Channeling Hurrell

Llywellyn

I needed to update my bio photo, and I figured it should reflect what I love shooting in my spare time: 40s style imagery. And I thought I should finally bite the bullet and try to emulate George Hurrell, master of light and the glam Hollywood portrait. This is my first attempt at his lighting style, and far from mastered. It's certainly a challenge!

Anywho, here is the result from today's efforts. Three-light setup: 30º-gridded Alien Bee 400 back camera left, SB-800 with small lumiquest softbox overhead and feathered front camera right, and SB-600 with DIY ringlight on camera axis.

Now to practice on real models!



Thanks for stopping by! :thumb

anonymouscuban

Hello pretty lady! When you say 30 degree grid... is it just the grid or do you have another modifier on that light too?

Llywellyn

anonymouscuban wrote: »

Hello pretty lady! When you say 30 degree grid... is it just the grid or do you have another modifier on that light too?

I had the AB400 flagged, too, since it was so close to the wall behind me, but other than that, just the 30º grid on the light.

anonymouscuban

Have you by chance tried to shoot a gridded light through an umbrella? Been meaning to try it but always forget. Wondering what the effect would be.

divamum

Good job, you! I do know he tended to use hotlights - particularly fresnels - and I think that does make quite a difference in the final look; I think you've done well with flashes. One other thing of Hollywood portraits of the period is that they're often looking out of the shot rather than into the lens. It's sooo hard to do these as SP's though!!! Really tricky to frame, and you've done a great job (of course. I wanna be you when I grown up, as you well know!!

I think I mentioned this book to you when we met up, but worth a plug here again - it's really interesting to read somebody else's reverse engineering ideas when looking at them

Llywellyn

anonymouscuban wrote: »

Have you by chance tried to shoot a gridded light through an umbrella? Been meaning to try it but always forget. Wondering what the effect would be.

I have done, but more grid+softbox because with the AB400, the grid blocks the umbrella mount on the light. Not sure how I feel about the combo as I haven't played around with it enough.

divamum wrote:

I do know he tended to use hotlights - particularly fresnels - and I think that does make quite a difference in the final look.

Yeah, I meant to actually try hard light from the front to better mimic it, but I forgot by the end due to exhaustion (I wasn't actually sitting in a chair since the table was so high, so I spent hours squatting and lunging and my thighs were done after a couple hours ). Next experiment will be all bare bulbs.

I did take several shots looking away from the camera in true Hurrell style (I was copying his close-up of Norma Shearer). Some of them I will keep for accuracy, but I felt they were too impersonal for a new bio photo. That posing will work better when I set out to create "Art," I think.

anonymouscuban

divamum wrote: »

I think I mentioned this book to you when we met up, but worth a plug here again - it's really interesting to read somebody else's reverse engineering ideas when looking at them

Diva,

In that book, do they show lighting diagrams and such for famous Hollywood portraits? If so, I may get it.

Let me know.

anonymouscuban

BTW Kerry, you've inspired me to do a SP. I need one for my site anyway.

urbanaries

I looooooooove the light (and your ever-gorgeous face!)

But I must say when I think of George Hurrell I think much more sensuous than the prim and proper pose you have going here. I think it's ok to be camera aware. DEFINITELY think it's ok to let that hair down!!! deal

Llywellyn

urbanaries wrote: »

But I must say when I think of George Hurrell I think much more sensuous than the prim and proper pose you have going here. I think it's ok to be camera aware. DEFINITELY think it's ok to let that hair down!!! deal

...You're so right, and you've just given me an idea for a reshoot. Thank you!

Qarik

I like the light..except one thing..you can see all the peach fuzz on that side of your face and it is distracting..also it is a touch hot imo.

Agnieszka

Just beautiful! Well done!

divamum

anonymouscuban wrote: »

Diva,

In that book, do they show lighting diagrams and such for famous Hollywood portraits? If so, I may get it.

Let me know.

I think the link lets you look inside the book - you can see how it's laid out. It's not the togs' own diagrams, of course, but the author's suppositions. It's very interesting, however.

