1940s B+W portraits.

PatrickO

PatrickO

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,808
Name
Patrick
Edit My Images
Yes
I like to try some B+W 1940s Hollywood style portraits.

The things I notice on the originals: very shallow DOF and strong contrasts of light and dark.

I have a great model who is keen and I know a couple of good MUA/stylists who would probably help out.

For equipment I'm a bit limited. I mainly use a Nikon d300 with a 50mm f/1.8. For lights I'm stuck with a couple of Yongnuo speedlights. I do have a gridded softbox.

Any advice/thoughts on lighting much appreciated.
 
Last edited:
As you've guessed the lighting is the key. They were often lit with a fresnel spot (you could possibly hire) the nearest look is s gridded beauty dish, which you could maybe get close with a decent grasp of PP to polish.

Theres a recent thread in the people section. As you'll see, most people are easily pleased but if we're being honest it shows how far away modern lighting techniques are.

Then I might just be too picky, but you asked how it's done.
 
As Phil says, the Fresnel spot was vogue for these kind of shots.

TBH I think you're going to struggle to get an authentic look using speedlights.

A gridded beauty dish will help but it won't give you the graduations of a Fresnel.

You've chosen one of the hardest possible (IMHO) looks to replicate successfully.
 
Have a look at Damien Lovegrove's blog, he's covered the '40s look several times.
 
Phil V said:
As you've guessed the lighting is the key. They were often lit with a fresnel spot (you could possibly hire) the nearest look is s gridded beauty dish, which you could maybe get close with a decent grasp of PP to polish.

Theres a recent thread in the people section. As you'll see, most people are easily pleased but if we're being honest it shows how far away modern lighting techniques are.

Then I might just be too picky, but you asked how it's done.
Click to expand...
Jerm said:
As Phil says, the Fresnel spot was vogue for these kind of shots.

TBH I think you're going to struggle to get an authentic look using speedlights.

A gridded beauty dish will help but it won't give you the graduations of a Fresnel.

You've chosen one of the hardest possible (IMHO) looks to replicate successfully.
Click to expand...

Thank you Phil and Jeremy. It's good to get honest opinions.

Are fresnels continuous lights or flashes? Just looked at prices. They are expensive and mainly aimed at theatre lighting.
 
Alastair said:
Have a look at Damien Lovegrove's blog, he's covered the '40s look several times.
Click to expand...

Cheers Alistair. I will search that out.

mike weeks said:
Speedlights to create Hollywood look http://petapixel.com/2014/03/12/fantastic-workshop-helps-master-timeless-1940s-glamour-shot/

Mike
Click to expand...

Thanks Mike. I didn't sit through the whole thing (it's 1.5 hours). But looking at the final result it does not look right to me. Not nearly as dramatic as the 40s images.
 
PatrickO said:
Thank you Phil and Jeremy. It's good to get honest opinions.

Are fresnels continuous lights or flashes? Just looked at prices. They are expensive and mainly aimed at theatre lighting.
Click to expand...
They can be either, light modifiers don't care whether they're modifying flash or continuous lighting. That said, I think you can get continuous lights with a fresnel spot without selling a kidney.
 
I think if you want to achieve results that look indistinguishable to 40's shots as opposed to in the 40's style, then you really need continuous light, flash in my opinion is too crisp. The other mistake people make is making the image too sharp, modern lenses are far sharper than 40's lenses.
 
What's so special about a fresnel spot compared to setting up some other type of lamp with a similar temperature bulb and spread?
 
The Fresnell is effectively a lens over the light source that graduates the light out from the center.

If you're asking 'Can other lights do the same' then the answer is yes they can.. if they're designed like a Fresnel !
 
c-m said:
What's so special about a fresnel spot compared to setting up some other type of lamp with a similar temperature bulb and spread?
Click to expand...
Because it's not the temperature or spread.

The bulb focuses the light which gives a unique quality to the shadows that is impossible to reproduce with any other modifier.

