Log in

No account? Create an account
We'd gotten a couple of books of Hurrel's Hollywood photos and spent… - if you can't be witty, then at least be bombastic [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
kyle cassidy

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Mar. 14th, 2012|05:53 am]
kyle cassidy
[mood |accomplishedaccomplished]
[music |Golden Palominos: Belfast]

We'd gotten a couple of books of Hurrel's Hollywood photos and spent last night dissecting some of them. For a guy who had no light modifiers, only a bunch of bright spot lights he did the most amazing work -- well, we also noticed that apart from lots of pancake makeup, some of his photos had six hours of retouching on them -- but still the amazing effects he got with basically a bunch of snoots boggles my mind.

Years ago I'd read someone say "today you can just get a couple of softboxes and wham! instant great portrait, and it's cheating!" -- and I thought I don't mind cheating so I got a couple of softboxes and did lots of great portraits and only last night did I realize what that person had been talking about -- about it being cheating and it for sure made sense.

Clickenzee to Embiggen!

Add me: [LiveJournal] [Facebook] [Twitter] [Google+] [Tumblr]

[User Picture]From: dd_b
2012-03-14 03:02 pm (UTC)
That shot is a very nice example.

Often the "right" place for the model is limited to a half inch or so each direction :-).

I went through a period studying Hurrel a few years back, I should get the books out again and see what I've learned. I've been playing with snoots and modifiers that aren't softeners again for a while, now and then something certainly comes of it.

You can make quite a useful snoot for a "speedlight" with a sheet of white printer paper and a piece of Scotch tape; although it leaks outwards from the sides a lot so it does provide some soft fill. They fold down and pack in the back slash pocket of a camera bag pretty well, too.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: valya_dl
2012-03-14 04:44 pm (UTC)
So lovely!

(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: solstice_lilac
2012-03-14 04:52 pm (UTC)
Maybe it is cheating, with the softboxes, but trillian_stars' natural beauty must also make it easy for you to take a great portrait!!
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dd_b
2012-03-14 05:42 pm (UTC)
Well, there's a grid, right? That makes it more directional :-) .
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: kylecassidy
2012-03-14 06:06 pm (UTC)
there may be a grid on the hair light. i tried it both ways, can't remember which one this is.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: missmorte
2012-03-14 11:23 pm (UTC)
I never had good lights and would shoot with bright ones but would use tricks like covering them with scarves, plastic wrap with vaseline on it it, etc.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: Marcin Wuu
2012-03-18 03:44 pm (UTC)


There's a very good reason Hurrell didn't use any light-softening modifiers - he was going for something entirely different, something you simply can't get with a soft light. Your portrait, while good, does not tell the same tale...
In other words, it is precisely because the guy used just a couple of spotlights, he could do what he did. Anything beyond fresnel lens, barndoors and a snoot and you're off the hollywood mood :)
(Reply) (Thread)