christopher_nisperos2

<p>Just for the eternal web record, I actually spoke about —or, more like, <em>pushed—</em> this idea with Rollei around ten years ago at Photokina while speaking with their marketing manager at the time, a Mr. Dieter Kanzer (if memory serves right for his name). He intimated to me that Rollei had already considered this —and I suspect I wasn't the first to think of it, even way back then!<br>

I don't exactly remember what the reason was, as to why they didn't actually pursue the idea (probably the same ol' reason of believing that there wasn't a big enough market for the product), but I do remember him saying that they'd already invested too much, at that point, in the Sinar-Rollei Hy6 project, to justify changing horses in mid stream.<br>

With all the zillions of sturdy and sharp second-hand Rolleiflex's still out there, it would've seemed logical to have tried to create a secondary —or, <em>"second life"</em>— market based upon the well built cameras they'd already sold. After all, one of Rollei/F&H's major "problems" was that their product was practically indestructible and —unlike an Apple iThing, where "next generation" could simply involve just a software change— a Rolleiflex product evolution was —or, to the customer, could seem to be— a relative minor thing (except for differences in lenses). Customers rarely needed to replace them. <br>

I'm still convinced that if Rollei or DHW had decided to pursue and develop the idea of a digital back for their TLRs, they might've been able to add some appreciable years to their existence, or at least been able to transform and evolve toward a slightly different core business and remain alive. It's really sad.</p>

<p>Hello, all ... I have the same problem. Would someone be kind enough to send me a link where I can find a pdf for instructions for the Pro-6 Freeze (I have the 1200ws, but even 2400w will do, I'm guessing).<br>

Thanks (hopefully in advance!),<br>

Christopher</p>

<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>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3776446">Peter Thatcher</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"></a>, (Jul 18, 2008; 04:55 p.m.) wrote:</p>

<p>"Hollywood Portraits by Roger Hicks"<br>

. . . <em><strong>and</strong></em> Christopher Nisperos! Sorry for the delayed entry to this thread (just now seen it), but it's never too late to make sure I don't get forgotten. My ego can't stand it!</p>

<p>Mark Vieira once stressed to me that he felt that the "real" Hollywood glamour look isn't possible without a few key ingredients: tungsten lighting (he didn't specify fresnel, but who knows what he meant), <em>film</em> in large format and negative retouching. i don't remember the rest of what he said in his interesting email, but if he comes across this post, he's welcome to add to —or correct— its contents. </p>

<p>Anyway, for anyone reading this who wants to try creating this style of portrait photography, here's a huge secret (not): Once you've read a couple of these how-to books, you'll have ALL the information you need to get started. From there, just experiment a lot until you get the results you're looking for. You may well find that you can achieve this look (or almost), using</p>

<p>-Any professional quality camera.</p>

<p>-Any light[ing] --(HINT-if using studio flash with a grid, try jamming some tuff-spun between the grid and the reflector to soften the light while retaining the directional aspect. <strong>NOTE</strong>- This may or may not effect the ventilation of your flash head. If it does, better to drop the idea than to damage your unit! Also, a hot modeling light will have a tendancy to create a brown spot in the middle of the tuff-spun. All-in-all, it's a technique which will call for some regular surveillance).</p>

<p>-Any technology (hand negative retouching or photoshop).</p>

<p>As mentioned in previous posts . . . Have fun!<br>

Best,<br>

Christopher Nisperos</p>

<p>.</p>

Original question:

"Please could anyone tell me how George Hurrell lit his models

in the 30's and 40's. "

Fresnels and scoops. Tungsten, all.

"How would one go about re-creating the feeling today with

digital and studio flash"

It's my belief that the re-creation of a similar "feeling" is

possible with digital and studio flash, but not really the

same look. I agree with Mark Vieira that the only real

way to achieve the same look is by using the same

means with which the originals glamour portraits were

taken: big camera, big negative, tungsten fresnels,

LOTS of retouching ON THE NEGATIVE ... among other

indispensible details.

If using digital, why do you need flash? Use fresnel

spots. Try Dedolights. You can find cheaper fresnels

but not as optically efficient (No, I don't work for Dedo

Film, but I do use their products).

Last friendly advice: test, test, test.

Best,

Christopher Nisperos

On Nov 21, 2004, Steve Roark wrote on photo.net:

I have Hicks' book, too. I think the title is misleading as the

authors only speculate on how classic photos were made. There

are no attempts to reproduce them. And at least a couple of the

simplistic diagrams obviously aren't correct. Its better than

nothing, but if you have an eye for lighting, you could get just as

much from studying the photos yourself.

