I want to do a few portraits in the kind of style of "hollywood glamor" of the 20's and 30's. Archetypical Hurrell lighting, in other words. I have the large format rig, and a fair collection of lights but I'm not sure what's going on -- it looks as if the negatives were heavily retouched or the prints were. But -- how? Or is it just a trick of focussed spotlights and careful contrast control?

mjr.

-- Marcus J. Ranum (mjr@nfr.net), November 20, 1997

Answers

1920's

Not to be flip..but its a little bit of all of the above. Very tightly controled lighting, extensive make-up and retouching. There are several books out that deal with this type of technique, but the one issue they rarely bring up is the issue of make-up and styling.

-- jim megargee (mvjim@interport.net), November 20, 1997.

I totally agree that there is just about no information on that 20's style of lighting. I have just purchased about $450.00 in books and video's to try and decipher this enigma. I have even gone so far as to buy books and video's on makeup and even to look at sending my wife to a makeup school in Hollywood.

It is either a secret type of lighting that the practicitioner wish to take to the grave with them, or, I don't know.

Here are some sources that might be of help: in the May 1996 issue of Photo District News (PDN, who also have a web site)on the cover is a Hollywood old style glamour shot. In the issue is a young Los Angeles photographer named Roger Gania James, who is featured in an article, "Roger Gania James Recalls the Glamour Of The Past" by Julie Prediville Roux. (page 39).

I also purchased a video by a Mr. A. Alexander, from somewhere in Missouri, who I had the privilage of speaking with on the phone also. He is an older gentleman who worked with a man who used to be a studio photographer from those days. The tape is useful, however, since I use strobe lighting, it doesn't get to the info I need. And I am a firm believer, that makeup plays a great roll, but as the other person who replied to this message it is also very specific and controlled lighting.

Hope this is helpful, and if you come across anything, please let me know, and I too will do the same if you wish.

Victor DiPaglia

-- Victor DiPaglia (studio21@gte.net), January 18, 1998.

You've pretty much answered your own question. The Hollywood glamour photographers did retouch heavily(see the latest book on Hurrell for examples). Most of those old photos were lit with fresnel spotlights as key and many had no fill light. I think a lot of the shots were done with diffused focus portrait lenses. These provide a sharp image overlaid with a soft one, the ratio of sharp to soft determined either by aperture (Wollensak Verito lenses), or by variable element spacing (Ilex Portrait lenses). The images are never completely mushy, but have a wonderful glow; what old texts referred to as "plasticity". Old, thirties movies used this same type of look. IMHO the only way to get this look equipment wise, is to use a lens that has under- corrected spherical abberation; putting an attachment on a sharp lens just doesn't give the same result. Styling, makeup, of course play a part in the total look. I don't have experience with makeup or styling, but I think I've gotten some of the spirit of those old shots in my photography. I have a Verito lens on a 4x5 Graflex that I can also use with a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 rollfilm back. This set-up seems to work best with the hard light from a spotlight; a broader source makes the image too wishy-washy. I've also found a way to make a diffused focus lens for 35mm. A 1931 vintage Leitz 135mm Elmar can be converted. Since this is a Tessar design, you can uncorrect for spherical aberration by unscrewing the front unit of the lens, separating the two elements slightly, then screwing the front unit almost all the way back in. Going too far will allow the rear element to foul the diaphragm. I mounted my lens with an adapter on an Olympus OM4. The best f stop for my taste is f 6.3 (with the Verito it is f 11). Sorry to run on long, but I really love the kind of images these lenses make, and like sharing my information

-- Alan Magayne-Roshak (amr3@csd.uwm.edu), January 22, 1998.

I can't answer to the lighting used in these photos but I can answer to the retouching. I have had the chance to print a few of these era negatives. They were taken by a local portratist, on 5X7 film. I can attest to the fact that they were HIGHLY retouched, on both sides of the negative. I had the good fortune to aquire a vintage contact print of one of the 5X7's, that I was able to use to try to "match" the look of the print. It was printed on a neutral toned, matte finish paper. I was able to match it quite well by using Ilford MG IV fiber base paper in a satin, not matte, finish. My belief, having printed negatives from 4X5 to 8X10, of this era , is the size of the negative, the surface of the paper and the fact that many of the images are contact prints, all play a major factor in getting the "look" that you are after. I just don't know that currrent materials used in 35mm and medium format are ever going to give the results that they got 60 and 70 years ago.

-- MTHOMPSON (MTHOMPSON@CLINTON.NET), January 23, 1998.

Much to my pleasure, this month's edition of View Camera has a treatment of the topic. It's a bit secretive and low on technical detail. :( :( It asserts that it's a magical combination of old lenses, large format ( large format bigotry) and manipulating the negative with pencil retouching.

mjr.

-- Marcus J. Ranum (mjr@nfr.net), January 31, 1998.

There is a veteran accomplished photographer named Don Blair who teaches "Hollywood Glamour" Hurrell-type lighting in some of his classes. He is an outstanding portrait photographer and speaker. You can get information on possible courses by contacting PPA(Professional Photographers of America) at www.ppa-world.org

-- Jim McCullough (jmccull1@bellatlantic.net), March 21, 1998.