Vogue Cover...how was this done

[CMoore]

Tony Armstrong Jones, i guess about 1960.
How did he get this effect of two people in this Over-Under ... and anti-gravity "pose".?
I am sure it is basic to you Guys/Gals that have been around, but i am just a 60 year old beginner.
Thank You

 

[AgX]

She is sitting on a board.

 

[Jim Jones]

If I had to do it, I'd have her standing on a floor and him jumping. The image could be rotated and the shadow around his feet added by burning in the print.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

You mean this was shot before Micheal Jackson's Smooth Criminal?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Tony Armstrong Jones, i guess about 1960.
How did he get this effect of two people in this Over-Under ... and anti-gravity "pose".?
I am sure it is basic to you Guys/Gals that have been around, but i am just a 60 year old beginner.
Thank You

Wires, harnesses, retouching, possibly litho masking - all possible with decently sized production budget.

 

[awty]

They are obviously a witches and probably should be burnt on a stake, or what ever they do to witches these days, perhaps make them a ceo.

 

[gordrob]

Any chance it is a two piece strip in - making it look like it is a single photograph

 

[Lachlan Young]

Any chance it is a two piece strip in - making it look like it is a single photograph

Unlikely - it would have been much more work than using stage flying kit/ rigging (the 'flier' in each has a body position suggestive of a suitable stunt flying harness being used) and painting out the wires. It's important for people to stop thinking about 'clever' printing tricks and think pragmatically about the simplest (not the cheapest/ most lazily amateurish) way to do it.

 

[gordrob]

Unlikely - it would have been much more work than using stage flying kit/ rigging (the 'flier' in each has a body position suggestive of a suitable stunt flying harness being used) and painting out the wires. It's important for people to stop thinking about 'clever' printing tricks and think pragmatically about the simplest (not the cheapest/ most lazily amateurish) way to do it.

I don't think that strip ins should be considered a "clever printing trick" but one that was used widely in the advertising industry. Strip ins were not an easy thing to do and required a serious skill set to produce a realistic photograph.

 

[BradS]

They are obviously a witches and probably should be burnt on a stake, or what ever they do to witches these days, perhaps make them a ceo.

 

[CMoore]

Wires, harnesses, retouching, possibly litho masking - all possible with decently sized production budget.

Any chance it is a two piece strip in - making it look like it is a single photograph

Well, whatever the procedure.....it seems it required some Skill/Ability/Knowledge.
Would be fun to see somebody reproduce these two frames in the studio.

 

[jimjm]

I've read that Halsman's shot of Dali required multiple takes in the studio with several assistants, a lot of water and a few angry cats. Nothing can replace a bit of persistence and ingenuity.

 

[gdavis]

In the first picture, I would bet the guy is actually in that position. Look at his ankles, they would only bend like that if actually holding weight. And the way his clothing is draped, wouldn't happen if the image was rotated. As for the girl, I won't venture to guess if there is some sort of rig involved, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was done with no "tricks". In those days there were people who actually had something called skill. They could perform some impressive feats. Both of the photos look like they might be captures of the couple swing dancing, frozen by the strobes. Nothing looks "tricked" to me in the second photo, I don't think it's a stretch to say the photographer actually caught him mid-flip.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I agree that they probably used real dancers. The flip looks like a Lindy Hop move. If you’ve got dancers who can do it, and they exist and are looking for gigs in places like NYC and LA, why bother with stage rigging or labor intensive stripping in procedures?

 

[Lachlan Young]

I don't think that strip ins should be considered a "clever printing trick" but one that was used widely in the advertising industry. Strip ins were not an easy thing to do and required a serious skill set to produce a realistic photograph.

Absolutely, but you couldn't get the hands to look as natural as they do.

In the first picture, I would bet the guy is actually in that position. Look at his ankles, they would only bend like that if actually holding weight. And the way his clothing is draped, wouldn't happen if the image was rotated. As for the girl, I won't venture to guess if there is some sort of rig involved, but it wouldn't surprise me if this was done with no "tricks". In those days there were people who actually had something called skill. They could perform some impressive feats. Both of the photos look like they might be captures of the couple swing dancing, frozen by the strobes. Nothing looks "tricked" to me in the second photo, I don't think it's a stretch to say the photographer actually caught him mid-flip.

I'd almost have agreed, but there's something oddly stiff about the body positions of the flier in each, compared to contemporaraneous strobe lit shots of swing dancers. There'd be more fluidity in body position I think if they weren't being flown.

I've read that Halsman's shot of Dali required multiple takes in the studio with several assistants, a lot of water and a few angry cats. Nothing can replace a bit of persistence and ingenuity.

