Hollywood portrait lighting

[David A. Goldfarb]

Hurrell printed a significant portion of his work on Azo, so those would have been contact printed, which was generally the means for producing publicity shots in quantity, but that's an interesting practical consideration.

The Hurrell prints I've seen in person don't look like they were made with thin negs. I had never been that interested in Hollywood portraiture before I saw some of these prints in an Upper East Side gallery in Manhattan. The skin tones all had a shimmering quality with beautiful and clear tonal separation. It may be that the negs started out thin, but I suspect there may have been enough hand work on them to change that by printing time.

Does anyone know what film developer he used? If he used ABC pyro, like Edward Weston, the negatives would have been denser (higher UV density) than they would have appeared to a photographer unaccustomed to pyro negs.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

David - It would seem to ME (maybe it's just me) that the reason for the thin neg would have far less to do with the image 'aesthetics' (i'm not too sure they were even thinking that deeply about film characteristics this way) and, maybe, a whole lot MORE to do with the fact that they have to knock off 5000 prints from the same neg on an 8x10 enlarger - probably at f/16 (for neg flatness reasons). Just an idea...

Hi Sparky,

Those 5000 prints would most probably have been contact prints.

Best,

Christopher

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Chris, I've been hunting around for a good retoucher. Will their retoucher work for me, do you suppose? I would be grateful if you could send me contact information -- I have a few negatives that are desperate for a skilled hand.

Sanders

Hi Sanders,

I just spotted your post. Sorry for the delay in responding.

Contact Nancy Staresina at Star Retouching. She's on the edge of retiring, so hurry: 219-759-3312. By the way, I believe that she has an Adam's retouching machine for sale, cheap (the only catch: shipping cost!)

Hope this helps you out!

Best,

Christopher

.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

As far as the thin negative goes, one reason for this may have been that retouching could be used to push the highlights up. Hurrell would use powdered graphite over the whole face, for instance, to smooth out the skin, in addition to lightening up lines, wrinkles and blemishes with the point of a pencil, and this could easily add a stop's worth of density to the neg.

I tried to see if there was a source for powdered graphite and realized that I produced plenty of it myself from sharpening my leads with a stone. It can be applied with a Q-tip or a blending tool that is essentially a tightly rolled cylinder of paper about the diameter of a cigarette, cut on an angle.

It's pretty common on old portraits that have been retouched for the faces to be lighter than the lighting itself would have allowed.

Hello David,

I believe that you are correct: the addition of density to the negative will of course have a "dodging" effect.

However, I really think that the "see through the highlights" rule-of-thumb for developing portrait negatives mainly had to do with guaranteeing highlight detail, and not necessarily the objective of providing a suitable threshold density for retouching. Afterall, not every photographer retouched their negatives. Don't forget that the maxim was always considered a general standard.

Here's a suggestion for obtaining graphite powder, the easy way.
I know you have a lot of experience in 8x10 portraiture and retouching. Perhaps you're familiar with the technique of sharpening your pencil leads in an "envelope" created by folding a sheet of emory paper in-two and taping closed two sides? The long point is then inserted and sharpening is done by rotating the pencil while similutaneously and continuously sliding it in and out of the envelope. This results not only in a needle-sharp lead, but a whole bunch of graphite powder neatly accumulated in the envelope!

As to Hurrell using this powder for retouching —I know it can be used on paper negatives for Mortensen-like effects— but can you shed some light on how it can be successfully applied to a negative? Won't cotton swab or paper stub applicators leave visible results?

Best,

Christopher

.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

As to Hurrell using this powder for retouching —I know it can be used on paper negatives for Mortensen-like effects— but can you shed some light on how it can be successfully applied to a negative? Won't cotton swab or paper stub applicators leave visible results?

Best,

Christopher

.

I forget exactly where I read this, maybe in one of Vieira's books and possibly elsewhere (I have a few old retouching manuals that may mention this technique), but the blending stump is also used for charcoal drawings and I would imagine pastel drawing to create smooth textures. I've done a bit of this, and I definitely haven't mastered it, but it's a technique that has potential. As to whether it leaves "visible results"--well if it's done right then the visible results are smooth and clean, and if it's done clumsily then the visible results are clumsy.

 

[Sparky]

Thanks Christopher and David, for your responses. Chris- while you're certainly an expert on the subject, where as I know precious little... it seems to me rather odd that they would contact print for production. Given the culture at the time, I'm sure enlarging (1:1) would be held in far higher esteem than lowly 'contact printing' (certainly people feel different now!) - it's just very surprising to me. You think he did his own printing also? -and not hand the job off to a lab? Regardless - if he was using azo (not disputing it - just think it's odd) - surely, you'd want to keep the negs thin for production with that process, too! Anyway - thanks again for your feedback. I'm just trying to absorb all this within the context of 'print production'.

ps - I'll pick up a copy of the book!

