A couple of Heather + hollywood glamour

[TJPhotoGuy]

Had a quick shoot with Heather the other night, she's a student at UNT up in Denton. I picked her for her facial features for some hollywood glamour type shots. We didn't have much time but one turned out ok. She was pretty green as far as I could tell, needed direting with posing and such (yeah like I'm an expert lol).

One challenge I noticed was her eyes were very dark brown. THey didn't seem to have much contrast between the pupil and iris.

A friendly face, ala some side lighting:



A little attitude:



I thought this one turned out better than my previous hollywood glamour shot. These are tough! The lighting is very tight:



As always polite C&C (+/-) welcome.

Thanks

[hhscr]

#3 is definatly my favorite. Love the BW conversion.
#1 is too tight for my liking and #2 the facial expression does not seem to fit and with her eyes cut so far the white in her eyes is a little distracting.

Good work I see what you mean with the dark brown and pupil hard to seperate.

[thelegend1472]

3 hands down rocks. everything about it. nice work.

[fran reisner]

OK TJ... since you asked...

How many lights do you own? The style I think you're working toward here really takes several. As far as placement of the main light goes you're onto something! BUT... you need to pop some light into the hair, and add a little kicker from behind her to give her shape and definition, and to separate her from the background. You also need to get some highlights into those eyes. It doesn't matter how dark they are, they're reflective and will reflect what you put into them. Without a highlight they go dead. (Go back and look at the one I posted for you before
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...hp?t=27379#top

One thing I'd really recommend to you, or anyone who wants to understand lighting, is to play with it. For portrait lighting get yourself a manikin head, set it on a posing table or something and experiment with the lights... the type, the distance, the size and the angle. Each one of these things will greatly impact how that light effects your subject. If you think about it, it's not really the subject you're photographing... it's the light that's reflecting off of it (him/her). Without the light you have nothing! It is what gives you shape, definition, color and texture... whether it's a person you're photographing, a rolex watch for an ad, or a mountain range. It's all about the light. The key is understanding it, and it's one of the hardest things to learn. You have to learn to see it differently. You have to learn to appreciate what makes one source of light so different from another. AND, you also have to understand how differently film (or sensors) record the light than how we see it. Our eyes have a much greater range from highlight to shadow than film and sensors do. So... in addition to understanding how it effects the subject, you have to learn to control it enough to capture detail where you need it... highlight to shadow. That's a function of your lighting as well.

Ummmmmm... is that enough for lesson #2?? I assume that's what you were asking for here. I could not begin to tell you where to put each of those lights from here. I know you're anxious to learn. You are on the right track TJ, and I love that you keep striving to learn by doing. Lighting is big. We could fill an entire day's workshop with it and still not skim the surface!

Keep at it TJ. Looking good.

[TJPhotoGuy]

Originally Posted by fran reisner

Keep at it TJ. Looking good.

Thanks Fran!

The reason I didn't choose to use a kicker or other lights in this case was because most of the old hollywood glamour type shots were done with only one single light, or two at the most... that's a fact. I often use rims, kickers and hair lights in other photos, but in this one wanted to recreated the old photographic style of guys like hurrell and ladie's like ruth louise. In this particular case, I acutally used two lights - a huge softbox (horizontal) that set the light for the scene, and a high-ratio key light with a 30-spot that created the butterfly pattern.

I thought about putting some light on the hat, but didn't want to take the focus away from the face. In retrospect, I see what you mean in that case, that I should have put some light on the hat, perhaps a ratio just above the fill but far less than the face.

As for how many ligths I own, currently 4, often using a bookend for fill.

Originally Posted by fran reisner

If you think about it, it's not really the subject you're photographing... it's the light that's reflecting off of it (him/her). Without the light you have nothing!

Very well-said... makes total sense.

I hope it's ok to post this here(?), this is a similar shot to what I was going for in terms of lighting (judy garland), except of course that I used an old style 1920's hat for this one I picked up at a coffee/antique shop in Wylie:



Thanks again! I definitely think this one is a vast improvement over the last one.