Like I said originally, a small beauty dish close in with a grid is the closest you can get. Although that video recommends using a speedlight in a snoot, which creates shadows that are too hard IMHO.

Edit: Jeremy beat me to it.
 
How would a better-beamer speedlight modifier compare to the standard fresnel?
 
Alastair said:
How would a better-beamer speedlight modifier compare to the standard fresnel?
Click to expand...
Well as it's effectively a long telephoto lens, my guess is that it's the wrong focal length (if that's an ok analogy). Fresnel lenses are readily available, but (we'll need Garry for the specifics) they need to be matched to the reflector and subject distance.
 
Last edited:

Damien Lovegrove 17m vid. He's using an LED Fresnel here, but frankly it could have been a snoot. He's also using continuous light, maybe as much for the video as anything, but it could be flash just as well. I think he makes a decent fist of it, though he has too much depth-of-field to be properly authentic. I'm not convinced about the mythical qualities of Fresnels, but they do have the unique ability to throw a bright beam of variable size. That's very handy, but the light is basically just hard.

The Hollywood look seems to have as much to do with styling/clothes/hair/make-up/location and the right period feel as much as anything. In black & white, dark background, static pose and smouldering look, shallow depth-of-field with a touch of soft focus, hard key light, often used as a spot (Fresnel?), with strong kickers.
 
Last edited:
I'm with Patrick.. Nice though his 40s style images are, they don't look like the real thing to me.

But then I'm not sure he's ever said they were authentic.
 
HoppyUK said:
I'm not convinced about the mythical qualities of Fresnels, but they do have the unique ability to throw a bright beam of variable size. That's very handy, but the light is basically just hard.
Click to expand...
A light-blaster (http://www.light-blaster.com/) with the right lens might be able to mimic the effect (mask the flash head to a circle?). After all a fresnel is just a weight-saving lens design. *shrug*

That said, unless the whole light-beam and its falloff is visible, I'm not so sure people can tell all those hard light sources apart.
 
Last edited:
PatrickO said:
Are fresnels continuous lights or flashes? Just looked at prices. They are expensive and mainly aimed at theatre lighting.
Click to expand...

ARRI lamps are popular and make Fresnels specifically aimed at photographers. They come in under £500 so not to pricey. Worth getting, but the styling and feel of the shoot makes as big a difference(I think)
 
Cistron said:
That said, unless the whole light-beam and its falloff is visible, I'm not so sure people can tell all those hard light sources apart.
Click to expand...
I might just be nerdy, but I can.
That said, I may not be the target audience. lol
 
Jerm said:
Don't put yourself down Phil, I can see you in a classic 1940's portrait.. locks flowing and pouting like a goodun..
Click to expand...

I now have visions of Phil dressed and pouting like Lauren Bacall. Thanks for that Jeremy. You can't unthink things.
 
To add to the above...

The light from a fresnel is unique. It's a specialised tool for a specialised purpose and most people aren't likely to use it often, but when it's needed it's needed...

My guess is that the photographers who used fresnels 'back in the day' did so mainly because they happened to be there, on set. They were continuous lights because that's all that was available at the time and, in any event, all that could be used for movies. There is absolutely no difference in the quality of the light from continuous or flash, light is light.

The fresnels used on film sets were massive. To get the same kind of result with today's fresnels you would need to have it really close. The Lencarta fresnel is 9", I've had pretty good results with it. I believe that Bron make (or made) a 14" one, that's even better but a silly price. The others that I've seen are smaller than ours and in my view are too small.
jewellery.jpg

The talent photographed in these old film shots could cope with the heat and blinding light from the on-set fresnels. I doubt whether many people can. Also, they wore very heavy makeup, this is essential even today, because fresnels show every pore, let alone every blemish.
The cameras used were large by today's standards - typically full plate or 10"x8", and film speeds were low. DOF was virtually non-existent at portrait distances even with the lens stopped down, and there wouldn't be enough power for the lens to be stopped down. If you want similar results, you will need to shoot at very large apertures.

