Yousuf Karsh portraits...comments on his techniques...

[david richhart]

If I get this loaded correctly you will be looking at portraits of Frank Lloyd Wright and General Pershing, photographed by Yousuf Karsh... <p>

<img src="http://images.honesty.com/cgi-bin/honesty-image/13134055/FLW.jpg"> <img src="http://images.honesty.com/cgi-bin/honesty-image/13134056/pershing.jpg"> <p>

Would anyone like to comment on the techniques of one of the truly great classical portrait photographers? What was his lighting set-up? What filters are used? Is there a book available on Karsh's style of portraiture? <p>

Any and all comments are welcomed and appreciated, as always... -Dave

[doug_paramore2]

Dave: Frank Lloyd Wright's portrait is lit with the "T"

or "arrowhead" lighting layout. A strong light is placed to the side

and slightly to the rear of the subject and high, and a weaker light

beside the camera. A fourth light may be used to lighten the

background very slightly (I don't see it used here) and at times a

hair light was used. Filters were not used, but Ortho film was often

used on men.

Gen. Pershing's portrait was lit with the main light on the right

side of the picture, with a lesser fill light on the right. A

background light of low intensity was used and I believe the

background burned in to leave the slight line. An overhead light was

directed to the hands and hair. I saw an exhibition of Karsh's

portraits a few years ago, and it was magnificent. What was amazing

was that his portraits of Krushev, taken in Russia with a Rollieflex,

still had the skin tones and sheen on the skin as does the 8x10

shots. I believe these two shots you showed are made with the 8x10

camera and 14" lens. Along with the exhibition was a video tape of

Karsh making a portrait, which showed the arrowhead lighting with

spot lights. The rest is pure talent.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

 

<p>

 

Doug.

[doug_paramore2]

Dave: Sorry. The lighting for Gen. Pershing should read "a strong

light to the right side of the camera and slightly high and a weaker

fill light to the left of the camera.

 

<p>

 

Doug.

[david_clark4]

Hi Dave, I've got another question to go with yours. What would be an

afordable portable light to achive these results, and could you use a

small flash for the soft light? I mean, I know they are lights, but

how big are they in terms of watts or size or cost? Thanks

[david richhart]

I should give credit to the "George Eastman House". I "borrowed"

these scans from their wonderful website at www.geh.org/ It's a great

website that everyone should check out.... - Dave

[doug_paramore2]

Note to David C. Most of the studio hot lights were either 500 or

1,000 watts. You can get nearly the same effect with electronic flash

without umbrellas. Use a layer of cheese cloth to smooth out the

light just a tiny bit. This may sound funny, but it seems hot lights

stay on the surface of the skin and give a smoother sheen, whereas

electronic flash penetrates the surface of the skin. I am not the

first photographer who has noticed this effect. However, electronic

flash can be just about as good and it is certainly easier on the

subject. You can't seem to get the sparkle on the skin tones with

umbrellas or soft boxes, as that is their purpose. They smooth out

the skin and eliminate a lot of retouching. To answer your question,

the small flash will work for fill or background light.

 

<p>

 

Good Shooting,

[doug_paramore2]

Dave: I'll get this right yet. I was in too big of a hurry and didn't

proof my answer as I should have. The arrowhead lighting on Frank

Lloyd Wright's portrait uses TWO lights to the side and slightly to

the rear, one on each side. Sorry for the errors.

 

<p>

 

Doug.

[kahheng]

Just a guess: Looks like Pyro was used, as well as a fair amount of

retouching by hand probably with a pencil on the negs.

 

<p>

 

One aspect of Karsh's portrait of note is the emphasis on the

lighting the subject's hands separately. He felt that the hands are a

very integral part of the subject's character. You can see this in the

two pictures you posted. (In Pershing's portrait, there is one light

gunning at the hands from behind to the left of the viewer), On the

whole, the lighting is fairly hard which is why on negative retouching

is required.

 

<p>

 

One book to see is "Karsh : A Sixty-Year Retrospective" he has two

others I believe. I have this one. Some of the lighting schemes (not

detailed in the book) were really amazing.