[srwatters]

I'll agree with pretty much everything Fran is suggesting, except I don't think you need a bunch of lights to do it. I manage with one or two most of the time. There are times I'll use more, but that's mostly due to the choice of background or mood I want to set.

These in particular look underexposed to me and the B&W appears to have lost nearly all detail in the blacks. In full size they may be there though. I know you lose a ton going from 8 or 10 MP down to 600 pixels on a side.

If the lighting pattern that I'm going for doesn't provide me a catchlight, I'll bring in another light with a grid and diffusion fabric just to get that sparkle without changing the exposure or ratio. I know one popular glamour photographer that uses a shower cap for a diffuser

Keep it up. The learning is 1/2 the fun (at least for me it is).

[TJPhotoGuy]

Originally Posted by srwatters

I'll agree with pretty much everything Fran is suggesting, except I don't think you need a bunch of lights to do it.

Well it depends on what you're going for. For #3, true, it's a hollywood glamour shot and most of those were done with 1, or at most 2 lights. #2 was very similar to #3 in lighting, it was mostly just a "setup shot" in preparation for #3. #1 was side lighting.

Originally Posted by srwatters

I manage with one or two most of the time. There are times I'll use more, but that's mostly due to the choice of background or mood I want to set.

I think it also depends on the "type" of photography you're doing. If it's beauty/head shots, a lot of times one would work just fine. If it's fashion, galmour or a combination, sometimes 6+ lights are used by pros. I personally love using at least 3+ lights on typical photographs especially fashion/glamour, for obviousreasons, most of them what Fran was talking about (although they dont' seem to apply usually to retro b/w photographs like these; again, it's a fact they were almost all done with 1 or 2 lights).

Originally Posted by srwatters

These in particular look underexposed to me

#1 was "side lighting" hence the pattern. #2 and especially #3 may be dark, but aren't underexposed; it's not dark on the face, and of course I used a meter as always. See the Judy Garland photo I posted above from Hurrell.

Originally Posted by srwatters

and the B&W appears to have lost nearly all detail in the blacks.

Again check out most of the other older shots like this; they're often very similar, a very tight focus on the face, and most of the rest falling off quickly into shadow from hard lights with high ratios.

P.S. History states that the whole genre "Glamour photography" came about and was coined that name from Hurrell... interesting.

Thanks for the comments guys...

[fran reisner]

TJ... I see what you're looking to do now. And you're getting really close. It's really hard to judge and compare on a computer monitor, but I want you to look closely at the difference in "quality of light" between yours and Hurrell's. In this case it's not the number of lights but the type of light source as well. Look at the specularity of the highlights on Judy Garland. See how they pop? And as Scott pointed out you may be a bit off on your exposure too, which could greatly effect your contrast. Try this... get yourself that manikin head, give her a name if you want, and set her up (or down, like Judy there), turn off all the lights in the room (no doubt some minds heading for the gutter at this point ) and turn on that one light. Make it a small to medium light source... maybe 8-12" reflector... and move it around. Shoot exposures as you go because it might be easier for you to see what I'm talking about two-dimensionally (and I guess that's my point is that you want to see three dimensions while viewing only two!) Your light(s) is what gives you that third dimension!! Start with the light... say 3' from the subject, now move it back to 6'. What did it do? How different is the transition from highlight to shadow? How did it effect that face? Now move it back to 3' and look at it again. Now feather the light toward the camera (don't move it, just turn it more toward the camera and not directly toward the subject.) How did it change? Add diffusion. How did THAT effect the light... the specularity... the transition from highlight to shadow?? Experimenting like this is hard to do with a live model. Trust me... you'll understand light much better if you try this. Then you can choose the style of lighting to use for the look you're trying to achieve.

[TJPhotoGuy]

Originally Posted by fran reisner

TJ... I see what you're looking to do now. And you're getting really close. It's really hard to judge and compare on a computer monitor

Thanks... At least in my mind, that's pretty close to what I wanted to achieve. Plus, I think I'm getting much better at "eliciting" expressions from sitters, because this model was pretty green and between the two of us, we got the look that was the goal pretty much, and this was a pretty short sessions (about 45min).

