Hollywood portrait lighting

[Rolleiflexible]

Guy, greetings. As Morpheus said: Welcome to the real world.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I think this is why they put dials on strobes. So you can adjust Ducking now

 

[noseoil]

Guy, what I did was buy a couple of 650 watt hot lights at a used sale, cheap, and then just start shooting (key & fill). What I've ended up with is a bit more distance than I had originally anticipated, but more wattage on a hair light than I expected (shop-light type reflector).

If you just go ahead and start with something, it becomes obvious in which direction you will need to go. Once you have the basic exposure in hand (distance & wattage), development will show up as the next challenge. Christopher's advice about everything being a variable is good. Just remember to limit the changes until you have a working system for exposure and development. tim

 

[guy catelli]

thanks to all for your responses. i realize there is no "one" answer to my question. but, on the other hand, i'd rather not just start buy lighting wearing a blindfold, so to speak.

Chris, i'm surely going to try to shoot single portraits before i try groups. and, i've found that very few faces are flattered by close-ups that are too close. from head and shoulders to 3/4 is where i'd like to start.

would it make sense to start with 3 lamps (key, fill, and hair) with a 100W, 150W, and 250W bulb? or would some other combination of wattages be better? or should i get 3 lamps and 3 bulbs of each wattage, just in case?

btw, fwiw, my primary shooting space is 23 feet in length (over 25, if i move some stuff out of the way), 11 feet in width and 12 feet in height.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

What format are you shooting and how much DOF do you like? 6x6cm and tip of the nose to the earlobe for a tight head and shoulders portrait? 8x10" and you want everything in the picture sharp from front to back, or 8x10" and it's okay if really just the eyes are sharp and everything else fades off into the fuzz?

If you're shooting 35mm or smaller (we won't ask if film is involved), then you can keep the lights fairly small. If you're shooting LF, you'll want more.

I'd probably start with three lamps of the same wattage, just because it's easier to conceptualize a hollywood setup that way, where the power of the light is controlled mainly by distance from the subject.

 

[removed account4]

guy

sometimes you can find "Lowel Location Kits"
which are a half a dozen or more Lowel L-Lights.
they are a socket+cord, and special fitting that slides
onto a flood light .. and barn doors ( and a case! ).

you can get floods of all sorts of flavors,
through places like topbulb.com and bulbman.com ...

i have a handful of these lights and they word very well, and
they are very inexpensive off of eBoo. if a socket is toasted,
lowel sells replacement parts for almost nothing too


good luck!
john

 

[guy catelli]

i got rid of my 8x10 monorail (too much backache -- literally). still have 4x5 and 6x6, and, of course, 35mm. i'd be happy with focus from the tip of the nose to the nearest eye.

why would i want more light with LF? is it because the lens only opens to f4.7? (or because i won't be able top see a darn thing without more light!)

I'd probably start with three lamps of the same wattage, just because it's easier to conceptualize a hollywood setup that way, where the power of the light is controlled mainly by distance from the subject.

makes sense to me.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

For LF the main issue is that at the same f:stop you get less DOF. So for really short DOF as you describe, f:1.4-2 is probably fine for 35mm, f:4-5.6 on 6x6, and maybe f:8-11 on 4x5" for a tight portrait. You can go wider on 4x5" if you just want the eye and can sacrifice the tip of the nose, Martin Schoeller style (not Hollywood, of course, but he does like really short DOF).

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

thanks to all for your responses. i realize there is no "one" answer to my question. but, on the other hand, i'd rather not just start buy lighting wearing a blindfold, so to speak.

Chris, i'm surely going to try to shoot single portraits before i try groups. and, i've found that very few faces are flattered by close-ups that are too close. from head and shoulders to 3/4 is where i'd like to start.

would it make sense to start with 3 lamps (key, fill, and hair) with a 100W, 150W, and 250W bulb? or would some other combination of wattages be better? or should i get 3 lamps and 3 bulbs of each wattage, just in case?

btw, fwiw, my primary shooting space is 23 feet in length (over 25, if i move some stuff out of the way), 11 feet in width and 12 feet in height.

As far as "Hollywood" portraiture is concerned —if you accept the premise that George Hurrell wasn't the only photographer of that era— even one light (presumably a fresnel spot) can be enough. A.L. ("Whitey") Schafer was a sometime-proponent of this technique, using it to create many excellent portraits of Loretta Young, for example.

