George Hurrell, Documentary

[cowanw]

I will have to get my books out. I am wondering what he did between 1950 and 1990.

[William Whitaker]

Much of GH images were about lighting-shadows-composition and greater less about camera-lens as camera-lens alone can NEVER produce the results GH got in his images.

That wasn't my point. But never mind.

[Tin Can]

Bernice, as recently as 1995 my second and last wife Marnie was retouching 8x10 chromes of Playboy models. She would not show me how. They film was sent by courier. I never saw what she did.

She also painted set backdrops.

Much of GH images were about lighting-shadows-composition and greater less about camera-lens as camera-lens alone can NEVER produce the results GH got in his images.

Yes, that is a Kodak Commercial Ektar used by GH in this doc, but GH used a variety of lenses over the course of his work. He also used Mole-Richardson lighting which was very common in Hollywood. Notice the clothesline clip together with cardboard lens shade and curious dark cloth and... GH also used a Canon EOS towards the end of this doc as promo...

As previously mentioned, what was not discussed-mentioned are the highly skilled negative re-workers that so completely altered these negatives to meet what was needed in the images to be produced. This IS the similar-identical to "Photoshop" of today.


Bernice

[Leszek Vogt]

Thanks, Bernice. That was v. cool. One of these days I'll try to emulate that style for few (maybe 1/2 dozen) shots. I have a Joann Woodward small photo on my desktop, sort of as a reminder (?), that was taken in 1960. It's not relevant to me who took it or what lens was used, but I do like the lighting.

Les

[Drew Wiley]

I've had long conversations with one of Hurrell's main assistants, and have seen a lot of work negatives, and even big 5X7 Kodachromes taken of celebrities. Them was the days. Our extended family collection includes a huge Hurrell original print - the famous image of Jane Russell lying in the hay with a gun, mentioned in that flick, but not one of the more tentative versions actually shown. Quite an operation in its time. But it is amusing to see that this was sponsored by Canon. Hurrell used real cannons - 5x7 tricolor cameras, a lot of 8x10 and 11X14 shots, larger negs being easier to retouch, red dye or pencil-blur, whatever.

[John Layton]

Threads like this almost make me wish I were 87 years old instead of twenty years younger...

[Jim Noel]

Looked like a Commercial Ektar.

If you look carefully you will see that it is by Goertz, probably a Dagor, or its predecessor "Double Anastigmat"

[John Kasaian]

Thanks Bernice!
This made my day.

[Bernice Loui]

Kodak Ektars used by George Hurell via in studio video clips.





The Goerz Dagor was an image window insert earlier on in this documentary.

Bernice


[QUOTE=Jim Noel;1632222]
If you look carefully you will see that it is by Goertz, probably a Dagor, or its predecessor "Double Anastigmat"[

/QUOTE]

[Bernice Loui]

George Hurell used highly "Hurell" flavored classic 3 point cinema lighting. George Hurell took this basic cinema lighting concept and made it all his very own in his very special way.




George Hurell knew precisely what his image goals were, then worked HARD with the portrait sitter to achieve his image goals. Lighting, camera-lens, assistants and all were mere tools required to achieve these image goals. He knew how to get effective emotional expression his portrait sitters, added composition and lighting to greatly enhance these images.


Result _!_




Bernice

Thanks, Bernice. That was v. cool. One of these days I'll try to emulate that style for few (maybe 1/2 dozen) shots. I have a Joann Woodward small photo on my desktop, sort of as a reminder (?), that was taken in 1960. It's not relevant to me who took it or what lens was used, but I do like the lighting.

Les