1930's Hollywood/glamour lighting

Lachlan Young · Aug 3, 2006

df cardwell said:
BUT, like most of the developers made for a certain time, this 70 year old developer is not really anything I'd suggest for most folks. The fashion of the time was for a much higher contrast than we like today. Using TMY or Delta400, with DDX, Aculux or Xtol, you can achieve a similar look with off the shelf materials and not have to pour the energy into mastering a developer from another age, and be able to place that look on current papers without breaking your back.

The current paper I am using is essentially Varigam with a few modifications - available from JandC as ADOX fineprint. I really like the look it gives as does everyone who has seen prints on this paper. In fact the worst film for printing onto this paper is XP-2 and those of that ilk.

df cardwell said:
it would be like selecting an automobile for a weekly drive from Scotland to London: a boring modern sedan with plastic interior, a boring auto transmission and a boring 6 cyl engine... or a vintage Bentley. I suppose if I could have Jeeves or Bunter along... as well as 1938 roads, I'd go with the bentley. But for today, well, the boring sedan and hope to survive the trip.

Pictured, the automotive analogue of edwal 10:

A Bentley is very nice but I'd much rather have the new Morgan Roadster - how many cars that look like they escaped from the 1930s can get to 60mph in less than 5 seconds while using the standard Ford/Jaguar 6 cylinder unit?

Lachlan

Roger Hicks · Aug 3, 2006

Lachlan Young said:
The current paper I am using is essentially Varigam with a few modifications - available from JandC as ADOX fineprint. I really like the look it gives as does everyone who has seen prints on this paper. In fact the worst film for printing onto this paper is XP-2 and those of that ilk.

A Bentley is very nice but I'd much rather have the new Morgan Roadster - how many cars that look like they escaped from the 1930s can get to 60mph in less than 5 seconds while using the standard Ford/Jaguar 6 cylinder unit?

Lachlan

Is that what Moggies use now? What happened to the Rover V8?

Cheers,

R.

Lachlan Young · Aug 3, 2006

Roger Hicks said:
Is that what Moggies use now? What happened to the Rover V8?

Cheers,

R.

Apparently it failed EU emissions regulations, then Rover went belly up - wonder if it was connected...

Lachlan

Roger Hicks · Aug 3, 2006

Dear Lachlan,

Sacred blue! But it's still found in Range Rovers (or at least, its derivatives are). I thought Austin Rover had dropped it before they died.

Cheers (and thanks),

R.

Mannock · May 10, 2008

Mark Wangerin said:
Dianna,
I see Christopher has already chimed in with some excellent observations on this discussion. I think we all go about this in such different ways to achieve the Vintage Hollywood look, that it's difficult to say that there is one right way to go about this. It's also important to keep in mind that with several light sources you have an opportunity for disastrously conflicting shadows. This in itself is a big obstacle to negotiate for the student.

I think someone mentioned earlier that George would rub oil on his subjects but in reality that was rarely necessary as the subject was already sweating from the heat generated from the lights. He liked to keep the sweat on the subject then blend that on the negative with dyes for the Hurrell Glow that we all have come to love. He would also use crushed lead to create the burnished effect that is also an earmark of the Hurrell look.

I create my images more and more with digital (duck and cover) but I still use my Linhof Super Technika and vintage lenses, including a Verito and an Imagon for a beautiful glow right at the pull of the trigger.

You can practice good lighting technique very cheaply with nothing more than cheap Home Depot parabolic work lights, some cardboard and pony clamps for light control. This is how I started then rewarded myself with some more expensive Moles, B&M Keg Lights and even the modern Desisty fresnels once I got a handle on controlling my light and their ratios.

I do just that myself. With the most economic, spelt cut-rate, equipment, I get much satisfaction. I know that you tend to go the route of George Hurrell, and that makes sense considering who you are. I am an amateur who shoots oversized dolls, the Gene Marshall dolls who stand at 16", and I shoot them like Alfred Cheney Johnston, who photographed the Ziegfeld girls between 1917 and 1932, the year Ziegfeld died. While Hurrell has sensational lighting at brilliant angles, Johnston, like C.S. Bull, used two sources...a massive key light, almost always a large stage light, and any ambient light that happened across the stage where he shot. For me this is fine. I can use my Victor and for reflection I can close in with a slab of aluminum foil. I can also use flashlights when necessary. And I can handpaint with light since shooting an inanimate object I can shoot te, twenty, or thirty second exposures.

But I am digressing. The real reason that I am here is to ask you, Mark, when is your book coming out? I spoke to photographer Marcus Ranum and he encouraged me to buy your book when it comes out. When will that be? I am waiting with bated breath!

Yours,

John Smith

Falkenberg · May 15, 2008

Anybody know if this book is good inspiration ?

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photography/hollywood.html

df cardwell · May 22, 2008

Gosh, this is a good old thread !

Looking at Dianna's picture that got it all rolling,
there are a couple things that we haven't hit on.
Today, I was working with an 8x10 Portrait Camera,
and I see one thing right off:

If this was made on an 8x10 plate, I'd guess the focal length is about 18" (480 mm).
It looks like it was shot at f/8, or thereabouts, from about 8 feet away.
Maybe a 24" lens.
Maybe there was a little rise on the lens, and maybe a little tilt down,
with the back adjusted to get the image plane corrected.
Not MUCH movement, just enough.

If you shot this on 35mm, a 60mm would be good, but to get the limited depth of field,
you'd need an aperture of (480/8) 60mm. With a 60mm lens, that would be (60/60) f 1.0.
You could back off to 135mm, and shoot at (135/60) f/2.2. Much better. But stopping down to f/4
would completely lose the effect.

Well, that's just cup of coffee after dinner speculation.
Cool picture.

Nicole: I'll bring the 135/2 to Toronto...

.

Nicole · May 22, 2008

Don that's wonderful. I'll want one of these! Not much longer to go. I really should be getting some work done here before the big trip - will return again soon...

Dave Wooten · May 30, 2008

What I'm hearin' here is that quite possibly they weren't that purty?

jimgalli · May 30, 2008

Dave Wooten said:
What I'm hearin' here is that quite possibly they weren't that purty?

Dave, with the right lights and an 18" Cooke, we could even make you look good!

Dave Wooten · May 30, 2008

jimgalli said:
Dave, with the right lights and an 18" Cooke, we could even make you look good!

ok Jim, I ll take you up on that one as long as I dont have to wear the make up or fake eyelashes.

bruce terry · May 30, 2008

Another old, 'big' book in this arena: C.S.Bull, The Man Who Shot Garbo

Full of the MGM stars he 'shot', plus good historical commentary. Not much
of a how-to book, but very inspiring. Got it at Amazon about a decade ago.

1930's Hollywood/glamour lighting

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency