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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
reflector type ?
Not everybody's face can handle Hurrell's lighting. Plus, most people
view that kind of thing as dated. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
holllywood lighting\ reflector type ?
|
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|