Hollywood portrait lighting

Christopher Nisperos said:

Really nice work, Singlo . . . even if they had been in a studio the size of an airplane hangar! All the more to your credit that you did such a good job in a tiny space.

Shows that space ain't everything (depending upon format!!). Some of the most memorable portraits were created in small spaces.

One small criticism —and hopefully, a hint for improvement— regarding the tight headshot among your examples: there's a weird nose shadow on the left side of the pretty subject's face. Is it intentional? If not, perhaps it's a cross-shadow due to bad lateral position of your fill? I'm not sure. Anyway, wanted to bring it to your attention.

in Again, congratulations on your work.

Christopher

Click to expand...

Thanks Christopher my Dedo brother. It means a lot for me with compliments coming from you. Yes you are right about that nose shadow. I use a 3'x4' Chimera softbox as fill but it is impossible to place it under the camera becuase of the fact I have no space to stand. So the fill is always off camera axis not by choice but severe limitations of space. I always get shadows on the background from the soft fill becuase the model is sitting 1 feet from background so I have to move the fill to minimise that shadows.

Whenever I use the monster 14" Elinchrom fresnel, I mount it on a heavy duty cine castor stand, then C-stand for the Arri and stands for other lights and cookies..well I have hardly anyway space to stand. I have to move around in this small jungle of lights like a monkey. I feel like to cry sometimes becuase the space problem works against me all the time. On the other hand Dedo lights really kick arse and works like charm in small space.

Today I use the Dedos and Arri as key for the first time on anothor model. The girl has good skin so I don't use diffusion for the key. I may post the results here after I do some retouching. I am so amazed by Dedo...it is not that hard light if you place it very close to the model face. You know hard light can accentuate bad skins, spots, lines.. and that's something I have to watch out for....but still Long Live to Hard lights!

RoBBo said:

This is close to what I've been doing, though I've been doing it directly on my sources, seems to have helped out quite a bit. Been using deep red actually.
Dark Blue lipstick works best under this light.
Costs me about a stop or more of power though. Kinda sucks.
Tungsten lights are closer to that kind of light anyways though, I only do this because I'm using strobes and all that 'blue light' hitting my models was picking up tons of freckles and other nonsense that I didn't want to have anything to do with.

Click to expand...

Hope this is not yours and my imagination becuase I too have noticed that tungsten lights seem to be kinder to skin spots and freckles. I use both strobes and tungsten. I notice the differences. Most strobe users say lots of negative things and bashing about hot lights, but for me hot lights are like Pandora Box.

singlo said:

Hope this is not yours and my imagination becuase I too have noticed that tungsten lights seem to be kinder to skin spots and freckles. I use both strobes and tungsten. I notice the differences. Most strobe users say lots of negative things and bashing about hot lights, but for me hot lights are like Pandora Box.

Click to expand...

Well, the three things that determine the quality of a lightsource are it's size, eveness and spectral makeup. If these can be matched closely, through filters and/or other means, the effect on film will be the same. Tungsten light is considerably yellower than daylight flash, as such yellowish tones will appear lighter with tungsten than with daylight flash, that is, unless you filter the flash appropriately.

I have a Century No. Six Studio camera, a Veritas 19" lens and movie lights, and I've done some Hurrell style shots. To claim that indistinguishable results can't be gotten with strobes or with smaller formats is simply wrong, assuming that one doesn't enlarge too much. The advantages of 8x10 are the ability to make very big enlargements, assuming your focus is on! (Many Hollywood Golden Age photographs aren't perfectly in focus}; and the fact that negative retouching is much easier on larger negatives.

here are some tests with the Dedo 150W or Arri 1KW as key lights done yestersday.( No diffusion on the key light and hardly any retouching on her skin.) Again I try not to get the Hollywood look but instead borrow inspiration from their techniques. The previous photos I posted were done with Fresnel strobe attachments. Note the last photo, you will see the inevitable pitfall of fill light creating unwanted shadow on the background when the model sat very close to it.

attack of the Home Depot "Ghetto Bees"

first shoot -- an imaginative depiction of the Director of Interrogations, Abu Gharib prison.

