Classic 1950s BW Portrait

[joseph_krause]

<p>With very mixed results I have been attempting to find an exposure formula to produce BW film portraits that have the characteristics of many those created in the 1950s: beautiful tonal ranges, often dark if not black backgrounds, minimum depth of field. I have been experimenting with my Hasselblad 503CX and Metz 45-4 flash using film at different ISO ratings. Understanding that bulb/cold shoe flash was the norm in the 1950s, was there a basic equation used to balance exposure/aperture/film speed and guide number to produce a portrait shot with no depth of field and a black background?</p>

[patrick_mont]

<p>Well, I have some negs from the 1950s shot on Plus-X. I shoot the current Plus-X and the results are very similar. You may want to try some.</p>

[scott_murphy_photography]

<p>The standard GN calculation is GN = (Dist)(f/) and is usually expressed at ISO 100. You can figure it out either with a flash meter, or less accurately, by multiplying distance and f/ stop on the manual calculator dial for any given ISO.</p>

<p>If you want to know what it takes to get a black background, then use the inverse square law, ie, light falls off by two stops (ie, doubling (2x) squared, or 1/4 the light or two stops) with a doubling of the distance. In other words, if your background is 2 feet behind the subject, then the light will be 2 stops less if you double the distance to 4 feet. This is a good way to get a gray background by using white seamless paper. This of course assumes that the key light is also illuminating the background without any supplemental light source. </p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>Try to find a copy of anything by or about George Hurrell, perhaps the finest of all of the great Hollywood glamour portraitists from the thirties through the seventies and of the book "Hollywood Portraits" by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos. The latter takes examples of the glamour portraits (many of them Hurrell's) and analyzes the lighting, gives descriptions and shows lighting diagrams.</p>

<p>The keep in mind that the depth of tonality in these portraits is at least partly reliant on the much heavier silver content of the films and printing papers of the time. Adjustments in exposure may have to be made to match technique with those factors or with the contrast and exposure tendencies of digital capture.</p>

[tree]

<p>You may want to try the Eastern European films that have a higher silver content than contemporary emulsions: Efke 100 or Fomapan 200.</p>

[chris_waller]

<p>Back in the 1950s, certainly in Britain, lighting would not have been by flash, it would have been by tungsten lights, hence wide apertures and thus shallow DOF. That aside, try using an 'old technology' film such as Ilford FP4, downrate it by 1 1/3 stops to 50 ASA, then develop in Rodinal diluted at 1:50 (try a dev time of 8 mins at 20 C). This will give you a much 'flatter' negative with that characteristic 1950s tonality.</p>

[martyn_oliver]

<p>I think Chris Waller has nailed your problem -- the misconception that portrait lighting would have been with flash. On-camera flash is notoriously bad at classic portraiture. Rather, there would have been at least one tungsten lamp, probably two. The subject would be placed with a dark background behind them but not close enough to be illuminated. And attention would be paid to how the light and shadow worked with the subject's features. For more info on this, look at this web page: http://www.professionalphotography101.com/portrait_lighting/lighting_names.html/ Or google "Rembrandt lighting".<br>

Chris is right, too, about the type of film you use. Look at RolleiRetro 100, which is old Agfa APX100. It's perfect for what you want to achieve.</p>

[stuart_richardson]

<p>I think it is also about format -- most everyone was using 4x5 and 8x10 view cameras, so they had inherently better tonality and smaller depth of field. It might be easier to replicate this look with large format. I agree with Martyn too -- continuous lighting was still the main light source -- and in the sort of Hollywood look, it could be quite complex. People like George Hurrell did not mess around! </p>

[gary_watson]

<p>Have a look at Roger Hicks' <em>Hollywood Portraits</em> , a great resource for poses, sets, lighting and ambiance for the looks I think you're after.</p>

[joseph_krause]

<p>Many thanks everyone. I'll purchase some RolleiRetro film and bring out some of the FP4 from the freezer to continue experimenting under tungsten. </p>

[martyn_oliver]

<p>Good luck. Let us see some resulkts, too!</p>

[christopher_nisperos2]