Darkman

Llywellyn wrote: »

I needed to update my bio photo, and I figured it should reflect what I love shooting in my spare time: 40s style imagery. And I thought I should finally bite the bullet and try to emulate George Hurrell, master of light and the glam Hollywood portrait. This is my first attempt at his lighting style, and far from mastered. It's certainly a challenge!

Anywho, here is the result from today's efforts. Three-light setup: 30º-gridded Alien Bee 400 back camera left, SB-800 with small lumiquest softbox overhead and feathered front camera right, and SB-600 with DIY ringlight on camera axis.

Now to practice on real models!

Thanks for stopping by!

Great first start. Usually I rail on people who use strobes and for doing Old Hollywood Glamour, but not this time. Really good first try!!!

I am a huge fan and student of George Hurrell, and have been studying his style for a number of years now, and have spent a little time with his last assistant, in Hollywood. If you go to my website, listed in my signature, you can watch some videos of me shooting and the interview I did of Hurrells last assistant.
I also have diagrams and light specs for those of you who wish to know how I did things.

My I also ask, did you do a gaussian blur then sharpen or erase the parts that didn't need to be blurred like the eyes?
Just curious because that's what it looks like, and if you do that it will always look like that to a pro who does B/W Hollywood glamour. You should always strive to get it right in the camera FIRST, Remember, Hurrell didn't have photoshop or gaussian blur, he did have a retouching pencil and acid.

The book Hollywood Portraits and how to take them is the best book to start with.
Then there's another book which I hilight on my blog which All of Hurrells camera settings and lighting setups. Not many people know of this book, but I do and I did a review on it. puruse my blog and find the post.
also I have a list of books for people to get when they get good enough to watch the shadows and find the light source.
that's the secret.

@Qarik you say it looks a little hot? wheres your background studies? It's supposed to be that way. Hot is ok in some instances, You didn't know that? and peach fuzz is ok too.
Hot is the look of many old Hollywood Glamour photoes...

I personally use fresnels in my shoots when I am doing this style of photography. It's the only way to get that real old style look.

AND they aren't JUST hotlights. it's the fresnel lens that makes the fresnel what it is. It's a hard light with a soft edge and quality about it. If you look at the light beam on a wall, you will see the soft fall off of the fresnel.

Here's a couple for ya...all done with fresnels, no gaussian blur, some minor skin touch up with the spot tool...all done in the camera.

Llywellyn

Darkman wrote:

...everything Darkman said...

Wow, thank you for coming out of the woodwork and posting! Much appreciated.

To answer your question, I didn't do any blurring in post. I shot at f/4 about a foot away from the lens, so the blur is just natural bokeh SOOC. I did sharpen the eyes, though, which may explain what you're seeing.

Thank you for your suggestions and recommendations. I've only just begun exploring this realm of glam Hollywood lighting, so I love the pointers and research recommendations you've provided. I'll definitely be soaking it all in!

How hard do I have to wish you'd tolerate a fly on the wall next time I'm near San Diego?

Darkman

Llywellyn wrote: »

Wow, thank you for coming out of the woodwork and posting! Much appreciated.

To answer your question, I didn't do any blurring in post. I shot at f/4 about a foot away from the lens, so the blur is just natural bokeh SOOC. I did sharpen the eyes, though, which may explain what you're seeing.

Thank you for your suggestions and recommendations. I've only just begun exploring this realm of glam Hollywood lighting, so I love the pointers and research recommendations you've provided. I'll definitely be soaking it all in!

How hard do I have to wish you'd tolerate a fly on the wall next time I'm near San Diego?

I have no problems with a visitor, I'd even shoot you to show you how I do things. This is my hobby and not what I do to make a living. so my "industry secrets" aren't secret.

I do highly recommend that book though to help get you in the mindset of looking for hilights and shadows. this is how to reverse engineer a photo.

Here's the other book I was talking:
Jean Harlow Bearskin Rug Diagram

Oh I forgot to mention to the only way to come close to the effect of fresnels is by using grids.

