Lighting for different face shapes

juggler

juggler

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,059
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
I'm currently reading a fab book about George Hurrell, Hollywood photographer extraordinaire. He was a master of portraiture lighting, particularly using small light sources. He had a remarkable talent for arranging lighting to suit particular shapes of face. The book is light on technique, however.

The basics are fairly obvious - light the sides of a narrow face to make it appear broader, use short lighting to slim a face, manipulating the shadow density to reduce the width or length of a face etc - but Hurrell clearly had an understanding which went a long way beyond that.

If you know of any good technical resources on this subject, perhaps portraiture lighting books from the days before softboxes, then I'd be pleased to be pointed at them. I hope that @Terrywoodenpic, @Garry Edwards, @Phil V, @sk66 you won't mind being tagged, your names came to mind when I was trying to think who might know about this stuff.

Simon
 
Unfortunately, I know of very few good books related to anything photography based, and no suggestions for you on this topic.

I think you hit on the key, "he had a remarkable talent." That's not something that can really be learned from/taught by a book. It is something that comes from experience, and perhaps a bit from an innate talent some of us may never develop (speaking for myself).

IMO, the fact that you said "the basics are fairly obvious" tells me that you are well on your way, and probably beyond anything in any book.
 
Last edited:
I think it's really just a matter of knowing what you want to achieve, which no book can teach...
Pretty much all of his early work involved fresnel spots to produce "Hollywood glamour lighting" which is to be expected, because this was long before the days of flash and of course he worked at the film studios and used the equipment that was there - but, those fresnels were massive compared to anything that's currently available, they were ferociously bright and only the stars could stand the brightness and heat that they generated, and of course they also wore makeup designed for the purpose.

His later stuff involved heavy use of gobos and small lights at long distances to get very hard lighting, nothing that can't be emulated today.
He was also careful about camera height, which also plays a major part in changing the shape of the face (and by camera height, I also include camera movements) but unless you're shooting on large format there is nothing that you can do other than to use camera height to emphasise or mitigate face shape.

Back in the "dark ages" before softboxes, we managed to create whatever light was needed perfectly easily, it just needed more knowledge, more care and less reliance on gadgets that didn't exist. Back then we basically had focussing spots, fresnel spots and standard reflectors, and we would produce variety by combining them with silks and scrims. I don't know of any books that might help, in the dim and distant past I've authored a couple of books that are long since out of print, but even then they weren't much use because they were edited to death to make them less specialised and to produce higher sales by making them appeal to a wider audience. We now have t'interweb thingy, but all that seems to have resulted from that is thousands of videos and tutorials that are largely useless:)

None of which helps you, but I'm not sure that any help is available, and anyway you already seem to understand the principles. Basically you just look at the face, see the strengths that you want to shout about and position light that creates both the required emphasis and shadows. And remember what George Orwell might have said - "Hard light good, soft light bad"
:)
 
Last edited:
It is absolutely true that large Fresnel spots were the order of the day They could of course be focused, and dimmed with a rheostat..(colour came in later)
Make up was extraordinary, depending on the film being used ( green lipstic comes to mind, Red turned black if they were using ortho film.)
Studio photographers just had to keep up with what was used on the day.

Spots seem to be coming back with digital lighting, but they are tiny compared to the old days. a 3k spot might well be 18inches diameter or even larger and gave a broad beam of directional light.

There were books written at the time but they were for film buffs and just general studio gossip,.and not intended for photographers.
Portrait photographers of the day had no access to film studio kit and although they did use spots some of the time, they were mostly little mole Richardson of only about 500 w... but even floods at the time were highly polished and often dimpled or ridged to give a very directional but even light.
I am afraid you are going to be very much on your own. Though many books about the studios and stars do include shots of photographers at work. which shows something of how they set things up.
A web seach easily brings up this sort of thing
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/exhibi...t-photographer-of-style/about-the-exhibition/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Behind-Silver-Screen-Hollywood-Photography/dp/1932563164
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
Unfortunately, I know of very few good books related to anything photography based, and no suggestions for you on this topic.

