how i can reach this effect??

[hans_beckert]

I know. The lighting is nothing short of horrible.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hans,I don't think I'd call it a masterpiece, but it's not horrible either. It's a fairly conventionally lit portrait of an attractive young woman. How is that horrible? Your enthusiastic bashing of these images has the ring of jealousy and suggests a lack of accomplishment on your part. If you have constructive suggestions, or well reasoned critiques, I'm anxious to hear them, but your remarks have been mean spirited and without critical value. In short, you've brought nothing to the conversation but vitriole, which we can all do without.

[hans_beckert]

The trouble is they do not know how to do it anymore. The photographers of the past produced much better work than this. The late obsession with soft lighting techniques, which are really not approprtiate for black and white, is particularly disturbing.

 

I am not jealous: far from it. But I have seen great work, and this is not it. I am no portrait photographer, to be sure, nor a fashion photographer. I am a critic above all. If the one who inquired about this photo would take a few minutes to look ath the work of Hurrell just as one example, his whole perspective would change. The light should chisel features, not smother them in fog. The lack of knowledge of how to use light for black and white work is appalling.

 

Here's where to start:

 

http://www.youraspen.com/hurrell/port1.html

 

Then go to the other portfolios. THIS is good work!

[EricM]

And I guess Citizen Cane was the last good motion picture you saw as well. You�ve never cross processed, but what a flame war that was. You�ve never pushed a roll of C41, but what flame war that became. And you only use KodaKrome. Hot lights and VerichromePan? You empower yourself through confrontation. Sad. And sorry, but you�re not even a critic.

[bacsa]

actually, i prefer citizen x over citizen kane :o)

[hans_beckert]

Eric Stillz , dec 12, 2003; 11:14 p.m.

"And I guess Citizen Cane was the last good motion picture you saw as well."

 

Not quite, but little since impresses me.

 

"You�ve never cross processed, but what a flame war that was."

 

Some people run their film through the wrong process in an **attempt** to be creative. How clever of them!

 

"You�ve never pushed a roll of C41, but what flame war that became."

 

Pushing in C41 is worse rthan useless: it is impossible.

 

"And you only use KodaKrome."

 

Of course. It is the best color film. And you misspelled it.

 

Some people know what they are talking about. Others try anything and everything in a vain attempt at 'creativity', but creativity comes from the ability to sense the subeject qualities and create something with one's brain.

[EricM]

Hans, what I find amusing, is that the photo in question looks like a simple lighting shot done my Bailey or Avedon, on boring old Tri-x. I can�t see how you can argue that this posted shot isn�t textbook. How do you feel about Avedon�s western portraits? Personally, I�m glad that Italian Vogue or Spanish Elle isn�t filled with images that resemble Karsch of Ottawa portraits. Give me a ring flash on provia anyday.

 

�Of course. It is the best color film. And you misspelled it.�

 

Please stop expressing your opinions like they are proven 2+2=4 facts. Perhaps it�s the falmes you feed off? If it was the best, then why is it going the way of the dinosaur?

[ole_tjugen]

To get back to the photo under discussion:

 

The main light is (read: Looks to me like) an umbrella up to her left - just over the photographer's shoulder. Just look at the reflection in her eyes. It is fairly close, as can be seen from the light falloff from forehead to arm.

 

In addition the shadows are "softened" a little, either by stray light in the studio, or with a reflector to her right, or a (much) weaker light in a big softbox to her right - probably fairly low down. The "thingie" in her hair may have been lit with a well-screened spot, but I know that if I tried this I'd just lighten it in printing.

 

I won't eneter into a discussion about the "quality" of photography like this, only say that this was a fairly standard lighting setup for me when I worked commercially 15 years ago - so I know how it looks, and how to do it.

[hans_beckert]

Eric Stillz , dec 13, 2003; 02:11 p.m.

"Hans, what I find amusing, is that the photo in question looks like a simple lighting shot done my Bailey or Avedon, on boring old Tri-x."