There's a lot of retouching, wires & strip-ins in that image too - mostly because getting Dali's jump, with the cats & water thrown in perfect sync was quite hard enough! Always a question of reset time with anything needing multiple takes.

 

[tezzasmall]

I would say that the top dancers picture, is as said, taken 'as is', with at least a harness or two - especially to hold the woman's pose. Various wires or wire frames holding the dress in position as well as underneath the dress, would have held the creases in place.

Some fast flash exposures and quite a bit of bleaching out of wires etc. to finish off the print and voila! Of course it would all be done in PS nowadays... how dull is that?!

As for the Dali picture, similar tricks could have been used as above, with different shots stripped in as mentioned before. I have read a few times over the years though, that it was all taken in one shot, with an awful lot of reset-ups and lots of retakes. I'd love to believe that was true.

Terry S

 

[jtk]

She is sitting on a board.

Yes. Seems obvious. Her dress isn't flying freely, it's being held by the hem outside the frame.

As well, this was probably heavily airbrushed/retouched.

As for time/expense: labor was cheap, budgets were high.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I have read a few times over the years though, that it was all taken in one shot, with an awful lot of reset-ups and lots of retakes. I'd love to believe that was true.

It was, but what I was saying is that the easels' apparent 'flying' was achieved via blocks and wires retouched out, and one of the paintings was 'dropped' into its frame. Some stuff (plug sockets) was retouched from the wall too. The outtakes make it pretty clear how much 'clean-up' was done.

And regarding the original pictures in this thread, I don't think any other wiring was used to hold the dress - fast strobe and the momentum on a flying rig to exaggerate movement, & you won't need anything else.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I agree that they probably used real dancers. The flip looks like a Lindy Hop move. If you’ve got dancers who can do it, and they exist and are looking for gigs in places like NYC and LA, why bother with stage rigging or labor intensive stripping in procedures?

A bit of digging seems to suggest that the male model is credited as a professional dancer, but the woman is credited only as a model. Labour intensive rigging was hardly a problem expense-wise for Vogue in that era & would have made it much easier for a professional dancer to get a model who wasn't necessarily a professional dancer to 'fly' fairly convincingly. There are other images from the editorial that show there was plenty of non-rigged leaping around the set also happening.

 

[Mike Crawford]

One of the first photobooks I was ever given was Personal View by Snowdon. He writes about this early shoot in it but think it's a different photo used. At the time he was shooting lots of ballet, so presume the models may be from this background. I'm sure I remember something about his shoes being nailed to the studio floor. Will look it up when back on Tuesday.

PS. In case he's not so well known of outside the UK, Tony Armstrong Jones became Lord Snowdon when he married Princess Margaret, the Queen's sister!

 

[NB23]

Back then they used real brushes and paints. I’m guessing a collage

 

[CMoore]

One of the first photobooks I was ever given was Personal View by Snowdon. He writes about this early shoot in it but think it's a different photo used. At the time he was shooting lots of ballet, so presume the models may be from this background. I'm sure I remember something about his shoes being nailed to the studio floor. Will look it up when back on Tuesday.

PS. In case he's not so well known of outside the UK, Tony Armstrong Jones became Lord Snowdon when he married Princess Margaret, the Queen's sister!

Thanks.....will be interesting to hear what you read.

Yeah, and the Queens Sister was a "Hotty", and kind of "Loose".

 

[removed account4]

I'm sure I remember something about his shoes being nailed to the studio floor.

i think alfred hitchcock said he would nail billy mummy's feet to the floor...

but then again he took a fish head to the movies and got him in for free ...

 

[Lachlan Young]

He writes about this early shoot in it but think it's a different photo used. At the time he was shooting lots of ballet, so presume the models may be from this background. I'm sure I remember something about his shoes being nailed to the studio floor. Will look it up when back on Tuesday.

That does make sense - the woman in the first image has a posture and gestures more suggestive of ballet than of other dance forms.

 

[Mike Crawford]

Have had a pleasurable time looking through the book I mentioned earlier for the first rime in a few years. (Personal View by Snowdon. Published in 1979. Looking at abebooks.com it is available for a good price. And also in German too!) I'll attach a couple of bad snaps of the book. Not sure if it's the same shoot as CMoore posted as possibly different models, but is for Vogue from 1959 and the text confirms shoes nailed to the floor and ropes suspended from the ceiling. Of course, it would be part of the process to then use a retoucher to finish off the prints before going to press. In the credits for the book, Snowdon acknowledges three different retouchers he had used up to 1979. Always good when a photographer credits everyone who has worked on a shoot!