I really like a few of these... to my surprise no one ever set up such a flickr group! so I did

http://www.flickr.com/groups/hollywoodportrait/

Peter De Smidt said:

(Many Hollywood Golden Age photographs aren't perfectly in focus}

Click to expand...

Amen. However, note that much of the "publicity portraiture" of the era was not necessarily intended to be enlarged anyway. As already mentioned on this thread, contact printing was the most economical way to go, at the time. Portraits which were enlarged were often just to 11x14 or —more rarely— 16x20. I believe these were called "lobby portraits".


Christopher


.

singlo said:

Thanks Christopher my Dedo brother.
I use a 3'x4' Chimera softbox as fill but it is impossible to place it under the camera becuase of the fact I have no space to stand. So the fill is always off camera axis not by choice but severe limitations of space. I always get shadows on the background from the soft fill becuase the model is sitting 1 feet from background so I have to move the fill to minimise that shadows.
. . . On the other hand Dedo lights really kick arse and works like charm in small space. . . . . I am so amazed by Dedo...it is not that hard light if you place it very close to the model face.

Click to expand...

Singlo,

What kind of light source (brand & model) are you using for your fill?
Your compositions seem tight.. Can't you use your light with a smaller softbox or striplight (if you have one), and therefore closer to your camera?

Have you tried simply bouncing a Dedo onto a white card or sheet of styrofoam positioned near or above the camera lens (good lens shading oblige!)?

Lastly, if your light is small & lightweight enough, you could mount it to an articulated arm and attach it to your tripod leg, thereby eliminating a lightstand and freeing-up some space for yourself.


Christopher

PS - do I understand correctly that you would ordinarily place your fill under the camera, if you could? //cn

.

Christopher Nisperos said:

Singlo,

What kind of light source (brand & model) are you using for your fill?

Click to expand...

hello Christopher brother,
For fill, I use Elinchrom BX100 flash head mounted with a small Chimera Super Pro Plus softbox fitted 20 degrees grid and a full CTO gel. The grid here is not to control spill but to cut down the output of the strobe, otherwise it is too powerful to mix it with hot lights. I don't have enough hot lights at the moment so I have to mix hotlights with existing strobes. Ideally I should get more hot lights but I don't have the money.... I have just bought the Dedo projection attachment with zoom lens.

Your compositions seem tight..

Click to expand...

Yeah I can't shoot less tight, if I zoom the lens at wider angle, I get lens distortion of arms and legs at this cramped shooting distance;e.g. making girls arms and legs fat! So I often shoot with telephoto zoom and stand outside my room by the door.

Can't you use your light with a smaller softbox or striplight (if you have one), and therefore closer to your camera?

Click to expand...

I also have a chimera extra small softbox fitted 20 degree grid but it is often used as kicker/hair light. I have also two chimera strip boxes but they are very deep taking up lots of space.

Also I doubt if smaller softbox would be as effective as larger one for fill. My theory is that the smaller the fill, the harder the shadows it produces on the background.

In your experience with Dedo small softbox as fill, do you find it effective?

Have you tried simply bouncing a Dedo onto a white card or sheet of styrofoam positioned near or above the camera lens (good lens shading oblige!)?Lastly, if your light is small & lightweight enough, you could mount it to an articulated arm and attach it to your tripod leg, thereby eliminating a lightstand and freeing-up some space for yourself.

Click to expand...

Good suggestions. I haven't tried it. Perhaps this is my next experiment. I bought a Matthrews articulate balls arm and Dedo flex arm a while ago and sometimes I mount the Dedo and arm on furnitures with superclamps. I am looking into the Dedo diffusion rounded scrim or the small Photoflex softbox for Dedo.

PS - do I understand correctly that you would ordinarily place your fill under the camera, if you could? //cn

Click to expand...

My fill is not exactly under the camera becuase of space issue.

Hey Chris, have you ever heard of Alan Weissman Film Noir photos?

