• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Review: A Taste of Old Hollywood

Bobby Deal

New member
Hi all it seems I pop in here when I really want to find people who will give me honest views of new work. Today is no different. Recently I have begun working on emulating the lighting styles of the Golden Age of Hollywood and have spent a lot of time in the studio with a 2K 1K 650watt and a couple 200watt fresnel spotlights with barndoors and wire and fabric scrim sets.

I am loving that the work is so detail centric. Unlike shooting with steobes and soft boxes or even reflectors and grids these lights a ultimately directional. Moving a model or feathering a light by no more then an inch or two can produce dramatically different results. The result for me is I am being forced to slow down and adapt to changes between every pose or variation of a pose. The pace is so much slower then I experience when working with strobes.

Anywise after all that's said I would be thankful for honest oppinions and suggestions from those here who have experience with this style. I dont expect full critique on all of them but if you want to pick one or two i would be pleased. I'm not looking to be told how to do it with strobes, I can come close but this look is to me simply not attainable with strobes. The subtitles of hard where I need it hard and soft where I need it soft, are amazing to me. The ability to subtely run the highlights into the shadows or vice a versa are also a plus and a look I can't reproduce with strobes lacking a fresnel lens.

These were all shot at Iso 100-400 depending on how heavily the lights were cut and feathered for the various looks. I hope you enjoy them.

1.
1957473772_7Txgj6Q-L.jpg


2.
1957836356_qHLWqHf-L.jpg


3.
1957758822_8D5hhPN-L.jpg


4.
1943647169_BHPxtVW-L.jpg


5.
1943646229_86FQBCN-L.jpg



© 2012 Bobby Deal - Real Deal Photo.com
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Bobby,
Hi all it seems I pop in here when I really want to find people who will give me honest views of new work. Today is no different. Recently I have begun working on emulating the lighting styles of the Golden Age of Hollywood and have spent a lot of time in the studio with a 2K 1K 650watt and a couple 200watt fresnel spotlights with barndoors and wire and fabric scrim sets.
A nice project, and nice examples. Your interest in how the details work is very worthwhile.

If the first one is really supposed to not only emulate the style of "Old Hollywood" stills but the photography as well, then it misses the mark in terms of crispness (which is maybe not quite the same as "sharpness") and in the sense of a really nice gray scale.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Hi all it seems I pop in here when I really want to find people who will give me honest views of new work. Today is no different. Recently I have begun working on emulating the lighting styles of the Golden Age of Hollywood and have spent a lot of time in the studio with a 2K 1K 650watt and a couple 200watt fresnel spotlights with barndoors and wire and fabric scrim sets.

Do you now own them? I'd love to see the setup. There's a simple software package for free use to make makes of the setup.

I am loving that the work is so detail centric. Unlike shooting with steobes and soft boxes or even reflectors and grids these lights a ultimately directional. Moving a model or feathering a light by no more then an inch or two can produce dramatically different results. The result for me is I am being forced to slow down and adapt to changes between every pose or variation of a pose. The pace is so much slower then I experience when working with strobes.

This type of need for craft, brings bakBart Van Der Wolf's saying, If you do what you did, you'll get what you got!".



Anywise after all that's said I would be thankful for honest oppinions and suggestions from those here who have experience with this style. I dont expect full critique on all of them but if you want to pick one or two i would be pleased. I'm not looking to be told how to do it with strobes, I can come close but this look is to me simply not attainable with strobes. The subtitles of hard where I need it hard and soft where I need it soft, are amazing to me. The ability to subtely run the highlights into the shadows or vice a versa are also a plus and a look I can't reproduce with strobes lacking a fresnel lens.[/quote]

So how long did it take to do each setup? This would then alter your work flow and number of images or session.





3

.
1957758822_8D5hhPN-L.jpg







It's easier to start with this one as it seems to fit with pictures of stars they took around the set to be used for publicity. This works for me, seeming totally genuine to the period of 1950's filmmaking. Here your work paid off. I'd submit that style picture for a part in a movie of the area.


Asher
 

George Holroyd

New member
Looking at the photo Asher highlighted, can you tell us some of the technical details? Camera, focal length, aperture, etc.? Looking at this particular image, I get the feeling that it has too much depth of field. The right arm is also a bit distracting, as if the plane of focus were on it and the model's neck, rather than her face.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief



3

.
1957758822_8D5hhPN-L.jpg





George,

I now realize your point about her right arm. The contrasty light gives an impression of being in sharp focus. During this time period of the 50s, there was a tendency to use soft focus lenses at wide aperture to compress the depth of field.

I still like the picture but appreciate you giving an open and useful opinion.

Asher
 

Bobby Deal

New member
Hi, Bobby,

A nice project, and nice examples. Your interest in how the details work is very worthwhile.

If the first one is really supposed to not only emulate the style of "Old Hollywood" stills but the photography as well, then it misses the mark in terms of crispness (which is maybe not quite the same as "sharpness") and in the sense of a really nice gray scale.

Best regards,

Doug

Thanks Doug, by crispness I assume you are talking about a little more luminosity in the highlights?
 

Bobby Deal

New member
Do you now own them? I'd love to see the setup. There's a simple software package for free use to make makes of the setup.



This type of need for craft, brings bakBart Van Der Wolf's saying, If you do what you did, you'll get what you got!".



