1930's Hollywood/glamour lighting

[Kino]

Originally Posted by df cardwell

Hey Kino

Why do they call it pancake ? ( you owe me a milkshake for the softball.. )

.

I used to know this... Sorry... Drat.

[jnanian]

mark wangerin is in the midst of writing a book for
making portraits just like this .... last i spoke with him ( a few months ago ) it was still being edited ...

the adams machines were great. i had one and used it for years. one of the tricks is to have a very sharp-pointy lead, and a light touch (and not to put hardener in the fix - you'll loose the film's tooth ).

don - pancake makeup was called that because it came in a semimoist cake form ... or so they say ... unlike grease-paint, from days of yore

-john

[Kino]

A new book would be nice, but you can always go to the master...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/052...Fencoding=UTF8

"Painting With Light" by John Alton

[Christopher Nisperos]

Originally Posted by dianna

I love everything about this look from the shallow DOF to the lighting. With such a shallow depth of field, I'm guessing that the photographer used modeling lights or some other constant light source and a wide aperture or large format camera. I would be grateful for any tips on how to achieve this look (BTW I don't own a set of studio strobes and don't have an interest in using them).

Hi Dianna,

First, here are my observations about this portrait:
Classic Rembrandt lighting
Main : medium-high, right, undiffused –probably a wide-diameter tungsten fresnel
Backlights : right and left kickers evidenced by reflection in hair and side of forehead and extreme edge of jowl
Fill : low left, probably at head level as evidenced by catchlight and shadow on chin from finger .. Probably not very near lens as evidenced by canyon-shadows between hands, under chin
Background : flood – maybe Mole Softlites
Make-up : finished with a little coldcream as evidence by focused highlights on nose annd cheeks
Lens : probably longer than normal, close-up, f wide
Film : probably ortho as evidenced by dark lips
There is as always for these type of portraits, quite heavy pencil retouching, and this portrait is a master example. I do not think a vignetter was used
and I do not notice any flagging on the lighting (though there may be, especially on such a well done portrait).

To do the same today, just use the same materials and technique (you have several good answers, above particularly regarding retouching. Yes, you can "get away with" smaller format and other substitutions, but if you really want the same look, the solution is simple: do the same thing!

One difference: Today I use all Dedo lights, as the optical efficiency of the spotlights let me work in smaller spaces and at more comfortable levels of light.

Good luck and have fun.

[Christopher Nisperos]

Originally Posted by dianna

I love everything about this look from the shallow DOF to the lighting. With such a shallow depth of field, I'm guessing that the photographer used modeling lights or some other constant light source and a wide aperture or large format camera. I would be grateful for any tips on how to achieve this look (BTW I don't own a set of studio strobes and don't have an interest in using them).

Hi Dianna,

First, here are my observations about this portrait:

-Classic Rembrandt lighting

-Main : medium-high, right, undiffused –probably a wide-diameter tungsten fresnel

-Backlights : right and left kickers evidenced by reflection in hair and side of forehead and extreme edge of jowl

-Fill : low left, probably at head level as evidenced by catchlight and shadow on chin from finger .. Probably not very near lens as evidenced by canyon-shadows between hands, under chin

-Background light : flood – maybe Mole Softlites

-Make-up : finished with a little coldcream as evidence by focused highlights on nose annd cheeks

-Lens : probably longer than normal, close-up, wide f/stop

-Film : probably ortho as evidenced by dark lips

As always for these type of portraits, there is quite heavy pencil retouching, and this portrait is a masterly example. I do not think a vignetter was used
and I do not notice any flagging or scrimming on the lighting, although with a portrait this well done, it's not always easy to tell.


To do the same today, just use the same materials and techniques (you have several good answers and suggestions above particularly regarding retouching, which is ABSOLUTELY necessary to achieve this look). Yes, you can "get away with" smaller format and other substitutions, but if you really want the same look, the solution is simple: do the same thing!

One difference: Today I use all Dedo lights, as the optical efficiency of the spotlights let me work in smaller spaces and at more comfortable levels of light. Plus, their barndoors (essential for this kind of work) are the best I've ever seen.

Good luck and have fun!

[dianna]

Thanks for the tips. The Lowell kits are in the $2K range. Ouch! I think I'll just admire the glamour portraits and stick with available light until I can educate myself.

I would love to see a revival of that style. It's a niche that nobody seems to have exploited lately.

[JBrunner]

If you want to mess around with tungsten lighting you can get some shop lights and and some foam core. Smith victor lights can also be found cheap.

You can use the foam core to bounce light, and also cut holes in it to control light.

Note that different B&W films have varying response to tungsten light.

[jimgalli]

Contact me offline if you're interested in a Century Studio camera complete with Wollensak Series II Velostigmat & packard shutter. It's a 5X7 so film won't eat you up quite so bad. You could put an 8X10 back on but I don't have one for it. Clamps and floods from the hardware store are useable while you collect the correct vintage stuff on Ebay.

[df cardwell]

Originally Posted by Kino

I used to know this... Sorry... Drat.

Max Factor's PANCHROMATIC CAKE MAKEUP = Pancake

Christopher: Dedos.... gosh, yes !

[Christopher Nisperos]

Originally Posted by dianna

Thanks for the tips. The Lowell kits are in the $2K range. Ouch! I think I'll just admire the glamour portraits and stick with available light until I can educate myself.

I would love to see a revival of that style. It's a niche that nobody seems to have exploited lately.

Hey! Don't despair! Start out with a Smith-Victor photoflood outfit (used to be 3 lights and 3 stands for about $150. or so). Or check out the slightly more expensive Lowel L-Light system (http://www.lowel.com/llight/)

I swear you can get great results with either of these (don't forget to buy BARNDOORS!).. perhaps not the "Hollywood glamour look", but certainly the "Kodak glamour look"! Not as dramatic, but just as impressive. Look up Wallace Seawell's work to understand the difference.

By the way, about your comment that, "It's a niche that nobody seems to have exploited lately" ... well, there's me .. and ..

http://www.studio-harcourt.com/
http://www.thestarlightstudio.com/
http://www.wangerinphoto.com/