Hi Sparky,

Those 5000 prints would most probably have been contact prints.

Best,

Christopher

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Contact printing on a contact printer with individually switchable bulbs is a very quick method for producing large volumes of prints. Also the light from an enlarger is generally not bright enough for reasonable exposure times with Azo.

The way a production contact printer works is that the bulbs are underneath the neg in a box, and there is a switch for each bulb for coarse dodging of sections of the negative. You can usually find these things cheap these days. There is usually a layer for placing dodging masks above the bulbs, and then another layer of glass for the neg, emulsion side up, and then the paper goes face down on the neg. You set a timer on the printer, and then when the lid of the printer is closed, there is a very short burst of light to make the exposure.

At some stages of his career, Hurrell did his own printing and retouching, but I gather that during his busiest period, he was part of the studio system, which had its own labs and retouchers.

 

[Sparky]

Yeah - I remember seeing one of those once at Alden's in NYC in the early 80s (boy- that place was kind of a junkstore- are they still open?).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think Olden's is still in business. I haven't been by in a long time. I suspect they own the building, because I can't imagine that they could pay Herald Square rent these days from used camera sales. They would probably derive more income just from renting the billboard space. The big billboard that usually featured a Nikon ad for a long time could easily command a million dollars per year, and it's probably more than that. When I was there last you could see huge stocks of obscure third-party SLR lenses from the 1970's on the shelves in the back.

 

[Sparky]

Olden. That's right. Not alden. Thanks. Yeah - that place always seemed a bit odd to me that way. Only in new york, eh?

 

[Sparky]

I seem to recall they had kind of a sketchy elevator at one point - kind of like the elevator at lens and repro... you know... makes you think about mortality a bit...?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It used to have an elevator operator, but it depended on which side of the building you entered. On the other side there was a narrow stairway.

 

[big_ben_blue]

As for easy ways to obtaining graphite powder - every hardware and auto parts store carries it in smallish tubes (for lubricating locks etc). I use it for shutter and camera lubrication (gearworks, pistons,...).
BTW, can anyone recommend a good starter manual for getting into print and neg retouching (have just bought TWO tetouch tables )?

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

I forget exactly where I read this, maybe in one of Vieira's books and possibly elsewhere (I have a few old retouching manuals that may mention this technique), but the blending stump is also used for charcoal drawings and I would imagine pastel drawing to create smooth textures. I've done a bit of this, and I definitely haven't mastered it, but it's a technique that has potential. As to whether it leaves "visible results"--well if it's done right then the visible results are smooth and clean, and if it's done clumsily then the visible results are clumsy.

I seem to remember something about this too. I'll fish-around in my old retouching books also and post what I find.

My doubts come from thinking that such a "global" coverage of an area with graphite would wash-out the subtle tonal differences (read "gradation") and create one, flat tone . . . but I could be wrong.

My experience with retouching has taught me that even the careful and precise use of a tiny brush tip on a negative might give results which show-up in a final print, if not done "just right". Hence, my concerns about "visible results" have nothing to do with sloppy technique, but rather the thought that a tool as large as the blunt-tipped blending stump might not be precise enough to give "invisible" results, no matter how carefully handled.

Speaking of this, I wonder if Hurrell's famous job of cleaning-up the freckles on Joan Crawford's face wash done freckle-by-freckle, or as a "wash-over"? Honestly, I suspect the former. I suppose that Mark Vieira would have the answer.

Anyway, thanks for your reply. The info search is on!

Best,

Christopher

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

can anyone recommend a good starter manual for getting into print and neg retouching (have just bought TWO tetouch tables )?

Kodak's Photographic Retouching (publication no. E-97, by Vilia Reed). A gold mine.

Also, there are lots of older books available out there, but Kodak's is the most complete and concise.

If you ever find the 1960's version of the EK retouching book —or an earlier version, if it exists—, it would be the biggest favor if you'd send me a Xerox of it. I'd gladly reward you with a great glass of Bordeaux if you ever come to Paris! (ok..two. And if you don't drink...um, a Perrier!)

Best,

Christopher

.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Thanks Christopher and David, for your responses. Chris- while you're certainly an expert on the subject, where as I know precious little... it seems to me rather odd that they would contact print for production. Given the culture at the time, I'm sure enlarging (1:1) would be held in far higher esteem than lowly 'contact printing' (certainly people feel different now!) - it's just very surprising to me. You think he did his own printing also? -and not hand the job off to a lab? Regardless - if he was using azo (not disputing it - just think it's odd) - surely, you'd want to keep the negs thin for production with that process, too! Anyway - thanks again for your feedback. I'm just trying to absorb all this within the context of 'print production'.

ps - I'll pick up a copy of the book!

