Jump to content

Which 4x5 camera for old hollywood glamour shot


jimmy_marsden1

Recommended Posts

I am looking to recreate george hurrell's look he captured in the thirties and forties. I know he used an 8x10 camera. I'm looking for a 4x5 camera with a lens that is good for portraiture. Any recommendations? I wouldn't mind even buying an old folding 4x5 camera from the early 1900's to help recreate that look. Lastly, if i do buy new, what is the difference between a view camera and a field camera? thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hurrell did a whole lot of work to his negatives with a pencil, plus

he was a genius. The camera you use is not going to make a

difference, but the lighting and your skill with the pencil will. You

might think about using an 8x10 if Hurrell's look is really what you

are after, and you think you can get it.

 

<p>

 

A field camera folds up into a box. A monorail rides along rails.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might take a look at Roger Hicks' book on hollywood glamour. I

believe he discusses lighting setups including Hurrell's. Also take a

look at Mark Vierra's (sp.?) book on Hurrell and his view camera

article several years ago.

 

<p>

 

As the above post(s) suggest, Hurrell's technique was a function of

his negative retouching in combination with the use of high-powered

hot lights and soft-focus lenses. If I remember correctly, he used

several Mole-Richardson 1000W lights and often employed booms to

acheive just the right placement of light. His lenses varied over the

course of his work. I believe his early portraits were taken with a

Wollensak Verito, a variable soft-focus lens. Apparently, he used the

Verito stopped down to achieve a balance between sharpness and the

characteristic soft-focus halo look of the Verito. Later on in his

career, Hurrell switched to a Goerz Celor.

 

<p>

 

.............................................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the Hicks book and have to say I like it.

 

<p>

 

As for the retouching, damn, they didn't retouch back then. On some it

looks like they took a spray can, chisel, bleach, razor blade, steel

wool, anything they could find, torch, shoe heel, bubble gum, etc.

Pretty bad compared to what you'd think of now as retouching. :>}

 

<p>

 

Hicks and his partner point out a couple of shots in the book which

exhibit particularly nasty attempts at retouching. Guess what, these

are some of the most memorable pictures. You're so captivated by the

personality and wonder of the image, you dismiss the obvious goofs.

 

<p>

 

That being said, have a look for yourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the little I've gathered Hurrell's subjects used little or no

makeup (Joan Crawford was not too happy about that) and he lit them

pretty hard with hot lights and then retouched the negatives heavily.

If you look at some of his photos it often appears that eyelashs and

eyebrows were "drawn" in and the skin tones appear almost

"sandblasted" down. I'd suggest starting by studying the makeup and

hair styles from that era and either go that way or learn to retouch

bigger negatives, not as easy as you would think..good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the retouching part, you might look for William Mortensen's

book 'Print Finishing' (Camera Craft, 1938). He details the use of

powder, eraser, carbon pencil, razor blade, spotting brush, and his

own abrasion-tone process. This is for prints, not negatives, but it

might help get the look you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Jimmy, with regards to the 4*5 camera, I think you will find what

you need is a camera with bellows extension of at least 16 inches so

you can get in close. And this job doesn't call for a fancy camera or

an expensive lens, maybe an old Kodak or Graflex studio camera on a

rail which could probably be had for around $300. You might find a 10"

lens useful. It would probably be best to rent a studio camera with

Polaroid holder to find the perspective you want and then make

decisions about buying equiptment. An old folding camera from early

1900s is not the answer IMHO; an old studio camera from the 1950s

might be the answer. See if you can borrow a Kodak 10' Commercial

Ektar for a lens? Not enough room to go into difference between field

and studio cameras, but I think for the job you outline a studio

camera is much cheaper without the limitations some field cameras

might have. I mean with the field camera, the compromises are for

compactness and portability. This ususally means expensive in any

thing. Basically all you want is bellows extension on a rigid camera

and that is pretty easy to find in 50s studio 4*5s. Good luck, David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect, please allow me to correct some misperceptions

here. I am friends with Mark Viera, a latter-day associate of George

Hurrell's who recently published a book titled "Hurrell's Hollywood."

Mark reprints Hurrell's original negatives and uses the techniques

Hurrell perfected. I asked Mark the same questions Jimmy has posted

here, and this is what he told me:

 

<p>

 

1. Hurrell's lighting was not always "dead simple." He did not use

just one spotlight, as many people believe, but often several lights.

Yes, his facial light was often one carefully aimed key, but he built

up abstract patterns and shapes on on the background with other

lights, shapes complementary to his subjects.

 

<p>

 

2. Hurrell stopped using blue-sensitive orthochromatic film in the

1930s. Most of Hurrell's best known work was on standard panchromatic

film - this is obvious to anyone who looks at his portraits taken

after about 1934. So, no, the "Hurrell look" is not ortho film- you're

wasting your time going down this avenue.

 

<p>

 

3. Yes, he was an extensive retoucher. Either Hurrell himself, or one

of several assistants, would painstakingly pencil in the blemishes on

the negative, using powdered graphite to "burnish" the highlights. And

yes, he did not allow his models to use ANY base makeup whatsoever.

The flawless skin you see is a result of pencil retouching. Joan

Crawford, for instance was COVERED with freckles. . .Hurrell's genius

is obvious when you see how well he covered them. If you pick up

Mark's book, you'll see an interesting "before and after" - the

negative of Joan with and without retouching. Her face is a mass of

freckles in the "before" and the "after" is alabaster cream. Another

 

<p>

 

4. One poster seems to think these portraits are amateurish in their

retouching - nothing could be further from the truth. The key to

classic-looking portraits is not their "obvious goofs." That's an

unfortunate attitude of the current mindset that no one knew how to do

anything "in the old days" and that only current technology can

produce good work. Hurrell's photos are masterpieces - find me an

"obvious goof!"

 

<p>

 

5. Another common misconception about Hurrell's work is that it was

done in soft focus. This is not the case. Hurrell ORIGINATED the

portrait style of super sharp photography combined with the

preternatural smoothness of skin. This is why his portraits hold up

today. After about 1935, he no longer used soft focus because he

didn't need to cover up amateurish technique with diffusion. Take a

good look at these shots and you see crisp, sharp outlines (note the

detail in hair and eyelashes) with no facial flaws. This is all

retouching my friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hi Jimmy,

 

Sorry to arrive here more than three years late (just saw your

question today). As for a camera, the bigger the better.

 

I agree with Josh Slocum but can't agree with Ed Buffaloe that

William Mortensen is a good example for Hurrell style

retouching. Not saying that Mortensen was bad, just different.

 

Retouching 8x10 negatives isn't as easy as you'd think because,

ironically, the retouching shows more easily than on a smaller

�say, 4x5� negative. You've got to do more pencilling to cover

the same area (for example, a cheek). Dye retouching would be

simpler.

 

Mark Viera is your best source of information on Hurrell's

technique, if you can get him to share it. Have fun and just

practice, practice, practice.

 

Best,

 

Christopher Nisperos

 

co-author, Hollywood Portraits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...