<p>.<br /> Hi Joseph,<br /> .<br /> I've just now come across this thread, so I hope it's not to late to help you. I don't know if you've succeeded yet in obtaining the results you want, but your question is a bit confusing. Are you after a 1950s flash look --as in "event photography", with a portable flash attached to a mobile camera-- or a studio portraiture look, with lights and camera attached to stands and tripod? If it's the latter, then Chris Waller is on the nose. You'll need to use tungsten lighting. If you need a black background, you either just use one, or flag enough light off the background until it measures and shoots as black. That's all.. it ain't rocket science.<br /> .<br /> Secondly --if you're looking to create a typical 1950s look, you'd be better off trying to emulate Wallace Seawell than George Hurrell. Personally, I'd equate the look for which Hurrell is famous, with the period from, say, the late 1920s thru the 1940s. The 1950s demarcated the Second World War and ushered in a different kind of "glamour" which was less stylized and --well-- a bit less glamourous than that which permeated the visual media during the war years when the population certainly had a more urgent need for escapism. The 1950s also marked the explosion of the popularity of color photography, which was not Hurrell's forté. Lastly --believe it or not-- by that time (after more than 20 years at the top), Hurrell's look was simply out of vogue!<br /> .<br /> 1950s glamour is certainly more kitchy than Hurrell's look --and usually in a higher key--, but this has an attraction of it's own. Think of Seawell's Coca-Cola ads, . . . or his swell looking portraits of Zsa Zsa Gabor (http://www.lamag.com/uploadedImages/LA_Mag/articles/2009/10/ZsaZsa_P.jpg), . . . Jayne Mansfield (http://1.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kssn563WJc1qa541bo1_400.jpg), . . . or his simple but classic --and classy-- portrait of Pearl Bailey which you see below.<br /> .<br /> In short, it'd be easier for you if you first decide --definitely-- on which style you want to go with, then pick up any good how-to book on the techniques (Mark Vieira's has alot of good information, as well as Roger's and mine or old Kodak books). After that, test, test, test. Don't get caught on the question carousel (I see that you haven't posted here for months, so maybe you don't need this advice, but...). To begin with, just pick any good standard film and any good standard developer and try it. Don't like it? Change one element at a time until you get what you like ... just like they did in the 1950s. <br /> .<br /> Best,<br /> .<br /> Christopher Nisperos<br /> .</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[christopher_nisperos2]

<p>(deleted due to double posting)</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Before Photoshop to retouch a face you wanted the image to be at least as big as dime/10 cent piece; bigger if possible or if the retoucher was older too.<br>

<br /> One used films with a retouching base to accept pencil.<br>

<br /> Thus since retouching was a decent time consumer one used a bigger negative to cut down this labor and a 4x5 was alot more the norm; or maybe 6x9cm on rollfilm in a pinch.</p>

<p>Good lighting can via strobes or tungstens; or bad too.<br>

<br /> A shallower DOF is the result of using a bigger negative.<br>

<br /> Looks are more about lighting than film type.<br>

<br /> Dwell on the first order stuff; ie type of lighting; rather than second order and third order stuff like film; strobe versus flash; moon phase, filter threads; camera/lens brand.<br>

<br /> In the gearhead dogma of photo.net; lighting style is a bit of a stepchild; when it really is craft that matters alot.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>"The Utimate Pin-Up Book; Bernard of Hollywood" ISBN 3-8228-6217-7 www.taschen.com Has tyhe late Bruno Bernards great images of the 1940's, 50's 60's etc.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Bernard published a book called "Pin-ups: a step Beyond" back in 1949; showing many diagrams of where to place the sun/lights/flash; camera and model; reflectors; fill; key lamps etc. The book had many diagrams; but was banned in alot of places. Then the books was sold via mailorder; then too it was halted. I have a copy somewhere in all my stuff! Bernards daughter wrote the "Utimate pin-up book" of her dads work; and several other books too. She was the Dec1966 Playboy Centerfold by a Xmas tree; as Jewish girl for the GI's In Vietnam conflict to dream about.<br>

<br /> Peter Gowland has many old books on Portraits that are great;<br>

Bunny Yeager has a book called How I photograph Nudes c1963.<br>

There are many old Kodak books on Portraits going back a century too.</p>