Hi Sparky,

This is an easy one . . . the "the culture at the time" (and place—Hollywood), was called "business".

Printing 8x10 negatives on a professional contact printer, especially using photographic paper on long rolls, was (is!) faster and easier than enlarging prints, one-by-one. As David has already pointed out very clearly, there are lots of production advantages —and technical necessities— to contact printing.

I'm almost sure that Hurrell wouldn't have had time to do all his printing himself. Don't know if he used Azo, Velox or both. As well, I don't know what his negatives looked like. I suggest you contact Mark Vieira for all of this info, if you can get him to answer your email.

By the way, up until very recently there were even photolabs in New York and Los Angeles who specialized in this kind of mass-quantity contact printing (David, do you know if they still exist?)

Best,

Christopher

PS - nice of you to tell me that you're buying the "Hollywood Portraits" book.. but just so you know, I don't make a penny from it! What's important is that it help you reach your creative goals. Enjoy!
.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes there are headshot labs in New York that specialize in repros, but I'm not sure how much they are using contact printers. Modernage (http://www.modernage.com), which handles a lot of headshot work, probably can still do it this way, but they seem to advertise more and more digital services, I suspect because they are getting more and more digital originals. Precision Photos (Dead Link Removed) I know has two DeVere Digital Enlargers for this work. I haven't dealt with Kenneth Taranto for a long time (I used to shoot headshots when I was a grad student to earn some extra money), but they do a lot of work for the best headshot photographers in New York, and I suspect they can afford to shoot film.

I like older retouching manuals, because they include many pencil and knife techniques and often include information about making materials like retouching fluid and retouching dyes that you might have to make for yourself.

The Art of Retouching and Improving Negatives and Prints by Robert Johnson went through many editions. I have the 14th edition published in 1941.

The Photo Miniature, vol. XI, no. 122, January 1913 is entitled "How to Retouch Negatives" and contains some good illustrations and instructions on older techniques, including using "stomps" (a blending stump) with black chalk on the base side of a glass plate for smoothing out fabrics and draperies.

The opposite technique of the stump and graphite powder or black chalk, by the way, is abrasive reducer, which I've managed to reverse engineer by grinding brown tripoli with a mortar and pestle and adding mineral oil to make a paste. You can use this to thin out dense spots on the emulsion side of the neg.

 

[singlo]

Just out of interest.....According to David Brooks(somewhat anti-Hurrell), old Hollywood masters used Kodak Tri-X ASA 320, the old film is red sensitive which is "favorable to skin tones, brilliant highlights, and soft contrast shadows" :

http://forum.shutterbug.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4845&an=0&page=2#Post4845

He noted:

If I may add, although Hollywood classic B&W portraits were often retouched (rather easy to do with a pencil on an 8x10 inch negative) the tungsten light (reddish) and a B&W film that is biased to red sensitivity does not penetrate skin and exposes it to produce relatively high density recording red blemishes so there was little density difference from the surrounding complexion tones.

Very flattering compared to what electronic flash on fully panchromatic film does, recording every little skin irregularity and every pimple like a crater on the moon. Electronic flash without very efficient UV flash tube coating is even worse, and will even penetrate street makeup.

If you stick a light red filter (not deep red) on modern B&W panchromatic film, you can imitate the red sensitivity of old Kodak Tri-X right? Maybe not a good thing to do in practice because it darkens the viewfinder plus loss of light...also lightening the lip tone of women.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Does anyone use green lipstick anymore?

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Yes there are headshot labs in New York that specialize in repros, but I'm not sure how much they are using contact printers. Modernage (http://www.modernage.com), which handles a lot of headshot work, probably can still do it this way, but they seem to advertise more and more digital services, I suspect because they are getting more and more digital originals. Precision Photos (Dead Link Removed) I know has two DeVere Digital Enlargers for this work. I haven't dealt with Kenneth Taranto for a long time (I used to shoot headshots when I was a grad student to earn some extra money), but they do a lot of work for the best headshot photographers in New York, and I suspect they can afford to shoot film.

I like older retouching manuals, because they include many pencil and knife techniques and often include information about making materials like retouching fluid and retouching dyes that you might have to make for yourself.

The Art of Retouching and Improving Negatives and Prints by Robert Johnson went through many editions. I have the 14th edition published in 1941.

The Photo Miniature, vol. XI, no. 122, January 1913 is entitled "How to Retouch Negatives" and contains some good illustrations and instructions on older techniques, including using "stomps" (a blending stump) with black chalk on the base side of a glass plate for smoothing out fabrics and draperies.

The opposite technique of the stump and graphite powder or black chalk, by the way, is abrasive reducer, which I've managed to reverse engineer by grinding brown tripoli with a mortar and pestle and adding mineral oil to make a paste. You can use this to thin out dense spots on the emulsion side of the neg.