Having said that, I tend to agree with David. Three lights of equal output are good for a basic setup; four if you want to light the background (I do). If you want to go full-speed-ahead, I'd say at least five lights and a small selection of bulbs (or, for the Hollywood purists, "globes") of different wattages. And, always: BARN DOORS and a good lens shade! Lastly, unless your prefer your main light to always come from the side, you'll be frustrated unless you acquired a boom.... or two. Anyway.. you have the book. Take a look at it for specifics.

Your shooting space is of course relative to the format and focal length to be used and the subject "height" you want to cover (in this case, your max is 3/4), so your space seems fine .. I mean, even under worse conditions in a more cramped space you could still have your subject stand with their back actually touching the wall . . . this was done all the time in the days when the long exposure times required that the subject not move even a hair's breath. That's why, even today —even with digital— (ewwe, I said it) the "look" evokes a Hollywood pose. PS - Don't forget electrical and ventilation issues.

Best,

Christopher

PS - Note that my prefered style is not necessarily "Hollywood" glamour of the 1940's, but rather the kitchy "Kodak-correct" look of the 1950's. David and Sander, among others, are shovelling-out some excellent advice on this thread (and on the whole forum!) on the Hollywood style .. perhaps more relevant to your question.

.

 

[singlo]

Your shooting space is of course relative to the format and focal length to be used and the subject "height" you want to cover (in this case, your max is 3/4), so your space seems fine .. I mean, even under worse conditions in a more cramped space you could still have your subject stand with their back actually touching the wall . . . this was done all the time in the days when the long exposure times required that the subject not move even a hair's breath. That's why, even today —even with digital— (ewwe, I said it) the "look" evokes a Hollywood pose. PS - Don't forget electrical and ventilation issues.

Here are a few pics taken a few days ago in my "zoo cage studio"-well it is my tiny bedroom full of furnitures and lights; so cramped that the model stands a foot from the background and there is no room for hair lights. Working space here is 1.5m x 2.5m; madness isn't it? Can it get any worst?

PS photos taken with one to two fresnels or Dedo plus two Chimera as softlights. They were not intended to look like Hollywood style but I just played with the lights drawing inspirations from old hollywood photos.

Mr. Satan

 

[singlo]

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.)

1K fresnel is quite uncomfortable for the subject as key light without diffusion---unless you got big space and move it far away from the subject. Having said that 1k-2k is good if you want to turn it to a soft light---add scrim diffusion frame or bounce light off reflector. But 1K fresnel like Arri is expensive, if you wanty soft fill, there is cheaper alternative like Redhead open face with barndoors: good for bounce.


300W-650W fresnels serves better as undiffused key. Often 650W fresnel can take 300W bulb anyway. Generally speaking, 150W fresnel is a bit on the low side but 150W Dedo is a different story....unfortunately the price of Dedo is very steep.

 

[Sparky]

I picked up a big old fresnel hotlight that got modified with a 2400WS strobe head (the modeling light is 250W I think). Should be interesting to try out. Seems like you'd get an equivalent effect to the 1K lights.

 

[noseoil]

Singlo, are these 35mm shots you posted? They are very nice, considering the generous "studio size" you have to work with (madness indeed!). Nice tonality and the look is certainly good, lovely model, by the way. Which film, camera & lens setup were used? tim

 

[guy catelli]

Progress (Regress?) Report

as mentioned on the MM thread, in a mad moment i purchased the unit pictured below, believing that if i didn't start on the wrong foot, i wouldn't get started at all:

Dead Link Removed
(picture taken by "Danny Who", though i tweaked its levels.)

i've subsequently purchased 2 solo units of the same make, and now plan on splitting the dual unit into another 2 separates, thus totalling 4 lamps. i also have 6 250W halogen bulbs, 3 150W bulbs, and 3 100W bulbs.

and, i bought a 50-ft roll of cinefoil.

