Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,693   Posts: 1,482,449   Online: 895
      
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 150
  1. #31
    Christopher Nisperos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by noseoil View Post
    One thing I'm seeing more now, in some of the images I view, is how little exposure was actually used. At times, there is not enough exposure to give full shadow detail. They must have been just on the lower edge of exposure, which dropped some shadow values to nothing. Coming from a landscape background, I need to look at exposure again. What was a "good" exposure is now too much in some of my attempts. This changes the look a lot. Another help can be the use of a very dilute developer and longer development times. You can get away with less exposure and still keep good tonality with this method. tim
    Hi Tim,

    Roger and I had many discussions-cum-arguments while putting together the Hollywood Portraits book. One of them centered around this point.

    From reading many lighting technique books of the era (which I collect), and then trying those techniques over the years, I've found that the exposureanddevelopment (sic) for studio portrait negatives of those days probably had little to do with the old "overexpose and underdevelop" maxim. It was more like, "underexpose slightly and develop just enough that you don't blow-out the delicate facial highlights! As for the shadows, —heck, it's a human face in a studio... not a waterfall a mile away in Yosemite— you light for it! As you've rightly implied, shadows weren't the priority: the facial planes were. That's why God (and Mole-Richardson) made fill light.

    NEGATIVE DENSITY
    In those days (and even now!) you judged a "good" portrait negative by whether you could read newsprint through the highlights. Eyeball densitometry. That means a pretty thin negative. The kind which gives you a
    positive image when viewed against a black background. But it's not difficult to print, though. Why? Because, once again, it's a studio: you'll will have tested and standardized your lighting ratios (eventually judgable by eye), exposure and development. All your negs should be pretty close. Once you find your first ideal print from that particular type of negative, printing should become mechanical.

    In answering your question, Roger talked about overdeveloping the negative. To my mind, he's talking more about a Mortensen negative, not really a Hurrell. One lost term from the old days seems to be "highlight brilliance". If you google it today, you won't at all find what the term meant in 1940-1950 parlance. Check out an old Kodak publication no. O-4 (I believe that's the right one .. on portrait lighting).

    Best,

    Chris
    Last edited by Christopher Nisperos; 04-25-2007 at 05:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #32
    Christopher Nisperos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    376

    ALERT... Holy Grail of Portrait Lighting .. Right here!

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Noel View Post
    The very same look can be achieved with much lower wattage. Larger f-stops, slower shutter speeds and todays faster films make this very feasible.
    I frequently demonstrate making portraits with bulbs from 5 to 50 watts for my students. These can also have the same Hollywood look if the lights are correctly arranged.
    Jim has hit the nail on the head. I'll say no more... just try the "weaker wattage" technique yourself. I often use a 50w lamp in my Dedo main ... and even that is sometimes barned-off. I'll only add that —while a weak & close lightsource can be ok for a tight face only— you'll still need a broad source for fill (of shoulders and chest, for example).

    Best,

    Chris

  3. #33
    Christopher Nisperos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by singlo View Post
    In this thread:

    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum57/2...-lighting.html

    Christopher Nisperos said he used all Dedolights. I love my dedolights. They are very small and the light can be controlled very precisely. But they are very expensive and the hardest type of spotlight. I never thought of using dedo as key light on female face without diffusion unless she got faultless skin.

    BTW, the people in Studio Harcourt seem to use Desisti and Mole fresnels. Their works are amazing. They seem to like use double soft fills--two fresnels bouncing off two reflectors on both sides of the camera axis.
    Dear Singlo .. my "Dedo bro",

    Sin of sins, I confess that I sometimes a stick a piece of diffuser material (I forget the name: something like "frost-gel" or "tuffspun"?) in the accessory slot of my Dedo to calm that ardent moonlight.

    I agree with you about Studio Harcourt (though I'm not wild about their sometimes hokey posing and 'v' lit backgrounds). I used to use the services of their retoucher, before they went digital (can you spell d-e-m-o-n ?) Now I'm beginning to improve my own neg retouching. I believe that they are the last active studio on earth to create such high quality "Hollywood" style portraiture regularly, with the possible exception of some of Mark Wangerin's work. (Anyone knowing anything otherwise is very welcome to correct me by posting links here to other, active studios producing top quality work ... but before sending your link, please do a google image search on Studio Harcourt's work).

    Best,

    Christopher

    .

  4. #34
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos View Post
    Check out an old Kodak publication no. O-4 (I believe that's the right one .. on portrait lighting).
    Chris, thanks for the reference. I just paid US$ 0.31 for a copy via Amazon. Sometimes you have to love the Internet. Sanders.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    london
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos View Post
    Jim has hit the nail on the head. I'll say no more... just try the "weaker wattage" technique yourself. I often use a 50w lamp in my Dedo main ... and even that is sometimes barned-off. I'll only add that —while a weak & close lightsource can be ok for a tight face only— you'll still need a broad source for fill (of shoulders and chest, for example).

    Best,

    Chris
    hi christopher, I learnt a lot from your and Roger's book. Sorry to omit complimenting your work. I wholeheartedly recommend it. Just one minor comment, a few of the artistic drawings are not quite accurate, for example, on p100, Lana Turner, the positions of the key and fill are in wrong way round if I am correct.