BTW: Purist may insist on using only fresnels, but I've seen

convincing results from spot grids over modern strobes. I think it

boils down to the photographer's skill and the model's face, and

as mentioned earlier, a whole lotta retouching.

Steve

========================

Hi Steve,

I am the co-author of Hollywood Portraits. I don't know if you'll

see this post, as it's being posted years after yours--- but it's

also for the benefit of others who are interested in keeping alive

this look and genre of lighting.

The obvious reason we had to speculate about how those old

portraits were taken is simply because most of the

photographers were dead at the time of our writing. As well, the

two living photographers I managed contact seemed content

with taking their secrets to the grave, or said they couldn't

remember. Mark Viera --who grew up in the same town as me, is

an old acquaintance and an undeniably good source of

information. At the time we wrote the book, I tried to locate him,

without luck. (NOTE: He had not yet come out with his books at

the time). Lastly, there are few findable books on the Hollywood

lighting techniques, written in the era.

Rather than create our own portraiture for the book (which,

anyway, would have surely suffered in comparison to authentic

portraits by Hurrell and other greats!), we deliberately left it to the

reader to try for themselves. We wanted the book to be a source

of motivation, and time as proven this to be the case.

However, be assured that what we wrote was not just theory and

guesses. I practice this lighting myself (usually, more of 1950's

commercial portraiture than "Hollywood glamour"). We closely

studied HUNDREDS of actual Hollywood portraits with

high-power loupes, and discussed and argued for days. As well,

most of our "theories" about lighting direction, intensity and

angles of lights were exhaustively tested --almost police style---

using a mannequin's head, lights and a pencil on the nose

(giving shadow direction, etc.). This information was coupled

with my years of experience in portraiture to come up with

"educated guesses", that should come pretty close.

The book is more than just lighting information. It touches the

subjects of make-up, retouching, equipment (including light

modifying equipment that a beginner wouldn't usually know

about). For this reason, I'm afraid I can't agree that a beginner

"could get just as much from studying the photos themself" (Hey,

where the heck else are they going to get all these photo to study

from, if not from such a book?).

What you say about the simplistic drawings is absolutely true

and unfortunate; the original drawings we made for lighting

schemes were 'as seen from above' ("bird's eye" view). When I

saw the final layout of the book, this aspect had been changed.

According to Roger Hicks --as hard to believe as it is-- , the artist

took it upon herself to change the angle of the drawings to

eyelevel / 3D. As a result, some of the lamp heights in the

illustrations were not correct. However, I subsequently insisted

that text be added to the preface remind the reader that the

drawings were approximative. All-in-all, the book has shown to

be quite useful and inspirational.

Lastly, your point about strobes has some merit, except that their

use often necessitate smaller f/stops. As well, (especially for the

1950's look) delicate highlight brilliances can quickly go to solid

"cream cheese" white. BUT , yes.. strobe is possible, with careful

planning, reduced light output and testing of exposure and

development!

Good luck and have fun!

Best,

Christopher Nisperos

.

The Beatles shot looks "50s" or "60s" because of the the

television studio lighting, correct exposure and development and

a fairly contrasty lens.

For the retro-look portrait I did for the Schneider website, I had to

substantially overexpose to obtain the look I was trying to get the

look I wanted. The result closely matched an actual magazine I

used as a model.

http://

www.schneiderkreuznach.com/on_location_with.htm#nisperos

Best,

Christopher

PS - it helps if the subject, setting, costume, hairstyle, decor, etc.

are in the same period, too!

:

Hi all. Thanks again for the great answers, links and

suggestions which are making this thread so interesting.

JC:

(Re: my niece reading the manual) I think when she said, "the

CD that came with it isn't all that helpful", she was referring to

the'instruction manual' of the 21st century, readable on a

computer. Also, I really appreciate the book link you gave. In fact,

I recommended that she get a good book, but I had no titles to

give, so thanks again.

Meryl:

A seperate flash is a good suggestion but unfortunately, after

looking at the camera on the web, there is apparently no

accessory shoe (curiously, Sony does offer a slave flash

designed to sit on a bracket next to the camera, but obviously

this doesn't reduce the problem of battery drain. It IS a great idea,

though, for a bit more output, isn't it?)

Michael S:

Looked at your extraordinary photos (are you "sandbagm?").

Really excellent and motivating. Bravo. You wield a mean p&s!

Also, your link to Alex Majoli's photos. Wow. You risk to change

the thread topic! Great photojournalism from a point-and-shoot

camera. Takes the wind out of the typical excuse of debutants

who think that they need a zillion dollars of equipment before

thay can take "real" photos.

Reminds me of an early Nikon p&s I used to have ... I took TWO

friend's weddings with it. Both brides were super-pleased with

the results (only one drunk at a reception complained, yelling

"Hey, where's the 'real' photographer!). I still get some great

black and white street shots with a little p&s autofocus.