I think you hit on the key, "he had a remarkable talent." That's not something that can really be learned from/taught by a book. It is something that comes from experience, and perhaps a bit from an innate talent some of us may never develop (speaking for myself).

IMO, the fact that you said "the basics are fairly obvious" tells me that you are well on your way, and probably beyond anything in any book.
Click to expand...

Garry Edwards said:
I think it's really just a matter of knowing what you want to achieve, which no book can teach...
Pretty much all of his early work involved fresnel spots to produce "Hollywood glamour lighting" which is to be expected, because this was long before the days of flash and of course he worked at the film studios and used the equipment that was there - but, those fresnels were massive compared to anything that's currently available, they were ferociously bright and only the stars could stand the brightness and heat that they generated, and of course they also wore makeup designed for the purpose.

His later stuff involved heavy use of gobos and small lights at long distances to get very hard lighting, nothing that can't be emulated today.
He was also careful about camera height, which also plays a major part in changing the shape of the face (and by camera height, I also include camera movements) but unless you're shooting on large format there is nothing that you can do other than to use camera height to emphasise or mitigate face shape.

Back in the "dark ages" before softboxes, we managed to create whatever light was needed perfectly easily, it just needed more knowledge, more care and less reliance on gadgets that didn't exist. Back then we basically had focussing spots, fresnel spots and standard reflectors, and we would produce variety by combining them with silks and scrims. I don't know of any books that might help, in the dim and distant past I've authored a couple of books that are long since out of print, but even then they weren't much use because they were edited to death to make them less specialised and to produce higher sales by making them appeal to a wider audience. We now have t'interweb thingy, but all that seems to have resulted from that is thousands of videos and tutorials that are largely useless:)

None of which helps you, but I'm not sure that any help is available, and anyway you already seem to understand the principles. Basically you just look at the face, see the strengths that you want to shout about and position light that creates both the required emphasis and shadows. And remember what George Orwell might have said - "Hard light good, soft light bad"
:)
Click to expand...

Terrywoodenpic said:
It is absolutely true that large Fresnel spots were the order of the day They could of course be focused, and dimmed with a rheostat..(colour came in later)
Make up was extraordinary, depending on the film being used ( green lipstic comes to mind, Red turned black if they were using ortho film.)
Studio photographers just had to keep up with what was used on the day.

Spots seem to be coming back with digital lighting, but they are tiny compared to the old days. a 3k spot might well be 18inches diameter or even larger and gave a broad beam of directional light.

There were books written at the time but they were for film buffs and just general studio gossip,.and not intended for photographers.
Portrait photographers of the day had no access to film studio kit and although they did use spots some of the time, they were mostly little mole Richardson of only about 500 w... but even floods at the time were highly polished and often dimpled or ridged to give a very directional but even light.
I am afraid you are going to be very much on your own. Though many books about the studios and stars do include shots of photographers at work. which shows something of how they set things up.
A web seach easily brings up this sort of thing
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/exhibi...t-photographer-of-style/about-the-exhibition/

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Behind-Silver-Screen-Hollywood-Photography/dp/1932563164
Click to expand...

Thank you all. I've just ordered a 'vintage lighting' book on Amazon which may contain some useful information, watch this space. It seems that I may have to write the book myself.. Give me another 40 years:)

I wasn't aware Hurrell used camera movements. I already had a nagging itch to construct a digital body-based view camera so that may happen one day.
Fwiw he normally asked his subjects not to wear makeup - he liked the natural shine of the skin - but did a vast amount of retouching.
I know he was also very clever at manipulating focusing spots - focusing or defocusing as required. I came across a Fresnel attachment for studio flash which Lencarta apparently used to sell, I wonder if that's still available anywhere?
 
