Vintage glamour in the kitchen

[juggler]

I spent a few hours on Friday helping a friend work out whether it was feasible to use her home for portrait shoots. I knew the natural light in the space was often lovely but the main idea was to work out how to reproduce it on those days when the sun wasn't playing nicely.

.. and then at the end of the shoot I had an idea that I could stuff Bernadette in a corner of the kitchen and do some of my vintage-Hollywood-glamour-with-a-modern-take thing.. and made this..

All thoughts gratefully received! I like it a lot but suspect that I'm a bit close to it and just being pleased with my own cleverness.



Lighting notes..

1. AD360 with 5" reflector and grid hidden behind the ceiling lights, close to Bernadette - light stand 'shopped out
2. Speedlite with black foamy thing handheld by Vanessa standing on a chair for a little hair light, just out of shot to the right
3. Natural light from outside through a large diffuser panel gaffer taped to the window, modified by the black strip blinds
4, 5, 6, 7 Tungsten bulbs hanging from the ceiling (just seen)
8 Small & intermittent constant Godox LED thingy pointing at the plant & flagged off Bernadette. Not sure it was actually working in this shot though.

 

[johnty52]

Juggler, the 3 upside down glass 'boobs' are very distracting for me !. The other elements are a bit busy for me too (Background should possibly be a bit darker for 'Hollywood'). A tighter crop perhaps would have helped concentrate on the subject more.

 

[juggler]

Juggler, the 3 upside down glass 'boobs' are very distracting for me !. The other elements are a bit busy for me too (Background should possibly be a bit darker for 'Hollywood'). A tighter crop perhaps would have helped concentrate on the subject more.

Thanks for the feedback!

I totally get that the lampshades may be distracting - I'm playing a lot at the moment with including foreground elements and partially obscured items at the edge of the frame. It goes against modern compositional thinking but it's the sort of thing Mantanega was doing in the 1400s. I'm not sure I've found a really found a way of making it work yet.

Not all 40s & 50s Hollywood images are that dark - a lot of the more familiar images are but those folk actually used light in a lot of different ways.

Tighter crop.. I'll give it a try.

Ta!

 

[MidnightUK]

On my monitor (not very good one) her cheekbones and forehead look so bright as to be a little featureless, unless its slight over smoothing in post processing? As I said though, this monitor is pretty basic so the highlights may just be beyond what this screen can handle well. Apart from that I think the lighting and framing are very good.

I think this image is really lovely. I actually like the glass bowls. Its a hallmark of Hollywood images to have 'shiny' and/or lots of texture plus elegant 'hard' objects such as vases and sweeping stairs etc.
I would class the glass bowls as necessary in this image as they bring in the main source of shine (plus glamour) and fulfil the hard object standard. If they were not there, more shine would need to be added in some other way.

 

[juggler]

On my monitor (not very good one) her cheekbones and forehead look so bright as to be a little featureless, unless its slight over smoothing in post processing? As I said though, this monitor is pretty basic so the highlights may just be beyond what this screen can handle well. Apart from that I think the lighting and framing are very good.

I think this image is really lovely. I actually like the glass bowls. Its a hallmark of Hollywood images to have 'shiny' and/or lots of texture plus elegant 'hard' objects such as vases and sweeping stairs etc.
I would class the glass bowls as necessary in this image as they bring in the main source of shine (plus glamour) and fulfil the hard object standard. If they were not there, more shine would need to be added in some other way.

Thank you!

I may have overcooked the processing, it's something I still do - but I do struggle to get the highlights *just* right. If I optimise for e.g. iPhone viewing then the image will look rubbish on a calibrated monitor/

 

[MidnightUK]

Not a comment specific to this picture, but lots of Hollywood images are not cropped tight. There are many wider angle images of for example Joan Crawford where she is in a wide scene with stairs, a turnstile door or standing among large scenery pieces taken from film sets and used for photo backdrops (I dont mean film stills from the sound stages). Though its true the close ups are the more commonly featured ones if you do a search.

Quick search example of a few wider angle shots
https://silhouettetrends.wordpress.com/2014/05/02/style-icon-joan-crawford/

 

[MidnightUK]

overcooked the processing

I think its quite hard to get this right with Hollywood style. There is a requirement for a different mindset to modern imaging. Lots of high contrast, lots of strongly lit bright areas. Too many different screens for them to be viewed on.

I think people often concentrate only on the lighting / shadows / highlights and forget the 'props' that make an image Hollywood. Texture is a massive thing. Fur, Obviously matt surfaces next to other types to set them off. Very textured fabric weaves. Tons of shine - glass, glossy ceramics, sequins, satin, pearls, mirrors, metal.

Lots of light objects placed next to dark ones. Smooth things next to rougher textures.

Things that modern photographers would not at first think to combine, as when some of this was seen in real life (colour) the set possibly looked awful and overwhelming. Yet it converts to entertainment and engagement for the eye in high contrast black and white.