Bobby Deal said:
Anywise after all that's said I would be thankful for honest oppinions and suggestions from those here who have experience with this style. I dont expect full critique on all of them but if you want to pick one or two i would be pleased. I'm not looking to be told how to do it with strobes, I can come close but this look is to me simply not attainable with strobes. The subtitles of hard where I need it hard and soft where I need it soft, are amazing to me. The ability to subtely run the highlights into the shadows or vice a versa are also a plus and a look I can't reproduce with strobes lacking a fresnel lens.


So how long did it take to do each setup? This would then alter your work flow and number of images or session.





3

.
1957758822_8D5hhPN-L.jpg







Asher Kelman;131067It's easier to start with this one as it seems to fit with pictures of stars they took around the set to be used for publicity. This works for me said:
The setups don't take all that long. The lighting is pretty straight forward, Key, Kicker and hair light. The thing is the light is VERY directional and while to the model it feels like they are in a flood of light obviously the end result can be much more dramatic. Where the time investment come in is in the cadence of shooting. On a set with strobes once we were set up there would only be minor adjustments to lights through a set but with this the way the light is cut and feathered to achieve the Parabolic effect adjustments are required anytime the model changes position or perspective to the light. Adjustments of mere inches can have HUGE impact on the output captured so attention beyond basic posing and composition has to be given to every frame captured.

On the plus side once the light and pose are set there is no need to WAIT for a strobe to recycle so the shooting its self can be much more spontaneous. This allows for one to capture that brief instant before the pose that is often the best shot but is likely missed when shooting strobes and dealing with recycle times.

This particular shot was actually inspired by a high key image of Myrna Loy in the 1932 film Vanity Fair. While we chose to not try and replicate the shot exactly it was a strong influence. In fact the influence for the full session with this model was Myrna Loy and the various looks the industry portrayed her in throughout her career. Part of the reason was an interesting resemblance between Model and Influence. On an interesting side note while Miss Loy died never having bore children the model bears a strong resemblance to her and is actually from the same home town as Miss Loy and her family. Chance of relationship in the family tree is significant.

Here is a side by side of the original and the shot above. I have searched high and low to try and determine the photographer of the original but have been unable to find the info. Movie credit rolls in the 1930's were not nearly as extensive as today and still photographers were not noted in the credits.



Untitled-1-X2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bobby Deal

New member
Looking at the photo Asher highlighted, can you tell us some of the technical details? Camera, focal length, aperture, etc.? Looking at this particular image, I get the feeling that it has too much depth of field. The right arm is also a bit distracting, as if the plane of focus were on it and the model's neck, rather than her face.

Here is the camera data for the shot
i-ztqdHx5-X3.jpg
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
This particular shot was actually inspired by a high key image of Myrna Loy in the 1932 film Vanity Fair. While we chose to not try and replicate the shot exactly it was a strong influence. In fact the influence for the full session with this model was Myrna Loy and the various looks the industry portrayed her in throughout her career. Part of the reason was an interesting resemblance between Model and Influence. On an interesting side note while Miss Loy died never having bore children the model bears a strong resemblance to her and is actually from the same home town as Miss Loy and her family. Chance of relationship in the family tree is significant.

Here is a side by side of the original and the shot above. I have searched high and low to try and determine the photographer of the original but have been unable to find the info. Movie credit rolls in the 1930's were not nearly as extensive as today and still photographers were not noted in the credits.



Untitled-1-X2.jpg



This is so Erté!

Asher
 
Whoa, I would not do it that way; it is extremely harsh.

I think if you want to bring light in and also some sharpness, you should not do it globally. I would suggest instead a duplicated layer, set to screen, masked out completely and then lightness brought back in in only where needed. Same thing with sharpening. For glam shots, over-sharpening brings with it halos and artifacts that won't look good in print. I would instead do selective sharpening, again with a duplicated layer with a high pass filter added, then set to soft light blending mode. Mask it out and with a soft brush and bring it back only where needed. For the background perhaps a bit of gaussian blur pulled back with a gradient mask to tone down the wrinkles and get a bit of depth.

Anyways, that's how I would do it, may not be everyone's cup of tea.
Maggie
 

Bobby Deal

New member
Whoa, I would not do it that way; it is extremely harsh.

I think if you want to bring light in and also some sharpness, you should not do it globally. I would suggest instead a duplicated layer, set to screen, masked out completely and then lightness brought back in in only where needed. Same thing with sharpening. For glam shots, over-sharpening brings with it halos and artifacts that won't look good in print. I would instead do selective sharpening, again with a duplicated layer with a high pass filter added, then set to soft light blending mode. Mask it out and with a soft brush and bring it back only where needed. For the background perhaps a bit of gaussian blur pulled back with a gradient mask to tone down the wrinkles and get a bit of depth.

Anyways, that's how I would do it, may not be everyone's cup of tea.
Maggie

All adjustments were done on separate layers and sharpening was a high pass soft light layer. Adjustments were done globally but only to get a quick general idea if this was the direction Doug was suggesting. We're I actually editing for a final outpour I would have approached changes much as you outlined. The background was draped loosely on purpose for the look that was achieved.

Personally I preferred the original edit of the shot as I found it much more moody, but I was playing with Dougs suggestion here.
 
Top