100% found this document useful (1 vote)
341 views73 pagesRoger Hicks - Hollywood Portraits
Teoria fotografica sobre retratos
Uploaded by
cncareco2020Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
341 views73 pagesRoger Hicks - Hollywood Portraits
Teoria fotografica sobre retratos
Uploaded by
cncareco2020Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 73
HOLLYWOOD
PORTRAITS
CLASSIC SHOTS AND HOW TO TAKE THEM
ROGER HICKS AND CHRISTOPHER NISPEROS.
PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE KOBAL COLLECTION HOLLYWOOD
PORTRAITS
CLASSIC SHOTS AND HOW TO TAKE THEM
ROGER HICKS AND CHRISTOPHER NISPEROS
PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE KOBAL COLLECTION nee eee et eT Td
Coveney or anee pee ernie rereent ees Terre rmmeenee eter Des
Cee ee rn
ere ee neta eee pee ae
Cee ee
CE
Cen er ent)
eee
Great Eastern Wharf
eee)
Pea ei!
ee Les ne a cen Ceo)
Text copyright © Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperes 2000
ee ee aed
De ee ee eet Tens
authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the
‘Copyright. Designs and Patents Act, 1988,
Dee eR ey
e(rieval system, oF transmitted in any form oF by any means, electronic,
‘mechanical, photocopying. recording or otherwise. without the prior written
rt cea
TEISEI IEE!
British Library Cataloguing:io-Publication Data
Le eo ed
is available from the British Library,
ELLA)
Cee cece rs a
en
‘Technical Consultant: Frances Schultz
Designers: Alison Lee and Steve Kent
Deere ce tae
Reproduction by Classic Scan Pte Led, Singapore
Printed and bound ia Hong Kong by Dai Nippon Printing Co. (HK) Lid
Wusteations: front cover: MGMIGeorge Hurrell (1935):
back cover (V) MGMIC. S, Bull (1939); back caver (6) MGM (1939),
CONTENTS
Tet tse)
‘Genesis: 1930 and earlier 18
UC a mel)
BOL
Mais ee ed
Lit TS Dd
Pe tu
Picture credits 144 INTRODUCTION
Even today, many decades afier the heyday of
Hollywood portraits, these iconic images still fascinate
countless people: movie lovers, connoisseurs of
women and handsome men, and, af course,
photographers. As far as we are aware, howev
beau
no.
book has hitherto attempted to analyze the fi
that was used for specific Hollywood portraits, There
have been plenty of books of portraits and books
about the stars and books about portraic lightings bur
the three strands have not been drawn together
It is, of course, next ca impossible to reconstruct
exactly how a part
“ular shot was lit, perhaps 70 years
ago. We do not claim infallibility or anything like it
Indeed, there were occasions when we could nor agree
between ourselves on exactly how a parnicular picture
was lit. We do, however, believe that our analyses are
pretty close, so that anyone reading this book will find
better equipped to shoot
Jer should also be
themselves significantly
Hollywood-style portraits. The re
better able to understand what cannot readily be repli
cated, whether for technical reasons or because of the
very heavy Hollywood reliance on retouching. In the
course of explai jE we may also
dispel some of the myths and mis
surrounding the technical aspects of these portraits.
all this, we hope t
derstanding
The vast majority of contemparary magazine arti
cles abour the stars were, of course, written to bolster
the myths behind the images, so the pictures were often
ce-up. This
described as unretouched and without m
may occasionally have been true, but as most stu
employed many more retouchers than photographers,
it clearly was the exception rather than the rule. Nor
should one ignore the fact that lighting plots may
sometimes have been guarded as-a trade sectet or the
ple truth that many photographers, then and now,
take a malicious delight in misleading the technically
just for the fun of it. Although it is true that
ignora
Early Hobywoad porersts retemble rio porta of he rinecrenth
century, orth ache delhi ling Tis ix Maron Don, “tari
Select Pictures: which dices ito 1918 by 1919 the erede woud Fave
bento Cormapalian Pictures, formed by 17 R Hearst wo promoce Ms
Dawes orto the Selmch/Zakor snudio. (Cumpbel Stucios New York)
With the detlne in the ie of B x 10 in. Q03 x 254 cm) cameras,
techical sandurds (which ware never very ih in Melhwcad away)
ended t decloe sil ure, This portrait of umes Dean might be rec
(5 by the merge camerascb compections secretary toca. sOuEh
ten a ecand third or
plenty. of photographs purport to shove the lighting
cither for a movie set or for a still, when it is passible
to compare the picture of che lighting set-up and the
final insage, itis often abundantly clear that the setup
illustrated bore no relationship to the aetwal lighting.
