The Hurrell Style book - Bad information?

[RalphLambrecht]

Hello

I have just received the book 50 Years of Photography, The hurrell Style, which I bought because I learnt that it had some technical info for each shot in the book, which is exactly what I was looking for. When I received it I was glad because I have found just what I was after: film used, lens used, shutter speed, f-number, and even type and amount of lights used! The book goes from the very beginning with portraits of Ramon Novarro until the very recent (70s years).

I thought that all was very reliable, because afaik, this book was done when Hurrell was still alive, and with his collaboration/agreement. But, looking in more detail I begin to suspect about the technical data of the shots, specifically about the film used.

According to the book, about 95% (I have not counted them, though) of them were shot with Eastman Super-X (not Super-XX, which came later). But reading in Vieira's book (Hurrell's Hollywood Portraits), he talks about different types of films used by Hurrell, during the different golden years, and never talks about Super-X. Moreover, Eastman Kodak Super-X was introduced in 1935 and even in the photos shot before (1931, etc) the book sais that he used Super-X...

At this point my enthusiasm vanished, and I begin to suspect about the rest of the technical data... Unhappily I need it so much! Please, could someone try to clarify or comment? Do you have this book?

If you have some idea / opinion about this I would appreciate it.

Thanks

it's all in the light!!!only the light matters

 

[Dan Dozer]

For what it's worth, here is a section in "Hurrel's Hollywood Portraits" by Vieira.

"Nineteen thirty-one was approaching and George Hurrell was runing out of orthochromatic film. He could have ordered more, but the range of film stock now available in the newer panchromatic was too tempting. (It included Par Speed Portrait, Portrait Pan, and Super Speed Portrait). Panachromatic means "all colors", and indeed this film saw the entire spectrum. The ortho film that Hurrell had used for portraits of Joan Crawford (1930) and Norma Shearer (1930) had made their eyes too pale and their lips too dark. Hurrell took a chance on Par Speed Portrait. He found it's tonal rendering an improvement over the ortho; it gave skin tones a creamy rather than burnished look, as in the Norma Shearer portrait for "Strangers May Kiss" (1931).

Pan Film, introduced in 1928, was easier for both photographer and subject because it was faster than ortho film. This increased sensitivity to light allowed Hurrell to shoot at exposures as short as one second. He couldn't shoot much faster than that, though, because his beloved Verito lens had to be closed down further to get those sharper edges he liked. Instead of using a faster lens, he poured on more light. In order to do that, he adopted a radically new lighting scheme. With it's innovation, he began his third period of artistic development."



It seems that after about 1931, Hurrell switched film types and went away from Ortho film. At that time, he also changed his approach to lighting (using higher powered lights) and started using a 16" Goerz Celor lens at least for some of his work. So it looks like at that time, he was less worried about the film type and more worried about light and lenses than before.

 

[markbarendt]

For what it's worth, here is a section in "Hurrel's Hollywood Portraits" by Vieira.

"Nineteen thirty-one was approaching and George Hurrell was runing out of orthochromatic film. He could have ordered more, but the range of film stock now available in the newer panchromatic was too tempting. (It included Par Speed Portrait, Portrait Pan, and Super Speed Portrait). Panachromatic means "all colors", and indeed this film saw the entire spectrum. The ortho film that Hurrell had used for portraits of Joan Crawford (1930) and Norma Shearer (1930) had made their eyes too pale and their lips too dark. Hurrell took a chance on Par Speed Portrait. He found it's tonal rendering an improvement over the ortho; it gave skin tones a creamy rather than burnished look, as in the Norma Shearer portrait for "Strangers May Kiss" (1931).

Pan Film, introduced in 1928, was easier for both photographer and subject because it was faster than ortho film. This increased sensitivity to light allowed Hurrell to shoot at exposures as short as one second. He couldn't shoot much faster than that, though, because his beloved Verito lens had to be closed down further to get those sharper edges he liked. Instead of using a faster lens, he poured on more light. In order to do that, he adopted a radically new lighting scheme. With it's innovation, he began his third period of artistic development."

It seems that after about 1931, Hurrell switched film types and went away from Ortho film. At that time, he also changed his approach to lighting (using higher powered lights) and started using a 16" Goerz Celor lens at least for some of his work. So it looks like at that time, he was less worried about the film type and more worried about light and lenses than before.

Great info Dan, thanks!

Did a quick search and found http://www.thestarlightstudio.com/hhppage.htm

Imagine my surprise when scrolling down the page I see Hurrell using "my" 4x5 camera.

What does strike me is that he went through phases driven by both prudence/practicality (working through the stuff he had on hand and as it seems was typical until recently, using a very limited stable of lenses) and by taking advantage of improvements in the tools available as the old film ran out.

I do agree fully that the light and lenses had to be of primary concern, the lighting choice does seem driven by practicality as much as anything, the constraints the slow films imposed had to make it tough for both Hurrell and his subjects.

It really is a luxury to be able to shoot at 1/400th with bright strobes and faster films.

 

[jp498]

Pan film wasn't introduced in 1928. Maybe it's a particular pan film Hurrell settled on?

Stieglitz needed pan film for his equivalents/songs of the sky series which started in 1923.

wikipedia claims pan plates were commercially available in 1906.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panchromatic_film also claims kodak's ortho motion picture film was discontinued in 1930. Perhaps Hurrell wanted to use the same film characteristics as would be used in the motion pictures his subjects would be better known in? Perhaps he was forced to change because of this?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I know you may not want to hear this but I think the answer is that there is probably little or no data that carried through to the paper. (That brings up another wild card here too; whatever paper he chose, like whatever film he used, would have had a personality that would have contributed to the look. The negative doesn't work in a vacume.)

Seriously, it is very possible that Hurrell was guessing as the book was being written, based on his experience, about what he probably-sorta-kinda-possibly-maybe used for that special shot of "X", on that special day years earlier.

I don't know if there were notes taken by Hurrell or not, but I do know that I don't keep any camera setting records and only very crude notes penned on the boxes of my materials on hand.

The practical question is probably not "is the book is a true historical record?" though, but instead "is the information contained a reasonable guide?"

The latter seems likely and given the current market availability of Super X, at best the book gives you a reference of the type of film he may have chosen, liked, or got paid to say he used. Given that uncertainty, it would seem the specific answer is purely academic in nature.

Also given the maliability of most any film's/paper's characteristics/responses though development and exposure and filters on the lighting and Filters on the camera and ... It gets to the point where what Hurrell actually used no longer matters.

Most masters, in any trade or craft, get to a point where they can make various tools do the same work.

this brinhs up. the point of goodrecord keepingwhichfew of us re very good atmaybe, the attached file can be of some help.

 

[markbarendt]

this brinhs up. the point of goodrecord keepingwhichfew of us re very good atmaybe, the attached file can be of some help.

And I'm the poster child.