stafford.net]

hideous makeup? it was pancake / base so her face wouldn't be splotchy ...
if you ever shoot paper negative portraits of women, the same technique might be helpful
(so you don't get a slap in the face for posting a hideous, blemished, splotchy wrinkly portrait)

I'm afraid the comparison of Hurrell's film and lighting has no relationship to paper negatives in regards to color sensitivity, and that is a significant issue with panchromatic make-up in Hurrell's career.

The lighting in the motion picture industry in which Hurrell was employed was unique. He probably used motion-picture film light sources which followed the Mazda illumination standard. They had less blue and more red (opposite of sunlight). Pan-cake makeup was not what we have today as 'pancake' make-up, at least in color. You might very well be put-off by the make-up they used.

[Jac@stafford.net]

hi tim

it's just a foundation
women would know about base / foundation, and still use it today ...

It is a foundation today, but for studio work in Hurrell's time it was colored.


it was probably called pancake cause it came in a big chunk/cake ..

Nope, and it was Pan-cake makeup.

[Mark Sawyer]

Obviously, we're going to have to add a Large Format Cosmetology section...

[SergeiR]

Thanks for your criticism. I appreciate the opportunity to get things straight.
Christopher Nisperos

Sorry, i am sometime come up way too harsh on those (i swear i am not arrogant arse as i was back when i was 8yo).
I will try to elaborate later, got to run for a meeting at the moment.


To balance it out i may as well say that i dont like Abel's books, that many do praise :) In my opinion they arent particularly super great tutorials.

You did make very decent effort. However, like i said - its not a book that suddenly reveals "it all". But then no book is. Or movie. Or single teaching session.

[MDR]

John Alton Painting with light is a tell all book about film noir lighting and one of the best books on cinematography.

Regarding film Hurrel started out with ortho film and moved to panfilm when it became affordable and available. From 1931 on Kodak produced supers sensitive panachromatic (1217) for both cine and still use (best looking Kodak film ever imo) the film was designed for tungsten lighting. Kodak SSP was followed by Super-X Pan (a pan-ortho emulsion) 1938 marked the dawn as what we now consider modern (still thick emulsion) Kodak emulsions Background-X Pan, Plus-X Pan and Super-XX Pan. It should be noted that those older films were not as panchromatic as modern emulsions. The makeup was still adapted to the films special color sensitivity. It's also interesting to note that Hurrel first Glamour photographs were done with a Verito lens and from 1930 on a Kodak MGM Portrait lens that was sharper than the Verito.
Regarding Make Up: http://www.cosmeticsandskin.com/cdc/panchromatic.php

[Mark Sawyer]

...It's also interesting to note that Hurrel first Glamour photographs were done with a Verito lens and from 1930 on a Kodak MGM Portrait lens that was sharper than the Verito.


Hurrell also used a Goerz Celor and a Cooke Knuckler. I've never heard of a "Kodak MGM Portrait lens" before. Could that be the Kodak Portrait Lens introduced in the late '40's? (I've noticed Mark Vieira said Hurrell was using one in 1931...)

[MDR]

I haven't found any other reference to this lens either but the Studios did have a lot of clout in those days and could order lenses to their specs although in all likelihood it's the classical 12in 4.8 Kodak Portrait lens

[jnantz]

thanks bill, jac@

thanks for the schooling :)

==

[brucetaylor]

The lighting in the motion picture industry in which Hurrell was employed was unique. He probably used motion-picture film light sources.

Yes, in the pictures I have seen of him working he is using fixtures and modifiers right off a film set. John Alton's Painting With Light has all the fixtures listed and described. To a certain degree, you can pick this stuff up cheaply on ebay, as much of it was used regularly on film sets until quite recently.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Yes, in the pictures I have seen of him working he is using fixtures and modifiers right off a film set. John Alton's Painting With Light has all the fixtures listed and described. To a certain degree, you can pick this stuff up cheaply on ebay, as much of it was used regularly on film sets until quite recently.

But can we find the original bulbs? on eBay? Really?

[lenser]

I don't know if he would have these bulbs or not, but the is a site called "The Bulb Man" and he's got some pretty exotic stuff at mighty good prices. I got a replacement for my Thomas Safelight for only $30.00.

[Peter De Smidt]

Be aware that many of the old (1930s, 40s, 50s) movie hot lights used asbestos in their construction.

[dsphotog]

I have several old fresnel lights, I've thought about installing compact Norman flash heads into. I got the idea from the fact Norman made a fresnel that was a modified Bardwell-Mcallister "keg light".

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] Norman made a fresnel that was a modified Bardwell-Mcallister "keg light".

