George Hurrell lighting

Please could anyone tell me how George Hurrell lit his models in the 30's and

40's. These images have such depth and atmosphere to them. How would one go

about re-creating the feeling today with digital and studio flash.

 

I have attached a link to a website featuring some of his work:

 

http://www.hurrellphotos.com/default.asp?id=25

 

Many thanks Karl

Poke around <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/

0817440208/sr=8-4/qid=1159356126/ref=pd_bbs_4/102-3781091-4949752?

ie=UTF8&s=books">Roger Hicks' book</a> perhaps? (I don't have that book but suspect it

will get you started with some examples and light setup). Hurrell seemed to

<a href="http://www.hurrellphotography.com/Hurrell/legends3.html">go out of his way to

not explain his technique</a>.

<p>

In trying to reproduce Hollywood Golden Era Portraiture I have leaned to using spotlights with

fill to slightly soften. High contrast, dramatic lighting. Still experimenting.

Fro starters i nthose days Hurrell had a really big studio, a former movie theater as i

recall. He tended to light with a a really big fresnel spot light (Movie production

companies call them a "Big Eye" as the lens is like 30" across) from a fair distance away. I

sort of remember that it might have been up in a balcony.

 

So the combination of a big spot light and a fair amount of distance gives it that

concentrated beam effect --and also evens out lisht fall off. It also allows for "gobos" to be

set between the light and the subject to shape the light .

 

Another vague memory is that he inisted on minumum makeup.

 

And of course he was shooting with an 8x10 portrait camera like a Deardorff . I know he

then had his on staff retoucher expertly work over the negatives and then they very

carefully printed.

 

But a lot of the romance and drama in his photographs comes from both how he lit and

that his subjects were actors who knew how to take direction , how toplay to the light and

to the camera and were very aware of how to present an idealized image of themselves to

the public.

There's a great book on the subject that include's Hurrell's shots. A couple of photographers deconstruct the image, suggesting where the lights are located and any other circumstances that affect the look. It's available on Amazon.com usually and it's called "Hollywood Portraits". It's one of the best books I've read on technique and is organized by decade to show how technique and looks changed. It's filled with studio shots of famous stars, so it's also fun to read. I've about worn out my copy.

Michael is right- "Hollywood Portraits" is the best (and really the only) book out there which will teach you something about the techniques used in the classic 1920's through 1950's Hollywood images.<p> I used to work in the lighting department of big New York photo store, and got folks asking about this all the time. Fresnel spot lights were really the only lights they had- these were used on movie sets and in the photo studios. They are still great lights, but they can be tough to use. They get really hot, for one thing, and the tungsten bulbs are expensive and don't last all that long. If you shoot in color, you will have to color balance properly, and you can't do it with gels since they will melt. Digital shooting makes this easier, as long as you aren't mixing sources. <p>However, there are many other elements contributing to the look of these old images besides just lights. The film was not like what we have today; it was very slow, and far more silver in the emulsion than most films you can find these days. They also had lower contrast and less sharpness than modern films. The low contrast helped a lot with the lighing and the exposure, and the softness was as much compensated for by the size of the film as it was helpful to soften imprefections. Hurrell and others working at the time also used extensive retouching. They used large format sheet-film cameras, and they did a lot of retouching directly on the film with inks and dyes, and then again on the print. <p>The lenses they used also contributed a good deal to the look. Most modern lenses show more sharpness and higher contrast then most of what was available then- that's another thing to remember.<p>I would venture a guess that the images mentioned from Mongolia were probably made using older cameras and simple or old fashioned spot lights that would be more like the older equipment used for the classic Hollywood images. They would likely be made using films that are made like the classic films, with higher silver saturation, slightly lower contrast and sharpness, like most cheap Chinese films.<p>If you really like a certain style, the best way to replicate it is to use as much of the same techinques and equipment as you can, and to understand what each element contributes. Good luck, and let us know what you come up with!

So after this posting I actually ordered Hicks book I mentioned above, and

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0810934345/

ref=pd_rvi_gw_1/102-3781091-4949752"> Hollywood Portraits</a> mentioned by other

posters. The Hicks book attempts to reconstruct the lighting setup for a series of classic

Hollywood portraits. I think you'll find it useful. The latter book by Vieira has some images of

Hurrell at work showing the set and the resulting portrait - which complements the Hicks

book nicely (besides providing a raft of examples of Hurrell's portraits nicely printed).

Finished reading the Hurrell book. Lots of beautiful images and a lot of discussion about

Hurrell's techniques during his golden era. Really worth the read.

Hurrell is my passion, as well as studying film noir and the lighting of the German film

expressionists. I've been studying these and their lighting for the last three years, also

the films of Joseph von Sternberg and his expert lighting/creation of Marlene Dietrich.

Well, last week I finally splurged on lighting. I called up a few lighting companies who

specialize in theatrical lighting for concerts, and found one that was selling some new gear

to great prices as well as a few old fresnells. So I splurged and bought three lights and a

stand. Hurrell did not use modern lighting or flash -- they were all the old Hollywood

fresnells and his invention of the spot to light the face. So, Karl, if you want to study the

lighting I think, like me, its down to just trying and failing, and learning from y our

mistakes. Use a key light on the face, placed to the side above the face. One light in

BACK of the model to backlight, giving a sort of halo to the hair (Hurrell does this alot --

creates a kind of "shimmer" effect), and then another to fill in shadows where you need it.