Last edited:
I mentioned the very heavy and special makeup used in the film studios, and Terry knows about this too - it reminds me of Shakespear going on about a woman painting her face an inch thick with paint:) and heavy makeup will have been routine for the film studio stuff, although his later work, where he was producing work for himself, doesn't seem to have always involved makeup.
There used to be a digital view camera, made by Horseman, but sadly no longer available - but it doesn't matter for your purpose, the reference to it was simply that the shape of the face can be altered via Sheimpflug as well as by light, but it can also be altered via camera height
 
sk66 said:
I picked up one of these a while ago. Seems decent for the money and works well enough (rather limited compared to a true focusing fresnel head). I haven't actually used it for purpose yet though.
Click to expand...
Only about 5" diameter - can't see what use that would be for portrait work TBH, bigger is very much better.
Our one was 8", just about big enough to be useful. We do in fact still have a couple knocking around somewhere, ex demo prices if anyone wants one, a decent unit but not as good as the Bron one, which from memory is 14" diameter and which has an adjustable iris, which is better than ours, which relies on adjusting distance from light to lens.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Only about 5" diameter - can't see what use that would be for portrait work TBH, bigger is very much better.
Our one was 8", just about big enough to be useful. We do in fact still have a couple knocking around somewhere, ex demo prices if anyone wants one, a decent unit but not as good as the Bron one, which from memory is 14" diameter and which has an adjustable iris, which is better than ours, which relies on adjusting distance from light to lens.
Click to expand...
I actually picked it up for product work... and it's a bit large for that :).
I would think you could use distance for size being that "hardness" isn't really a factor.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Only about 5" diameter - can't see what use that would be for portrait work TBH, bigger is very much better.
Our one was 8", just about big enough to be useful. We do in fact still have a couple knocking around somewhere, ex demo prices if anyone wants one, a decent unit but not as good as the Bron one, which from memory is 14" diameter and which has an adjustable iris, which is better than ours, which relies on adjusting distance from light to lens.
Click to expand...

Not that I'm buying but what's an ex demo price?

I've considered buying an old fresnel spot or just a lens and bodging something homemade:)
 
Garry Edwards said:
Only about 5" diameter - can't see what use that would be for portrait work TBH, bigger is very much better.
Our one was 8", just about big enough to be useful. We do in fact still have a couple knocking around somewhere, ex demo prices if anyone wants one, a decent unit but not as good as the Bron one, which from memory is 14" diameter and which has an adjustable iris, which is better than ours, which relies on adjusting distance from light to lens.
Click to expand...
I'm definitely interested if the price is right.
 
Garry Edwards said:
Only about 5" diameter - can't see what use that would be for portrait work TBH, bigger is very much better.
Our one was 8", just about big enough to be useful. We do in fact still have a couple knocking around somewhere, ex demo prices if anyone wants one, a decent unit but not as good as the Bron one, which from memory is 14" diameter and which has an adjustable iris, which is better than ours, which relies on adjusting distance from light to lens.
Click to expand...
Interesting!
Are these all (particularly the Bron) fresnel units, though? I've used god knows how many different makes and models of fresnels over the years but I've never come across one with an iris diaphragm. Profile spots can always be fitted with an iris in the gate, of course.
Granted, all those I've used have been either theatre, TV or movie units, I know they exist but I've never used (or even seen) a fresnel lantern designed specifically for photography.
For theatre, TV or movie use the usual focusing mechanism (lamp and reflector moving towards or away from the lens) makes most sense, of course, since this maintains the greatest output. For photographic use maybe it would make more sense to have an iris to narrow/widen the beam, but I'm struggling to figure why this might be the case.
Any hints greatly appreciated! :)

I've always preferred larger lenses on fresnel lanterns. The light they chuck out is just nicer and (generally) brighter. Small lens fresnels can be astonishingly bright and efficient these days but there's still something about large lens units that I prefer.
 
Phil V said:
Not that I'm buying but what's an ex demo price?

I've considered buying an old fresnel spot or just a lens and bodging something homemade:)
Click to expand...
When I get a chance I'll make sure that we have one that's OK. From memory they were £200, so £100 would be OK.
Nionyn said:
Interesting!
Are these all (particularly the Bron) fresnel units, though? I've used god knows how many different makes and models of fresnels over the years but I've never come across one with an iris diaphragm. Profile spots can always be fitted with an iris in the gate, of course.
Granted, all those I've used have been either theatre, TV or movie units, I know they exist but I've never used (or even seen) a fresnel lantern designed specifically for photography.
For theatre, TV or movie use the usual focusing mechanism (lamp and reflector moving towards or away from the lens) makes most sense, of course, since this maintains the greatest output. For photographic use maybe it would make more sense to have an iris to narrow/widen the beam, but I'm struggling to figure why this might be the case.
Any hints greatly appreciated! :)

I've always preferred larger lenses on fresnel lanterns. The light they chuck out is just nicer and (generally) brighter. Small lens fresnels can be astonishingly bright and efficient these days but there's still something about large lens units that I prefer.
Click to expand...
AFAIK the continuous light versions have always been adjustment by varying the distance from light source to lens, it's perfectly logical to do that because of heat build up and the amount of light delivered.
But the Bron one, using an iris, does give finer control. Simply making the aperture smaller restricts the light to the centre of the fresnel lens, so there's a bright centre that fades out to dark at the edges, and it is a very even gradation. It's also logical when using a powerful flash head, because the loss of light can be easily compensated for simply by turning up the power.
The traditional way of doing it, which the Lencarta one uses, also works, and works as well as any others of that design, but the design doesn't allow such fine adjustment.
 
Garry Edwards said:
AFAIK the continuous light versions have always been adjustment by varying the distance from light source to lens, it's perfectly logical to do that because of heat build up and the amount of light delivered.
But the Bron one, using an iris, does give finer control. Simply making the aperture smaller restricts the light to the centre of the fresnel lens, so there's a bright centre that fades out to dark at the edges, and it is a very even gradation. It's also logical when using a powerful flash head, because the loss of light can be easily compensated for simply by turning up the power.
The traditional way of doing it, which the Lencarta one uses, also works, and works as well as any others of that design, but the design doesn't allow such fine adjustment.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time and for the info, Garry - very much appreciated.
I'll admit that, as a day to day fresnel user in my day job, I am now intrigued!

Whilst trying to find info on the Bron unit you described I found numerous others from Broncolor that either move the flash head in/out or move the lens itself, but not the one with the iris that I was looking for.
I did, however, stumble across a fresnel attachment by Bowens: http://www.bowensdirect.com/special-effects/fresnel-200.html
Like the Bron you described, this has an iris diaphragm to control the beam angle. Woohoo! Only an 8" lens, though, so still a bit "meh" all the same.

I would have expected an iris merely to dim the light rather than control beam angle (since it's usually distance from the lens that is used along with the lens's optical design to achieve this), but this shows how much - or rather how little - I know. :D
Also, of course, with the unit irised down you'd effectively be using a much smaller lens (i.e. only using its centre portion). I'm not at all convinced that this would be a good thing for portraits, for example. Hell, everything's a compromise!
Whilst this would definitely not be a practical system for the continuous sources with which I am familiar (for the reasons we've both mentioned), It's certainly a more elegant method and one less reliant on "crude" heavy-duty mechanics as far as flash photography is concerned.

Now totally OT (and with sincere apologies to Simon for temporarily hijacking his thread!), coming some years ago from theatre lighting to lighting photography using hotshoe flashes I initially struggled to find a modifier that would give me a similar effect to the fresnels I was used to. I soon found that a selection of home-made grids of different lengths (made using drinking straws) worked extremely well for this, and am still using those I made years ago today. :)

Thanks again, Garry - and apologies again, Simon.
 