used; all contemporary illustrations of lighting sef-ups
should be treated with some reserve,
This is, however, part of the fun of re-creating the
Hollywood look today. There is an element of detee-
tive work in if; a certain radar is needed for detecting
wilfully misleading or illsinformed statements, ancient
‘or moderns and there is no substi
you have understood what is\nceded, for actually
trying it for yourself. We hope that this book will make
your quest easier.
tute, ance sou think nt pleture ef Cimer Fryer photographing Joan
el in Lawyer Men (1932) pees a good idea of
the typeof camera ed 3 ty. wooden Wiew cae)
{HN By lag eters Tr RO A indy
may not represent the actual gheng setup. Note
hia the wel-supperted pose. (Photegrapher not
credited 1922)
The dacente dim tase of courses Holywood
oegnves deterieated tad in 30 or 40 years, anc
tracerte bes are net a grea des! beter Modern
pobrerter baes are mere sabe, but they &d net
itl the 1900s 6 even 1970. (Protograph of Nowe
Shearer, Eric Carpenter, HI)
CAMERAS, LENSES, FILM. AND RETOUCHING
in the 1930s and 1940s
Ansco, though Kodak and
The classic camera for a Hollywood por
was 8 x 10 in. (20.3 x 25.4 em), typic
other marques were ind reducing backs were often used on
11 x 14 in. (28 x 35.5 cm) and still larger cameras. As late as the eve
of World War It there were still many who reckoned that a 2x enlarge-
also used,
ment from 4.x Sin, (10 x 12.5 em}weuld show markedly inferior
and sharpness to an 8 x 10 in, contact print. They seem co have been
in the 1910s and 1920s, hall-plate (4% x 619 inJ12 x 16.5 cm)
nlargement well, thou
was populag and the pictures do not sta
primitive pyro-soda developers may have contributed to this
Even in € x 10 in., however, pho
aphers tended to shoot large
10 oF 20, and often
also kept obvious failures. For example, Jean
Harlow had a weak ri
are lool
ft cye, and in a number of pictures h
think that Harlow
he photographer or MGM, might have
but they dide't. Th
of focus és some distance from where it sh
rent directions. You m
herself, or hrown these our;
are also plenty af pictures in which the plane
uld be. Of the literally
§ book, a su
thousands of pictures we went d
number ~ pethaps as many as a quarter ~ would be regarded as te
nical failures by.a critical modern photographer. Leica cameras were
used in Hollywood as early as 1932 or so, and after th
(10 x 12.5 cm) roll film and 35mm came into much wider use. Asa
he war
result, the classic look was all but lost.
Lenses
The usual lenses were long and often surprisingly fast for their focal
length, a combination that makes it far easier to focus quickly and
positively than is possible with shorter or slower lenses. For instance,
isan 18 in
the lens data on Hurrell’s camera, shown on page
(45 cm) {15.6 Cooke Series WI. From those rare
exposures are known, ho’
working aperture, presumably in the interests of depth of field. There
was surprisingly little change in the types of lenses used from the
earliest days of the movies to the eve of World War Il, and, indeed,
bey
ver, it seems that {/16 was a common
probably the majerity of lenses in use for still photography
throughout this period had been introduced in the first decade of the
rwentieth century, or late in the nineteenth century.
