Hollywood 30's style lighting Hurell Style

[paul_k]

I recently helped out a photography student  following her call of for a MUA for an above mentioned type of shoot (I like to play MUA from time to time, allows me to muddle along during a shoot without the pressure of having to be 'the photographer' )

Due to the 'instructions' she received, she shot using a DSLR with an adapter on a studio tripod mounted TC type 'body' (I guess for the sake of forcing her to work in a slower and more deliberate way then snapping away handheld)

Initially tried to give some advise, but as that did not seem to go with the instructor, quickly shut up and let her do it the way she was told to, using multiple heads on a high power studio flash pack. Fortunately the lighting set up was pretty simple, and close to the way I would have done it anyway

Personally my biggest 'problem' was the high power setting of the flash used, resulting in an setting of f16 at 100 ISO on all three heads, which of course made her images IMO overly sharp (compared to the, apart from the then often used soft focus filters effects, classic 1930 Hollywood shots classic shallow DoF)
 
Not having anything to lose of prove, took the opportunity to, during one of breaks she took after each shot to 'chimp' the image taken on a close by tethered computer, quickly slip in and take a couple of snaps on my DF just using the modeling lights

Looks like this, only used  good old Nikon Capture NX 2.4.6 (no layering, cloning or other PS tricks), no 'High Art', no Zeiss Botus/Flotus/whatever contrast and sharpness, lots of grain and of course little Dof
Like it nevertheless despite only having only maybe 3 seconds for 7 shots total (including instructing the model)

[armando_m]

nice story and great result

[MFloyd]

For what stands "MUA" ?

[armando_m]

make up artist

[MFloyd]

make up artist

Thanks 

[Les Olson]

One aspect of the Hurrell look was the skin looking as if it was lit from within, as in this portrait of Marlene Dietrich.  That was the reason for the very strong lights very close to the subject - but it depended on the film phenomenon of halation. This happens when the light is very intense, and some light goes right through the emulsion and is then reflected back.  Modern film has an anti-halation layer to prevent this, although you can get it with very strong light sources - tropical sun, as in this example.  It is difficult to reproduce with digital - although there are filters that are intended to give a similar look they don't succeed to my eye. 

[Bruno Schroder]

Very good hack, Paul, and interesting info, Les.

[Ann]

In the 1930s they were not using Flash but the much less bright Studio Fresnel-lensed Spot lights and Tungsten-bulbed Flood lights so, lenses needed to be stopped-down far less than was the case when Paul took his photographs.

They were also using specialised large-format portrait lenses and a fair amount of subtle knifing and graphite retouching of the large negatives frequently occurred too. It looks to me as if the Marlene portrait was considerably retouched in that way.

That was the way we were still being taught to photograph when I was at Guildford Art School in the mid 1950s (many of the college's cameras still used glass plates!).

[Les Olson]

In the 1930s they were not using Flash but the much less bright Studio Fresnel-lensed Spot lights and Tungsten-bulbed Flood lights

Indeed - one of the things Hurrell had to deal with was that to get the light bright enough to create halation the lights had to be so close that his subjects found the heat hard to tolerate so he had to work very quickly - especially by large format portrait standards.   

[MFloyd]

Picture is heavily posterised: virtually, the face has only two shades of grey ...

[paul_k]

In the 1930s they were not using Flash but the much less bright Studio Fresnel-lensed Spot lights and Tungsten-bulbed Flood lights so, lenses needed to be stopped-down far less than was the case when Paul took his photographs.

They were also using specialised large-format portrait lenses and a fair amount of subtle knifing and graphite retouching of the large negatives frequently occurred too. It looks to me as if the Marlene portrait was considerably retouched in that way.

That was the way we were still being taught to photograph when I was at Guildford Art School in the mid 1950s (many of the college's cameras still used glass plates!).

While I agree about the lower light output of the 30's used tungsten lights and use of large format camera's for the classic Hollywood style photography by masters like Ruth Harriet Louise, Clarence Sinclair Bull, Horst P Horst and of course George Hurrell, I don't do so with regards to the observation of the lenses not being stopped down.

While I e.g. shot at a mere 2.8 on a 2/135 lens, e.g. George Hurrell most definitely did not in the 30's and 40's when shooting on large format (and most likely  nor did his peers in that period).

Based on the technical info he himself gives in '50 Years of Photographing Hollywood / The Hurrell Style' he co-wrote together with Whitney Stine, when shooting with a 8x10 view camera in the 30's and 40's, he as a rule stopped down his lenses to f16, despite using Kodak Super X film, the 'fastest' emulsion available of that period.

Although the focal length of a portrait lens on a 8x10 camera is of course much longer then that on a 35 or medium format camera (35mm somewhere around 85 to 100mm on a 35mm, 120 to 150mm on a medium format, 210 and up on a 8x10 camera) those lenses could be found at relatively 'fast' apertures as 'low' as f5.6, which meant that at f16, they would have been closed down 4 stops.

Only later in e.g. the 70's, when he, apart from 8x10 camera's also started using 4x5 Speed Graflex's, medium format Mamiyaflex's, and even 35mm Nikons, did he shoot at 'wider' apertures as f5.6 and f8 on Tri X
IMO there is a significant difference in the image rendering between the shots taken, even in that period, on large format camera's, and those taken with 'smaller format' camera's though, and not in favor of the 'smaller' format cameras 

[Ann]

Very popular with portrait photographers was the Rodenstock Imagon which came with interchangeable diffusion disks.

Pictures of that lens:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Imagon+portrait+lens&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf96z_u5HXAhUjzIMKHTbpDzYQ_AUICygC&biw=948&bih=514

I once experimented by using a hole-puncher to make Imagon-style diffusion disks from black paper (with punched-out small holes around a larger centered hole) to use over modern lenses.

You get different degrees of Diffusion — depending the size of the bigger hole in the center

Being the ArchPack-rat that I am, I still have those disks (50 years later!) so popped one onto a 105 mm and made this shot.

The first one was shot with my Diffusion Disk over the lens; the second one without it. The diffusion spreads the Highlights.

[Frank Fremerey]

Thanks, Ann. Reminds me to take more portraits with my large format setup!

[Ann]

Do you have the legendary Imagon, Frank?

Mine were shot with just my old black-paper disks on a 105 mm Micro Nikkor and with the D5.

Strong back or rim-lighting is when this technique can get interesting.

[Jakov Minić]

Paul, I thought you shot that first image in the 30's
It really looks good!