 

[juggler]

I think people often concentrate only on the lighting / shadows / highlights and forget the 'props' that make an image Hollywood. Texture is a massive thing. Fur, Obviously matt surfaces next to other types to set them off. Very textured fabric weaves. Tons of shine - glass, glossy ceramics, sequins, satin, pearls, mirrors, metal.

It's only recently I've started to get my head round that end of things. Getting there though!

 

[sk66]

I'm playing a lot at the moment with including foreground elements and partially obscured items at the edge of the frame.

One thing about FG obscurations for me is that they have to make sense logically, even if subconsciously. I.e. what it is and why it's impacting my view.

In this case, why would a chandelier be so huge and so low? If it is perspective that is making it seem so large, then it is really low... the viewpoint is from about waist/chest high. And if it's not a chandelier, what is it and why is it there?
If I have to think about these kinds of things, even subconsciously, then they are a distraction from the intent.

I also think you mixed too many textures/ideas... IMO the hard straight lines of the window/blinds doesn't fit with the rest of the image.

But I like the overall direction and lighting you're going with here.

 

[juggler]

One thing about FG obscurations for me is that they have to make sense logically, even if subconsciously. I.e. what it is and why it's impacting my view.

In this case, why would a chandelier be so huge and so low? If it is perspective that is making it seem so large, then it is really low... the viewpoint is from about waist/chest high. And if it's not a chandelier, what is it and why is it there?
If I have to think about these kinds of things, even subconsciously, then they are a distraction from the intent.

I also think you mixed too many textures/ideas... IMO the hard straight lines of the window/blinds doesn't fit with the rest of the image.

But I like the overall direction and lighting you're going with here.

It was large and low. I lost count of the number of times I banged my head on it But I take your point..

 

[Harlequin565]

I pretty much agree with Steven on the lampshade - although I think Glass Boobs is a far better term.

Fronds on the R shoulder are by design? If so - great call - I really like the shadow there. Lighting is fab, and the other tinily minor point is the expression. She seems a bit too cheerful for the mood in the image. My opinion only though.

More Plz.

 

[david357]

I love this but for me the lampshade is too prominent in the frame, forming a barrier through the image.

I do like the lighting too.

 

[MidnightUK]

Something I have found very helpful to do is to 'collect' jpeg images of old Hollywood photos. If you get the odd 10 mins do a internet search for Hollywood stars 1920s (or 30s). Also search under the stars own names, such as Joan Crawford, Basil Rathbone, Veronica Lake etc or under the numerous Hollywood photographers names.

I have picked up hundreds of jpegs doing this, for personal reference (some are from later decades too) and I am still adding to them, as I find many very lovely to look at. I tend to only pick the high quality, larger jpegs so you can see more details if needed. Once you have a big clump of these things, stick them on a tablet or pc and just flick through them randomly at spare moments. En mass its a much easier way to compare the eras lighting techniques and props etc and see the common denominators of the style. The more you look the more you notice.

The nearest we get to such high end glamour shots now (though in a modern style) is Angelina Jolie, who seems to have put a lot of time and effort into high quality photoshoots over her career, much more so than anyone else in recent years. I would say she is more aware of the usefulness of good photography than most stars today. Her images are mostly in colour, but worth a look if you want to see some contemporary striking images. She has an interesting ability to make a static image look dynamic.

 

[juggler]

Something I have found very helpful to do is to 'collect' jpeg images of old Hollywood photos. If you get the odd 10 mins do a internet search for Hollywood stars 1920s (or 30s). Also search under the stars own names, such as Joan Crawford, Basil Rathbone, Veronica Lake etc or under the numerous Hollywood photographers names.

I have picked up hundreds of jpegs doing this, for personal reference (some are from later decades too) and I am still adding to them, as I find many very lovely to look at. I tend to only pick the high quality, larger jpegs so you can see more details if needed. Once you have a big clump of these things, stick them on a tablet or pc and just flick through them randomly at spare moments. En mass its a much easier way to compare the eras lighting techniques and props etc and see the common denominators of the style. The more you look the more you notice.

The nearest we get to such high end glamour shots now (though in a modern style) is Angelina Jolie, who seems to have put a lot of time and effort into high quality photoshoots over her career, much more so than anyone else in recent years. I would say she is more aware of the usefulness of good photography than most stars today. Her images are mostly in colour, but worth a look if you want to see some contemporary striking images. She has an interesting ability to make a static image look dynamic.

I've got a pile of books from or about the era - collections of images and biographies as well as technique books. It's only recently that I've started to examine the accessories - the lighting techniques , expression and processing have been keeping me occupied.

I'm slowly evolving a way of using those techniques in a modern style; an awful lot of what those folk did would be considered undesirable today - e.g. eye sockets completely in shadow, huge nose shadows crossing the mouth. There's still a lot to draw on though.

Thanks for the Angelina Jolie tip - she's largely passed me by.