    For tight face shoot with the light close to the subject, do you use diffusion for your Dedo key light? I have just been playing around with different diffusion materials clipped on barndoors: powder frost, opal frost, spun glass and hamburg frost. All these soften the light but broaden the beam spread and increase the spill quite a bit except Hamburg frost. I wouldn't hesitate to use Dedo without diffusion for male subject, but for female subject i like the light more soft.

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    london
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    25
    sorry we seem to be typing at the same time and i just miss your answer you post a minute! LOL

  7. #37
    Rolleiflexible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,274
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos View Post
    I often use the services of their retoucher, while I continue to gain confidence in my own neg retouching.
    Chris, I've been hunting around for a good retoucher. Will their retoucher work for me, do you suppose? I would be grateful if you could send me contact information -- I have a few negatives that are desperate for a skilled hand.

    Sanders

  8. #38
    Christopher Nisperos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    376
    Quote Originally Posted by singlo View Post
    hi christopher, I learnt a lot from your and Roger's book. Sorry to omit complimenting your work. I wholeheartedly recommend it. Just one minor comment, a few of the artistic drawings are not quite accurate, for example, on p100, Lana Turner, the positions of the key and fill are in wrong way round if I am correct.


    For tight face shoot with the light close to the subject, do you use diffusion for your Dedo key light? I have just been playing around with different diffusion materials clipped on barndoors: powder frost, opal frost, spun glass and hamburg frost. All these soften the light but broaden the beam spread and increase the spill quite a bit except Hamburg frost. I wouldn't hesitate to use Dedo without diffusion for male subject, but for female subject i like the light more soft.

    Dear Singlo,

    I'm (half) kidding about the 'name on the book' thing. No problem!

    About the drawings in Hollywood Portraits: you are very sharp and 100% correct. All I can say is ¡Ï©ÚÌß`£Ì{¶{º‘êÙ¬îô¡Ì¡Ç¡¶?« (translation by personal email only)....

    When Roger and I originally worked on the lighting schemes on his kitchen table in England, we drew all of them as "birds-eye views", that is, looking straight down. However, when I received the final proofs (strangely, with no possibility to make further changes), the schemes were drawn in 3D, at eye-level. I was furious, particularly because several of the lamp heights were incorrect. At the time, Roger told me that the artist had taken it upon herself to change the point of view of the drawings without asking for previous approval, and that it was too late to change things (?). I insisted, though, that text at least be added to the preface, warning the reader that the drawing were approximate, and to conduct tests for reliable results. Sorry for any confusion!

    Right you are about lighting women: go soft. Here's a trick: use ONLY fill, and light the outline of the head with backlight (rimlight... two kickers, one on each side.. and a fairly hot hairlight, but not too far forward. Skim the hair.). Lastly, don't forget the importance of retouching..(plus, if you have the possibility to do it on the negative, even better!)

    Why not post your result here and make this thread even more interesting?!!

    Have fun,

    Christopher

  9. #39
    Amund's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    902
    Images
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Sanders McNew View Post
    Chris, thanks for the reference. I just paid US$ 0.31 for a copy via Amazon. Sometimes you have to love the Internet. Sanders.

    Damn, you sniped me! LOL
    Amund
    __________________________________________
    -Digital is nice but film is like having sex with light-

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    london
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Nisperos View Post
    Dear Singlo .. my "Dedo bro",

    Sin of sins, I confess that I sometimes a stick a piece of diffuser material (I forget the name: something like "frost-gel" or "tuffspun"?) in the accessory slot of my Dedo to calm that ardent moonlight.

    I agree with you about Studio Harcourt (though I'm not wild about their sometimes hokey posing and 'v' lit backgrounds). I used to use the services of their retoucher, before they went digital (can you spell d-e-m-o-n ?) Now I'm beginning to improve my own neg retouching. I believe that they are the last active studio on earth to create such high quality "Hollywood" style portraiture regularly, with the possible exception of some of Mark Wangerin's work. (Anyone knowing anything otherwise is very welcome to correct me by posting links here to other, active studios producing top quality work ... but before sending your link, please do a google image search on Studio Harcourt's work).

    Best,

    Christopher

    .
    Hi chris my dedo comrade! I have a terrible confession to make--I went DEMON 6 years ago after ditching my Contax and Mamiya RZ67 film camera plus a dozen Zeiss glasses. Shame on me! I am so afraid to be a DEMON hanging around in analogue forum.

    Do you think Greg Gorman can be counted as one of contempory photographers still use the old Hollywood lighting techniques with the mordern look? I have seen quite a number of contemporary fashion adverts using Hollywood lighting-a modern twist, e.g. a photo of Kate Moss by Mert Alas and Marcus Piggott currently in the London National Poratrait gallery...they are a few others that i can't remmeber their names now at the top of my head. These big name fashion guys are paid with bottomless bank account so i wouldn't be surprised they use HMI fresnels.

    Yes Studio Harcourt use "soft edge band of light" on the faces quite a lot..to the point that it becomes their signature style or somewhat over-used. I get lots of enjoyment out of trying to work out how they light the subjects in their book.

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin