What are Specific sheet films for 1930�s B&W Hollywood glamour style?

[robert_hurd]

Please forgive me for what may be a redundant post. I searched

photo.net a great deal, and I am still unclear about certain

specifics:

 

1. SPECIFIC ORTHO BW FILMS? � Some suggest using orthochromatic films

for the "1930's Look", so what are some specific Ortho films? And

how does the Ortho blue sensitivity effect the portrait image, other

than darkening red lips? Is Ilford Ortho Plus a good choice? (I did

not find Agfa Ortho on the Agfa website, though it had been suggested

on photo.net.)

 

2. SPECIFIC NON-ORTHO BW FILMS? � What other specific B&W film brands

would be good for the "1930s Look"? And why are these other films

good? Maybe Bergger BPF-200, as posted?

 

3. LIGHT BLUE FILTERS? � How does the use of a light blue filter add

to the Hollywood look when using non-Ortho films? Is this an effort

to achieve the blue sensitivity effect?

 

4. PROCESSING? � Is it mandatory that we process our own negatives to

achieve the "1930�s Look"? Or can simply request special processing

at the Photolab? (We do not have a darkroom at our studio, and use

BWC Labs, Dallas.)

 

NOTE: Our equipment is 4x5 Calumet 45NX and 6x7 Mamiya RB67 cameras

with Novatron strobes.

 

Thank you in advance!

[NK Guy]

At risk of sounding crass, my impression that a key element in the 1930s glam look was

craploads of makeup on the models and tons of extremely hard lighting.

[hans_beckert]

See book by Roger Hicks on the subject.

[mark_sampson]

The "Hollywood glamour" look a la George Hurrell is due more to the use of uncoated, soft-focus portrait lenses, and a mastery of complex tungsten lighting, than it is of the film. None of the films of the 1930s are still being made, and as the photographers then used 8x10, film choice shouldn't be a big issue. If you want to simulate the ortho look on pan film, try a Wratten #44 (cyan) gel filter. This will darken reds (including lips) and make men's facial wrinkles stand out with any b/w film. Of course there was a great deal of negative retouching going on then too. Try doing a Google search on "George Hurrell" and you'll probanly be able to find more accurate information.

[al_kaplan1]

You can achieve a similar response from panchromatic film by using a blue filter. Keep in mind that the make-up style of the 1930's was not what it is today. Pale skin, not a Florida tan, was fashionable. Using blue eyeshadow, common now, will come out an unnatural white in your photos.

 

Most of the effect was from the use of "hard" lighting. A 16" reflector was considered large, barn doors were a standard feature of lights, and fresnel spot lights were also used. It took a lot of light when the tungsten ISO of many "fast" orthochromatic films was 25 or less! Then you also had "portrait" lenses for studio view cameras, huge 8 to 16 inch f/4.5 and faster optics. These weren't well corrected by today's standards. The eyes would be sharp, but residual abberations would give a glow to the specular high lights. Lastly, it was common to use the swings and tilts to only bring the centers of both eyes into sharp focus, the rest of the face being slightly soft.

 

A typical portrait involved, at a minimum, using a background light, a main light, a fill light, a hair light, and usually a "kicker" which was a low mounted side/back light to rim light the shadow side. See if you can locate a book on portrait photography from about 1950 or earlier. Graflex-Graphic Photography (I think that's the correct name) had a chapter or two on the subject.

[yoichi_kawamura1]

I saw a documentary on Hurrell a few years back and also heard a lecture from a photographer who assisted him.

 

George Hurrell would shoot his subject w/ no make-up. This terrified alot of the women celebrities. He would then painstainkingly handpaint the (I believe) negative. He also was a master of lighting and from what I understand- came up w/ the light 'boom' so that he could get a light close and overhead.

[robert_hurd]

Thanks to all who are providing specific responses!

 

...more specifics are what I seek. Even Roger Hicks' outstanding books "Hollywood Portraits" and "The Black & White Handbook" were somewhat lacking in specifics for our particular goals.

[david_goldfarb]

Hurrell only used a soft focus lens at the beginning of his career. He later switched to a Goerz Celor, which was a sharp lens, and the smooth effect despite hard lighting and often no base makeup (makeup on the eyes and lips only) came from pencil retouching on the negative.

 

I've experimented with Hollywood style lighting, and the film that seems to work best for the vintage look (which is, again, a combination of lighting, lens, format, lighting, retouching, film, posing, lighting, and lighting) is Ektapan processed in ABC pyro, unfortunately discontinued, but you can still find some of it out there if you hunt around. I've got about 80 sheets of 8x10" left, and then I'll probably go back to Tri-X or maybe Efke PL100.