As far as "Hollywood" portraiture is concerned —if you accept the premise that George Hurrell wasn't the only photographer of that era— even one light (presumably a fresnel spot) can be enough. A.L. ("Whitey") Schafer was a sometime-proponent of this technique, using it to create many excellent portraits of Loretta Young, for example.

i make reference to "Hurrell" because everyone knows his work. my goal is achieving the same emotional aura of the Holywqood portraits that characterized that era, not literally duplicating the effects of any single photographer.

the only reference i could find on the web to a Whitey (or A. L.) "Schaefer" was this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/WHITEY-SCHAEFER-GORGEOUS-VERONICA-LAKE-PHOTO_W0QQitemZ260076853082QQcmdZViewItem

(speaking of George Hurrel, his shot of Veronica Lake, which you include in your book, totally blew me away.)

regarding a one-light shot of Loretta Young, i found this shot by Horst, which seems to have been taken with one light (to my untrained eye):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0810941635/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-1913424-6634468#reader-link

Having said that, I tend to agree with David. Three lights of equal output are good for a basic setup; four if you want to light the background (I do). If you want to go full-speed-ahead, I'd say at least five lights and a small selection of bulbs (or, for the Hollywood purists, "globes") of different wattages. And, always: BARN DOORS and a good lens shade! Lastly, unless your prefer your main light to always come from the side, you'll be frustrated unless you acquired a boom.... or two. Anyway.. you have the book. Take a look at it for specifics.

i plan on using the cinefoil as a sub for barn doors, until i can figure out which "real" photo lamps to use.

i have good lens shades. i'm cogitatin' on the "boom" thing.

i certainly will be relying heavily on your book in my tests.

... you could still have your subject stand with their back actually touching the wall . . . this was done all the time in the days when the long exposure times required that the subject not move even a hair's breath.

great tip.

That's why, even today —even with digital— (ewwe, I said it) the "look" evokes a Hollywood pose.

have you ever seen a shot taken with digital, then tranferred to silver-based film, and then optically printed in a wet lab on fibre-based b&w paper?

PS - Don't forget electrical and ventilation issues.

i have a 28,000 btu air conditioner pretty close to the staging area.

....David and Sander, among others, are shovelling-out some excellent advice on this thread (and on the whole forum!) on the Hollywood style .. perhaps more relevant to your question.

i am very impressed by Singlo's results, which inspire me to endeavor on. and, i will definitely keep an eye out for relevant posts by David and Sander in other threads.

thanks again.

 

[singlo]

Singlo, are these 35mm shots you posted? They are very nice, considering the generous "studio size" you have to work with (madness indeed!). Nice tonality and the look is certainly good, lovely model, by the way. Which film, camera & lens setup were used? tim

thanks Tim,
I am a bit mad...you would laugh if you see how pathetic, small space of my "ghetto" studio. I shoot with Cannon 35mm full-frame digital( sorry for any offence caused to my chemical brothers in this forum) camera. Lenses are Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Ex Macro and Canon 70-200mm f2.8L.
I fiddled the curve in Photoshop to get the tonality closer to BW film.

 

[singlo]

i've subsequently purchased 2 solo units of the same make, and now plan on rsplitting the dual unit into another 2 separates, thus totalling 4 lamps. i also have 6 250W halogen bulbs, 3 150W bulbs, and 3 100W bulbs.

and, i bought a 50-ft roll of cinefoil.

Have fun Guy! You may well get some heat resistant diffusion materials like Roscuo Hamburg, opal, tough silk, spun glass sheets..etc to soften the light. These boys are hard raw lights. If you want to use them as soft fill and don't have reflector, you can bounce the light on white board available from Art shops.

You can also get bargain vintage fresnels occasionally. But you need to make sure they are electrically safe to use, no loose connections, properly earthed and no asbestos insulated wires. If they do have abestos insulation, you need to re-wire it. After it is not worth getting lung cancer in the name of Art and photography. Also vintage bulbs are a bit hard to find but i know a few e-bay dealers stock them.

regarding a one-light shot of Loretta Young, i found this shot by Horst, which seems to have been taken with one light (to my untrained eye):

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0810941635/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-1913424-6634468#reader-link

Yeah i love this photo. This was done with overhead light on boom arm.

i plan on using the cinefoil as a sub for barn doors, until i can figure out which "real" photo lamps to use.

Also get some wooden washing line pegs to rig the cine foil to the light. Don't use gaffer's tape as it may melt.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

have you ever seen a shot taken with digital, then tranferred to silver-based film, and then optically printed in a wet lab on fibre-based b&w paper?