 

I find black-and-white images made using only soft light repulsive. Black-and-white images requires strong, distinct contours and shadows to work. The approach nowadays is to use soft boxes on everything, black-and-white or color. This is a fundamental error. The Hurrell work (I posted some links) shows the proper way to handle black-and-white. that said, I do not like all of them. The Hepburn one in particular seems odd.

 

This one:

 

http://www.ultimateart.com/GeorgeHurrell/kate.html

 

but look at this one:

 

http://www.ultimateart.com/GeorgeHurrell/gene.html

 

"I can�t see how you can argue that this posted shot isn�t textbook."

 

It is made with a soft box. Execrable.

 

"How do you feel about Avedon�s western portraits? Personally, I�m glad that Italian Vogue or Spanish Elle isn�t filled with images that resemble Karsch of Ottawa portraits. Give me a ring flash on provia anyday."

 

Oh, my. Unthinkable......

 

"'Of course. It is the best color film. And you misspelled it.'

 

Please stop expressing your opinions like they are proven 2+2=4 facts. Perhaps it�s the falmes you feed off? If it was the best, then why is it going the way of the dinosaur?"

 

Kodak's inept marketing and lack of development of the product line, lack of knowledgaeable on the part of photographers who have not been made aware of the benefits of Kodachrome. Trends. Fads. Impatience. There used to be many more films on the market with all kinds of processes (Agfa, Ansco, Perutz, etc), and all of these had to be sent away for processing. The trend today for 'right now' processing has over-ridden concerns for quality.

[mike dixon]

<i>It is made with a soft box. Execrable. </i><P>

Scavullo, whom you praised above, typically uses diffuse (and

often quite flat) lighting (<a href=http://scavullo.com>some

examples</a>).

[hans_beckert]

Mr Dixon:

What I think has happened since color has become the norm is that set-ups and familiarity with good lighting for color has by default become the stanadard lighting for studio work. Soft light is nice for color, but not for B&W, and it never will be. I see all kinds of problems with the stuff here shot on B&W (the Streisand-Kristoferson album cover is particularly weak). It is just too much trouble to change one's whole set-up for B&W, even though it should be fundamentally different. In Hurrell's day, before color was the norm, B&W lighting was all there was, and they knew how to do it. It has almost become a lost art.

 

Sigh....

[jay_de_fehr]

Hans, to say that black and white photography "requires" any specific style of lighting demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of creative work of any kind. There is no "right" quality of light, regardless of your insistence to the contraty. Avedon, Bailey, Scavullo and every other photographer of note have used the entire spectrum of lighting from point source to window light, and everything in between. You don't need to confess that your not a portrait photographer, that is painfully obvious. You can call yourself a critic if you like, but to be a respected critic requires a general knowledge of the subject matter at hand.

[leanne_newton]

What to say ? Lighting is so much a matter of personal preference, it depends on the situation.... the photographer's vision... I find it endlessly frustrating to be citing / discussing photographers of the past though.

Not to say that their work is not excellent, but there are a lot of very brilliant photographers working today who are using the medium to express newer concepts.

[EricM]

Spelling it wrong? Huh? Maybe we're talking about different stocks. KodaKrome, as in 64 and 200, the stuff that takes months to get back from Kodak? Different countries different spelling?

[hans_beckert]

Jay De Fehr , dec 14, 2003; 04:10 a.m.

"Hans, to say that black and white photography "requires" any specific style of lighting demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of creative work of any kind. There is no "right" quality of light, regardless of your insistence to the contraty."

 

Perhaps you do not quite follow me. B&W and color are fundamentally different kinds of photography.

 

Fundamentally.

 

B&W relies entirely on shape, form and contour, and shadow, as there is no color. Using 'soft boxes' removes the sharpness from shadows, which the eye requires to see contours and depth. The reason that soft lighting is popular is that photographers today are lazy and do not want to spend the time required to set up the kind of lighting that Hurrell used. Production speed and efficiency are more important than quality.

 

Of course, some do not even know how to light the right way. In Europe, this was commonplace. In the early 30's, many European film-makers, directors, cinematographers, lighting people, and technicians came to Hollywood. There was an explosion of high-quality films during this period. If one looks at films like 'Blonde Venus', for instance, one is almost dumb-struck by the quality of composition and use of light.

