More Hollywood-ish hard light stuff

Messages
4,903
Name
Simon
Edit My Images
No
I've been playing with hard light sources - or as I prefer to think of them, hard shadow sources - for some time now. I reckon that if portraitists of old could produce stunning work without recourse to jumbo softboxes then that's a skill worth learning, and I've always been drawn to more theatrical contrasty stuff.

So.. another friend agreed to model for me while I experimented. This shoot was really just a test / experimental / learning shoot rather than trying to produce any serious results and Carly was incredibly patient. I was ridiculously slow in setting the lights for these - just a few millimetres or degrees changes the shot completely. Any lifelessness in the results is entirely my fault, not hers.

I've gone for a George Hurrell-ish styling and processing vibe this time. I'm not exactly trying to reproduce his work - for one thing I'm not shooting on 8x10 - but it seemed a good starting point. One interesting aspect of the shoot was the way in which modern portrait mores got in the way. Hurrell regularly allowed highlights to blow completely or had huge angular nose shadows right across the face. I found it very difficult to do the same, even if it would have been more authentic.

All C&C welcome, particularly on the lighting.


Carly I
by Simon Carter, on Flickr


Carly II
by Simon Carter, on Flickr


Carly III
by Simon Carter, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Nice set of shots, the only thing which maybe as well might be as well the intention the skin looks a tad on the sharp side.

Thanks, I was trying to strike a balance between smooth and contrasty and backed off the (software) diffusion filter a fair bit from my first attempts - but maybe I should have had the courage of my convictions. And then flickr has gone and added a bit more sharpening :/

#3 is beautiful Simon.
Ta very much!
 
I really like #1.
Can't quite put my finger on why though. The pose, the expressioni like and think the dark shadows help.
For me i would have liked her to be looking directly at the camera, it looks like she's looking slightly to her left (the viewers right).
Still like it though.
 
Now my fave was number 2, but I guess the lighting was less harsh for this shot and you used multiple sources or a strong reflector.
 
Now my fave was number 2, but I guess the lighting was less harsh for this shot and you used multiple sources or a strong reflector.
Thanks.. #2 had a strobe with an 8" Fresnel adapter high above and slightly in front for the key with some 1/2 tough spun diffusion material, a strobe in a small silver gridded beauty dish for a hair light high above and slightly behind and a speedlite with a medium Roguewave flashbender for a tiny bit of fill.
 
Last edited:
The lighting is intriguing on the first one. I see that there's a compromise with the fall off on her right cheek as the hat shields the eye from it. The lead eye may be a touch dark?

The two areas that catch my eye on the second are the pose and the highlights on the bum and shoulder. The highlights detract a little for me.

The last one I really like. Interesting angle, shooting upwards. I take it that was a very conscious decision?

Only viewing on the pad and so shall have a proper look tomorrow on a decent screen.
 
Love the mood of these. But number 3 just wasn't doing it for me and I've been trying to think why. I think it's the background. It's too plain or too much visible. A couple of studio props would have looked good, or some stage curtains. I do really like the first two though.
 
The lighting is intriguing on the first one. I see that there's a compromise with the fall off on her right cheek as the hat shields the eye from it. The lead eye may be a touch dark?

The two areas that catch my eye on the second are the pose and the highlights on the bum and shoulder. The highlights detract a little for me.

The last one I really like. Interesting angle, shooting upwards. I take it that was a very conscious decision?

Only viewing on the pad and so shall have a proper look tomorrow on a decent screen.

Hmm, maybe the first could do with a bit more contrast..
#2, the blown highlights are deliberate but you see what I mean about modern ideas of a correct exposure getting in the way? Hurrell would quite happily let highlights go to a much greater extent than this.
#3 yes, shooting upwards was deliberate. It doesn't actually suit Carly here - though again Hurrell would have no qualms about an 'up-the-nostril' shot if it suited him.