Pssst ... Guy ... you being the new kid on the block, and I brung you here ... you just are not allowed to talk about stuff like that here. People get, um, cranky when you do. Moderators will banish you to Siberia or, worse yet, hybridphoto.com.

Sanders

 

[RoBBo]

I've been shooting 11x14, 100 Speed film with strobes and have been getting great results from it.
Though the lack of a shutter and a few other things were odd obstacles to overcome.
I feel like all this talk about fresnels and feathering is unnecessary, I think you can quite easily get what you want with simply a large format camera, some strobes, and a bit of retouching. Maybe even without the retouching.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/falcon_awesome/sets/72157600211157086/

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Here are a few pics taken a few days ago in my "zoo cage studio"-well it is my tiny bedroom full of furnitures and lights; so cramped that the model stands a foot from the background and there is no room for hair lights. Working space here is 1.5m x 2.5m; madness isn't it? Can it get any worst? . . . PS photos taken with one to two fresnels or Dedo plus two Chimera as softlights. They were not intended to look like Hollywood style but I just played with the lights drawing inspirations from old hollywood photos. - Mr. Satan

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. The great Phillipe Halsman's portrait of Marilyn Monroe comes to mind (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/FOT/FFPOFP32~Marilyn-Monroe-Posters.jpg). OK, OK ... it's not the classical "Hollywood" look, but you get the point (in fact, your portraits have made the point!).

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.

Again, congratulations on your work.

Christopher

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Auteur theorists will no doubt rise in revolt, but I think like the Novelle Vague owed its revolutionary styles of production to a basic technical break-through in lightweight location equipment, so to did Hollwood Studio "styles" emerge in their fight to regain enough illumination to continue their film factory output.

Just a little bit of chauvinism from me here, but the Nouvelle Vague owes a big deal to Michel Brault, a cinematographer and director from Québec, who worked for the NFB and collaborated with the Éclair company in France to develop the first shoulder-held 35mm camera. His style of "cinéma vérité" which he developped during his early documentary work at the NFB is the cornerstone of all the "authentic" style of the nouvelle vague fiction features.

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Brault

Of course, all of that would also be inconceivable without Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HPS !

 

[RoBBo]

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 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.

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.

 

[guy catelli]

.... 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.

why is it so difficult for so many Strobocops to grasp that the quality of strobe, especially on the human complexion, is not the same as tungsten?

 

[RoBBo]

why is it so difficult for so many Strobocops to grasp that the quality of strobe, especially on the human complexion, is not the same as tungsten?

I really don't know, I actually got in an argument with one of my teachers about it who still thinks my filtering of the light sources was a waste of time (and of a stop of light).
But there's really no question in my mind, looking at what I shot filtered and unfiltered, that I could not have done what I wanted to with straight strobes.
The whole mess is really actually pretty simple, and you could see the effects perfectly with a roll of any pan film through a holga color splash, yet people still argue...

 

[Helen B]

Just a little bit of chauvinism from me here, but the Nouvelle Vague owes a big deal to Michel Brault, a cinematographer and director from Québec, who worked for the NFB and collaborated with the Éclair company in France to develop the first shoulder-held 35mm camera...

Just a small point, but as far as I know (and I could be wrong) the camera he collaborated on with Jean-Pierre Beauviala was the legendary 16 mm NPR ('noiseless portable reflex'), first produced in about 1960. I still have one, by the way. You can see the cameras themselves in action in a few movies - the sighting I remember the best was in Themroc.

Best,
Helen

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Just a small point, but as far as I know (and I could be wrong) the camera he collaborated on with Jean-Pierre Beauviala was the legendary 16 mm NPR ('noiseless portable reflex'), first produced in about 1960. I still have one, by the way. You can see the cameras themselves in action in a few movies - the sighting I remember the best was in Themroc.

Best,
Helen

You might be right as I don't have the technical details, so perhaps the handheld 35mm was therefore a progeny of the original NPR.

One extra point for "Les raquetteurs," an early film on which Brault worked depicting a snowshoe race: there's a great shot of a professional photographer setting up his Crown Graphic for a formal portrait of the winner. He is FAST setting up all the switches and lever!