Old Hollywood Glamour

Bryce Wilson

As some know, I am obsessed with re-creating the old Hollywood glamour style of shooting. My goal is to get the lighting, posing, and post processing down to a "paint by number" process.

My next foray is going to include a period hair style along with make-up and some wardrobe. Prior to doing that, I want to make sure all my ducks are in a row.

Does this say or "scream" (minus the hair style) old Hollywood glamour to you? If so why, and if not, what could/should be done differently?

Thanks mucho for any input and don't be afraid to offend.

Bilsen

I think you nailed almost everything Bryce. The only thing I wonder about is the sepia wash but then again, I know very little about old Hollywood. I wonder if a straight B&W would be more in line with what I think of for old pub shots.

zoomer

That is a nice photo...not sure about the shoulder tilt.
She looks amazing...hair makeup light and wardrobe are spot on.

I like the processing as well....as far as I can tell on this monitor.

Nikolai

* It's a nice image
* Sepia doesn't work for me, IIRC Hollywood Glamour (HG) is all BW
* Lighting angle is nice, but HG was way more minimalistic/harsh. In your case only face would be lit (not shoulders), and probably no second (hair) light.
* Vantage angle is good, however consider "breaking the rule" and going low
* A lot of HG was NOT looking into the camera.
* PP-wise, HG duotone/bw is more aggressive IMHO
* (since you said you're going to change makeup/outfit I'm not going after those)
HTH

Bryce Wilson

Thanks for the input peoples!

May have to use a smaller softbox than usual to light only the face.

Nik, I thought I did have her looking slightly off camera? Wanted to do the off camera look but maintain whites on both sides of pupil.

Anyway...Here is a BW treatment....I went back and forth with BW vs Sepia....I just kept liking the sepia better.

Closer?

I'm going to add, personally, I think the collar bone to shoulder area on a women is VERY sexy. Having it covered by a small piece of cloth and lit added to the "sexiness" and made it a bit more tantalizing to me. Then again, I could just be weird.

Nikolai

Bryce Wilson wrote: »

Thanks for the input peoples!

May have to use a smaller softbox than usual to light only the face.

Nik, I thought I did have her looking slightly off camera? Wanted to do the off camera look but maintain whites on both sides of pupil.

Anyway...Here is a BW treatment....I went back and forth with BW vs Sepia....I just kept liking the sepia better.

Closer?

I'm going to add, personally, I think the collar bone to shoulder area on a women is VERY sexy. Having it covered by a small piece of cloth and lit added to the "sexiness" and made it a bit more tantalizing to me. Then again, I could just be weird.

I think is is closer to what *I* think HG is...

Looking *slightly* off camera rarely works. It's either dead on, or totally off (like at least 30 degress). I'm not saying you always should do this, just a concept. WIth the head slightly turned you can still have a lot of whites in the eyes.