Love the mood of these. But number 3 just wasn't doing it for me and I've been trying to think why. I think it's the background. It's too plain or too much visible. A couple of studio props would have looked good, or some stage curtains. I do really like the first two though.

Thanks, I see what you mean. I did try to fire a light through a few different objects as gobos to create some interesting shadows but didn't have enough room to get them working how I wanted and went for a plain spot instead. Curtains would have been a good idea.
 
Hi Simon,

I'm definitely no expert, so please take this with a large pinch of whatever. (Also not read previous comments)

#1 is super from the forehead down. My brain isn't figuring out how the hat works. It looks like a 'wave' on her head due to the depth of the shadows. Sounds daft but I'm not seeing it.

#2 is my favourite - by a long shot. I love to see dramatic ranges of tones and the leopardskin base, dark background, light dress & lighting to compliment it all work really well together. This looks to me like the most "thought out" of the shots.

#3 when I first saw it, my instant reaction was "what's she sat on?" Your model looks decidedly uncomfortable to me and I'm not sure whether it's pose, or expression or a bit of both. That said, I think the lighting is really well done again. The background spot and the harsh subject lighting (for me) really dramatises the photo and gives it a ton of impact.

I'm quite partial to high contrast portraits, and I really like the set as a whole. Shot #2 though is just lovely.
 
Hi Simon,

I'm definitely no expert, so please take this with a large pinch of whatever. (Also not read previous comments)

#1 is super from the forehead down. My brain isn't figuring out how the hat works. It looks like a 'wave' on her head due to the depth of the shadows. Sounds daft but I'm not seeing it.

#2 is my favourite - by a long shot. I love to see dramatic ranges of tones and the leopardskin base, dark background, light dress & lighting to compliment it all work really well together. This looks to me like the most "thought out" of the shots.

#3 when I first saw it, my instant reaction was "what's she sat on?" Your model looks decidedly uncomfortable to me and I'm not sure whether it's pose, or expression or a bit of both. That said, I think the lighting is really well done again. The background spot and the harsh subject lighting (for me) really dramatises the photo and gives it a ton of impact.

I'm quite partial to high contrast portraits, and I really like the set as a whole. Shot #2 though is just lovely.

Thanks.. the hat is wave shaped :)
#3.. found out :) She's perched on a cushion on top of a small chaise thing. I struggled to get Carly comfy and looking natural and this shot took by far the longest to get right.
 
Hmm, maybe the first could do with a bit more contrast..
#2, the blown highlights are deliberate but you see what I mean about modern ideas of a correct exposure getting in the way? Hurrell would quite happily let highlights go to a much greater extent than this.
#3 yes, shooting upwards was deliberate. It doesn't actually suit Carly here - though again Hurrell would have no qualms about an 'up-the-nostril' shot if it suited him.





Thanks, I see what you mean. I did try to fire a light through a few different objects as gobos to create some interesting shadows but didn't have enough room to get them working how I wanted and went for a plain spot instead. Curtains would have been a good idea.

I'm sat on a proper monitor now and these look far better. The first and third are still fab, the first does look better on a decent screen. I shall have a look at Hurrell's work later and see where your inspiration came from.
 
Hi Simon you know me by now ! eg: Not too clued up on the lighting info.That said from a viewers pov Carly 2 is amazing. others are great too.

Gaz
 
I feel #2 is what I think of as Hollywood lighting, I think the face needs a touch more of a highlight, maybe not I don't know for sure
It's a beautiful image in a style I am interested in so I look forward to seeing more of your experiments.
 
I feel #2 is what I think of as Hollywood lighting, I think the face needs a touch more of a highlight, maybe not I don't know for sure
It's a beautiful image in a style I am interested in so I look forward to seeing more of your experiments.

Thanks!

The phrase Hollywood Lighting seems to cover a huge range of styles. George Hurrell became the best known Hollywood photographer but in fact his style was (a) distinctly different from many - or indeed any - other portraitists, especially before others started copying him and (b) changed a lot from his early work with Norma Shearer to his later stuff with Sharon Stone. One of the things he was especially good at was altering his lighting - sometimes hugely - to suit the shape of the face of his subject.

It's interesting that you say the face needs a bit more highlight. The film types used in this era often meant that skin could look under-exposed by modern standards, especially when combined with blown highlights elsewhere.

Anyway.. the Hollywood thing has been fun and I'll undoubtedly do more but what I really want to do is find a way to use these techniques with a more contemporary style & setting.
 
Like I said on Flickr, Simon, I'm not loving the lack of light in the eyes on no1 and no3. I know there's a trade-off with such a hard light source and you've nailed it in no2, but the others lack that twinkle that's essential for me.
 
Like I said on Flickr, Simon, I'm not loving the lack of light in the eyes on no1 and no3. I know there's a trade-off with such a hard light source and you've nailed it in no2, but the others lack that twinkle that's essential for me.

I see what you're saying.. #1 just hasn't quite worked, I think it actually needs even harder lighting and/or processing to pull it off.
#3.. was the most difficult and has most of the elements I was after but has ended up pretty lifeless.
 
I see what you're saying.. #1 just hasn't quite worked, I think it actually needs even harder lighting and/or processing to pull it off.
#3.. was the most difficult and has most of the elements I was after but has ended up pretty lifeless.

I wonder if the front light was just a little too far off centre for 3, and it's left the eyes too dark and created lines out & down from Carly's nose. Dean has a good point about the twinkle, but it seems as though her eyes are in shadow, even when they shouldn't be.
 
#1. It seems that your rim light is causing 3 levels of lighting on her rt cheek... not fond of that. I think a single light setup might have worked better. Combine that with a white reflector for just a touch of fill where needed, and more importantly something for the eyes to reflect, and I think it would have been great.

#2. I quite like. But the pose is not great. Her butt is too high which is lining up with her shoulders, loosing her left shoulder, and making her body into a square. As it is, I'd crop it tighter.

#3. The top half I like. The bottom part I find the dress overwhelms and I loose any sense of her in it. If anything, it makes her seem bigger/heavier. I think you could bring up the eyes just a touch in post... the light's there.
 
#1. It seems that your rim light is causing 3 levels of lighting on her rt cheek... not fond of that. I think a single light setup might have worked better. Combine that with a white reflector for just a touch of fill where needed, and more importantly something for the eyes to reflect, and I think it would have been great.

#2. I quite like. But the pose is not great. Her butt is too high which is lining up with her shoulders, loosing her left shoulder, and making her body into a square. As it is, I'd crop it tighter.

#3. The top half I like. The bottom part I find the dress overwhelms and I loose any sense of her in it. If anything, it makes her seem bigger/heavier. I think you could bring up the eyes just a touch in post... the light's there.

Thanks for the input, all useful stuff.
 
I see what you're saying.. #1 just hasn't quite worked, I think it actually needs even harder lighting and/or processing to pull it off.
#3.. was the most difficult and has most of the elements I was after but has ended up pretty lifeless.

It's so much harder to pull off glamorous images with hard light. The margins, as you've discovered, are tiny.
 
Enjoying following your journey Simon and these all work for me, and are certainly in keeping with the style of the shots you see of the era in question.

Given how the photographers were working, maybe <12 shots on a roll of film, no 'chimping' back then, guessing where the lights might work, etc. I have a lot of respect for the work of many of the photographers back then. Having started on film and had the restrictions as a teenager of usually one, possibly two, rolls of films for a holiday or event, due to the cost of film and processing it was important to consider each shot carefully as to whether it was worth taking. Getting the prints back from the developer's was an exiting moment.

My daughters are 19 and 17, and most of the shots of them growing up were shot on film. I switched to digital quite late.

You're replicating film shots of a special time in photography and using lighting, not a preset or filter. I applaud you're efforts.

Keep up the great work!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top