Thanks, David, for the resource information and the update on labs which used to do a lot of contact prints. I'll add one great source of information from the olden days: The (older) British Journal Photographic Almanacs, issued yearly, seemingly beginning from the death of Jesus up until the death of Marilyn Monroe. There-abouts-after, they are too "updated".

Wow...You are in my head! LOL... I was just about to ask you if you knew how to make abrasive reducer! Thanks for the recipe. You're right about the old retouching books being a great source for DIY products. Too bad the off-the-shelf products have almost all disappeared (SpotTone, etc.), however I see that you can still get dope from B&H, and here in France you can still get a few Pebeo products.

In another post you mentioned green make-up. Jeepers, you're revealing your
fine connaissance of the era (and what a dinosaur you are! ... welcome to the club...yabba-dabba-doo!). In researching the Hollywood Portraits book, I interviewed someone at the Max Factor make-up museum (you read it right). He mentioned the green (and gray!) make-up to me and also told me that it was normal in those days for Max Factor —or even individual photographers— to have photographed a "color chart" of make-up colors, so they'd know how a particular film would respond to a particular color. Forgive me if this seems obvious, but today perhaps few of us would think to do this!

What the heck... why not black lipstick?

Best,

Christopher

.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Truth be told, I'd never thought of photographing a makeup color chart, but that makes obvious sense.

Black lipstick is getting a little passe in New York, but it still seems to have something of a market among the goth types. They must sell it at Ricky's (a NYC costume and novelty shop) or some such place.

 

[guy catelli]

Sanders McNew refered me to this fascinating and informative thread from one i had started over at Model Mayhem -- http://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=142953

i already have Roger's and Christopher's excellent book, and am finding it a fascinating read. really great "detective work" on their part.

(however, i must add, having had experience as an editor in law, medicine, and finance, it is quite unacceptable for graphic designers to change the substance of an author's tables, charts, and other graphics in any way. to add the qualification, "do your own tests" would cause a scandal in any of the aforementioned professions. that it seems to be a universal mantra in analogue photography may have something to do with the flight to that other format.)[/end of rant]

for the purpose of doing my own tests, i can cheaply purchase shop lights at Home Depot. (i have no problem investing a few thou in lighting once i know what i'm doing; but i'd rather not spend that kind of dough on stuff that turns out to be unsuitable to my goal of Hollywood-style glamour effects using continuous lighting.)

between this thread and the referenced thread on MM, there seems to be sharp disagreement as to whether 1k or 2k Watts are the minimum required, or more than 300W is way too much, or whether 50W will do nicely.

since i can just as easily get 100W, 150W, or 250W, or 2x250W (ie, 500W total) halogen bulbs, is there any consensus on:

1. how many lamps i should start out with?

2. what wattage they should be?

(sorry to be so cranky this morning, but i'd like to avoid "buyer's remorse" if possible -- not so much as to money (although that is a factor), as much as wasted time on disappointing results, going back and forth, etc.)

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The wattage you need depends largely on what f:stop you want, which depends on the format you're shooting, the film you like, the look you're after, how steady your subjects are, and such.

 

[guy catelli]

The wattage you need depends largely on ... the look you're after, ....

that's the parameter on which i'd very much appreciate some sort of rule of thumb, before i make a purchase.

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
"The wattage you need depends largely on ... the look you're after, ...."

that's the parameter on which i'd very much appreciate some sort of rule of thumb, before i make a purchase.

Guy,

What makes it especially difficult in advising you here is that you're asking for one light source which will work for any number of unknown portrait situations! Sure, it's possible to use a multi-purpose lightsource, however, don't forget that the placement (vis-a-vis your subject) of lighting for Hollywood and 50's "commercial" portraiture is not as forgiving as using a softbox or umbrella. A cheap fresnel source would be ideal, in your situation.
These are usual available as second-hand theater lighting.

Anyway, assuming you want to shoot heads only, I'd recommend starting with relatively weak wattage —such as 150w— and just move the lamps closer, as you need. If that isn't enough, um... change your bulb! It's as David well points out, it depends!

You have to realize that —especially with this type of lighting—, every parameter becomes variable depending upon the result you want to obtain . Please excuse me if this seems too obvious.

Will you be photographing tight close-ups? Head-and-shoulders? Three-quarter views? Couples at three quarter? Couples, close-in? Groups? Even without taking into consideration your personal lighting style, each of these situations will necessarily require different distances and lighting dynamics (for example, if you want to achieve the same Rembrandt lighting on a group as you've obtained on a single head, you'll probably need a larger and/or stronger light source).

In other words, in spite of your aversion to testing, you'll perhaps understand why it's necessary (as in with any art form... not just photography ... that's why God made sketch pads and Polaroid film!). Testing isn't a "chore", it's a necessary and, I'd say, desirable step!

Hope this helps you out.

Best,

Christopher