Sharpness, or the lack of it, was a matter of fashion, not of tech
nical necessity, and in t berately fuzzy pictures were
ashion, Many
eda degree st
be introduced, however, via deliberate spherical aberration. This claes
not same effect as tack of focus, but rather surrounds each
point of light with a halo, This explains the * of
Hollywood portraits. The smaller the format, the harder soft fox
or predict: it is easiest to control when working same-size
fon a big. ground glass. Another reason for the “glow’ was that
‘uncoated lenses are flary. This lightens shadows and can also mimic
true sole focus, After World War Il anti-reflection coating became
all bot waiver
I, though some photographers stuck to theit uncoat-
cd lenses because they considered coated lenses “too sharp” or
Film and Development
In about 1931 Eastman Kodak introduced Eastman Super-Sensitive
Panchromatic Film, known.to its friends as S$ Pan. This soon
displaced ortho film in ¢
jority of Hollywood studios, as its
ensitivity meant that it did nor render red lips so dark
s0 rosy. Super!
nin general in the |
enhanced 1
or complexio , with still better red sensitization,
c 19305, bur it was still rated
ht than to dayle
replaced $5 P,
stop slower to tungsten insofar as comparisons
are possible, about ISO 80 and 100 respectively, With all of these
» halation — the tendency for a halo to form around light sources
ehlights —
3» more marked than with modern films.
1 1930+ films and plates were often underexposed
-d by modern standards, resulting in thin, contrasty
negatives, Later, more exposure was given, but it was sill not gence-
aced; this meant that the negatives
in, but Less conteasty, The negative in the above righ
se was presumably regarded as reasonable - why show a bad
negative, after all? ~ bur it looks very thin by modern standards,
Retouching
Although seme Hollywood portraits are
miore are ~ very heavily. This was done on
wched at all, many
ative: comparatively
casy on an 8 x 10 in. negative for contact printing and not too diffi
cult.on a4 x Sin, negative for enlargement, but next to impossible on
roll film. Not just minor flaws in the complexion were
taken out: complexions were completely remodelled
with a soft pencil, backgrounds were cheerfully ‘blown
out’ with the airbrush, and hammer and chisel*
tive retouching was applied to faults on the negative
und Marlene Dictsich’s fingers
(right) is a good example
The retouching
Retouching om 8x 10 in. negatives is actually cash
cr than one might expect, though thece are a few tricks
worth knowing. Use a s
‘or you will end up with shiny areas that won't take any
pencil, Don't press too hard
retouching. Work with tiny ticks, scribbles, or
ight: don’t try to follow lines toa clearly. Fix:
the retouching with steam from a kettle, but remember
to let the negative dry fully afterwards
INTRODUCTION
By modern standards. this neaowe of IGM Saree
Viegas Grey hopelsty anderenpesed bet yo
many ef the peures in ths book shim
onspuwout by At abtenee. (Protoprapher
sed ne ite)
When you! are rating conmce prets.eipecity
lowly, you Can pee aay wth much Heat sue
wthing han KesnleIoe enarpecent — the
rove 1238 there no Cater tec bene saterng
Gormg enirgerses) ma comact pret Thaswhcle of
this picture appears on page 79. INTRODUCTION
POSES, PROPS, AND MAKE-UP
By and large, porcraiture with 8 x 1
in, cameras requires poses that
are easy to hold. This is because there is a long gap between focusing
and taking the pis
hotographcr must close the shutter, insert the film-holder, pull the
ure. After focusing and composing the picture, the
darkeslide, and then fire the shutter. This must all be done without
sng, What is mo
long exposures, even with
es and slow films aften mea
powerful sof between Yio-1s second were common:
was not all chat difficuls
place. Keeping the camera from moving
like a
kecping the subject from moving was an
mera stands thar were used in the pre-war period lwok
flight of steps far bo rather than a tripod. But
+r matter, AS soon as you
start to look for this, you realize just how many poses were chosen
specifically because they almost locked the subject
Actresses recline in languid poses where they have only to relax and
he chaise longue support them: actors le: lid, immobile
dosing: ht exposure) aii m image an page 16
Props
Perhaps the most commonly encountered prop is one of the smallest
Iman era when to ertesand
(occasionally) pipesis almost shocking ~ but it is not unrealistic 10 say
onc of the quickest ways to create a Hollywood-ambience is 0
ick, Cigarettes also solve the pere
do with a subject's hands; and despite decades of
subject a cance
problem of what
rational, scientifically based. propay °
doubt that cigarettes did indeed have a certain glamour in
Hollywood, if only by association wi
T 40 remember when d
sling, with all other props are
that they should not be shabby
part of the picture), and that they should not dominate
The first can be problematic if the photographer wants to create a
certain image, and the subject is unhappy with the chosen props.