Last edited:
Nionyn said:
Thanks for taking the time and for the info, Garry - very much appreciated.
I'll admit that, as a day to day fresnel user in my day job, I am now intrigued!

Whilst trying to find info on the Bron unit you described I found numerous others from Broncolor that either move the flash head in/out or move the lens itself, but not the one with the iris that I was looking for.
I did, however, stumble across a fresnel attachment by Bowens: http://www.bowensdirect.com/special-effects/fresnel-200.html
Like the Bron you described, this has an iris diaphragm to control the beam angle. Woohoo! Only an 8" lens, though, so still a bit "meh" all the same.

I would have expected an iris merely to dim the light rather than control beam angle (since it's usually distance from the lens that is used along with the lens's optical design to achieve this), but this shows how much - or rather how little - I know. :D
Also, of course, with the unit irised down you'd effectively be using a much smaller lens (i.e. only using its centre portion). I'm not at all convinced that this would be a good thing for portraits, for example. Hell, everything's a compromise!
Whilst this would definitely not be a practical system for the continuous sources with which I am familiar (for the reasons we've both mentioned), It's certainly a more elegant method and one less reliant on "crude" heavy-duty mechanics as far as flash photography is concerned.

Now totally OT (and with sincere apologies to Simon for temporarily hijacking his thread!), coming some years ago from theatre lighting to lighting photography using hotshoe flashes I initially struggled to find a modifier that would give me a similar effect to the fresnels I was used to. I soon found that a selection of home-made grids of different lengths (made using drinking straws) worked extremely well for this, and am still using those I made years ago today. :)

Thanks again, Garry - and apologies again, Simon.
Click to expand...

No worries, it's all interesting stuff. I want to see how a fresnel compares to a small gridded beauty dish, among other things.
 
Nionyn said:
Thanks for taking the time and for the info, Garry - very much appreciated.
I'll admit that, as a day to day fresnel user in my day job, I am now intrigued!

Whilst trying to find info on the Bron unit you described I found numerous others from Broncolor that either move the flash head in/out or move the lens itself, but not the one with the iris that I was looking for.
I did, however, stumble across a fresnel attachment by Bowens: http://www.bowensdirect.com/special-effects/fresnel-200.html
Like the Bron you described, this has an iris diaphragm to control the beam angle. Woohoo! Only an 8" lens, though, so still a bit "meh" all the same.

I would have expected an iris merely to dim the light rather than control beam angle (since it's usually distance from the lens that is used along with the lens's optical design to achieve this), but this shows how much - or rather how little - I know. :D
Also, of course, with the unit irised down you'd effectively be using a much smaller lens (i.e. only using its centre portion). I'm not at all convinced that this would be a good thing for portraits, for example. Hell, everything's a compromise!
Whilst this would definitely not be a practical system for the continuous sources with which I am familiar (for the reasons we've both mentioned), It's certainly a more elegant method and one less reliant on "crude" heavy-duty mechanics as far as flash photography is concerned.

Now totally OT (and with sincere apologies to Simon for temporarily hijacking his thread!), coming some years ago from theatre lighting to lighting photography using hotshoe flashes I initially struggled to find a modifier that would give me a similar effect to the fresnels I was used to. I soon found that a selection of home-made grids of different lengths (made using drinking straws) worked extremely well for this, and am still using those I made years ago today. :)

Thanks again, Garry - and apologies again, Simon.
Click to expand...
I used that Bron unit many years ago, maybe it was one of their earliest offerings, I don't know - bought second hand in Germany, it then ended up in Malaysia with a French photographer who set up his studio there and married a Malaysian girl. Later, with young twins, she went walkabouts and the local Sharia Court decided that a foreigner wasn't fit to look after children and decided to rescue them so that they could be brought up in their own religion - long story short, with the help of his embassy (no passports for the kids) he caught the first flight out, which was to Germany, and was only able to take what he could carry with him, and 2 small children were more important than a massive fresnel spot:)

