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)
(Deleted comment)
[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)