104165

[dsphotog]

104165

lol...

[MDR]

John I just reread your second Post and I have to say that Delta is imo not the best choice not because of the D-grain but because of it's contrast and overall look weirdly enough T-Max 100 can look a lot like old film don't ask me why but I've seen some photographs made with T-Max that looked like they were made in the 1930's it's the tonal reproduction. Because of it's Ortopan nature Acros should work as well but Delta as great a film as it is looks different.

[brucetaylor]

But can we find the original bulbs? on eBay? Really?

No, of course not! New, modern bulbs would probably be required. They would be the 3200k quartz equivalents, the ones that replaced the old tungsten bulbs that changed color temp too much to be practical for color cinematography. They screw into the mogul base.

The old stuff banging around Hollywood and close by is a little astonishing at times. Even today you can rent a Mitchell BNCR with a full set of Super Baltars, pick up a few thousand feet of Double-X at Kodak and rent the stage at the old MGM backlot #23 where they filmed "The Champ" in 1931 and shoot something. No arcs though, apparently no one makes the carbon rods anymore.

[MDR]

No, of course not! New, modern bulbs would probably be required. They would be the 3200k quartz equivalents, the ones that replaced the old tungsten bulbs that changed color temp too much to be practical for color cinematography. They screw into the mogul base.

The old stuff banging around Hollywood and close by is a little astonishing at times. Even today you can rent a Mitchell BNCR with a full set of Super Baltars, pick up a few thousand feet of Double-X at Kodak and rent the stage at the old MGM backlot #23 where they filmed "The Champ" in 1931 and shoot something. No arcs though, apparently no one makes the carbon rods anymore.

Believe it or not Carbon Rods for Arcs are still made and available http://www.cinemacarbons.com/

[Christopher Nisperos]

Sorry, i am sometime come up way too harsh on those (i swear i am not arrogant arse as i was back when i was 8yo).
I will try to elaborate later, got to run for a meeting at the moment.


To balance it out i may as well say that i dont like Abel's books, that many do praise :) In my opinion they arent particularly super great tutorials.

You did make very decent effort. However, like i said - its not a book that suddenly reveals "it all". But then no book is. Or movie. Or single teaching session.

Hi Sergei,

Really didn't take you as being arrogant: my comment, thanking you, was sincere. I don't have a copy of our Hollywood Portraits book in front of me, but I seem to remember Roger Hicks writing a sort of disclaimer in the text that's similar to the spirit of what you keep saying —and making it quite clear that our book is designed to give a photographer a starting point, so I don't really see the point of beating the book with its own bat . . . but you're welcome to take another swing at it!

One last defensive point about our book: Before it was published, I can only think of two other how-to books (from the 1940s and 50s) which had really attempted to show you how the "Hollywood look" was achieved —particularly, showing light placements—, including one tiny one by Whitey Shafer, himself. It's a veritable "horse's mouth" edition, having been written by an actual, working (at the time) Hollywood photographer. However, even this book was pretty simplistic, so the Sergei-of-the-day might have leveled the same sorts of comments toward it as you've made about our little "decent effort". However, Shafer is to be given a lot of credit because he did what practically no other Hollywood portrait photographers seemed willing to do at the time or later: reveal their technical secrets.

By the way, I agree with you about the Abel book.

[ederphoto]

I'm late to the thread but here are my two cents : His early soft focus work was done with a 18" Verito . In the early 30's he switched that lens to the 16" Goerz Celor ( I think his best work was done with the Celor ) . Later he added a 18" Cooke Portronic f/5.6 to the set . Hurrel wasn't limited by 8x10's or 11x14's . He also shot with a Hasselblad , a calumet 4x5 and 35mm cameras . One thing remained constant throughout his life and that was his preference for long focal lenghts for his portrait work .

[DrTang]

I think what people under-estimate I the Space needed to pull this stuff off...One needs a huge studio space to keep the model from the background..for instance and to make sure the shadows fall out of frame

I have played with the lighting... but I always run up against it in terms of space

[Peter De Smidt]

Space....and having assistants to move the lights while he stayed at the camera, to load film holders into the camera and remove the darkslides so that he could shoot quickly.....not to mention access to beautiful people who knew how to pose and cost-no-object clothes and sets.

Hurrell took a lot of photos each day he was shooting! A sitting could last 6 to 8 hours. I just read in Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits that he complained when Garbo left after only 6 hours....
In the book Hurrell attributes his success to effort and sweat.

He was a terrific photographer, but he was also at the right place and time for him to be a success. Skill and effort are necessary for excellence....but so is good timing!

