Mortensen photography light

Hello,

New here. I hope this is the best forum for this question.

 

I came across what I thought was a nice old industrial light. After I cleaned the layers of grime off I found Mortensen Basic Light. There is an abundance of information on Wm. Mortensen and his lighting techniques, but I can find nothing about any lights or equipment with his name on them. The label indicates it should be a photography lamp. It has a 9" reflector. Information I have found said that Mortensen liked 7". This has two parts that extend very high.

 

Whatever it may be I really like the light but I'm curious if it can be attributed to Wm Mortensen. Any information would be greatly appreciated

 

I've tried to add photos but my post keeps getting flagged as inappropriate

 

Kindest Regards

 

Buddy C

I've tried to add photos but my post keeps getting flagged as inappropriate

 

Perhaps P.net is influenced by Ansel Adams re Mortensen ;)

 

I've done a lot of probing about Mortensen, but I have never seen any reference to his 'branding' equipment. He did write a lot of books other than Monsters & Madonnas, however, and whatever one may think of his grotesques, he was a master of a certain kind of portraiture including lighting.

Ad in ancestor to Modern Photography 1941-10

I've done a lot of probing about Mortensen, but I have never seen any reference to his 'branding' equipment. He did write a lot of books other than Monsters & Madonnas, however, and whatever one may think of his grotesques, he was a master of a certain kind of portraiture including lighting.

[ATTACH=full]1230061[/ATTACH]

Ad in ancestor to Modern Photography 1941-10

Yes, I'm finding the same, but it's an interesting coincidence. This came from an estate that had an odd collection of unique items

Because of the label on the light - Basic Light, what do you want to bet it is referenced in his book Pictorial Llighting?

I've been looking for a "friendly" copy in ebook form just to look. I think that is looking like my best bet so far.

It has your basic tilt-swivel.

I wish it had a patent applied for date. I may have to spend some time searching patents to see if I can get lucky. Then again, I've seen patent applied for on items that never seem to have been applied for.

 

I hate to think how hot that tiny reflector would get with a 1Kw bulb in it. No wonder the sticker is on the stand.

 

Seems like quite a well-crafted pudding basin though. But I'm not sure the indent is entirely intentional.

 

From reading about Mortensen's fondness for self-publicity, it seems he wouldn't shy away from marketing stuff using his name. Although, cynically, he may have had nothing to do with the actual design or manufacture of the equipment. Just taken the bucks for use of his name.

I hate to think how hot that tiny reflector would get with a 1Kw bulb in it. No wonder the sticker is on the stand.

We've come a long way. Ever had the pleasure of posing for home movies with a bar light holding 4 500Watt floods? That'll warm you up

One of the first lights I owned was a "Kennet" soft light. A 4ft diameter white dish taking a single 1Kw GES bulb with removable beauty-dish style secondary reflector/lamp cover.

 

Parts of that got finger-burning hot after just a few minutes use, and it had about 25 times the area of that Mortensen light.

 

I'd put no more than a 275 Watt photoflood in a tiny reflector like that. Exploding bulbs aren't fun!

One of the first lights I owned was a "Kennet" soft light. A 4ft diameter white dish taking a single 1Kw GES bulb with removable beauty-dish style secondary reflector/lamp cover.

 

Parts of that got finger-burning hot after just a few minutes use, and it had about 25 times the area of that Mortensen light.

 

I'd put no more than a 275 Watt photoflood in a tiny reflector like that. Exploding bulbs aren't fun!

maybe exploding lights is how he got some of those expressions in his photos

Because of the label on the light - Basic Light, what do you want to bet it is referenced in his book Pictorial Llighting?

Inspired by this thread I ordered a used copy. - Let's look and see. I was told one could benefit from reading The Headshot without buying into Hurley-Pro. I haven't tried yet.

Upon freaking hot lights: I have rags ready to remove snoots or standard reflectors with grids from Bowens mount strobes. I suppose before video got invented nobody let photographic lights run for a long time? Pocketing an RC to switch them off ASAP is a good idea. In the old days I would have tried to mount a mains switch to my studio tripod or have a pedal to turn lights off while I'm changing or flipping holders.

I still have half a dozen old incandescent bulb type photo lights. They do get hot, but each has a switch. Typically, they were / are run as long as needed. I do believe the old bulbs were better than those available now - they lasted quite a long time.

I did get a reply this week from someone who said he has seen information on these Mortensen lights. I'm waiting to see if he comes up with a copy of an old ad he has somewhere.

I suspect this is just an early case of 'celebrity' endorsement.

 

Like David Bailey pretending to shoot with an Olympus Pen, or David Beckham promoting cheap whisky (sold expensive).

Olympus Trip.

 

Mortensen was said to have been written out of photographic history in conflict with the F/64 group.

Mortensen claims the "T-20" 500W projection bulbs should live about 200h. - Besides calling Buddy's light here the deluxe version, he doesn't endorse or pitch them, especially not branded with his name. - The entire book seems mainly about explaining light in general + demonstrating & arguing that two of these lights, a background and a reflector are really all that might be needed and everything more would be too much and most likely harmful for the result.

I didn't get very far with my reading yet but rate his book "worth borrowing" and guess I'll spend some shooting time trying to get the hang of things...

"The entire book seems mainly about explaining light in general + demonstrating & arguing that two of these lights, a background and a reflector are really all that might be needed and everything more would be too much and most likely harmful for the result."

 

- Over the years I've come to the conclusion that 'acceptable' lighting is just fashion. In Mortensen, Karsh, McBean and Beaton's era, and up to the 1960s, it was mainly hard, theatrical lighting that fairly quickly gave way to a softer, naturalistic look. Then the so-called beauty dish took over for a while, to be followed by the awful (and lazy) head-on paparazzi lighting that persists to this day in some quarters.

 

Seeing photographers follow the same formula like sheep is a bit sad. Glad I never got involved in the fashion industry.

Photo critic A.D. Coleman wrote an essay about Mortensen, "Conspicuous by His Absence," claiming that Mortensen was essentially written out of his rightful place in photo history as tastes morphed from pictorialism to the F64 group, which took Edward Weston as its leader. This evolved into an ideological battle between Ansel Adams (who supposedly developed a deep personal hatred for Mortensen, which Coleman claims resulted in a conspiracy by Adams, other "purists" and even Beaumont Newhall to exile the well-known and successful Mortensen to oblivion. Very good reading if you like this sort of stuff. Found in Coleman's "Depth of Field."