It seems he is also shooting digital now. He uses large white reflectors for fill by bouncing hotlights. Here is the link:

http://www.alanweissman.com/


Hey Guy Catelli, good going, seems you are having fun. Don't joke about that kind of thing, it is politically incorrect. Here is my take of cheesecake taken yestersday . I really don't like and shoot cheesecake (or glamour whatever you call it) normally but the girl asked for it:

Chris,
In your book, you mentioned about the offending cross shadows in some hollywood portraits. Well they may be considered as mistakes. Guess what Peter Lindbergh have done to actress Milla Jovoich in classic Hollywood style of mood in the currnet issue of Italian Vogue? He deliberately throws the rule out of the window and create five conflicting shadows on the background with fresnel spots as fill! I know it is HMI fresnel becuase he sometimes include the light in the photo.

singlo said:

..... the girl asked for it

Click to expand...

i try to keep 'em happy myself.

singlo said:

Chris,
In your book, you mentioned about the offending cross shadows in some hollywood portraits. Well they may be considered as mistakes. Guess what Peter Lindbergh have done to actress Milla Jovoich in classic Hollywood style of mood in the currnet issue of Italian Vogue? He deliberately throws the rule out of the window and create five conflicting shadows on the background with fresnel spots as fill! I know it is HMI fresnel becuase he sometimes include the light in the photo.

Click to expand...

Truth be known, during the writing of the book, Roger and I disputed this point a bit.

As far as cross shadows on a background (or in the case of four-point cross-lighting, where multiple shadows on the floor will be inevidable), who cares? The viewer knows that the situation is not natural anyway.

As far as cross shadows on a face: Personally, I think that a little bit of cross-shadowing can enter into the realm of "artistic license". On the other hand, too much of it (unless it's intended as a deliberate effect)... well, there I would agree with Roger. The resulting "look" would come across as a mistake and probably be a little distracting.


Best,

Christopher

.

Christopher, Roger's and your book helped me set up the lighting for the example above.

it was done with four 250W Home Depot shop lamps, and some cinefoil snoots.

i've got a Duvetyn black cloth background on order. this is supposed to help light absorption, reducing the effect of stray light.

i'm going to experiment with making the hairlight 100W, and using a 150W light on camera left (where there isn't much room for changing the distance).

my next shoot with this model is sunday, july 1.

Folks in this thread,
I want to thank everybody who has been involved in this thread! I have enjoyed it it very much! Much valuable information has been shared with us. ! For myself, I believe it is one of the most interesting threads discussed so far on APUG. I hope to see more just like it in the future.

Some time back, Christofer or some one mentioned a book
that was in progress dealing with more of the Hollywood
lighting techniques. Christofer, Roger anyone know more about such a book? I can guarantee they will sell at least one copy! ;-) Again, thank's !


Charlie......................................

Charles Webb said:

Folks in this thread,
I want to thank everybody who has been involved in this thread! I have enjoyed it it very much! Much valuable information has been shared with us. ! For myself, I believe it is one of the most interesting threads discussed so far on APUG. I hope to see more just like it in the future.

Some time back, Christofer or some one mentioned a book
that was in progress dealing with more of the Hollywood
lighting techniques. Christofer, Roger anyone know more about such a book? I can guarantee they will sell at least one copy! ;-) Again, thank's !


Charlie......................................

Click to expand...

Hi Charlie,

It's nice to see such enthusiasm for a thread! You might be thinking of the book(s) by Mark Vieira. Personally, I've met and talked with Hurrell —but can't say that I really "knew" him. Mark actually worked with him so I presume that he shares some techniques in his books (I haven't seen the books but have read favorable comments on them). Google Mark's name and you can probably track down the books on Amazon. Perhaps someone reading this thread can comment further.

Lastly, Mark Wangerin's book has been due-out "any day now", for a long time. Haven't seen any galleys but —judging by Mark's high quality of work— the book holds high hopes.

Best,

Christopher

.

guy catelli said:

Dead Link Removed

Click to expand...

Hi Guy,

Given the difficult situation underwhich the portrait was taken I think you first and foremost deserve compliments for your admirable effort!

Try not to forget the golden rule of "one dominant light", otherwise you'll get a dark vertical zone on both sides of the nose. I think I understand what you were trying to do: have a side light ("kicker") to accent one side of the face. It ended up too strong and competed with you key light. Looks like you flagged-off the chest of your model. You need to flag that baby off her face too! (Flags are easy to make, especially if your light sources don't give off too much heat ... as with your flashes. Voila .. a weekend DIY project. Just what you need, right?)