 

The work of Hurrell is quite instructive. It comes before color was commonplace, and reflects the height of mastery of B&W technique with regard to lighting.

 

The moderns pale in comparison.

[jay_de_fehr]

Hans, I follow you, it's just that I disagree with just about everything you've written. You're laboring under some very basic misconceptions concerning the ways in which a two dimensional image is perceived to have depth, and the effect that the quality of light has on that perception. A color image relies on exactly the same devices as a monochrome image to suggest depth. Painters call it chiaroscuro, CMYK workers would attribute it to the K, and B&W photographers refer to it as the gray scale. It is the transition from light to dark values that suggests depth, wether there is a color in the scale or not. Your reasoning that the eye requires sharp shadows is fundamentally flawed, as no such requirement exists. Your indictment of contemporary photographers as lazy and incompetent belies your ignorance of the subject matter. Your implication that American filmakers were ignorant and naive to lighting is just ridiculous and requires no response. Your praise for the work of Hurrell is overzealous and ignores his contemporaries who were at least his equals, as well as photographers like Yousuf Karsh, who was a true master of portrait lighting, and the many contemporary photographers who continue to enrich the medium.. Your suggestion that hard lighting is the only appropriate is as ridiculous as suggesting that portraits should always feature the sitter's right side. It is totally without merit on any level.

[EricM]

I wish I could write like that...

[raymond bradlau]

I really dont have much to add here, the idea of a right and wrong in any art is a little

odd to me, if I can capture an image the way I pictured it in my head onto film, I call it

correct

 

I am new here but so far people with the real strong opinions about how bad

something is are the ones without any photographs posted, why do you think that is?

 

but anyway Mr. Beckert did make one point that I am in total agreement with "The

trend today for 'right now' processing has over-ridden concerns for quality"

 

and what scares me is its not just in photography, quality has taken the back seat to

speed in so many things be it photography, music, food or clothing and I do think its

a shame

 

CRAP!, I just noticed Mr Beckert used the words "album cover" and not CD cover, well

we my have 2 things in common

[leanne_newton]

Time factor = deadlines. Which some of us have. The other thing is the immediacy of the medium, which to me is what sets it apart from other art forms...( photographers have always loved polaroid for this reason ).... but each photographer is free, in fact should be encouraged, to experiment for themselves. Looking at past masters is important, I agree, but it is also important to move on.

[hans_beckert]

Jay De Fehr hat mor geschrieben:

"Hans, I follow you, it's just that I disagree with just about everything you've written. You're laboring under some very basic misconceptions concerning the ways in which a two dimensional image is perceived to have depth, and the effect that the quality of light has on that perception. A color image relies on exactly the same devices as a monochrome image to suggest depth."

 

Color film has less latitude than B&W, and it simply looks bad to have very deep shadows in color film. One simply needs more light in the shadows of color film. B&W jsut needs more contrast to look right. It is as simple as that. These are completely different ways of presentation, and different criteria, whether you care to admit it or not.

 

"Painters call it chiaroscuro, CMYK workers would attribute it to the K, and B&W photographers refer to it as the gray scale. It is the transition from light to dark values that suggests depth, wether there is a color in the scale or not."

 

As I stated above, color demands softer lighting.

 

"Your reasoning that the eye requires sharp shadows is fundamentally flawed, as no such requirement exists."

 

Lacking three-dimensionalality, the eye uses shadows as the cue for depth. Soft shadows diminish the sense of depth, and sharp shadows enhance it. I speak not of harsh shadows, but of sharp ones.

 

"Your indictment of contemporary photographers as lazy and incompetent belies your ignorance of the subject matter."

 

Compare any current film to 'Blonde Venus'. After you recover, you may be able to get your jaw back from off the floor.

 

"Your implication that American filmakers were ignorant and naive to lighting is just ridiculous and requires no response."

 

Look at films from 1929-30 and then those from 1932-38 or so, and the difference is startling. In the earlier period, the lighting was all soft, eve, and shadowless. Then look at 'Blonde Venus'. Of course, even during the silent era, European film-makers and artists were being attracted to Hollywood, as witness Eric von Stroheim's 'Greed'. One does not, however, see anything approaching the European's use of lighting in Griffith's work, or Chaplin's, for example.

