Lighting for 1930s-style portrait

[anbeck]

Hi there,<br><br>

 

I'm looking for help on how to set up a 1930s portrait lighting setup.

To show you what kind of lighting I'm thinking of I dug up a few shots

at the imdb.com:<br><br>

 

<a

href="http://imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1315/Mptv/1315/0705_2228.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Lombard,%20Carole%20(I)">Pic1</a><br>

Is that just one flash and an additional one for the hair?<br><br>

 

<a

href="http://imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1300/Mptv/1300/0705_2218.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Lombard,%20Carole%20(I)">Pic2</a><br>

This one seems to use two flashes from what I see in her eyes.<br><br>

 

<a

href="http://imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1127/Mptv/1127/0705_0501.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Lombard,%20Carole%20(I)">Pic3</a><br>

I like this one, any ideas how it was done?<br><br>

 

<a

href="http://imdb.com/gallery/mptv/1127/Mptv/1127/0705_0510.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Lombard,%20Carole%20(I)">Pic4</a><br>

Is this just one flash from above? The harsh shadow under the nose

seems to say that.<br><br>

 

Thanks for any help for the setups above and any other general

1930-style hints!!<br><br>

 

Andre

[kipling]

The key is using big Fresnel lights to get that kind of hard, narrow light. The lighting

arrangements look fairly simple with one main light and like in pic 2 a second fill light or a

hair light. The interesting thing is how high the light falls on their faces, it's not from in

front but from up above giving the faces a very 3 dimentional look. <p>

Very beautiful photos.

[david_goldfarb]

Look at Mark Vieira's book, _Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits_ for some good technical info from the master of this style. You can look around the net for more on George Hurrell and Clarence Bull who were two of the major figures in this period.

 

There are a number of things going on. One is the use of fresnel spots. On some of these, you'll notice that the accent lights are often brighter than what would normally be considered the key (pic 2). In pic 2, I think there are two spots behind Carole left and right (I think this is sometimes called the "arrowhead"), the key is relatively high and camera right as with a classic Rembrandt setup, and the fill is relatively low and maybe angled upward a bit. This low power, low positioned fill that mimics a theatrical footlight is very characteristic of the period. These are also shot in 8x10" at a relatively wide aperture (maybe f:8 or f:11) to get that short DOF.

 

Hollywood negs were heavily retouched, so that smooth skin comes from pencil on the neg--it's not just makeup. Hurrell often asked subjects not to wear base makeup on the face--only accents on the eyes and lips. The idea was to capture the glow of clean skin and clean up the blemishes later.

 

Soft focus lenses like the Verito or Pinkham and Smith were used for some Hollywood portraiture, but not as much as is generally assumed. Hurrell started with a Verito and later switched to a sharp commercial lens (a Goerz Celor), so the "softness" was added where it was wanted at the retouching stage.

 

I'm not sure who is the photographer on these photos. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than one, since these were done over time between 1930 and 1938.

[anbeck]

Thanks for the answers so far. I've just found a book at Amazon called "Hollywood Portraits: Classic Shots and How to Take Them" by Roger Hicks. Does anybody know the book? Would you recommend it?

 

Thanks,

Andre

[ronald_moravec1]

Frenel spots as you have been told. Except #2 which was a softer light.

 

The second step was 8x10 negs and a competent retoucher.

 

I have seen shots like these in a local theater at 3x4 feet and they are grain free, tack sharp, and everyone has a flawless retouched complexion. They are georgous.

 

There is no easy way to duplicate this work with todays materials.

[david_goldfarb]

"Today's materials"?

 

They still make 8x10" film (I'd recommend Tri-X, FP4+, J&C Classic 400, or Efke 100 for the traditional look), pencils, fresnel spots, Azo (Hurell liked Azo--it's changed but it's still a great paper), and if you want the old lenses and an Adams retouching machine, they're out there to be had.

[john_jovic]

Andre, I have the book you mentioned "Hollywood Portraits: Classic Shots and How to Take Them" by Roger Hicks. It is worthwile as it tries to explain the techniques of many of the photographers of the era.

 

JJ

[gary_watson]

Another vote for the Roger Hicks book. Although much of the "look" you're after is format-dependent(i.e., 4x5 and 8x10), Hicks goes further than anyone I've read in explaining recreations of old lighting set-ups.

[steve_roark]

I have Hicks' book, too. I think the title is misleading as the authors only speculate on how classic photos were made. There are no attempts to reproduce them. And at least a couple of the simplistic diagrams obviously aren't correct. Its better than nothing, but if you have an eye for lighting, you could get just as much from studying the photos yourself.

 

BTW: Purist may insist on using only fresnels, but I've seen convincing results from spot grids over modern strobes. I think it boils down to the photographer's skill and the model's face, and as mentioned earlier, a whole lotta retouching.

 

Steve

[tedharris]

To add to David Goldfarb's response. Not only is all the equipment available so are the

photographers who still make images like these. But you are unlikely to get there with

small format and low wattage lighting.