One setup I use on location when Ia m travelling light:
The only time I use strobe and softbox with grid

divamum

I have to echo Darkman's recco of that book - it's the same one I linked upthread

Thanks for the contributions, DM - I'm another fan of this style. Where do you get Fresnels these days - are you using theatrical lights?

anonymouscuban

Diva... http://www.le-us.com/fresnels.html

divamum

Right - those look like stage lights, judging by the fittings. I can't even imagine how one sets them up on the kind of stands etc one normally uses for speedlights/strobes etc. Are there extra fittings to adapt them/attach them? (Not that I'm planning on getting any, but I'm curious how they can be used for photographic work)

Llywellyn

Something like this could be a place to start.

More fun with lights tonight. Similar setup as the first post, but all hard light this time (no softbox or diffuser). I do have a couple more authentic poses (i.e., looking away from camera...and not looking incorrectly through a Brownie ) but I've only processed the one thus far.

At least my hair's down this time!

divamum

I LOVE it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's more glamour in the styling, the camera looks vintage and adorable and your hair looks 100% fabu! The only thing I'm not sure I'm sold on is the gloves (they don't say "glamour" to me) but that's arguable because the slight disjunct between outdoor gloves and glamour look is kinda quirky and cool too.

schmoo

Llywellyn wrote: »

99% of this discussion is totally greek to me but OMG I love the reshoot!!! Whoever suggested being more playful hit it right on the head. Not only is the lighting better but the entire look is just spot-on. I love your versatility and how quickly you master so many aspects of photographer!

urbanaries

Love the reshoot. I like the idea of fingerless gloves, the contrast makes your face really pop. Although I'm not sure about the "mitten back" ones, I can certainly appreciate where you were going with it.

Much more playful and fun than the first. And that hair...wow...I've always envied it but especially in this shot!

Llywellyn

Thanks, ladies.

I know the gloves are a step out of time, but I used them for a couple reasons: they kept my hands from being too bright and pulling focus away from my face, and they inject a bit of my personality into the shot. To achieve full authenticity, I think I need someone else behind the lens to direct my posing and hand placement!

The hair took more work (and product) than I've ever experienced, because I used pin curls—following a vintage pin-curl diagram—which gave me a whole new appreciation for the women of this era. But I sure enjoyed having sexy hair for an evening. (I almost took out the garbage wearing sweats and this awesome hair, but I figured my neighbors didn't need more fodder for thinking I'm weird...)

divamum

To achieve full authenticity, I think I need someone else behind the lens to direct my posing and hand placement!

Ummm.... well I do owe you one... (that said, I bow to your far greater skill and I'm not sure I'd be up to the task! But after this w/e my schedule opens up a little bit, and if you wanted another playdate ... just saying )

Darkman

divamum wrote: »

Right - those look like stage lights, judging by the fittings. I can't even imagine how one sets them up on the kind of stands etc one normally uses for speedlights/strobes etc. Are there extra fittings to adapt them/attach them? (Not that I'm planning on getting any, but I'm curious how they can be used for photographic work)

The fresnels listed will work just fine. a fresnel is fresnel. as long as you can focus it and open it up you're fine which you can do with almost all of them. The ones I get are listed in my posts in my blog, I get them at b&h photo, usually altmans, but I also get really cool old ones from ebay for next to nothing. Ebay is a great place for old studio lights with a history.

Darkman

Darkman wrote: »

The fresnels listed will work just fine. a fresnel is fresnel. as long as you can focus it and open it up you're fine which you can do with almost all of them. The ones I get are listed in my posts in my blog, I get them at b&h photo, usually altmans, but I also get really cool old ones from ebay for next to nothing. Ebay is a great place for old studio lights with a history.

Let me also give you another little secret about Old Hollywood Glamour that is right in your face.

No one(females) had straight hair, except for Louise Brooks, and her's was short at the same time.

You'll notice this in all older photos, curls give drama and luxury...

adbsgicom

Llywellyn wrote: »

Something like this could be a place to start.

More fun with lights tonight. Similar setup as the first post, but all hard light this time (no softbox or diffuser). I do have a couple more authentic poses (i.e., looking away from camera...and not looking incorrectly through a Brownie ) but I've only processed the one thus far.

At least my hair's down this time!

Wowza!!!