Good idea to show us the link.

Hey, niece? You taking all this down? LOL

Michael S. said: "Good thing your niece has an Uncle Chris who

knows "everything" about photography :-)"

LOL... Hey, Michael ... don't forget, I came here

"hat-in-hand"...don't kick a dumb man when he's down !

Yes, I co-wrote the Hollywood Portrait book. I imagine that

George Hurrell would be quite surprised at the advances made

in digital point 'n' shoot photography. I call my 8x10 camera a

"Schlepp 'n' Shoot"!

Thanks a lot for the useful idea. If my niece reads this (as I've

asked her to ...hint, hint), maybe she will chime-in and tell us

how it's going.... and post a couple of photos of my handsome

grand-nephew (2nd hint).

.

...sorry....Meryl, not Merle!

cn

.

Dear Merle and Chris,

You guys --and this forum-- are great! Thanks for the quick

answers. I'm going to forward the link to this web-page directly to

my niece so that she can read your advice for herself.

By the way, Chris, great shot. I recognized the scene right away

because it's a few kilometers from where I live. Too bad the

weather isn't as nice right now!

Merle: Regarding recycle time, do you think it would help to carry

two sets of rechargeable batteries and rotate their use, as

wedding photographers do?

I humbly come before this forum admitting that, for the moment, I'm a

digital dinosaur (actually, a friend gave me a Canon D30, but due to weird

flash and shutter delays --and the fact that I'm not a big user of small

SLR's anyway-- I just put it aside and have never studied it). At the same

time, my family thinks that because I can use a view camera, I MUST know

about digital too

Thusly, my niece in Hawaii just sent me an email this morning, begging

for help in understanding the new digital camera she just bought for her

family. I have never really handled or looked closely at digital cameras(!),

so I don't dare even to GUESS at answers to her questions (for example,

("5M" could be 5 meters, but Im not sure). Even the term "image size"

seems risky to give an explanation of.

Can anyone please help me help her? Perhaps you can give me the

address of websites to recommend to her in the style of "Digital for

dummies" (which includes me!). Here is her email, cut and pasted:

Aloha Uncle Chris!

Since you are the MASTER picture taker I am hoping you can help. I

bought a Sony Cyber Shot, 3x optical zoom, 5.1 mega pixels, Mpeg movie

VX DSC-W5, and I canﾒt seem to find the right setting just to take regular

pics.Can you tell me in laymanﾒs terms what these mean?

ﾠ

Image size?

5M?

3:2?

3M?

1M?

VGA(E-MAIL)?

ﾠ

AF Mode is set to Single?

Digital Zoom is set to Smart (others are precision and off)?

AF Illumnator is set to Auto (this is Auto Focus right?)

ﾠ

ﾠ

THE MAIN ISSUE I AM HAVING IS THAT WHEN I PUSH THE BUTTON TO

TAKE A PICTURE, IT DOES THIS PAUSE THING AND DELAYS THE

FLASH so then of course the picture is screwed up.ﾠ I bought this because

itﾒs supposed to be easy but the CD that came with it isnﾒt all that helpful.ﾠ I

want to push the button and the flash should go off immediately.

ﾠ

ﾠI am about ready to go back to my good old tried-and-true FILM Pentax

because I ALWAYS get great pics with that!

ﾠ

Anyway, can you help?

ﾠ

Many mahalosﾅﾅﾅ.

Love--Andrea

Obviously, I'm going to suggest to her that she join this forum so she can

post future questions like this herself! Meanwhile, anyone with helpful

information about this is welcome to email me directly, as well as posting

here. chrisnisperos at yahoo com

Thanks, in advance!

Christopher Nisperos

.

Hi everybody, hope you can help me help a handicapped friend

of mine. . .

Eventhough I have forty years of photography experience, I

humbly admit my ignorance about amateur digital photo

products. My friend has asked me to recommend a camera

among the following choices:

1. Olympus myu (5 mega)

2. Canon Ixus

3. Fuji F10

I have NO idea what to tell him. Plus, he's missing his right arm.

Is there any camera that works best for a left-hander?

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, in advance!

I hear that Arca-Swiss has put out an 8x10 version of their sturdy

little Misura. It's supposed to weigh less than 4 kg. without a lens

(I don't know what the equivalent weight is in pounds). I haven't

seen it yet, but I'm positively in love with the 4x5, which

Arca-Swiss have won several design awards for.

I know Keith Canham makes really good stuff, but I can't

comment on his 8x10 because I've never played with it. My Toyo

810M is great, but at 15 kg (and a back brace!), the Arca-Swiss

looks very tempting!