[Drew Wiley]

Like a small assembly-line industrial operation rather than a personal studio. Or maybe one might prefer the analogy of an small orchestra in which Hurrell was the conductor.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Elinchrom has also on Fresnel front for there flashes!
http://www.profotshop.ch/pi/Fresnel-Spot-FS30.html

[Peter De Smidt]

There are a number of Fresnel flash units. I have an 8" one for Speedotron.

[seezee]

I am curious about the retouching they did. What exactly did they do to those negatives to make them look so good? As far as the lights, I'm good to go. All of my lights are hot lights, Mole Richardson fresnel spots and redhead hot lights. The other thing I have to consider is the film. I think I'm going with Delta 100 (4X5)

You might consider using x-ray film — as it's orthochromatic, the resulting images may more closely mimic the spectral sensitivity of the early (pre-1929) Hollywood portraits.

[seezee]

Golly, I have a copy of that book in one of my tubs at my Public Storage unit. I'll have to look for it the next time I go there.

I am a stills photographer here in Atlanta for film and television productions. Many of the portraits I create of actors are in the "Old Hollywood" style:
https://sites.google.com/site/terrythomasphotos/StevenEllisonasSandy.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/terrythomasphotos/PolishdirectorMarekKedzierski.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/terrythomasphotos/JimmyJohnsonasBeverlyCarlton050621AD.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/terrythomasphotos/LynneWhiteasLorraineSheldon.jpg

Love that 2nd portrait, Terry!

[seezee]

I think what people under-estimate I the Space needed to pull this stuff off...One needs a huge studio space to keep the model from the background..for instance and to make sure the shadows fall out of frame

I have played with the lighting... but I always run up against it in terms of space

I am running into that right now. I've been making a portrait series shot on 4×5 with a fairly wide (105mm) Petzval lens. Today was my 1st day with a newer Petzval — 205mm — which should be much more flattering to my subjects. But due to space constraints, I must move my models from 6′ away from the background to a mere 3′, increasing the likelihood of light spill where I don't want it.

[ederphoto]

I think what people under-estimate I the Space needed to pull this stuff off...One needs a huge studio space to keep the model from the background..for instance and to make sure the shadows fall out of frame

I have played with the lighting... but I always run up against it in terms of space

You are right Tang ! But people who spend the money on prime portrait lenses have back them up with an adequate studio otherwise the lenses will be useless or just collectors item .

[Christopher Nisperos]

I'm late to the thread but here are my two cents : His early soft focus work was done with a 18" Verito . In the early 30's he switched that lens to the 16" Goerz Celor ( I think his best work was done with the Celor ) . Later he added a 18" Cooke Portronic f/5.6 to the set . Hurrel wasn't limited by 8x10's or 11x14's . He also shot with a Hasselblad , a calumet 4x5 and 35mm cameras . One thing remained constant throughout his life and that was his preference for long focal lenghts for his portrait work .

Hi ederphoto,

While it's true that Hurrell worked with the cameras you mentioned, I think one should be clear in pointing out that these weren't the cameras with which he created his most memorable images. Basically, his most famous images were finished by 1943. You can contact Mark Vieira for more precise details.

[AtlantaTerry]

Love that 2nd portrait, Terry!

Thank you Chris, I am glad you like it. May I tell you a little about how I created it?

First of all, the camera was a Minolta DiMage A2 (digital). It no longer works so sits on a shelf.

The subject is Mr. Marek Kedzierski who is a famous Polish director of theatrical productions and was visiting Atlanta in January 2006 when a series of Samuel Beckett plays were being produced. Like my hero Karsh of Ottawa would do, I requested a sitting with Mr. Kedzierski.

I knew I wanted to create a Karsh-style portrait so I used hard lighting - only two lights. They were two of my Alien Bee 800 strobes with grids installed in Paul Buff's standard reflectors. I do not remember which grids but since I was after harsh light, I probably used the 10 and 20 degree units.

I posed Mr. Kedzierski in Atlanta's Push-Push Theatre where all of the lights were turned off except my two light units because I did not want any light illuminating him other than mine. I set up both lights behind him because I wanted to divide him from the totally black area behind him. They gave triple duty as as keys, kickers and hair lights. I did not use the lights as strobes, I created this portrait using only the modeling lights.

Immediately to the left of the camera and just in front of him, I positioned a silver reflective fabric that I happened to find in the theatre. Because the silver fabric was rippled like a window curtain might be, the light bouncing from it was both hard and soft, it actually filled in it's own shadows. (A hard reflector such as a board covered with foil would not have given the same character of light.) I aimed the light just past his head and at the fabric so the back of his head was only lit with part of the light. The back lighting served to bring his knuckles and right ear forward from the blackness.

