Classic portraiture

[david_vickers2]

<p>Hi there,</p>

<p>I've been using strobes to light portraits for quite a while now and was looking for a change in direction -

so I figured I'd look back rather than forward.</p>

<p>I've been looking and drawing inspiration from some of the portraits taken in the 1930's and the classic short

/ broad lighting. Anyway, to cut a long story short, I ended up modifying a couple of household spotlights and

mounted them with brackets. They are only running the original 100W spots, and the following photo was done in a

matter of minutes.</p>

<p>It's a bit rough and ready (the photo, not my wife!) and I really enjoyed doing it - actually seeing the

shadows cast by the light was great! The image really shows the short lighting style at least.</p>

<p>Anyhow - what do you think? I realise that it's no George Hurrell but...</p>

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidvickersphotography/3072444784/" title="Fiona - Short Lighting by

davidvickersphotography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/3072444784_04ca124d0e.jpg"

width="500" height="448" alt="Fiona - Short Lighting" /></a>

<p>Does anyone have any ideas about makeup for this style?</p>

<p>Cheers, David</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

Well you could add a reflector or fill light to open the dark shadows.

 

The hair light needs to be more on top and less bright. Ones eyes always go to the brightest spot in the photo, any kind, and mine keep going to the back of her head. I want to focus on her eyes

 

The camera needs to be 6" higher. Normally eye height is best. But maybe that is part of what I like in this particular one.

 

All that technical stuff aside, there is something great about her expression and the composition. Even square format works here.

[mike_earussi1]

I too enjoy using spotlights for portraiture and have bought a series of different size par lights. Haven't played much with makeup but I know that for B&W portraits a blue filter was often used to closer duplicate the look of daylight to tone down the reflectivity of the skin. The red of the lights causes causian skin, which also has a red component, to reflect more light than normal daylight would making the skin appear lighter than normal. Consequently I filter all of my lights with a blue/daylight filter to turn them into 5500K. And because I use 500w bulbs I also put a heat reflective filter on them to keep my models from "melting."

[barry_kenstler1]

David,

 

Though I agree with Ron's points, I think the image is pretty darned good as is. Reminds me far more of a Karsh portrait than a Hurrell though.

[david_vickers2]

It's nice to get feedback and thought from others - I was aware of Ron's point about the hairlight, it definitely needs to be higher and moved back to reduce that burnt out area (but the spotlight was balanced on my window ledge, with a piece of cardboard wrapped around it as a snoot - hence it wasn't entirely easy to move to the correct height!).

 

For me, and it's a personal thing, I'm not sure I'd want to use a reflector to open up the darker areas. I like the contrast and it was what I set out to do, so in that sense I'm happy with what I achieved in a few moments.

 

The spotlights I used were just household spots, fitted with 100W (yes, that's 100W) reflector bulbs. I had to break them away from their original mounts and make up new brackets.

 

Mike, thanks for the comments about the filter, I've got some blue gels laying around for my flashes, so I'll try those out next time.

 

Barry, hmmm, Karsh - I'll check those images out it's not a name I immediately recognise. Thanks for that, you've also just improved my photography knowledge and inspiration!

 

Thank you,

David.

[david_vickers2]

Just checked out Karsh - I recognised some of the photos (Hemingway and Churchill in particular). Lots of others that I have never seen before, so I'll look through those and pick them apart in a bid to learn something of the style.

[christopher hartt dallas]

Wow, the sharpening is pretty intense for a portrait. Was this an attempt to overcome a large aperture lens softness? You might try adding some soft ambient lighting in conjunction with a smaller aperture and less sharpening. That will open up the shadows a bit and more importantly, allow a smaller aperture for more "natural" sharp features.

[david_vickers2]

Hi Christopher,

 

Yes the sharpness is a bit over-the-top - I certainly agree with you there. As I mentioned earlier this was just a test shot... I'm looking to play around with these lights with a view to doing a series of portraits using my 1937 Leica II and 1934 (uncoated) 9cm Elmar lens; so oversharpening then shouldn't be a problem!