ys been true) af gunss among the many pic
a this book 4 Gary Cooper, looking as
if he would have been’ happier holding his revolver af arm's length
with a pair of tongs. The most successful portraits make use of some=
thing that the photographer fas already noticed to be characteristic
of the subject: a favorite bangle pethaps, or eyeglasses (even a mon-
or a walking-stick, Some re-creat-
traits, too, are under-
mined by anachronisms: a digital watch,
Shabbincss is particularly apparent
in sill pictures, possibly because we can
examine the picture so carefully. In
a prop may be an the
sercen for only a fraction of
8 second,
and where our attention is distracted by
the main subject, shabbiness is much
less of a prablem,
inating the subject,
uns and cigarettes can provide
good examples if the subject is not at
As for props di
home with then
but equally, a face or
human figuee will almost invariably
ture, flom aster statuary, unless
the lighting is exceptionally incompe
tent. Millions of years of exolation have
joned us to scan the landscape for
friend or foe, and we do the
porteait, The subject's relations
matters, If there isn’t
the props is wh
oF if the relationship is un
able, then the pi
fe won't work.
Make-up
Many magasines dating from the 1930s,
and some of the photographers, sw
that no make-up was used
This may have been true sometimes, but most of the time it
is clearly untrue, We believe that sometimes they were simply lying in,
he stars were perfect and thar on
Ke-up at all
‘order to presceve the myth th:
other occasions they did not count ‘street’ make-up as n
clearly been made, at the very least, of
little
In many pictures, use h
sparen powder to kill highlights, and it is possible th
was used for shaping. Almost invariably, too, the women were
swearing eye make-up, even if no other make-up is apparent, although,
in all fateness, foundation (‘pancake
most unlikely that many of the female stars could have mustered the
kind of eyelashes that appear in so many pictures unless they had
ome help,
INTRODUCTION
A rauncediooking Frank Sarr fat one cue
Matywcod prep a ht hand ind anotha m4 shelter
btuter in tha 1954 United Aruna pictere for
Sdsenp (Proteprapher net eregted Pte thy th I ghia hk appear hoe: Jn sh
how of Ain Gardner, ken by Roy Jones 1946
for The Filer. Ohe mutipia shadow of the table
reveal that the overhead lamp ia abe is almost
There is, however the point that very heavy
ching may have been easier on un-made-up
faces, and there are even a couple of references
to oiling the akin for photography = exactly the
‘opposite of what any modern photographer would
normally do,
LIGHTING BASICS
In the early days of movies, and offen throughout
the 1930s and 1940s, movie studio lighting was
used for portraiture: big Mole Richardsons and
KI
s. Some of these were massive: spots a yard
There was a whole
vocabulary of these lights: “inkies? or “inky dinkies?
‘kegs’ were barrel
shaped spocs,cypically 500\; “sof lights’ were big,
rectangular lights similar to these in the picture on
were small focusing. spor
page 47; and ‘scoops’ were lamps in reflectors 18
r 20 in. (46 wo Sem) across,
Unfortunately, the vocabulary was not entirely
standardized. Often, t00, the names of particular
manufacturers’ individual lights were used as
generic terms, sometimes to the chagrin of the man
tufacturers, Descriptions of power (in kW) were,
however, quite stand.
5 kilowatts and so forth. The biggest lamps in com-
mon use were 10K, Even after still lighting became
divorced from movie lighting, focusing spots remained a very popular
cd: a 2K" is 2 kilowams, *SK"
‘way of lighting portraits, These were almost all Fresnel spots with a
lens in front of the lamp, rather than the “open-face’ variety more com-
‘mon today, when the focusing effect is varied by moving the lamp rel-
ative t0 a reflector,
Lighting Distances
Because movie lights were so enecmously powerful, they were often
the subjects, and
n of the retina caused by the very high UV
tused at quite large dittances in order to avoid fry
Ki
ye" (in effect sun
st of carbo
ares) was a recognized hazard of early movie acting.
‘The extremely high UV content of carbon-arc lights was quite impar-
tant, 8 it meant that an unfiltered exposure was disproportionately
and violet light, rendering lips dark and m
ing rosy
complexions look far more dramatic than they were.
mal tungsten lighting was used, working distances
were smaller, but they may still have been greater than is regarded
38 normal today: by the end of the twenticth century; people scemed
more willing co have hug
lights very close co them. In general, itis
ceasier to work with close lights than with distant ones, because the
cffects change more rapidly, but there arc some techniques, such as very
hard shadows, that require either special projection spats or greater
working distances,
Booms
Supporting lights on ‘boonis’ or cantilevers was a
‘common way to light from overhead or almost overhead,
and some photographers used two, thres, or even more
boom lights or hung their lights from permanent overhead
fittings, as ona movie stage. It can he difficult to duplicate
this effect without booms, as the lighting stands will
appear in the picture. Unforrunately, a conventional boom
is around 10 ft (3 m) long, $0 to use a couple of boom
lights at a yard (1m) apart, at least with any degree
of ease, the studio needs to be at least 16 fe (5 m) wide,
and preferably 20 ft (6 m) wide. It also needs to be high:
2 minimum ceiling height of around 10 f (3 m) and
preferably 13 ft (4 m) or more.
Feathering
Very often, though far from invariably, movie stills were
not made with spotlights focused tightly and shining
directly onto the subject. Rather, the spot was defocused
somewhat, and the edge of the light beam was used, a
technique known as “feathering.”
Lighting Ratios
‘The lighting ratio is most simply defined as the ratio of the
key light to the fill ight. In other words, if there is a key
light comi
direction of the camera, the left-hand side of the subject
will be more brightly lit than the rightchand side. If there
is three times as much light falling om the feft-hand side as
on the right-hand side, the lighting ratio is 3:1. A wide
variety of lighting ratios will be found in this book. The important
t
light falling on the subject, so unless the key and fill are diametrically
opposed, it is not possible to measure lighting ratios by wurning the
lights on alternately. Some photographers actually measure lighting
ratios using either a flatecepcor incident light meter or by taking a
reading off a gray card, while others judge the ratios by eye
feam camera left and a fill coming from the
to realize is that the lighting ratio refers to the total amount of
Brightness Ranges
The brightness range is quite different from the lighting ratio, [tis the
ratio of the brightest part of the subject to the darkest, but it is com:
plicated by the face that it m:
be measured at four stages. There is
INTRODUCTION
“Scory’ Watbowne shetenr9oh les Lupine fer
Warner Beos in (40. The moet neeresting thes
utd piewre ae dhe mane camara and — no
‘Remy wiped here — and the alos for a dazen
x10 a fan holders tat ean be seen on the nde of
he Mad on the righe of the putire: halaing 24
shee of him INTRODUCTION
the brightness range of the original subjects the brightness range of
ge on the ground glass; the brightness range recorded on the
negative; and the brightness range of the print.