 

Look also for Mark Vieira's book, _Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits_, which provides some technical hints.

[ken_burns1]

By the 1930s, ortho films had all but disappeared from Hollywood. Early in Hurrell's career, he did use some that was purchased from another photographer. My guess is that the other photog was getting rid of it cheap because it was mostly worthless after panchro films came out. However, the panchro films of that era didn't have the level of sensitivity to red that today's films do.

 

Most of the Hollywood glamour effect was acheived by using pancake makeup, heavy negative retouching, harsh keg lighting, long focal length lenses at large apertures, and Super XX films.

[hans_beckert]

Robert:

 

It would be impossible to duplicate those on a 4 x 5 instrument. 8 x 10 negatives greatly facilitate such retouching.

 

You would also have to learn HOW to perform such retouching, itself quite a chore.

 

So, in other words, it is not a question of film stock, but of negative size, lighting, and retouching....

[garrylewis747]

Why not ask the man who does it?

 

http://www.lafterhall.com/

[silverhalide1949]

I second the recomendation for Graflex Graphic Photography. I have the 1948 edition that my dad gave me (He bought it new). You will find it facinating and you will be surprised at how much information is still usable. You will especially enjoy the advertisements at the back of the book.

[lucas_griego]

Here was my attempt at trying to come up with something similar to a 'Hurrell type shot.

This was originally shot on E100SW and then converted in Photoshop.

<p>

LOL - hardly the

traditional method done by Hurrell. Good luck.

<p>

<img src="/photodb/image-display?photo_id=602805&size=md">

[roger_hicks1]

Dear Robert,

 

I've had quite a degree of success with HP5 but I stress that shooting 8x10 with an uncoated lens (I use a 21 inch f/7.7 Ross)is crucial to the real Hollywood look -- much more important than the film stock. Exposure is normally minimal and development more than you would expect.

 

I am deeply suspicious of the claims that Hurrell shot without makeup -- I think this was the Party Line from some of the studios -- but I do know that VERY heavy negative retouching was the order of the day, and I've looked at hundreds of original prints from the Kobal collection. Make-up and retouching were indeed the keys.

 

Something else I learned was that several of these guys shot 8x10 like 35mm, a dozen or two dozen shots, and didn't throw away the rejects. I've seen quite a lot of pictures that should have been in the bin 70 years ago but are now valuable historical records, like the wall-eyed shots of Jean Harlow (she had a 'lazy' eye that would go sideways). I also came to the conclusion that Hurrell was not as good as a number of other, less famous, photographers including Clarence Bull.

 

Overall, a lot of the success was 'star quality' -- it's quite hard to take really bad pictures of some of those stars -- but another factor was that many of the subjects were all but nailed down: you need very, very relaxed poses with minimal opportunities for the subject to move between focus/composition and actually shooting.

 

Thanks for the kind comments about the book (also to Hans). One reason I was so unspecific was that the publishers didn't seem too interested. They dropped my one 'Hollywood Style' portrait, which should have been run small as a 'how-to' with caption. But Chris Nisperos, who shoots Hollywood style, was mightily impressed at how quickly, and how close, I could come to the style.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger (www.rogerandfrances.com)

[garrylewis747]

you might also want to join these groups~~

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hollywood_Glamour/

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/thegeorgehurrellphotogallery/

[david_goldfarb]

In Vieira's book there are pictures of Joan Crawford without makeup before and after retouching from one of Hurrell's retouchers' portfolios. It may not be every subject who got that treatment, but the claim from the book is that Hurrell felt that clean natural skin had a certain glow, and it was better to leave it clean and retouch the imperfections than to attempt to cover the imperfections with makeup. Since these images were frequently contact printed, if you've ever seen an unretouched close-up portrait from an 8x10" contact print done in hard light with a sharp lens, you'll know that the texture of the skin is often exaggerated, and makeup that is the slightest bit too heavy will look even worse in a contact print. The retouching could have been quite extensive--every line softened, blemish taken out, and powdered graphite rubbed in to create a smooth skin texture--but that has a different effect from heavy makeup.

 

Regarding the amount of film shot, Hurrell's Kodak studio portrait camera had a rack on the side for something like 25 double-sided 8x10" filmholders, and he described shoots that involved 200 sheets in a day. Avedon also shoots this way.

[robert_hurd]

Thanks again to everyone who has responded with so much information!!

 

(...even Roger Hicks contributed....Wow!)

 

It does look like my business partner and I have some work ahead of us.

 

Robt.