 

David.

[picturesque]

Lots of heavy 'pancake' make up was used for those portraits back then, as well as liberal retouching of the negatives. Unless you enjoy seeing every pore, you have to fill in the skin texture to make it smooth(er)--by make-up or post processing retouching. Hard, directional light is not kind to skin--unless you WANT to see skin texture, which was sometimes done to show character in portraits of men.

 

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1064336

 

You can go to any make-up counter or store and ask for medium to heavy gauge foundation or base make-up. It needs a skillful hand in application, though, which is why there is such a thing as a make-up artist.

[david_vickers2]

Thanks for the info Nadine. Does this makeup need to match skin tone, or should it be lighter / darker than skin tone?

[picturesque]

Normally, one matches skin tone--particularly important for black and white, I would think, and for actually hiding any blemishes or imperfections. For color images, matching skin color is important too. It looks weird if a person's neck is a different color than the face.

[William Michael]

Orthochromatic Film was used by Hollywood (Movie Film) up to the late 1920`s and even for some early 1930

Movies.

 

The ``Classic Portraiture`` you mention, (I argue), is intrinsically linked to Hollywood in many multi-layered and

multifaceted connections - in fact many Still Photography drivers, all came from Hollywood in that period - and not

just for the USA.

 

Studio Portraits (1920 to 1950) mainly used Pan Film and Photoflood Lights.

 

The requirements for: pancake makeup; the (over) emphasis of (for example) the Red Lips on the Female Portrait;

lighting style; Colour Retouching and Print Toning, whilst often is linked to ``following a trend of Hollywood``, the

Technical Connections (roots) are not IMO necessarily acknowledged.

 

If Hollywood had not originally used Orthochromatic Film, just before the period of time when Studio Portraiture took

on a new meaning and allowed, (albeit at first subdued), the sexuality and allure of the ``Mother`` and ``Housewife`` to

be openly displayed in the Portrait on the Piano, I doubt we would have that exact Photographic Style to reflect upon,

study and reproduce now.

 

The impact on Society of Still Photography (of Women) post WW2 to 1990 formed a very particular field of study for

me and I thought that little bit of it, was interesting to share, here.

 

 

 

WW

 

PS: As well as Makeup Artists playing a key role – the choice of clothes was very important, too – and for an

expensive studio sitting there would be a Fashion Consultant, to advise and they (usually she) would have to ``think

in Black and White``, also.

 

WW

[bob_osullivan]

<p>While I agree with the comments about the makup, I dont' think you can stop there.  This is a very attractive woman and while the edgy lighting is cool it does not do her justice. <br>

First I think the light should be softened a bit.  Not to the extent that a closely placed softbox would but a bit.  Maybe just a white cloth pulled over a frame (scrim) and placed at various distances between the source and subject till you get the right depth of light.  Yes that's depth of light, not depth of field.  It refers to the shadow falloff as it ralates to the light source distance.  What I'm saying is the nose shadow is too long.<br>

Also, in addition to raising the hairlight and attenuating it, the key light needs to be raised.  The closed loop shadow is too high on the face, as is the rembrandt triangle.<br>

Lastly, definatley some fill is in order.  This is a very extreme ratio and I would bring it in a bit at least with a reflector.  Makeup will help with the shine and the pores but for the small wrinkles we need fill.</p>

[david_vickers2]

<p>Thank you to every one who has responded to the image above - I've been out again with the spot lights; this time to take a photo of my daughter. One light was 'fired' in to an umbrella, above camera, the other (hairlight) was camera left and fitted with barn doors. There's a completely different look to this photo and I like how it's much smoother than the one of my wife above.<br>

<a title="Meg by davidvickersphotography, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidvickersphotography/3120465719/" title="Meg by davidvickersphotography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3096/3120465719_63fd63a2d6.jpg" alt="Meg" width="360" height="500" /> </a></p>