Old Hollywood Lighting

I would like to recreate some of the portraits from old Hollywood.(Jean Harlow and Marlene Dietrich etc ) but I have no

idea how to do this or if it is even possible without expensive studio equipment.I have tried it a bit on my own with no

luck.I bought myself a cheap hot light to practice with.I know I need to crawl before I walk but I love those old studio

pictures and would like to try my hand at it.I would completly appreciate if someone could help me with this.Thanks

Fiona McCarthy

You'll need fresnel type focusing spotlights, , at least 12" in diameter, and lots of room.

Where would I get those and are they expensive?

link:

 

http://www.hurrellphotography.com/

 

also Mortenson in his books he shows how using only only two lights

Fiona, This is one of my favorite photo books. It deconstructs the original Hollywood lighting to show you how the shots were probably done: http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Portraits-Roger-Hicks/dp/0817440208/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1216004190&sr=8-2

This is the kind of <a href=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=42236&is=REG>

focusing spot</a> that Ellis mentioned. There's a photographer who used to sell a DVD on ebay that addresses this type of lighting.

Just search for "hollywood style lighting"; not sure if it's still available.

Thanks for all your responses. I'm going to look into the books and DVD's.

I am now using used stage Fresnels, which you can get pretty cheap, both on ebay and from stage lighting companies,

as they periodically will get rid of old units. if you want to adapt them to a photographic lighting stand, Bogen/Manfrotto

makes an adapter which again is inexpensive, and Calumet stands are good value for money.

 

the old negs are often 8x10", and heavily "photoshopped" with a scalpel and pencil to remove wrinkles and trim waists. I

have two such negatives, and am amazed at how none of this is noticeable in print.

 

Halogen bulbs are very delicate when they are hot, so be careful moving them when fired up.

 

500w bulbs will probaby be sufficient, but you may end up needing at least one dimmer, which may be hard to find that

can handle 500w.

 

Dietrich in particular had specific lighting she insisted on, both in film and for stills. she was apparently hard to work with,

but knew what made her look good. And I seem to recall that it was one large head 45 degrees above and directly central

to her head, and a reflector directly below... or something along those lines.

 

have fun. going for the Fresnels is ultimately a lot cheaper than flash, and easier to not worry about flash synch. it is a

little different, and uses more power, but this is acceptable. if you go for old stage stuff, you can get yourself a nice

studio set up for the price of one entry-level flash head, and you dont need as much of a learning curve, as you can see

what you are getting with the naked eye.

 

t

John is right, look for William Mortensen photobooks.

 

http://www.thescreamonline.com/photo/photo06-01/mortensen/mortensen_images.html

The fresnel spot linked above is a mini-spot, with a 3" fresnel lens used as a small accent light, not for glamour lighting.

 

This is a much larger fresnel with a 13" lens and much more useful for portrait lighting.<div></div>

I'm going to get the book to start and then see if I can buy some of the fresnel lenses for a reasonable price.What exactly

do they do?Is it just a really strong light or are you just able to isolate it more to the subject? Why do I need lots of room? I

guess I should get the book.lol Too many questions.

I've been playing with Hollywood Glamour Lighting for about a year now. Those Fresnel spots are killer (in a not good way) if I'm shooting digital. Mr. Hurrell's film obviously had a wider dynamic range gamut than even my 1Ds3's. Good luck with your experiment

Killer as in they're so hot they are going to set my place on fire or killer with overblown highlights when shooting digital.lol

*I've been playing with Hollywood Glamour Lighting for about a year now. Those Fresnel spots are killer (in a not good way) if I'm shooting digital. Mr. Hurrell's film obviously had a wider dynamic range gamut than even my 1Ds3's. Good luck with your experiment*

 

I use fresnel spots a lot (flash of course), mainly for commercial still life shots. It produces an effect that can't be produced by any other tool, and my work is now almost 100% digital. Medium format digital has a much wider dynamic range than any DSLR camera but I use it with DSLR's too, without problem. See the Lighting Theme on combining hard & soft light

Like Garry, I also use a fresnel spot primarily for commercial still-life shots. The fresnel that I use has a 13" lens and accepts a Speedotron flash head. I use a 4800ws head because it takes a lot of light to punch through the lens on a fresnel spot.

 

A fresnel lens columnates the light into an organized beam of mostly parallel light rays. It's focusable to a limited degree and can produce a tighter smaller spot or a looser, wider spot of light.

 

Used at a distance, it's a harder light which creates a sharper, yet still smooth shadow edge transfer. When used close to the subject, as in a still life, the relatively large size of a 13" fresnel lens positioned just 10 inches from the set creates a mix of hard and soft light. The shadow edges are still very distinct yet there is some wrap of light as well.