Hollyw
prtraits were quite often lit with a fairly broad light
ly giving a subject brightness range of 64:1 oF more.
ed lenses of the day would reduce a 64:1 brightness
fatio by 1 oF 2 stops, to 32:1 or even 16:1, Fairly short exposures
would thea lose a fair amount of shadow detail, leaving the shadows
inky and"
vpty’ Finally, the papers of the era before World War Il
often hi ness ranges that were very short by modern
highlight on the
than the darkest shadow
would be regarded as normal, partly asa result of brighter whites,
bur principally as a result of blacker blacks,
Tungsten versus Flash
Continuous or tungsten lighting will make it much easier to light in the
classic, formulaic ctyles: ‘butterfly,’ also known as Param
+ (pages
wpe 59). Focusing spots give an effect, a hardness
ic flash, even snaoted Fresnel flashes are availal
cobbled together. Although it is possible to do a surprising an
with a single lig
g spot and one hroade
light makes it possible to do a great deal more, The only style of lig
ft lighting,
ing for which electronic flash is clearly superior is ver
when an umbrella or (much better) a soft box bears anyu
do with rungsten and is, in addition, more comfortable for the subject.
Shadows
In most varicties of po ic, double or “crossed” shadows arc
any student on a craft-oriented photog
nations if he ar she turned in portraits with
such a defect
In Hollywood portraiture, this convention doesn
seem t0 apply,
pethaps because crossed shadows don't normally marter ina movie:
when the subject is moving, we expect the shadows to move, while in
nicely" and natural use of light.
a still portrait, we expect a more i
x art looking for crossed shadows while you are watching
movies, they are so common and so blatant that you can quite lose
teack of the storyline
In the course of researching this book, we rejected numerous por
ad photographers
than we can today, partly
page 35, We believe that the Hollyw
LIGHTING BASICS
‘There is a basic. vocabulary of lighting thar
remains in use to this day, First, there are the uses
to which the lights are put: key, fill, effects, and
background. Then there are the ways in which
lights are modified, to make them harder or softer,
or 10 shade off parts of the subject. In.color there
is also the question of ‘gels’ (pronounced ‘lls,
from ‘gelatine,’ although they are now
typically made from acetate). These are used (0.
modify the color of the lights and they do not
affect us here.
Key lights cast the principal shadow, Where there
are conflicting shadows = as there often are in
Hollywood portraits ~ the light thar determines
the shadows-on the face ts taken as the key.
Fill lights, as their name suggests, fill in the shad-
‘ws so thar they are more er less ‘open? and not
empty or inky.
Kickers, also known now as effects or FX lights,
fare used to light specific areas, The hair light is
pethaps the most widely used effects light: others
may be used for jewelry, for example, or to bring
cour details in a fitr. The distinetion between kick-
ers and fill lights can sometimes he hard to. make
in Hollywood portraits,
Background lights; logically enough, light the
background, although this may also be lit with
from other lights.
Any of the above lights may be modified ina
umber of ways, Some of the more common terms
are listed here:
Barn doors are doors mounted on the front of a
light. They are partially opened oF closed to-con-
trol the area lit by chat Lamp:
INTRODUCTION
Egg crates are grids of slats, somewhat resembling
ain egg crate, They are used to make the light from
«abroad, soft soarce more directional. The modem
“honeycomb grid” for electronic flash uses exactly
the same principle.
Snoots are conical or cylindrical tubes, mounted in
front of the lamp, that are used to-fimir the area lit
Flags.or French Mags are sheets of opaque materi
al, used to shade or "flag off” areas of the subject
so that the light from a particular Lamp docs not
fall full on them, They may alsa he used to shacke
the camera lens to prevent flare. The term ‘gobo is
used instead of flags by some photographers,
‘Cutters are long, thin finger-shaped fags.
Cookies are figs with holes, aypically used
10. proiecta dappled light on a\lbackgroned.