I've never used the Bowens one but I agree, 8" is small.
I soon found that a selection of home-made grids of different lengths (made using drinking straws) worked extremely well for this, and am still using those I made years ago today. :)
Click to expand...
No worries, it's all interesting stuff. I want to see how a fresnel compares to a small gridded beauty dish, among other things.
Click to expand...
There are no rights or wrongs, but no kind of of honeycomb grid produces a result that could be mistaken for a fresnel spot. With a fresnel, the light is bright in the centre and becomes progressively darker towards the edge (the degree of falloff is of course dependant on the focussing) and it's basically a series of blurred rings of light. With honeycombs, the lighting effect is very different and you just get a bright spot of light with a ragged edge.
 
Garry Edwards said:
There are no rights or wrongs, but no kind of of honeycomb grid produces a result that could be mistaken for a fresnel spot. With a fresnel, the light is bright in the centre and becomes progressively darker towards the edge (the degree of falloff is of course dependant on the focussing) and it's basically a series of blurred rings of light. With honeycombs, the lighting effect is very different and you just get a bright spot of light with a ragged edge.
Click to expand...

Yup, I can see what the difference is in theory. I just need to see for myself how that translates into practice.
 
juggler said:
Yup, I can see what the difference is in theory. I just need to see for myself how that translates into practice.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you're situated, but you're welcome to call in here and have a play, as well as the one that we have to sell, there is also another one that I grabbed hold of for myself.
 
Garry Edwards said:
I don't know where you're situated, but you're welcome to call in here and have a play, as well as the one that we have to sell, there is also another one that I grabbed hold of for myself.
Click to expand...

Thank you very much for the offer; Lencarta Towers is a bit far for me and tbh it's going to take more than one session to really get the measure of it.
 
Robert Harrington (via B an H event space) did a
Video of a modern take on 1940s glamour portraits with modern speedlights.
I did not like his post processing but the rest was interesting.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPBO9paDGmA


Books
I would also suggest a dig around web bookshops and real ones for some of the old portrait 'how to' books brought out in the 1940s and also any retouching books of that era. The equipment is different but its interesting to see how they approached the subject. People (not those in this thread) mostly talk about the lighting of that time, forgetting the film qualities, use of fabric defusers between the lights and the subject and above all the very extensive retouching that went into Hollywood high end portraits. Getting the light right is just a fraction of the whole issue.

Joan Crawford retouched
http://rafaelalexander.com/high-end-retouching-in-the-1930s/

"...information from Mark A. Vieira’s two books, Hurrell’s Hollywood Portraits and George Hurrell’s Hollywood: In 1931, super-duper movie star Joan Crawford had her picture taken by photographer George Hurrell to use as a publicity shot for her upcoming film “Laughing Sinners.” ...Then, Hurrell sent the photo off to professional retoucher James Sharp who, get this, spends SIX HOURS retouching the photograph"
from http://rafaelalexander.com/high-end-retouching-in-the-1930s/

Misc
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...etouched-negatives-using-pencil-airbrush.html
 
MidnightUK said:
Facial Analysis in Fine Portriture by Ed Shapiro via Roman Zolin


Web pages
http://tips.romanzolin.com/articles/article018.php

PDF free download
http://tips.romanzolin.com/articles/pdf/Facial Analysis.pdf
Click to expand...

Thank you - they look very useful


MidnightUK said:
Robert Harrington (via B an H event space) did a
Video of a modern take on 1940s glamour portraits with modern speedlights.
I did not like his post processing but the rest was interesting.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPBO9paDGmA


Books
I would also suggest a dig around web bookshops and real ones for some of the old portrait 'how to' books brought out in the 1940s and also any retouching books of that era. The equipment is different but its interesting to see how they approached the subject. People (not those in this thread) mostly talk about the lighting of that time, forgetting the film qualities, use of fabric defusers between the lights and the subject and above all the very extensive retouching that went into Hollywood high end portraits. Getting the light right is just a fraction of the whole issue.

