A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Techniques » Photographing People
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

reflector type ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 20th 03, 12:59 AM
Randall Ainsworth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflector type ?

Not everybody's face can handle Hurrell's lighting. Plus, most people
view that kind of thing as dated.
  #12  
Old October 20th 03, 03:30 AM
zeitgeist
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default holllywood lighting\ reflector type ?


The problem with Hurrell type hollywood lighting is several:

A. you have to have the lights, key light, secondary key, fill, separation
effects like hair light, kick light, splash light, skim etc (most times
several were used, I've seen as many as four, two were typical) and a
background and background effects light (a second spot light blasted through
a potted plant, though these days a coat hanger stretched out and wrapped in
silk flowers is used, this gives a mottled background highlights) basically
a minimum of four lights to 7 or so.

B. you need to know what you are doing, there are reasons a light from the
left or right is chosen, whether its a 'Rembrandt's or split light, whether
you pose the subject straight on, side view, which side? So you either
need a lot of natural instinct or learn a lot of rules.

C. you need to know your gear very well and can set up quickly, Hurrell had
a whole crew to set up lights, lots of modern photogs doing executive
portraits would use a stand in, as did hollywood when setting up lights so
the star didn't have to stand around for hours while the grips and light
techs got it set up. It ain't easy being treated like a piece of meat on
a grill for half an hour, then having to emote for the camera? That's the
biggest problem is keeping your client/subject's interest in the project
over the set up time.

I don't for a minute believe that Hurrell and others wouldn't have jumped at
the chance of using modern lighting gear. Don't forget, in those days there
were no soft lights, you needed a spot light to blast all the wattage power
you could get, and focus it into the smallest area, remember a one and two
thousand watt spot light was called an ace and baby deuce. A 500 watt
thing was called an inky, as in inky dinky little thing. They had slow
film, slow lenses and big cameras, 4x5 was a small camera, (roll film like
120 was classified as a miniature camera) they didn't have soft lights
cause the fabric at the time would have caught fire.

B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity
of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF
SHADOWS!

The average person can't stand harsh light when it comes to
portraiture. And you'll have trouble selling it to them. On the
whole, soft is better. You can still have a lighting ratio with soft
light.




Soft lighting should be used only for little old ladies. It's a
cop-out otherwise. Look at Hurrell's stuff:

http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html

In particular, note:

http://www.lafterhall.com/cagneysm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/coopersm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/boyersm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/johnsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/taylorsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/rolandsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/bogartlg.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/katesm.jpg



  #13  
Old October 20th 03, 11:35 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default holllywood lighting\ reflector type ?

"zeitgeist" wrote in message .net...
The problem with Hurrell type hollywood lighting is several:

A. you have to have the lights, key light, secondary key, fill, separation
effects like hair light, kick light, splash light, skim etc (most times
several were used, I've seen as many as four, two were typical) and a
background and background effects light (a second spot light blasted through
a potted plant, though these days a coat hanger stretched out and wrapped in
silk flowers is used, this gives a mottled background highlights) basically
a minimum of four lights to 7 or so.


Looks like it to me. Many more lights than are used today, and that's
my complaint. Today, you just shove a big broad source in place and
let 'er rip!

B. you need to know what you are doing, there are reasons a light from the
left or right is chosen, whether its a 'Rembrandt's or split light, whether
you pose the subject straight on, side view, which side? So you either
need a lot of natural instinct or learn a lot of rules.


You mean, have skill? I suppose tthat's necessary. Are you implying
that a lot of portait guys lack skill? Don't put words in my mouth,
BUT....


C. you need to know your gear very well and can set up quickly, Hurrell had
a whole crew to set up lights, lots of modern photogs doing executive
portraits would use a stand in, as did hollywood when setting up lights so
the star didn't have to stand around for hours while the grips and light
techs got it set up. It ain't easy being treated like a piece of meat on
a grill for half an hour, then having to emote for the camera? That's the
biggest problem is keeping your client/subject's interest in the project
over the set up time.


I imagine he did have assistants, as MGM was full of lighting experts.

I don't for a minute believe that Hurrell and others wouldn't have jumped at
the chance of using modern lighting gear.


I doubt he'd like the effects that most get out of them. His
limitations seemed to have forced him to do work of genius.

Don't forget, in those days there
were no soft lights, you needed a spot light to blast all the wattage power
you could get, and focus it into the smallest area, remember a one and two
thousand watt spot light was called an ace and baby deuce. A 500 watt
thing was called an inky, as in inky dinky little thing. They had slow
film, slow lenses and big cameras, 4x5 was a small camera, (roll film like
120 was classified as a miniature camera) they didn't have soft lights
cause the fabric at the time would have caught fire.


When you retouch the way they did, an 11x14 negative was the thing to
have. No matter what, an 11x14 camera is going to take tons of light,
even today. I stand firm on my criticism of all-soft lighting for B&W.
It basically sucks.

B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity
of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF
SHADOWS!

The average person can't stand harsh light when it comes to
portraiture. And you'll have trouble selling it to them. On the
whole, soft is better. You can still have a lighting ratio with soft
light.