I've seen Damien Lovegrove demonstrating the continuous light fresnels that he sells. His presentation was outstanding and he used a model who was perfect for the job in every way - face, hair, makeup and clothes. But it was a demonstration, not actual photography
 
Lovegrove suggests a 7in reflector with tight grid as "95%" substitute for a Fresnel.
 
HoppyUK said:
Haha :D

Or for speedliters, maybe something like this Rogue grid kit. Dunno, never used it, but I can get something that appears quite similar with a long tube of rolled black paper attached to the front of the gun. Accurate positioning is tricky though, without a modelling lamp as guide.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rogue-Flash...ng-System/dp/B004TGZ7WM/ref=pd_bxgy_ph_text_z
Click to expand...

Messing about just seeing how "1940's" a Rogue grid might be able to get. I added a Stofen to the Speedlite and then the grid on top of that. This gets rid of nearly all the banding.

I tried this after watching a B&H video with Robert Harrington on using Speedlites to get the 1940's look.

I stress, this was mucking about, and I'd not expecting or desiring a critique, lol :)

 
Last edited:
treeman said:
This just popped up on my timeline http://petapixel.com/2014/04/09/rec...-portraits-using-female-photographers-models/

As I said earlier, flash is not the way forward, if you have the choice. The longer exposure required using continuos light will help you, along with the other previously mentioned comments about styling too.

Sorry Jenny, that's for the op, not you :)
Click to expand...
That's quite cool. Not too helpful when you see they used massive hotlights, just like the originals would have done. There is no difference because they're continuous not flash it's the size of the lenses on the things (as Garry pointed out). What I don't get is that it starts with setting up a gridded softbox that you don't then see used.

That and I've seen Sues retouching skills, she thinks nothing of painting in her own shadows if necessary*

*nesessary to Sue means shooting in soft light and painting in harder shadows to create a completely different lighting. She was a pro retoucher for years before she was a photographer.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
That's quite cool. Not too helpful when you see they used massive hotlights, just like the originals would have done. There is no difference because they're continuous not flash it's the size of the lenses on the things (as Garry pointed out). What I don't get is that it starts with setting up a gridded softbox that you don't then see used.

That and I've seen Sues retouching skills, she thinks nothing of painting in her own shadows if necessary*

*nesessary to Sue means shooting in soft light and painting in harder shadows to create a completely different lighting. She was a pro retoucher for years before she was a photographer.
Click to expand...

Good link, thanks for that Mark.

There are several different set-ups being used there. Looks like the softbox was used for the headshot of Marlene D, shown very briefly at 1.22m.

Interesting comments about retouching, and if that's going on it's very hard to read the lighting accurately from the finished picture. Also, back in the day, all those old images shot on large format would have been heavily retouched. It was a great art of the time, highly skilled and highly paid.
 
Last edited:
HoppyUK said:
Good link, thanks for that Mark.

There are several different set-ups being used there. Looks like the softbox was used for the headshot of Marlene D, shown very briefly at 1.22m.

Interesting comments about retouching, and if that's going on it's very hard to read the lighting accurately from the finished picture. Also, back in the day, all those old images shot on large format would have been heavily retouched. It was a great art of the time, highly skilled and highly paid.
Click to expand...
A story about that...
When I was a trainee at Wallace Heaton, back in about 1961, it was my job to deliver/collect the 12"x15" glass plates that we used to the retouchers. They used to retouch directly onto the plates, after that we might make prints, do comphos and re-photograph the results but I'm digressing.
We used a firm off of Wardour Street, which of course was/is famous for the sex trade.
First time I walked in there I saw rows of girls, all retouching out pubic hair from what was then porn photos. I was 16 at the time and didn't know where to look:)
 
HoppyUK said:
?..
There are several different set-ups being used there. Looks like the softbox was used for the headshot of Marlene D, shown very briefly at 1.22m...
Click to expand...
Good catch Richard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top