Joan Crawford retouched
http://rafaelalexander.com/high-end-retouching-in-the-1930s/

"...information from Mark A. Vieira’s two books, Hurrell’s Hollywood Portraits and George Hurrell’s Hollywood: In 1931, super-duper movie star Joan Crawford had her picture taken by photographer George Hurrell to use as a publicity shot for her upcoming film “Laughing Sinners.” ...Then, Hurrell sent the photo off to professional retoucher James Sharp who, get this, spends SIX HOURS retouching the photograph"
from http://rafaelalexander.com/high-end-retouching-in-the-1930s/

Misc
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...etouched-negatives-using-pencil-airbrush.html
Click to expand...

Thanks, I've already seen those. I've tried Harrington's technique a few times - it's really quite effective - but he seems to work with stunning models rather than really analysing face shape.

I've had a dig around for old portraiture books and haven't found any yet.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to hunt around on my behalf.
 
juggler said:
I've had a dig around for old portraiture books and haven't found any yet.
Click to expand...

I will try to find a couple I have (its all been moved about, we had a burst pipe a while back, all still in boxes) and let you know who they are by.


You are right though that not much is about re actual high end portrait skills. Also there is comparatively little on how to pose people who have problem shapes or outlines.

I get really fed up of training sessions or videos where they rolll out the 18 year old girls. Almost no trainers have the guts to pull a random few out of the audience to use as models, no one brings along an average person or a middle aged or older one. Almost no male models either. Frankly I think it is because most trainers just are not good enough, so fall back on the easy route instead of embarrassing themselves. It makes it very hard for people like me who want to learn how to photograph normal people in the best ways.

I think the problem is compounded by people who attend courses etc not complaining to the trainers about the liited range of models used. Until learners complain, it will never change.
 
Last edited:
MidnightUK said:
I will try to find a couple I have (its all been moved about, we had a burst pipe a while back, all still in boxes) and let you know who they are by.


You are right though that not much is about re actual high end portrait skills. Also there is comparatively little on how to pose people who have problem shapes or outlines.

I get really fed up of training sessions or videos where they rolll out the 18 year old girls. Almost no trainers have the guts to pull a random few out of the audience to use as models, no one brings along an average person or a middle aged or older one. Almost no male models either. Frankly I think it is because most trainers just are not good enough, so fall back on the easy route instead of embarrassing themselves. It makes it very hard for people like me who want to learn how to photograph normal people in the best ways.

I think the problem is compounded by people who attend courses etc not complaining to the trainers about the liited range of models used. Until learners complain, it will never change.
Click to expand...
thanks again!
 
juggler said:
Yup, I can see what the difference is in theory. I just need to see for myself how that translates into practice.
Click to expand...
TBH, I have studied many images and I can't tell/see any characteristic that I could define as being specifically due to a fresnel lens. I have been "told" that it really requires LF to get the most out of them and for it to be apparent... I have my doubts, but since LF isn't part of my plans it doesn't much matter to me.
To me it just looks like "hard light," like a bare (small) reflector or a BD (w/o grid) at maximum focus. The main difference I can see is a greater ability to control the size.

Some may well say that I'm being ignorant... and maybe I am. But if I can't tell a difference, then I'm not going to be able to use it to create a difference, and it's not a tool I need. *My* reason for getting the one I did was for "focusing" and not for a specific light characteristic.
 
sk66 said:
TBH, I have studied many images and I can't tell/see any characteristic that I could define as being specifically due to a fresnel lens. I have been "told" that it really requires LF to get the most out of them and for it to be apparent... I have my doubts, but since LF isn't part of my plans it doesn't much matter to me.
To me it just looks like "hard light," like a bare (small) reflector or a BD (w/o grid) at maximum focus. The main difference I can see is a greater ability to control the size.

