Christine Keeler Portrait

[shaughz]

<p><a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw08741/Christine-Keeler?LinkID=mp05469&role=sit&rNo=1">http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw08741/Christine-Keeler?LinkID=mp05469&role=sit&rNo=1</a><br>

Any suggestions how to replicate this Iconic Portrait<br /><br />I have the Model and the Seat !!<br /><br />Would this be close<br /><br />Gridded Soft Box Camera left at 45 Angle above / boomed <br /><br />Max Sync Speed to kill any Ambient Light<br /><br />Or Would a Beauty Dish Socked be more useful ?<br /> No Experience in using One ? But I can borrow one<br /><br />Would reflector Camera left or a Snooted Speedlift as a Hairlight <br />behind the Models Left be an Option<br /><br />Any Ideas etc most appreciated<br /><br />Many thank<br />John , Cork, Ireland </p>

[grh]

<p>Those shadows are pretty harsh. Looks to me like the significant light is coming from camera upper left. I don't think you want to kill the ambient light, as there appears to be some here. Perhaps a large gridded source? The shadows on her inner right knee/thing, left hip, the shadows of her knees on the ground, the shadow on her shoulder (of her wrist), the shadows on her face all give clues to where the light is. How much, how big and how far are the interesting questions.</p>

[garypeck]

<p>Considering the time period - it's probably an umbrella as the main - the "ambient" is just spill from the main on black paper that went gray-ish, there weren't many options in 1963. True, shadows are pretty hard so to dupe a SB would yield a different edge transfer. Beauty dish might pull it off w/o grid, you'd have to test to see.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Grids and beauty dishes weren't in common usage when that famous Keeler portrait was taken. It's most likely a simple single small softbox at top camera left with a skirt fitted to prevent spill. In fact the spill isn't that well controlled, as can be seen by the excess light falling on the rather uneven black BG paper.</p>

<p>Another alternative might have been use of a "Kennet". This was a large round white dish reflector about 3ft across with a cap over the 1000w bulb usually fitted. Similar to a beauty dish but quite a bit bigger. The whole thing was fitted to a hefty wheeled stand and could be angled up or down by about 60 degrees. They were very popular in the 1960s. I still have one gathering dust, and was recently wondering if I could convert it to take a small flash head instead of a GES tungsten bulb.</p>

<p>Just did a google search for the Kennet lamp and (jeez!) it's so ancient I can't even find a picture of one. Imagine how old that makes me feel.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p> I'll take a stab at it. Were soft boxes even around in the 60's? In that era, a Fresnel might have been spotted down and produced that degree of shadow edge transfer. Could have used some diffusion ahead of light to adjust it. Follow the nose shadow for angle, and with what looks like pretty rapid fall off, I guessing it is in pretty close. I can't see a catch light. Barn doors open to control spill on bg. She looked much better in Profumos XKE, not that it made an impression on this teenager. I'd add fill by pulling in a 3x6 reflector as needed to match shadow density here. </p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>Most photographers of that time either used hot lights, large spot lights. Movie industry types.<br />Most early flash were 16 inch parabolic units, made by photogenic machine corp.<br>

Soft boxes were not used in the 50s or 60s,they came about in the latter 80s-90s, umbrellas were used more in the early 80s.<br /><br />The light looks well defined, I would guess a 16 inch high to the left with no fill light.<br />If you blow the image up and look in the eyes you will be able to tell how it was lite. It will be in the catch lights in her eyes unless retouched out.</p>

 

[russ_britt3]

<p>http://www.photogenic.com/item/77/264/pl16r-16-portrait-reflector/<br>

This was the standard reflector sometimes with barndoors, the flash tube would move in and out to change the lighting pattern. Also sometimes used with barndoors to gobo the sides of the light.<br />Hope this helps.</p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>The original shot was most likely done with a single hot light. All you need is one single light source positioned high camera left. No grid is necessary. You will be using a charcoal gray background and you will want some fall off light to hit it for separation. If you google Christine Keeler you will see that this shot is not as dark looking as the one on your link. It will reveal that it is obviously not gridded as some suggest. Keep it simple!! Use what ever light source you want but keep in mind a harder light will be more true to the original. Experiment with the distance of the light from subject to see how light falls onto background. Make sure background is just behind the subject no more than four feet.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

He used flash in an umbrella. But consider the space he most likely worked in: high ceiling end and relatively deep so he

had room to put his light wherever he wanted it.

 

Keep in mind that he was trying to emulate the north light in a painter's studio.

 

Also the backdrop is a dark muslin.

[michaelmowery]

<p>Ellis you say he used an umbrella like as if you were there.... Here is the contact sheet of this shoot and i have not seen an umbrella produce this hard light. You can see in the top right corner image a wide shot showing a hint of what he used. Not an umbrella. No muslin either it was seamless paper. What ever light source he used it was a focused light which is why i am Guessing a hot light with fresnel. </p>

[michaelmowery]

<p>second attempt to display image</p><div></div>

[ellis_vener_photography]

That is a pretty hard shadow and that is definitely a paper backdrop.

 

I'm not so sure about the fresnel part of your analysis - could just be an open fixture,but otherwise Michael you're

sleuthing as proven me wrong.