Old style B&W portraits
Craig Stewart
I have been trying, unsucessfuly, for the past couple of years to reproduce the
look of the black and white portrait from about the 1930's. I don't know if
current films, papers and chemistry are incompatible with the look I am trying
to achieve, or if it is also a matter of getting and using some less than
perfect glass on the camera and the enlarger, or the format question. Any
ideas?
And no, I'm not looking for sepia prints.
--
Quod nihil sit tam infrumum aut quam fama potentiae non sua vi nixa.
Craig Stewart
fogh...@nb.sympatico.ca http://www3.nb.sympatico.ca/foghorn1
Jim Hehmeyer
you are looking for? It might be a straight cloride or a straight
bromide paper. It might be the use of orthochromatic film. It might be
a certain tone that a developer gives. Give a few more details and I'm
sure someone will be able to help.
Good Luck,
--
Jim Hehmeyer - hehm...@tetranet.net
"Experience is the ability to recognize that you've just
made the same mistake yet one more time!"
mpphoto
Jim Hehmeyer <hehm...@tetranet.net> wrote:
If you're talking about the classic Hollywood portrait style
of the 30's and 40's, then the answer is controlled lighting,
immaculate posing, lighting, makeup, and more lightinng.
Check out the work of George Hurrell and Clarence Sinclair
Bull, as well as many others from the period. Hurrell shot star
portaits from the 30's till his death in 1992, and he used
basically the same old hot tungsten lights. His images of Sharon
Stone are absolutely gorgeous (but who couldn't take a good
picture of Sharon?).
mpphoto
Mark Gunion
With regard to the 30s-40s Hollywood star shots: if that's what you're
trying to imitate, it helps to know that in addition to (not in
substitution of) all the stuff a previous poster mentioned, the work
prints were often heavily painted as needed, and then rephotographed to
get the final negative.
Mark Gunion
mwgu...@ucdavis.edu
Scott Dorsey
In article <331004d1....@news1.sympatico.ca> fogh...@nb.sympatico.ca writes:
>I have been trying, unsucessfuly, for the past couple of years to reproduce the
>look of the black and white portrait from about the 1930's. I don't know if
>current films, papers and chemistry are incompatible with the look I am trying
>to achieve, or if it is also a matter of getting and using some less than
>perfect glass on the camera and the enlarger, or the format question. Any
>ideas?
Get a generic 4X5 camera with an old uncoated lens, and use it almost all
the way open. The lens flare and lack of depth of field are both important.
Go with traditional Rembrandt lighting, and use a blue-sensitive film like
4127 Commercial. If that tends to darken lips too much for your taste,
something like Tri-X Ortho is your next best bet.
The lighting, the altered tonal values from the non-panchromatic film, the
flare and the short depth of field are all important for the overall look.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Frank J. Calidonna
!"
>
> If you're talking about the classic Hollywood portrait style
> of the 30's and 40's, then the answer is controlled lighting,
> immaculate posing, lighting, makeup, and more lightinng.
> Check out the work of George Hurrell and Clarence Sinclair
> Bull, as well as many others from the period. Hurrell shot star
> portaits from the 30's till his death in 1992, and he used
> basically the same old hot tungsten lights. His images of Sharon
> Stone are absolutely gorgeous (but who couldn't take a good
> picture of Sharon?).
>
> mpphoto
Nor should we forget the fact that most of these portraits were
photographed using 5x7 and 8x10 view cameras. They impart a quality
level that is still impossible to match with modern small format
cameras.
Frank Rome,NY
peters
Only my opinion, but I think a lot more attention was paid to makeup,
especially pancake makeup to hide skin imperfections. This is
especially noticeable in some of the early color work.
bob
romney
Frank J. Calidonna wrote:
>
> !"
> >
> > If you're talking about the classic Hollywood portrait style
> > of the 30's and 40's, then the answer is controlled lighting,
> > immaculate posing, lighting, makeup, and more lightinng.
> > Check out the work of George Hurrell and Clarence Sinclair
Right on! Incidentally, there is a photographer in Fly Creek New York in
her late 70's who is still doing very fine work of this type, and even
older styles. She goes under the name of Lady Ostapeck.
Ed Romney
RSchllr
It should be noted that not only many of those great Hollywood Glamour
portraits are contact prints from 8x10 negatives. The prints didn't need
to be spotted, the negatives themselves were retouched by specialists.
In addition a typical shoot would include besides the photographer a hair
stylist, makeup artist, clothes designer, one or two photo assistants, an
electrician to take care of all that tungsten and who knows who else. And
a star or starlet who really knew how to pose.
Some of those photos are absolutely fabulous. There's one of Lucille
Balll by Bull that's unbeleivable.
Rick Schiller