[david richhart]

Thanks for the thoughts guys... There are several dozen Karsh

portraits, as well as well as many other photographs from great

photographers to be seen at the George Eastman House website at

www.geh.org/ It is a "MUST SEE" website! <p>

Doug...thanks for the ideas... I too had the opportunity to see about

100 Karsh portraits in an exhibit. There just isn't anything like

seeing the actual poster-sized photographs!!! -Dave

[david_f._stein]

From a dissenter. I can't deny the strength of the photos but in

the long run am not impressed by someone who approaches

every subject in the exact same way. It's the difference between

the mystic-who impresses their will on life-and the poet-who lets

it run through him or her: interpreting; guiding; but respecting

and loving and being amazed at the world as it presents itself.

Shouldn't some portraits be light-hearted; some serious;some

bright; some dark; what is the personality and so on. More

technically; some in-close; some showing the figure in the

environment; some from the side; from above; from below;

whatever. Karsh could photograph my next door neighbor and he

or she would look like Gandhi or Sir Edmund Hillary or Albert

Schweitzer or Bernard Baruch or Queen Elizabeth. Doesn't

make sense to me. The oft-praised concept of STYLE reveals

limitations as much as successes.

[wilhelm]

David, it seems to me your criticism is that Karsh isn't Arnold

Newman, or Eliott Erwitt, etc. It is like complaining that Rembrandt

never made gay paperdoll cutouts like Matisse. Karsh is KARSH; he

makes formal portraits. IMHO your thoughtful criticism, while valid,

isn't fair. A more common criticism is that he uses cookie-cutter

lighting, making everyone look Olympian. If true he does it better

than anyone else ever has. We should all look so good.

[david_goldfarb]

I recall that Karsh once said that after the Einstein portrait, many

of his subjects wanted to be photographed in a turtleneck, so in part

the similarity might be somewhat subject driven. That said, I think

Karsh's portraits show a lot of personality. The lighting style may

be similar in these two images, but the subjects come off as quite

different characters.

 

<p>

 

Now if one wanted to say that all of Avedon's subjects look the same,

that would be another story. Conversely, one might say that Martin

Schoeller is so eclectic in his portraits that he comes across as an

incredible virtuoso capable of evoking a variety of moments in the

history of photography with great success (check out his portfolio in

the Aug. 21/28, 2000 issue of <I>The New Yorker</I>), without

establishing one style (unless eclecticism itself is taken as a

"style"--and perhaps it should be) as truly his own.

[doug_paramore2]

I agree with Bill Mitchell. Would these be better portraits if Karsh

had taken them out to a shack, smeared cow dung on their suits and

faces and lit them with direct flash? Would they then have

been "portraits from life?" by a gifted photographer? Why not stand

them in front of a white sheet and let the subject stand straight on

and stare into the lens. Maybe if they were teenagers, Karsh could

shoot their faces closeup with a sharp lens and see all the blemishes

in living color. If you really want to see just how much better Karsh

was than the average photographer, look at the black and white

pictures of your ancestors.

[david richhart]

I think that you need to remember that you are looking at

commissioned work which I am sure was not inexpensive...and when

someone paid for a Karsh portrait he expected a Karsh portrait in

return. <p>

I just love to see these types of discussions on this forum. {:^D

[wilhelm]

Actually, the celebrity portraits were done at Karsh's expense. On

spec, so to speak.

[julio_fernandez]

Dave, by raising this issue you have reminded us what photography is

all about. Thanks for raising this issue and to the respondents for

your informative and stimulating thoughts. I had begun thinking that

this forum should be renamed the "LF Photography Hardware Forum". I

look forward to more of this kind of issue and dialogue. PS: great

scans, thanks.

[george_gunnell]

frank does have a background light behind him. those who cannot

appreciate karsh's genius have been brainwashed by the "only the ugly

is art" school. have a nice day. will kill eminem for food.

[aaron_francis]

I'd like to make a comment on Karsh's image of General Pershing, It

looks like to me that he is using a stong, harsh light, some distance

from the subject (from the right of the viewer), slightly raised

above the subjects eye. There is another light that is coming in at

almost 90 degrees to the left of the subject to light his hands,

however, it looks like hes used cutters to protect the face. To

emphasize the head and shoulders from the background, he has used a

very soft background light (probably 3 stops different from every

other light in the image (either that, or hes a darkroom genius). Id

just like to make a comment about what everyone else has said about

the two images, and Karsh's style for that matter. It is very rare

for two people to look at an image in the exact same way, when i was

at uni, they taught us to accept others opinions, and try to see it

from their perspective, as well as your own. For all those who think

that Karsh's style is repetitive, and even 'old', his use of

theatrical lighting styles is what makes him so popular, and such a

legend, he found his niece in the market and has done well from it.

[sean_yates]

"....he found his niece in the market and has done well from it."

 

<p>

 

Where were her parents?

[larry_le_brun_graham]

Mr. Karsh has been my photographic idol for many years. A

photographers depth and perception is weighed by one thing and that is

the ability to produce an image on film which portrays the spirit,

strength and personality of the person in front of his camera. I keep

open on my desk in my studio, two books by Mr. Karsh. Not to try and

copy but to inspire me...because when I complete a portrait session

that uplifts me to the stars, I stop and thank them for the opportunity

of having Yousuf Karsh as an early role model. Thank you.

[nick_kanellos2]

I have been told, though I cannot confirm whether it is true or not,

by a local Ottawa area pro photographer (Karsh was based in Ottawa)

that the sheen on the subject's skin that is typical of Karsh is

obtained by using --- hmmmm!! ---- Johnson's baby oil.

[andrew_macdonald1]

One key element that is missing so far in how Karsh creates such

remarkable quality in his images is that he often used toners in the

print development process.

 

<p>

 

Selenium toners as well as "homemade" toners that he used can

dramatically affect the overall print. Also don't forget that he was

usually shooting with an 8X10 view camera which to this day will

surpass anything on the market. In the case of photography "bigger

is better".

 

<p>

 

An alternative to an 8X10 camera, that I have used many times to

replicate the feel of this type of portraite is to use a little known

Kodak product called Technical Pan 120.

 

<p>

 

Tech Pan is a difficult film to shoot and to process but the quality

of the grain structure and skin tones that it produces are

spectacular. Give it a try!

[jorge_gasteazoro3]

Dave all I want to know is:

How the heck did you load the photographs, I would like to know so

that if I have a problem I can show people on the forum....

BTW, I like the portraits, wasn't Karsh the one who made that famous

Churchill portrait, where he took the cigar out of his mouth and got

that wonderful expression?

Take care.

[denis_dupuis]

This may be the wrong forum to ask this question. Would anyone know

what the value of an original signed photo of a common person be

worth. At any rate this is a digital copy of the 15x19 inch signed

photo of my dad at fords. The picture of my dad was taken in a

seperate room with lights on his face and vest it was then

superimposed(sp) on the other negative of the foundery.

hope this works it really doesn't do the original justice and by the

way it is not for sale currently.....

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/d/u/p/Denis-Dupuis-ontario/

PHOTO/0001photo.html

[gary_curtis_miller_of_balt]

An aspect that has been missed here is the color temperature of the

lights. When photographing the human skin, you have a surface rich in

the yellow-red spectrum, both orthochromatic and panchromatic black

and white films get a slightly higher, (greater) exposure than is

presented by the meter. 'Hot' lights, a.k.a. theatrical lights are

quartz ampules with tungsten filaments. They burn at 3200 degrees

Kelvin and grow warmer (to the 3000 to 2800 degree Kelvin) range.

 

<p>

 

You also have the ability to use barndoors and most importantly, to

use a 'leeko light'. This is a varaible-focus spotlight, (Fresnel and

double convex condensers).

 

<p>

 

This enables one to acheive the high reflectivity seen on the skin.

 

<p>

 

Bogen monolights have a focusable spot strobe, 'gel-ing' the strobe

will give greater effect than filtering the lens, (Roscoe gel).

 

<p>

 

Agfapan processed with Rodinal will give damn-near the quality of tec-

pan and is a LOT easier to use. Print on FIBER BASE PAPER, Agfa (or

for a colder-tone, Orental Seagull.