Originally Posted by fran reisner

but I want you to look closely at the difference in "quality of light" between yours and Hurrell's.

Lol... ok well, comparing my light to the guy a genre of photography was named after working with one of the prettiest women to ever live is a little depressing (j/k) but yes of course I see the difference; it's stark. HOwever, there are a lot of similarities in the light falloff etc between the two, he just did tons better job obviously.

Originally Posted by fran reisner

Try this... get yourself that manikin head,

WHere?

Originally Posted by fran reisner

give her a name if you want, and set her up (or down, like Judy there), turn off all the lights in the room

Actually the studio was completely dark (it always is, I have reflective material on the windows) and I metered each light invididually, then together.

Originally Posted by fran reisner

Experimenting like this is hard to do with a live model. Trust me... you'll understand light much better if you try this.

I usually experiment during tfcd sessions, which this one was... that's what tfcd's are for usually, both people learning etc. During paid shoots I only do what I know works :)

Originally Posted by fran reisner

Then you can choose the style of lighting to use for the look you're trying to achieve.

This was pretty much what I was trying to achieve for this one... butterfly lighting retro glamour style. So far I've gotten really good feedback from it, and I love it and obviously she did. Yes there's always room for improvement and I certainly know what you're describing about light sources, distance, arc of equal distance all that, I'm just not near where you are- but then how many people are? :)

THanks for the suggestions...for sure! I liked your comments and suggestions. You're a big asset here imho... I look forward to your next workshop ;)

[fran reisner]

TJ, first let me say I think you're doing great. Huge improvement since the last post you asked me to look at. Major kudos there. I'm assuming that you really are reaching out for some learnin' here, and when asked... it's my nature to share. Please take my posts as that. If you were standing in my studio I'd be telling you the same thing. To learn light is to see it... in a different way. Not like everyone else sees it. It's such an easy thing to take for granted. I did... for years! I didn't really SEE it until well after I started making a living capturing it! I'm still learning it, to the point of driving myself crazy with it sometimes. I can't stop analyzing how it wraps around a column or a rock or a face, how it spills across a wheat field at dusk, backlights the sprinklers on a golf course near sunset, dances on the leaves on a given afternoon. Light is amazing. Take a look around you. Really... right now... look how it's touching every little thing...

I'll leave you with that for now :-) G'night my friend!

[TJPhotoGuy]

HI Fran,

I definitely try every day to do those exercises; it's scary, cuz when I'm talking to someone now, I'm often analyzing shadows on their face! THen all of a sudden I'm like "I'm sorry, what was that?" :)

One last thought, there are actually catchlights in here eyes, they're just very small, for one the key light was very small (30-spot) and also her eyes were very dark and more importantly there was almost no contrast between the pupil, almost like one big black spot.

ANywayze, yes, thanks again for the thoughts... much obliged. And again, looking forward to the next one-day seminar :) ttfn

[jbrem]

Hi all,
I, too, love this kind of portraiture, but have no experience in it, but as I am finally getting my studio set up, I believe this will make up a majority of the work I do in it...
p.s. one thing that i think gives these images their uniqueness, is the clothing, hairstyling, and(if there is any) props. Everything back then had such a sense of class to it that is hard to find today...
btw, number 3 is great...

[TJPhotoGuy]

Originally Posted by jbrem

Hi all,
I, too, love this kind of portraiture, but have no experience in it, but as I am finally getting my studio set up, I believe this will make up a majority of the work I do in it...

That's awesome! I've seen a couple of profiles on model mayhem that had some really kewl retro shots like this. I just love the whole feel of them.


QUOTE=jbrem]p.s. one thing that i think gives these images their uniqueness, is the clothing, hairstyling, and(if there is any) props. [/QUOTE]

Agreed, that's a big part of it. When I saw that hat in the coffee shop in Wylie, I felt right away that it was perfect and snapped it up...

Thanks for the comments and share some when you take a few!

[jbrem]

Yeah, there was a classiness to those photos that you don't get much anymore, not that photography now is not as good as it was back then, but when celebrities were photographed back then, you knew they were celebrities, now a days, they might be anyone...