 

Here's a shot using that 13" fresnel spot as the main, key light from the right rear of the set. Check out the highlights on the beads and the shadows from the necklace on the sheet music.<div></div>

That clears things up a bit. So that's why there are shadows yet the skin still looks smooth and glowy.It kind of sculpts the

face and gives it some dimension without there being too harsh of a demarcation between shadow and light.

This is more of a follow-up question than an answer. I am curious what some of you experienced fresnel-flash users think about the differences in lighting quality (for Hollywood-style glamor shots) between a fresnel-flash system and a gridded flash. Isn't the main desired quality a controlled beam with a smooth and gradual transition from light to shadow, and doesn't a gridded flash produce a similar smooth transition (versus, say, a snoot which has a hard shadow edge)? I'm asking because a grid set is $60-300 versus a fresnel-flash head which is 10X that cost. Can you experienced users shed some light (or shadow) on this difference? Thanks, Mark

Mark,

 

Rather than try to explain it...

 

I'll be using a fresnel spot on a shoot tomorrow, I'll try to take a similar shot with a honeycomb as well and post both.

That would be great Gerry, thanks for doing that. If the differences are very subtle please point them out as I may not discern them (given my inexperience). What about your thoughts, Brooks?

Mark,

 

Let's see what Garry does. Tomorrow I'm shooting table lamps on white with softboxes, which will be stripped out for use on packaging. No joy there. If I survive the tedium of that shoot and have any life force left afterwards I might be able shoot a simple comparison setup for you.

 

My first thoughts are that using a grid on a round reflector will produce a much harder shadow to edge transfer than a large fresnel lens.

 

A reasonably sized fresnel spot offers a smoother shadow edge transfer, not necessarily very gradual, and produces a single shadow edge when cut with a flag(s) or shot through a cukoloris. A grid standard reflector with a silver interior will create a secondary shadow edge from the reflection of the light source off the silver inside of the reflector.

 

I usually use a grid/reflector when I have to either throw the light a long distance, like the back wall of a room or when I have to contain the light to a smaller area than the bare reflector would allow.

 

I use a fresnel lens when I want a clean shadow edge and a strong directional quality to the light. Like slightly diffused sunlight raking across a plate of food, or small table-top set. A grid is more like strong sunlight with sharp shadow edges.

 

I don't shoot many portraits or people with either a grid or fresnel, prefering to use a smaller soft box when I want stronger shadows and tighter highlights.

 

I think of grids and fresnel spots as two different light modifiers with distinctly different qualities of light.

 

Here's a comparison showing the use of a large fresnel spot as the key light and a 11" gridded reflector as a key light. The egg shot with the fresnel lens has strong shadows under the eggs but those shadows still do have somewhat softer edges. The flower can shot has much harder shadows and highlights in the flowers and on the spade full of dirt.

 

These photos are a bit small here and not lit from the same direction nor in the same way but you might be able to see these differences. Look at the highlights and shadows.<div></div>

Thanks for the quick response Gerry and Brooks. From your example above, Brooks, I assume that the fresnel was about the same size as the grid, so the differences in shadow edge is not due to the size of the light source but the way in which the two modifiers affect the edge transition. How about as an alternative to the expensive (for beginners) fresnel-flash to use a grid with a sheet of diffusion material behind the grid, either a full-width piece or a piece with the center cut out in order to smooth the shadow edge transition? Would that modification help to make the grid shadow more similar to the fresnel, or am I just beating around the bush?

 

RE the use of a small softbox for portrait with harder shadows, I assume it would be much more difficult to restrict the light from the softbox than with the fresnel or grid, altho I've never used a fabric grid on on SB so I don't know how much that will tighten the "spot". The rapid falloff around the face is one of the things I love about many of the hollywood portraits.

Fiona, I think the key point is the hard light (far less importantis it fresnel or honeycomb). And you ability to

cope with the graphics. Shadows can be lifted up if needed but the composing black and white masses is essential.<div></div>

Two more examples:

(in all the 3 photos the honeycombs were used)<div></div>

and the 3rd:<div></div>

It would be difficult to improve on Brooks' description of the different qualities of fresnel spots and honeycomb grids, and still life subjects are ideal for demonstrating differences (and for getting the best out of any given lighting tool.

 

One of the problems of using hard light sources for portraits is that very few subjects have skin that can cope with really hard lighting. Maybe that's why most beginners stick to softboxes and umbrellas...

 

Here's a shot I took yesterday with a fresnel spot. As you can see, it helps to define the shape of her face, and her complexion is pretty good. The shot is completely unretouched but some retouching IS necessary with this type of light.

 

And another shot, with a large softbox used as fill, to mitgate the effect, as explained in the Lighting Theme I referred to earlier