That's it. The artistry (which I'm sure you and I are both interested) is to learn how to

create a certain effect and be able to repeat it when desired. So, call around to lighting

companies and you might be surprised at how cheap they are selling off their old Fresnells

-- like I just bought. Its certainly cheaper than buying full flash lighting -- I just checked

some pricing and ....well, I'm not rich! Good luck!

I was hired to do some photos for a woman whose on-stage character was an aging movie starlet, so I had to emulate the Hurrell style as closely as possible. I found I got the best results using grids on my strobes to simulate spotlights. I had a spotlight up high and to the side, and another across from it behind the subject to provide a backlit glow. Posing is important too. You want to the subject to turn her face towards the light, which sculpts the cheekbones and other contours (neck, collarbone, etc.)

</BR></BR>

You'll also need to do some photoshopping to get that ultra-smoothness in the skin, which isn't normal on anyone above the age of 14. I created a slight gaussian blur layer and then masked out detail areas like the hair and eyes so they'd be sharp.

</BR></BR>

I wouldn't say my results were perfect, but she was thrilled with them. One of the final images is <a href="http://portfolio.kevinthom.com/performers/tippi_seagram_1">here</A>.

There's a HUGE difference between how he "lit his models in the 30s" and how we might re-create it today with digital and flash.

 

First, he shot with 8x10 film plate cameras, uncoated lenses, and ancient film stock. Thus, a starting point would be to try and match the look from a technical standpoint. With a digital SLR camera, a 50mm lens set at a very wide aperture is a good start. Hurrell frequently stopped down to f22 and even f32 because of the large format. The good news for us is that because the smaller format needs a larger aperture, we're free to set our shutter speeds to much faster than his 1, 2 and 3 seconds!

 

Photoshop can emulate some of the film characteristics, though don't expect to see a "Hurrell plug-in" any time soon. You'll need to do the work and really study the films and prints and approach it indivudally as an artist.

 

After the technical stuff, you can finally deal with lighting. The only hard fact here is that it's VERY different than what we use today. Hurrell used very direct light, such as open spotlights and fresnels. Although he had double-broads at his disposal, I've never seen a shot of him using them in particular. The "classic" Hurrell look REQUIRES the use of a boomlight, combined usually with soft fill and maybe an accent and background light. He worked well with simple setups. The trick today is finding equivalents. But remember, you don't have to be as hard-edged as he was because you're using coated lenses and nice, sharp digital sensors. Thus, you'll get greater contrast on this basis alone. Too much, in fact, by comparison. So, consider toning down your spots. It's also doubtful that you'll need all that wattage he used, too, not to mention that your house current wouldn't even support it and that your model would probably melt under it.

 

Study his work to find out light placement. I read one post on here suggesting that he worked in an old movie theatre and shot spots from a balcony. This is not in any of the biographies which I've read! In fact, Mark Viera's biography (he apprenticed with Hurrell and now owns his gear) wrote quite a bit about his various studios. He had a small gallery at MGM that was every bit as small as his first little studio. (It was noted how embarrassed he was at its modest size when Norma Shearer visited for the first time.) His second studio, which he rented for $50 a month after leaving MGM, had some of his most famous work, and it was only 12 feet wide (though very long!). There's lots of photos of Hurrel photographing his subjects, and I've never seen a 30" spotlight coming out of a balcony. So, research this stuff carefully, because even the Hicks book only skims the surface, and some of it isn't even perfect.

 

Finally, if you want to REALLY re-create the look, you won't get far without carefully examining the clothing, the jewelry, hairstyles and makeup. Again, look at the photos. The portrait galleries in those days were busy places, so there's thousands of images from this period floating around the internet. Concentrate on the early 30s to the mid 40s. Forget the 50s.

 

No simple answer to your question. In fact, there are few answers to really be found, so your job ahead of you is a BIG ONE!

Original question:

 

"Please could anyone tell me how George Hurrell lit his models

in the 30's and 40's. "

 

Fresnels and scoops. Tungsten, all.

 

"How would one go about re-creating the feeling today with

digital and studio flash"

 

It's my belief that the re-creation of a similar "feeling" is

possible with digital and studio flash, but not really the

same look. I agree with Mark Vieira that the only real

way to achieve the same look is by using the same

means with which the originals glamour portraits were

taken: big camera, big negative, tungsten fresnels,

LOTS of retouching ON THE NEGATIVE ... among other

indispensible details.

 

If using digital, why do you need flash? Use fresnel

spots. Try Dedolights. You can find cheaper fresnels

but not as optically efficient (No, I don't work for Dedo

Film, but I do use their products).

 

Last friendly advice: test, test, test.

 

Best,

 

Christopher Nisperos

<p>There is an excellent film about George Hurrell and the way he operated to make those glamorous images.<br>

It has been mentioned here before, George used a fairly simple set up which is misleading. He knew every trick in the book to make his models look good.<br>

Taking great pictures of models is more than hardware and technique. It is about communication and trust between the model and the photographer. All models knew they were in save hands with George.<br>

In the film Kim Bassinger is being photographed by George Hurrell.<br>

His MO seems easy to copy but please note it is the result of many years experience.<br>

Lighting? A couple of medium power fresnel spots.<br>

Camera? A large formate model loaded with slow film.<br>

His negatives were retouched by hand, no photoshop in those days.</p>

<p> </p>