Speaking of flash .. OK, I understand that by mixing flash and continuous lighting you're simply using what you have. Bravo. But —wow— what a headache it must be to obtain some predictability. That puts a real brake on creativity. Don't forget that flash is in fact a damned explosion in a tube! While the modeling lamp can give us a very close approximation of the final look, the exact effect of the resulting lighting can't really be known without actually seeing a photo taken with the particular light(s) in question.
Polaroids help. But IMHO, the sooner you can unify your lighting equipment, the better.

Your posing has some real strong points, especially on the upper part of your model's body. Be careful with your hand posing to avoid an effect of foreshortening.

As you know, many excellent "Hollywood portraits" have been taken with dark backgrounds. One aspect that can generally make a big difference between an amateurish look and that of a professional, is background seperation. I say "generally" because some of the greatest portrait photographers have backed their subjects right up to the wall or into corners and obtained exceptional results (Halsmann, Hurrell and Penn come to mind). But even in these cases you can still usually discern the shape of the subject's head. In your case —dark brown hair against a deep black background— deserves a reflector or a kicker or.. heck anything!to keep your pretty brunette's hair from melting into the outer-space void of your background. (I realize that you don't have much depth in your shooting space, that's why I don't list a simple background light).

Hope these points are helpful to you!

Best,

Christopher

.

your help is much appreciated

Christopher Nisperos said:

Hi Guy,

Click to expand...

hi, Christopher,

i can't tell you how much i appreciate receiving detailed pointers from an authority in the field of glamour lighting.

Given the difficult situation under which the portrait was taken I think you first and foremost deserve compliments for your admirable effort!

Click to expand...

is it possible my situation has been confused with another poster's on this thread? i have two shooting stages: one illuminated by two 9-foot high windows with southern exposure for shooting with natural light, and the other for artificial lighting when the windows are covered in black. both are about 25 feet deep. and my ceiling is 11-1/2 feet high. it's not capacious by commercial studio standards, but it doesn't feel cramped either.

then again, perhaps you are refering to the fact that i am still using shop lamps for lighting, with Cinefoil as DIY 'snoots'. i plan on getting photography-specific tungsten lighting asap, and will be asking for advice on what to purchase in a post below this one.

Try not to forget the golden rule of "one dominant light",

Click to expand...

i will try to keep it in mind, going forward.

otherwise you'll get a dark vertical zone on both sides of the nose. I think I understand what you were trying to do: have a side light ("kicker") to accent one side of the face. It ended up too strong and competed with you key light.

Click to expand...

actually, the model's favorite shots in your book were the portrait of Greta Garbo on p. 43 and that of Ann Sheridan on p. 87, both by Hurrell. (she's not the only model who feels that way, btw.) so, fwiw, the shadow down the center was intentional.

Looks like you flagged-off the chest of your model. You need to flag that baby off her face too! (Flags are easy to make, especially if your light sources don't give off too much heat ... as with your flashes. Voila .. a weekend DIY project. Just what you need, right?)

Click to expand...

no 'flags', as such, but the Cinefoil 'snoots' in effect left some areas much darker than others. flags can certainly be easily made from cinefoil. does it require a dedicated stand just to mount a flag? (that would create a maze of 'legs' sticking out pretty quickly.)

Speaking of flash .. OK, I understand that by mixing flash and continuous lighting you're simply using what you have. Bravo. But —wow— what a headache it must be to obtain some predictability. That puts a real brake on creativity. Don't forget that flash is in fact a damned explosion in a tube! While the modeling lamp can give us a very close approximation of the final look, the exact effect of the resulting lighting can't really be known without actually seeing a photo taken with the particular light(s) in question.

Polaroids help. But IMHO, the sooner you can unify your lighting equipment, the better.

Click to expand...

that's a different poster. right now, i'm using halogen lights only.

Your posing has some real strong points, especially on the upper part of your model's body. Be careful with your hand posing to avoid an effect of foreshortening.