The Super D gives you two possibilities for flash sync: open

flash at about 1/5th sec., or drop-curtain.

Drop curtain is easy to remember. Think, "OH". "O" for your

curtain setting, and "H" (or 6) for the tension setting.

This camera was designed mainly for hand-held use. However,

it's wise to heed the warnings about mirror movement.

A convenient way to provide stability while still having good

mobility is to use a sturdy monopod. Gitzo and Manfrotto are

good choices.

Have fun and don't forget to relax the tension on your shutter

before you store the camera for any long period (if you ever put

the thing down!).

If you want a cool, elegant alternative to an empty film box, Mike

Walker (Walker Cameras) makes a neat looking plastic version.

Like the film box, there are three boxes, progressively smaller,

which "nest", one-in-the-other.

Not as cheap as a good ol' sheet film box, but not as cheap

looking, either. It also makes a nice box in which to carry your

transparencies to an art director. Gives a professional

impression (to this end, good images will also help!).

. . . I hasten to add that, of course, an 11x14 folder with an 8x10

reducing back would do the trick ... but then, along with your film

expenses you'd be wise to add a supply of Doan's pills!

In any case, have fun. Hope you turn out some great work.

Hi John,

It depends on what you mean by a "headshot".

If you mean a "head and shoulders" type of portrait, you can

probably get away with a wooden folding camera.

However, if you mean a "tight" heashot, I'd have to agree with my

friend Roger and the Camboys � it's time to hit the rails. A

woody would be stretching it a bit.

By the way, what's a vibe lens? Is that one which shakes when

you release the shutter? (yes, I am trying to be funny, but I really

don't know ).

Hi Jimmy,

Sorry to arrive here more than three years late (just saw your

question today). As for a camera, the bigger the better.

I agree with Josh Slocum but can't agree with Ed Buffaloe that

William Mortensen is a good example for Hurrell style

retouching. Not saying that Mortensen was bad, just different.

Retouching 8x10 negatives isn't as easy as you'd think because,

ironically, the retouching shows more easily than on a smaller

�say, 4x5� negative. You've got to do more pencilling to cover

the same area (for example, a cheek). Dye retouching would be

simpler.

Mark Viera is your best source of information on Hurrell's

technique, if you can get him to share it. Have fun and just

practice, practice, practice.

Best,

Christopher Nisperos

co-author, Hollywood Portraits

"I don't have a girlfriend ......How can I go about finding somebody

to pose for portraits?"

Jonathan, sorry ..maybe I'm dense, but are you shooting portraits

or "glamour" shots? If portraits, why don't you just ask one of your

male friends (and/or one of their girlfriends) or one of your family

members to pose for you? Is your portfolio going to be just of

females?

As for finding models, it's easy. You ask. Anywhere. And here's a

hint: the better looking the prospect, the more likely she or he will

say yes. Acting schools are good hunting grounds. Ask to put

up a notice on their bulletin board.

When you "discover" someone in public, you'll want to get a

telephone number then and there. Presenting a business card

is better than giving a website because it affords immediate

credibility, even without a portfolio to show (often impractical to

do in the middle of the street anyway).

Propose an appointment to show your portfolio later �if you

have one� or print your website address on your card. With or

without your pictures, explain your project clearly.

Have fun.

Hello Gaetano,

Contact John Heffernan at Meggaflash (meggafla@iol.ie)

Also, they have a superb site which may answer many of your

questions: www.meggaflash.com

They make bulbs which can light whole caves. Take a look at

some of the photos on the site... they'll blow your mind!

Hi Butch. Your questions shows alot of wisdom, humility and � I'd

say�courage.

You said, "I really don't know what I want to photograph these days."

The only advice I feel qualified to offer (because not too long ago I was in

the same boat as you) comes second-hand from one of the best

photography teachers in the U.S., Al Weber.

He has said (probably more than once!), "If you're afraid to show who you

really are, you'll have nothing to express". My version: It don't mean a

thing if it ain't got your own personal swing".

The advice I c a n offer is: To find your "swing", you've got to honestly ask

yourself, "what am I absolutely passionate about?" If your answer is,

"photographic technique", that is what will primarily show in your pictures.

(As well, if you can't answer such a question, your "default answer" sort of

becomes 'photographic technique' anyway).

I sincerely hope this is helpful to you.

I'd agree with the gist of the comments so far. It's a nice shot as

it is. At the time you shot it, a fill card on the shadow side

would've been nice, but, now that you have the negative, you can

probably get what you want by applying printing controls

(dodging or contrast change, etc.).

Anyway, it seems to me that a using a flash on this shot might

have ruined it's intimate, "quiet" mood, as well as throwing a

distracting shadow onto the wall in the background.