[erol_a.]

I just shot a few polariods of my younger sister that, while not as dramatic as these, had a little of that '30s look to them. The first, I shot with a ca.36x42 softbox in the "butterfly" position above and over the lens, direct onto the subject, with a second light behind and overhead with a 30 degree honeycomb on it pointed at the back/top of her head for hairlight. I later took the grid off and just sot with the 7" reflector, which I liked the look of more in this case.

I wish they had a scanner here (home with the folks for the holiday) to illustrate the look, but it had that radiant edge defintion around the head/hair, and because my softbox was a bit further from the subject than normal, the slightly harder light gave a more "defined" look to her features (well defined cheekbones) though not as direct as the examples provided. I think though starting out with two lights forming a "V" with lights at the top two points and your subject the base intersection is the start - but most importantly... large film. I shot color with my digital first, and it looked like Glamour Shots from the mall (all I needed was a softening or star filter!) I shot a 6x7 BW polaroid, and it looked like Silver Screen. Big film = good.

[christopher_nisperos2]

On Nov 21, 2004, Steve Roark wrote on photo.net:

 

I have Hicks' book, too. I think the title is misleading as the

authors only speculate on how classic photos were made. There

are no attempts to reproduce them. And at least a couple of the

simplistic diagrams obviously aren't correct. Its better than

nothing, but if you have an eye for lighting, you could get just as

much from studying the photos yourself.

 

BTW: Purist may insist on using only fresnels, but I've seen

convincing results from spot grids over modern strobes. I think it

boils down to the photographer's skill and the model's face, and

as mentioned earlier, a whole lotta retouching.

 

Steve

 

========================

 

Hi Steve,

 

I am the co-author of Hollywood Portraits. I don't know if you'll

see this post, as it's being posted years after yours--- but it's

also for the benefit of others who are interested in keeping alive

this look and genre of lighting.

 

The obvious reason we had to speculate about how those old

portraits were taken is simply because most of the

photographers were dead at the time of our writing. As well, the

two living photographers I managed contact seemed content

with taking their secrets to the grave, or said they couldn't

remember. Mark Viera --who grew up in the same town as me, is

an old acquaintance and an undeniably good source of

information. At the time we wrote the book, I tried to locate him,

without luck. (NOTE: He had not yet come out with his books at

the time). Lastly, there are few findable books on the Hollywood

lighting techniques, written in the era.

 

Rather than create our own portraiture for the book (which,

anyway, would have surely suffered in comparison to authentic

portraits by Hurrell and other greats!), we deliberately left it to the

reader to try for themselves. We wanted the book to be a source

of motivation, and time as proven this to be the case.

 

However, be assured that what we wrote was not just theory and

guesses. I practice this lighting myself (usually, more of 1950's

commercial portraiture than "Hollywood glamour"). We closely

studied HUNDREDS of actual Hollywood portraits with

high-power loupes, and discussed and argued for days. As well,

most of our "theories" about lighting direction, intensity and

angles of lights were exhaustively tested --almost police style---

using a mannequin's head, lights and a pencil on the nose

(giving shadow direction, etc.). This information was coupled

with my years of experience in portraiture to come up with

"educated guesses", that should come pretty close.

 

The book is more than just lighting information. It touches the

subjects of make-up, retouching, equipment (including light

modifying equipment that a beginner wouldn't usually know

about). For this reason, I'm afraid I can't agree that a beginner

"could get just as much from studying the photos themself" (Hey,

where the heck else are they going to get all these photo to study

from, if not from such a book?).

 

What you say about the simplistic drawings is absolutely true

and unfortunate; the original drawings we made for lighting

schemes were 'as seen from above' ("bird's eye" view). When I

saw the final layout of the book, this aspect had been changed.

According to Roger Hicks --as hard to believe as it is-- , the artist

took it upon herself to change the angle of the drawings to

eyelevel / 3D. As a result, some of the lamp heights in the

illustrations were not correct. However, I subsequently insisted

that text be added to the preface remind the reader that the

drawings were approximative. All-in-all, the book has shown to

be quite useful and inspirational.

 

Lastly, your point about strobes has some merit, except that their

use often necessitate smaller f/stops. As well, (especially for the

1950's look) delicate highlight brilliances can quickly go to solid

"cream cheese" white. BUT , yes.. strobe is possible, with careful

planning, reduced light output and testing of exposure and

development!

 

Good luck and have fun!

 

Best,

 

Christopher Nisperos

 

.

[bill_seagroves]

Christopher,

 

I read your response. By responding to the above statement it shows that you are truly attempting to get information out for the sake of learning Photographic Lighting.

I have only recently decided to attempt this style and am by no means even experienced enough to speak the language.

I would love to know a fraction of what you must have learned during the making of the book.

If you have any information you are willing to share with us commoners please fill free to contact me at either bills@franksintl.com or noelphotography@aol.com

 

I am in the Houston, Texas area.

 

Thanks for sharing your insight.

 

Bill Seagroves

Pearland, Texas