 

 

See:

http://www.carygrant.net/fotogallery/blonde-thumbnails.htm

 

http://crazy4cinema.com/Review/FilmsB/f_blonde_venus.html

 

"Your praise for the work of Hurrell is overzealous and ignores his contemporaries who were at least his equals, as well as photographers like Yousuf Karsh, who was a true master of portrait lighting, and the many contemporary photographers who continue to enrich the medium."

 

Of course there were others, and I do not mean to slight them. Hurrell's photos, though, are among the most well-known and easy to find on internet.

 

"Your suggestion that hard lighting is the only appropriate is as ridiculous as suggesting that portraits should always feature the sitter's right side. It is totally without merit on any level."

 

See the stills from 'Blonde venus' for examples of what I consider superb lighting using sharp shadows for the most part. You should also look at 'The Grand Hotel' from the same year, with Garbo and Crawford. Again, the difference between the lighting used here and that of only a few years earlier is striking. Part of this may be that film companies in the late 20's were suffereing financially because of the general economic situation, but by 1932 this certainly was still a factor, so how does one explain it? Are there technical reasons? Perhaps that too, but by and large it does seem to be an aesthetic development wrought in large part by the influx of Europeans. Just look at some of the early talkies to see how flat the lighting was before the Europeans came over.

[hans_beckert]

I found a source of still from various periods

 

See:

 

http://flatdisk.net/darkhollywood/darkpix_A-D.htm

 

Notable for flat light is 'Bad Sister'. 'Broadway Bad' from 1931 also seems to use such lighting, as does 'Alibi' and 'Along Came Youth' (1930).

 

Note films that come later generally tend to use light that casts sharper and deeper shadows. Among the notable ones are 'Bride of Frankenstein' (1935), 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' (1939), and 'The Black Room' (1935).

 

There was clearly a sharp departure from the soft, even light of the period 1928-1931.

[hans_beckert]

Raymond Bradlau , dec 15, 2003; 04:57 a.m.

"I really dont have much to add here, the idea of a right and wrong in any art is a little odd to me, if I can capture an image the way I pictured it in my head onto film, I call it correct."

 

Do you consider the possibility that things in the past were not necessarily done poorly, and that perhaps one can learn from other times than one's own?

 

"I am new here but so far people with the real strong opinions about how bad something is are the ones without any photographs posted, why do you think that is?"

 

"CRAP!, I just noticed Mr Beckert used the words "album cover" and not CD cover, well we my have 2 things in common."

 

The Streisand-Kristoferson shot was made before CDs came out.

[hans_beckert]

A site with photos of Dietrich. Good examples of what I have been talking about.

 

http://www.americanphoto.co.jp/pages/celeb/D/Dietrich.html

[jay_de_fehr]

Hans, America is a nation of immigrants, a fact of which we're very proud. The exchange of cultural ideas and aesthetics is and always has been a mutual exchange. The fact is that a variety of lighting styles was used here and abroad, both before and since the 1930s. Filmmaking is a collaborative art form, and I think it would prove difficult to identify even a single film that didn't benefit from a multicultural cast and crew. Lighting styles change as aesthetics evolve, and the idea that there is a "right " way to light a film is tantamount to saying that there is a "right" way to feel about one. You're entitled to your preferrences, as we all are, but that lends them no authority.

[hans_beckert]

Jay De Fehr , dec 15, 2003; 05:42 p.m.

"Hans...The fact is that a variety of lighting styles was used here and abroad, both before and since the 1930s."

 

The sudden and dramatic change from soft, flat light to modelled light in the period in question 1928-1932 is that to which I want to draw your attention. Its origin is secondary.

 

All I ask is that you watch the film 'Blonde Venus' and pay attention to the lighting. Then watch some old talkie from 1929 or 1930 with flat soft light. Any will do.

 

The benefits of the strong light for black and white should become immediately obvious. You will never look upon soft, flat light for black and white favorably again.

 

Hans Beckert