Cookie is allegedly an abbreviation of ‘eucaloris,
but equally ‘eucaloris’ may be a backsfoemation
from cookie, fam which holes appear to have
been cut with a cookie cutter, Then there are these
suho say that the word is “cucalorum* or “cocalo-
tum Some photographers call cookies "gobo:
Serims are diffusers made of wire mesh or fabric to,
soften a light.
Fingers are long, thin scrim, ike a scrim version
of acutter
Dots are small round serims, about 3 in. (7.5m)
in diameter. Quite often two are used together to
ereate shaped shadows, particularly to shade the
shoulder nisarsr the camera.
8 in. (20 em) in
vn ag “silks”,
“Targets are bigger dots, abo
diameter, They are also kn INTRODUCTION
The best Holywood porta are porerans xe
Hollprood second Tha plnure of Katrine Hepburn
wat then by Robert Coburn in 1933 for Chmoper
Shr isa superbly execiied 8x 1. shar bu au far
feces repective rma peture Uke by some of
hs conampararins you cel et
6
photographs looked good, In other words, it is not
good cnough today to equal the Hollywood mas-
ters: we must surpass them, at least in this respect.
RE-CREATING THE
HOLLYWOOD LOOK
There are certain ground rules that can give any
portrait a Hollywood flavor. Poses are an obvis
f you don't need easy-to-hold poses
ot the same reasons that the old Hollywood
portraitists did, they are still a part of the
Hollywood look. So-are eigarertes, though as noted
on page 10, the subject muse be able to hold them
convincingly. The same is true of guns for the
tough-guy look. Make-up, hair, clothes,
ry should either be timeless or as close as possible
0 1930s and 1940s originals.
Keep backgrounds simple bur don’t use mod=
em, bland, seamless paper and mottled fabric
backgrounds, Use pools of light, or dramatic shad
ows, or cookies, to add
though, that in Hollywood, things are not alw
‘what they seem: the “shadow” in the image on page
14 must be a cardboard cutout, not a real shadow at all.
Don't worry ab
had any — s0 keep exposures short, but do not skimp on develop.
ment. This is the exact opposite of most modern advice, which is to
example: &
jewel
rest. Remember,
it shadow detail = Hollywood portraits rarely
expose generously and curtail development.
After this, the easiest way to re-create the Holl
work as closely as possible to the way that the or
photographers worked: use an 8 x 10 in. camera and long, fa
ced lenses. This need not be as expensive as you might think. Fewer and
fewer professionals taday use $ x 10 in, cameras, so old, second-hand
monorails can often be found at the same sot of price as a decent new
mm compact of a mid-range digital camera. Old lenses are harder
4, but when you do find them, they arc rarsly expensive. Then
venerable front-of-lens shutters do
you need a shutter, but once ag
Jens and shutter together need cost no.
converter for 35 mr, Once you have the
not cost much: than a
and shutter, all you need is an 3 x 10 in, film holder, some film, some-
where dark to load and process the film; and a big, solid tripod
The note shadow in th oerat of Norma Shearer could bs happler bz he
Incerentrg parts the Buring ofthe movi beaded dren Gurng an exponure
shat probaly ran t Yk second. Once the camara it-on a tripod. the Beret
‘anger to Vurprets & the ibjeet Movey dhoser of further away between
sographir not ered 1927)
een ind epi
If you reject this approach, you will have to resort to fudging, and
faking. To begin with, you néed to light more softly, to compensate
for the lawer flare of modern, coated lenses: lighting ratios should
rarely exceed 8:1 (3 stops), even for dramatic character portraits, and
4:1 (2 stops) o less may be advisable for soft, romantic images.
Lenses should’ be longer than “standard* bur not enormously so:
even 90 mm may be longer than you need on 35. mm, and if you can
find something like the old 58 mm ff1.4 manual-focus Nikkor you
may be amazed at how suitable itis, On 645 and 6 x 6 cm go for 100
‘or 110 mm if you can; on 6 x 7em something like 127 mm or at
150 mm and on 4x51
even on 6 x 7
