Old hollywood style lighting...

<p>OK, I know it's been a while, but I've been a VERY busy lady! A

quick update on what's going on...

<ul>I'm graduating with my bachelor degree in Music Education next

weekend</ul>

<ul>I'm moving to Terre Haute, IN in August</ul>

<ul>I'm completely booked with weddings until I move</ul>

<ul>I raised my prices (but still not enough to appease the Gods)</ul>

<ul>I have a new website on the way (not yet finished)</ul>

<ul>I'm getting a new iMac and PSCS2</ul>

<ul>.. and I just took some really fun shots over the weekend that I

had to share with you!</ul></p>

<p>The bride showed me a whole bunch of old hollywood portraits from

the 1930s and told me that they were the source of inspiration for her

wedding. The biggest impact I noticed in the photographs was the

dramatic directional lighting - so I thought I'd try a few things to

mimic that dramatic and mysterious lighting on their wedding day, let

me know what you think! Almost all of these images are film - can you

guess which one isn't film? (The non-film image was taken by my

assistant for the day, J.Dery)...</p><center>

 

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/54/135759564_8aa87d0d02_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/45/135759576_9f2927804a_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/48/135759541_38262509cd_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/55/135759535_d941d3548e_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/56/135759527_ae85c1e1c8_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/45/135759511_05b7f32e00_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/55/135759504_2bd2ee5c14_o.jpg"><br>

<br>

<img src="http://static.flickr.com/56/135759560_7b478282b1_o.jpg"><br>

<br><img src="http://static.flickr.com/52/135759567_face5b7154_o.jpg"><br>

<br></center>

There is a great book by Roger Hicks called Hollywood Portraits which you should get. It is out of print so you will need to trawl the auction sites etc.

Very nice beginnings Anne. Dramatic.

 

Impossible to tell digital from film with 500 pixel web uploads. My guess would be the first

one was the assistant shot ... but only because it is a little out of character with the rest of

them.

I just love them!! How did you achieve this light?

Research "George Hurrel", on GOOGLE, or better yet get one of the books about his style. He was the master. Unfortunately his "greatness" had a lot to do with the now obsolete, equipment he used. But a similar style can be achieved without, as your photos nicely show.

Anne - the pictures are very nice, but not 30's - 40's Hollywood lighting. They worked with multiple hot lights for a lot of subtly in rim, hair, catch lights and for controlling shadows and contrast.

Like em...my guess is the last one is the digital.

I love them...great job! My fav is the 6th one. Which one was the digital shot?

Nice job Anne, (we've missed you around here. I was beginning to wonder where you were!) I like this look. My guess the digital is the second one. Are you planning on shooting weddings where you move to?

Most excellent beginning, but you need at least two more lights. A discriminating (experienced) eye might also note that the pictures haven't the softness of the old style 'Hollywood' images. And, of course, we can't tell from we images if the images are like large format prints.

 

Antoher issue is the color of the skin. (B&W IS color without hue). Older films were rather red-blind, and the more sophisticate images had models with make-up designed for the film. (Pancake makeup for Panchromatic film, Ortho Cake for Ortho film, etc...)

 

The old time 'soft' image is more than throwing a soft-focus filter on the front of a modern lens, but that's a separate thread.

These are pretty Anne!

 

I saw your add in the IN section of the wedding channel :)

I really like the 2nd shot. Altho the harsh shadows add some interest and drama, they're still harsh shadows. I can't help but want to add some fill light and give the bride some PS help with the eye bags.

Anne, I love them! My guess on the digital is either #2 or #7. Leaning toward 7, though not sure why...

Thank you for your compliments and criticisms. I agree that it is not entirely true to ALL of the lighting techniques used in old hollywood, however it came close enough with the resources I had available for the short 8 minutes they gave me out of their wedding day. I really wanted to show drama and use the shadows as much as possible. I did not want fill lighting. Some images used only a recessed light in the ceiling, and others used a combination of recessed lighting plus off-camera flash. The second one had no flash and was taken in a well-lit room. So far no one has guessed the digital image. ;-)

last one?

Anne, They're all digital. I didn't suggest fill flash, but some kind of fill lighting which could have been achieved through the use of a reflector, you could vary the amount of fill light by adjusting the distance of the reflector relative to the subject.

The Hicks book "Hollywood Portraits" is still available new on the bookshelves at major bookstores and at amazon.com. It's a good read.

 

It's important to note that there is a big difference between the glamour styles of Hurrell and his contemporaries and the "film noir" lighting of the motion pictures of the latter 30s into the 50s.

 

The glamour lighting emulated, to some extent, the very careful lighting of the stage. Highlights and shadows were precisely placed and very coordinated. You would not, for instance, see nose shadows falling across the lips in a Hurrell portrait and rarely would an important face be left in shadow.

 

"Film noir," in contrast (so to speak) was deliberately disconcordant--shadows clashed and there was very little concern for how they played upon the faces of the actors. Shadows covering the faces, shadows crossing the face at odd angles, and such were characteristic of "film noir."

Much of George Hurrel's magic also had a lot to with extensive retouching. There are books available that will show both before and after shots of some of his most famous images. But there is no doubt that he was a lighting master.

I am guessing that the last one is digital. The bokah seems sharper than the rest.

Anne,

 

Hurrell is my favorite B&W photographer. I emulate him in a lot of my portraits. While the comments you've gotten (about retouching, light sources, format, etc...) are correct, I want to congratulate you on capturing the spirit you were asked for - the technical details are less important. These are good photos and you should be proud.<div></div>

(oops. Here's the photo at the right size)<div></div>

You really need multiple light sources to get the classic glamour lighting. Main, fill, hair light on a boom, background light, and usually a "kicker" low and from behind on one side to graze the shadow side. Barn doors on the lights controlled shadow areas and kept unwanted light of the background. It's next to impossible to achieve the precision even with studio strobes because the modeling lamps never quite duplicate the light from the flash tube.

 

In addition to the spectral response of the films of that time period you also had the effect of the old uncoated, or possibly single coated, lenses often shot wide open at f/4.5. This gives you next to zero depthe of field at f/4.5 with a lens of 200 to 300mm focal length. By working with the swings and tilts of a view camera you can change the actual plane of critical focus, allowing a 3/4 pose and still keeping the irises of both eyes and the center of the top lip to be in sharp focus while the rest of the face fades dreamily soft. Doing this pretty much does away with the need for a soft focus lens. There's really no way to duplicate these effects with digital manipulation, or if there is it'd likely have been less trouble to just do it the old fashioned way to start with.

Another common lighting feature was the use of a "gobo", something usually on a boom arm between the light and what it was illuminating. A piece of wooden lattice work for instance, between the background light and the background to create soft interesting shadow patterns.

It's too bad that one of my posts was deleted, probably because I didn't have a credit to give to on the photos the bride gave me for inspiration. Based on what she gave me, most of the shots are spot on. Elsewhere it was described as "film noir" which is probably closer to the actual effect she was going for rather than a traditional glamor portrait. In any case, I am very happy with the results and I can't wait for her to get back from her honeymoon so she can finally see them for herself!