studio lighting - Do you bother about the reflections in the eyes?

[Patrik Roseen]

I am planning some photosessions with my girlfriend using studiolighting ...aiming for that (old) Hollywood-glamour style a'la Garbo (if possible).

So, I have been studying photographs from the 1930s-1940s.
I have also read alot of guides about modern portrait lighting in studio using strobes etc. I learn but I also get annnoyed and concerned.

Most of the modern recommended light setups seem to be great for avoiding shadows or creating shadows in the models appearance...BUT they seem to mess up the light reflection in the eyes (from what I see in the pictures in the books).
Often there are many strobes reflected and/or a large square bouncer...AND the photographer is clearly visible since the light source is behind the camera.

Looking at the photo's from the 1930's there is only one small round reflection per eye. They seem to have been more concerned about this (and maybe they did retouching?).

I would assume that with Photoshop digital retouching would be a simple matter. But in todays magazines there are lots of beautiful models with expensive makeup with those darned messed up reflections.

When did photographers stop thinking about reflections and why?
What is your view on this?

[Patrik Roseen]

...here is an example of what I am talking about...and this from a Hasselblad Master.
See the photo with the blue mascara.

blue eye

[Frank Petronio]

As long as there is something bright in the eyes I'm happy to get a good shot... and yes, George Hurill and Karsh and those guys had awesome retouchers.

[David A. Goldfarb]

The catchlight is something you can use. It can open up the eyes or it can be a distraction. Retouching catchlights is simple work. They can be etched out on the neg or spotted out on the print or cloned out in PhotoShop. You can also enhance a catchlight for more sparkle.

I think the reflection of the photographer in the blue eye shot is okay--it's something of a self-portrait, probably intentional.

Virtually all professional portraiture until maybe the late 1960s involved retouching, and Hollywood portraiture usually involved heavy retouching.

[Scott Davis]

Another reason for the single round catchlight in the old Hollywood Glamour photos was the primary use of undiffused hotlights. The normal main light in those days was a multi-thousand watt incandescent lamp in a focusable fresnel spot housing. Your subjects baked under those lights. If you want to improve the catchlights, and stick with strobes, you can use a smaller softbox on your main, and get a circle vignetter for the box face. Then you'll get the round catchlight.

[Patrik Roseen]

Thanks for sharing your experience and views on this subject.

The thing is I can not look at a portrait anymore without paying attention to those reflections in the eyes. And if the photographer is there I start to itch. When comparing those older portraits with modern ones the difference is striking.

Frank, I realize they had excellent retouchers back in those days. When studying photos real close one can even see individual hairs that have been removed, and even parts of the chin and cheek to make the model more slim or symmetric.

David and Scott, I will play around myself trying to create that single round catch light. I did read somewhere that they had some specific light just for this, which was strong enough to register in the eye but too weak to affect the overall lighting.

I am currently reading a book about (old) studio lighting in film making. There are very interesting suggestions that would be benefical also for the still photographer to know.

If you have any suggestions for guides to Hollywood glamour lighting please feel free to propose some.

[Darren Kruger]

I will play around myself trying to create that single round catch light.

See if you can find some black foil to play with (check out theater supply shops.) you can make any shape reflection you want with it. Another idea is to use some tape or ribbon to make fake window panes on your soft box.

If you are concerned about the photographer being in the picture, get some black velvet to drape over the camera and such to make them less visible (black clothing and black tripods help too.)

-Darren

[Ron Bose]

When you get a rembrandt, butterfly, broad, short lit portrait right the catchlights fall in place automatically.

In my opinion, keeping a simple one or two light portrait is far more appealing than huge light-banks with the photographer in the catchlight !!

[Scott Davis]

There's a classic book on Hollywood Glamour lighting by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos-

http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Port...6510291&sr=8-2

[Ron Marshall]

There's a classic book on Hollywood Glamour lighting by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos-

http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Port...6510291&sr=8-2

That's a great book. If you havn't yet read it, it would be very useful for your project.

Have you considered an octabox or a beauty dish?