Some may well say that I'm being ignorant... and maybe I am. But if I can't tell a difference, then I'm not going to be able to use it to create a difference, and it's not a tool I need. *My* reason for getting the one I did was for "focusing" and not for a specific light characteristic.
Click to expand...

Tend to agree TBH. A lot of the Hollywood look is down to the models and hair styles, dark period-style Art Deco sets, and contrived static poses forced by equipment limitations. Add some hard light (because that's all there was) maybe a hint of soft focus, and there you have it. In monochrome of course. This Fresnel malarky, IMHO, is less than essential.

That's not to diminish the great skill and artistry of the photographers though. They produced some fabulous images in very challenging conditions. I've hardly used tungsten lighting since I was a teenager, but it was pretty horrible. The hard light was very difficult to work with, from both asides of the camera. The slightest movement throws shadows all over the place. Then you go to reset the light, and burn your bluddy fingers again. My God they were hot.
 
Re historic books

You could try 'Lighting for Portraiture, technique and application' by Walter Nurnberg
printings from 1948 to 1961
approx 188 pages
hardback is around 7x10 inches in size

Lots of images of how light falls on whole and bits of faces and lighting diagrams relating to that. The equipment will have changed but not the light direction.
Several tables and comments about how the light fall effects the look of the face.

It is not what I would call a lightweight read though, you have to be happy enjoying detailed reading.
.
There are reviews of it on Amazon and such places. 2nd hand copies come up at various prices if you keep looking. Maybe also try http://www.abebooks.co.uk

Walter Nurnberg, OBE (1907 – 1991) "For three decades, the industrial images of Walter Nurnberg, OBE, were a benchmark and challenge to every other photographer in the field."
http://www.johnchillingworth.co.uk/WalterNurnberg.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Nurnberg

http://www.artefactsconsortium.org/...ics/4.08.Pictures-Ward-NurnbergGr75ppiFFF.pdf
 
MidnightUK said:
Re historic books

You could try 'Lighting for Portraiture, technique and application' by Walter Nurnberg
printings from 1948 to 1961
approx 188 pages
hardback is around 7x10 inches in size

Lots of images of how light falls on whole and bits of faces and lighting diagrams relating to that. The equipment will have changed but not the light direction.
Several tables and comments about how the light fall effects the look of the face.

It is not what I would call a lightweight read though, you have to be happy enjoying detailed reading.
.
There are reviews of it on Amazon and such places. 2nd hand copies come up at various prices if you keep looking. Maybe also try http://www.abebooks.co.uk

Walter Nurnberg, OBE (1907 – 1991) "For three decades, the industrial images of Walter Nurnberg, OBE, were a benchmark and challenge to every other photographer in the field."
http://www.johnchillingworth.co.uk/WalterNurnberg.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Nurnberg

http://www.artefactsconsortium.org/...ics/4.08.Pictures-Ward-NurnbergGr75ppiFFF.pdf
Click to expand...

Perfect, thank you!
 
If it turns out not to be quite what you wanted you can always sell it again. Some of the older books are quite popular.

If you find you enjoy the older books, look out for these as well, though they are more about equipment than the earlier one I mentioned

Hugo van Wadenoyen - Photographing People, ways to new portraiture - printed 1939 - 1946
Walter Nurnburg - Lighting for photography - printed 1940 onwards

And they physically lovely

Herbert Lambert - Studio Portrait lighting. 2nd printing 1936. Which has beautiful printed plates in, preceded by glasine sheets to protect them. Also line drawings of very old lights, with ruffled fabric skirts and suchlike.and some very scary looking early arc lamps. Does make you wonder how many photographers died from fire or electrocution.

There may be more about, it takes a bit of rummaging to find the authors and titles.

If I see any good 'film era' books around now I tend to buy them if I can, as many charity shops and booksellers just pulp them in the mistaken belief they have no value as "no one is interested in film era stuff any more, its all digital" so some quite interesting historical stuff is being destroyed at a rate of knots,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top