Click to expand...

excellent advice -- i'll keep an eye out for foreshortening issues.

As you know, many excellent "Hollywood portraits" have been taken with dark backgrounds. One aspect that can generally make a big difference between an amateurish look and that of a professional, is background seperation. I say "generally" because some of the greatest portrait photographers have backed their subjects right up to the wall or into corners and obtained exceptional results (Halsmann, Hurrell and Penn come to mind). But even in these cases you can still usually discern the shape of the subject's head. In your case —dark brown hair against a deep black background— deserves a reflector or a kicker or.. heck anything!to keep your pretty brunette's hair from melting into the outer-space void of your background. (I realize that you don't have much depth in your shooting space, that's why I don't list a simple background light).

Click to expand...

so far, i've been unsuccessful in satisfactorily addressing this issue, perhaps because i can't yet sufficiently control where my lighting falls.. but, i do agree with your observation about the problem.

Hope these points are helpful to you!

Click to expand...

they certainly are. many thanks to you for your taking the time.

this one was shot yesterday (again, using shop lamps only):

Dead Link Removed

it was intentionally underexposed, because using 250W lamps (or less), requires longish shutter speeds and shallow depth of field. even with the underexposure, this one was shot at f/4, 1/15 sec, ISO 400.

nevertheless, i wound up with an annoying hot spot on the subject's forehead. however, using "Recovery" in Photoshop CS3 to reduce the hot spot, while increasing overall "Exposure" (which brought the 'phantom' hair bun into view) resulted in some unsightly 'banding' on the face.

it seems that the next level up from shop lights is a $2000 to $3000 lighting kit from Arri. i don't mind spending that much money -- IF i wind up with something appropriate for classic Hollywood glamour lighting.

which (if any) of these kits would be appropriate for this application (220V no problem in my studio):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...ac=&fi=all&pn=1&ci=2247&cmpsrch=&cltp=&clsgr=

Look out for BIG old hot lights, preferably from a studio going out of business: 300W focusing spots are good. I think I paid the equivalent of $150 for three. I've also used 800W Photon Beard focusing spots. And don't forget old slide projectors for a REALLY hard light.

Edit: 500 not 300: Mazda projector bulbs. Of course these are as nothing next to the really big 2K/5K lamps but they're still big old focusing spots.

Guy, I was wandering around in a shopping mall a few weeks ago and stopped into a "photo" store. This now consists of many digital cameras, printers, papers, etc. and a small shelf of film types, very small. There was a nondescript box on the floor at the front of the sore which said "SV" on it for $119.00 and looked interesting. My wife was kind enough to get it for a birthday gift for me.

It is a kit with two 250 watt photo flood sockets, bulbs, umbrellas, stands (6' & 8') and cords. I was amazed that it didn't say "digital lights" on it somewhere, but they really do work well and have a lot to offer for an entry level lighting kit. Take a look at S.V. for lighting kits as they are cheap and appear to be well made for the money. They offer a lot of different types and are readily available on the internet at really cheap prices. tim

I've been using old Mole-Richardsons for years. A 412 lamped down to 1500 watt and a 4131 lamped at 1500. I also use a Lowel 650 watt Fren-l which is a very nice light and it almost pegs the light meter the same as the old Moles. Plus the 650 watt Fren-L is very light weight and portable. The 412 is a monster and raising the light stand can almost cause a hernia. But I just love the quality of light from these old fresnels. Watch ebay, they are on there all the time.

which Arri fresnel lighting kit (if any)?

guy catelli said:

it seems that the next level up from shop lights is a $2000 to $3000 lighting kit from Arri. i don't mind spending that much money -- IF i wind up with something appropriate for classic Hollywood glamour lighting.

which (if any) of these kits would be appropriate for this application (220V no problem in my studio):

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...ac=&fi=all&pn=1&ci=2247&cmpsrch=&cltp=&clsgr=

Click to expand...

thanks for the responses so far. fwiw, does anyone have an answer to the question quoted above?

this thread over at Model Mayhem has some interesting advice, especially as regards ETC Source 4 Par-NELs -- Dead Link Removed