Soft lighting should be used only for little old ladies. It's a
cop-out otherwise. Look at Hurrell's stuff:

http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html

In particular, note:

http://www.lafterhall.com/cagneysm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/coopersm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/boyersm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/johnsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/taylorsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/rolandsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/bogartlg.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/katesm.jpg

  #14  
Old October 20th 03, 11:36 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default reflector type ?

Randall Ainsworth wrote in message . ..
Not everybody's face can handle Hurrell's lighting.


True, but many of Hurrell's subjects were far from young.

Plus, most people
view that kind of thing as dated.


They would be the unenlightened ones...I think Hurrell's stuff rocks!
  #15  
Old October 21st 03, 12:49 AM
Randall Ainsworth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default holllywood lighting\ reflector type ?

Looks like it to me. Many more lights than are used today, and that's
my complaint. Today, you just shove a big broad source in place and
let 'er rip!


Sad but true - but I wouldn't condemn soft lighting just because of
crappy work done by hacks.
  #16  
Old October 21st 03, 04:04 AM
Jack Germsheid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default holllywood lighting\ reflector type ?

Hurrell had no lighting assistants and from what I have read ( at least
none that were mentioned) he had one assistant to change the film
holders on his 8x10. And a retoucher of course.
MTB
Jack

Michael Scarpitti wrote:

"zeitgeist" wrote in message .net...


The problem with Hurrell type hollywood lighting is several:

A. you have to have the lights, key light, secondary key, fill, separation
effects like hair light, kick light, splash light, skim etc (most times
several were used, I've seen as many as four, two were typical) and a
background and background effects light (a second spot light blasted through
a potted plant, though these days a coat hanger stretched out and wrapped in
silk flowers is used, this gives a mottled background highlights) basically
a minimum of four lights to 7 or so.



Looks like it to me. Many more lights than are used today, and that's
my complaint. Today, you just shove a big broad source in place and
let 'er rip!



B. you need to know what you are doing, there are reasons a light from the
left or right is chosen, whether its a 'Rembrandt's or split light, whether
you pose the subject straight on, side view, which side? So you either
need a lot of natural instinct or learn a lot of rules.



You mean, have skill? I suppose tthat's necessary. Are you implying
that a lot of portait guys lack skill? Don't put words in my mouth,
BUT....




C. you need to know your gear very well and can set up quickly, Hurrell had
a whole crew to set up lights, lots of modern photogs doing executive
portraits would use a stand in, as did hollywood when setting up lights so
the star didn't have to stand around for hours while the grips and light
techs got it set up. It ain't easy being treated like a piece of meat on
a grill for half an hour, then having to emote for the camera? That's the
biggest problem is keeping your client/subject's interest in the project
over the set up time.



I imagine he did have assistants, as MGM was full of lighting experts.



I don't for a minute believe that Hurrell and others wouldn't have jumped at
the chance of using modern lighting gear.



I doubt he'd like the effects that most get out of them. His
limitations seemed to have forced him to do work of genius.



Don't forget, in those days there
were no soft lights, you needed a spot light to blast all the wattage power
you could get, and focus it into the smallest area, remember a one and two
thousand watt spot light was called an ace and baby deuce. A 500 watt
thing was called an inky, as in inky dinky little thing. They had slow
film, slow lenses and big cameras, 4x5 was a small camera, (roll film like
120 was classified as a miniature camera) they didn't have soft lights
cause the fabric at the time would have caught fire.



When you retouch the way they did, an 11x14 negative was the thing to
have. No matter what, an 11x14 camera is going to take tons of light,
even today. I stand firm on my criticism of all-soft lighting for B&W.
It basically sucks.



B&W work requires hard light with fill, not soft light. The poularity
of soft light in recent years is to be deplored. DON'T BE AFRAID OF
SHADOWS!


The average person can't stand harsh light when it comes to
portraiture. And you'll have trouble selling it to them. On the
whole, soft is better. You can still have a lighting ratio with soft
light.



Soft lighting should be used only for little old ladies. It's a
cop-out otherwise. Look at Hurrell's stuff:

http://www.lafterhall.com/hurrell.html

In particular, note:

http://www.lafterhall.com/cagneysm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/coopersm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/boyersm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/johnsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/taylorsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/rolandsm.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/bogartlg.jpg
http://www.lafterhall.com/katesm.jpg




  #17  
Old October 21st 03, 02:30 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default holllywood lighting\ reflector type ?

Randall Ainsworth wrote in message . ..
Looks like it to me. Many more lights than are used today, and that's
my complaint. Today, you just shove a big broad source in place and
let 'er rip!


Sad but true - but I wouldn't condemn soft lighting just because of
crappy work done by hacks.


But that's 98% of what I see. No 'sculping' at all! B&W DEMANDS this
sort of treatment. It's NOT the same as colour!
  #18  
Old October 21st 03, 03:48 PM
Michael Scarpitti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default holllywood lighting\ reflector type ?

Jack Germsheid wrote in message ...
Hurrell had no lighting assistants and from what I have read ( at least
none that were mentioned) he had one assistant to change the film
holders on his 8x10. And a retoucher of course.
MTB
Jack



Maybe, I wasn't there. It would not surprise me either way.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.