To camera right, and immediately in front of him, I positioned a 20x30 inch white foamcore reflector board. I aimed one of the lights at it then angled it to illuminate him with the reflected light. Again, only part of the light was hitting his head. This reflective light was my key.

Back in my office, I pulled up the original RAW Minolta file in my computer. Since I wanted an "Old Hollywood" / Karsh of Ottawa look to the finished portrait, that meant I wanted to emulate ortho film so I increased the red saturation. You can get away with that for a man's portrait but never a woman's because it emphasizes the skin texture and pores. LOL! Finally, I converted it to monochrome then adjusted the contrast to where I wanted it. That's about it.

Other than converting the original color RAW file to red then converting it to monochrome there was no retouching. So what you see is just about what I got in the camera which is what I always try to do since my background is shooting film, not digital.

[seezee]

Thank you Chris, I am glad you like it. May I tell you a little about how I created it?

Wow! Thank you so much for the thorough tutorial. I can't wait to try it. So far I've stuck to Rembrandt lighting for my current project.

[Neal Chaves]

There is a 10" Norman-converted Bardwell&McAlister on the big auction site right now for buy it now for $600, pick up only in Delaware. I have had one like it for a few months. These fixtures are heavy and require a suitable stand with "junior" mount or a strong overhead rail and hanger. It has a 2400WS flash tube and accepts two contact bayonet modeling light bulbs from 75-500W. Mine was also 149306unused and came with four-way barn doors which are also quite heavy and I paid quite a bit less than $600. Keep looking, they are out there. The plug can be easily rewired to work with Speedotron packs.

[DrTang]

There is a 10" Norman-converted Bardwell&McAlister on the big auction site right now for buy it now for $600, pick up only in Delaware. I have had one like it for a few months. These fixtures are heavy and require a suitable stand with "junior" mount or a strong overhead rail and hanger. It has a 2400WS flash tube and accepts two contact bayonet modeling light bulbs from 75-500W. Mine was also 149306unused and came with four-way barn doors which are also quite heavy and I paid quite a bit less than $600. Keep looking, they are out there. The plug can be easily rewired to work with Speedotron packs.

I've tried converting theater or studio fresnels to strobe with so-so results... I think the main problem is that the filaments of the tungsten bulbs are pretty much a point source.. but the flashtubes on a strobe head are not - so I can't get a good sharp spot..I wonder if/how that guy worked around that

[Peter De Smidt]

Dr. Tang is right. It's not a simple swap out. When I get to the studio later today, I'll show you the light thrown by the Speedotron 8" Fresnel. It's based on a Strand unit and was sold by Speedotron. The Norman looks nice, but it's pretty pricey. I paid about $200 for mine.

[Neal Chaves]

No Fresnel is going to give you a "good sharp spot". For that you need an ellipsoidal spot light which has a projection quality lens. I don't recall having seen one of these converted to strobe. I think if it were practical, Norman would have done it instead of designing the Trilite, which will do what you want.

[Peter De Smidt]

Note that the tungsten Fresnels that I've looked at have not had point light sources. The elements at least of the higher powered ones are quite large, and many have a reflector behind the element. I've seen the ellipsoidal spot lights that can be used with strobes, often for projecting a pattern on a background. (http://lightbasics.com/specialty-strobes-ellipsoidals) Note that Hurrell use regular tungsten Fresnels, as well as standard non-Fresnel movie lights.

[Darko Pozar]

Among the many actresses that he photographed, the Jean Harlow pictures are my favorite. I read that baby oil was used to get that shine. He must have used it a lot on Harlow. She seemed to glow more than the others. Then there is that overall physical mood of the subjects that seems to suggest the whole thing was very laid back. I mean Harlow looked like she was laying on a tanning bed with a buzz.

Also, George Hurrell found Jean Harlow's pale complexion and platimum blond hair tricky to photograph and admitted to "borrowing" an operating surgical light on a boom stand from another studio set (for which he got into trouble)
to light her with success and used this method on many occasions until her premature death.

[Peter De Smidt]

8" Speedotron Fresnel 8ft from the wall.

Spot:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gitna7k751pqkoy/Fresnel_Narrow.jpg?raw=1

[Neal Chaves]

I've been experimenting with a Norman Trilite, and the first thing I found was that the standard 100mm lens (A Kodak slide projector lens) was far too long for my small studio. I found a 35mm focal length "wide angle projection lens" that fits and I am much happier. It can now throw a three foot spot from about six feet away.