bmattock
Veteran
lushd said:
I like playing forensic scientist on photographs I admire, especially portraits and other posed shots. I like to try to figure out how the artist lit the scene, notice how they posed their subject, what props they might have used, the intentional use of shadow, and so on. Then I like to compare that to what I see today - how different it is!
I don't necessarily want to make "1940's" portraits again - that's not original, it's imitation. However, when I look at how we got from A to B and how much has changed, I wonder what would happen if I went back to A and tried a slightly different path to B - modern techniques, old techniques, just a different blend. I guess I'm still looking for the photographs that please my soul, and I suspect that a lot of what made great photographs great in the past has been set aside and perhaps forgotten - and can be revived and updated for a fresh and interesting look.
Look at how they did it, think about why they did it, consider what effect it has, and decide if you want to try to incorporate it into your own style. At least that's what I'm currently pondering.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
EDIT:
Here's a prime example. Who shoots a portrait like this anymore? Is that because it is bad, and now there are better ways? Is it too 'done'? Is it cliche'd? Or can it be updated and used anew in a modern way?
[not my photo]
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
lushd said:
I was just reading about him the other day. The 'last tintype photographer in Texas' if I recall correctly. Yes, that's very cool.
I'm not sure I'm ready to dig into tintypes, but I very much appreciate the work he is doing.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
lushd
Donald
Is that because it is bad, and now there are better ways? Is it too 'done'? Is it cliche'd? Or can it be updated and used anew in a modern way?
Now there's a challenge! I don't fancy tintypes either. My idea is to get prints that look and feel like the ones I saw in the last Cartier Bresson exhibition in London.
Now there's a challenge! I don't fancy tintypes either. My idea is to get prints that look and feel like the ones I saw in the last Cartier Bresson exhibition in London.
SteveM(PA)
Poser
bmattock
Veteran
langdon auger said:
I like that very much! Ever thought of trying it toned sepia?
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
Veteran
lushd said:
I just stumbled across this (forgive me, I'm stuck in the "Hollywood Glamour Portrait" mode) and thought it illustrated what all of us have been talking about:
As has been mentioned, notice a modern photo done in imitation of how such portraits were made, and yet....something is different, isn't it?
Here's the website of the artist:
http://www.lafterhall.com
And I mean no disrespect to him, just using an example that I found via Google.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
SteveM(PA)
Poser
bmattock said:
Thanks Bill, I'll have to try that. And oops I keep forgetting, this is a J8 shot (the J9 which I also had with me that day is sitting there on the table).
jonasv
has no mustache
Besides pose, lighting, film, paper, and what-not, I think the subject itself is crucial. People have changed since the 30's/50's/70's, and it shows. Even (or maybe especially) in the shortest instance the photograph is captured.
lushd
Donald
Here's the website of the artist:
http://www.lafterhall.com
And I mean no disrespect to him, just using an example that I found via Google.
Interesting attempt - this is by no means easy.
If I were doing this I would use only one light (and maybe a reflector). I think there are two lights here - the soft shadow on the background and the harder ones under the hat seem to give the game away. You will find such sharp shadows hard to find in those types of formal portraits.
A 40's photog would have used a tungsten bulb in a satellite dish size reflector to get a very soft even light and I would have followed that. Also, I would have sent the model for a proper shave and stuck on some pancake to cover his skin blemishes.
I'd have taped his ear flat too. And got a hat that fits.
And I'd have made him sit up straight and changed the camera position to make him look up more to create a more dynamic composition.
As to film, I would have processed either the Karsh way (underexpose, over develop) to get really dramatic dark pictures (very film noir) or the Ansel Adams way for good shadows and comtrolled highlights (overexpose and shorten development) - this would have stopped the highlight in the hat blowing out.
Also I would have used the largest format I could get - those Hollywood types reguarly used 10 x 8 sheets - for smooth tonality. I would also have shot as close to f2.8 or f4 as I could get and put my focus right on his eyes. This image has too much depth of field. Finally (and to be honest thank God for Photoshop) I would have done a fair bit of smoothing out on the final print to make it all look glossy and unreal.
Not to knock the guy either - just saying how I would tackle it. I reckon I'd only waste about 50 sheets of film before I was happy!
http://www.lafterhall.com
And I mean no disrespect to him, just using an example that I found via Google.
Interesting attempt - this is by no means easy.
If I were doing this I would use only one light (and maybe a reflector). I think there are two lights here - the soft shadow on the background and the harder ones under the hat seem to give the game away. You will find such sharp shadows hard to find in those types of formal portraits.
A 40's photog would have used a tungsten bulb in a satellite dish size reflector to get a very soft even light and I would have followed that. Also, I would have sent the model for a proper shave and stuck on some pancake to cover his skin blemishes.
I'd have taped his ear flat too. And got a hat that fits.
And I'd have made him sit up straight and changed the camera position to make him look up more to create a more dynamic composition.
As to film, I would have processed either the Karsh way (underexpose, over develop) to get really dramatic dark pictures (very film noir) or the Ansel Adams way for good shadows and comtrolled highlights (overexpose and shorten development) - this would have stopped the highlight in the hat blowing out.
Also I would have used the largest format I could get - those Hollywood types reguarly used 10 x 8 sheets - for smooth tonality. I would also have shot as close to f2.8 or f4 as I could get and put my focus right on his eyes. This image has too much depth of field. Finally (and to be honest thank God for Photoshop) I would have done a fair bit of smoothing out on the final print to make it all look glossy and unreal.
Not to knock the guy either - just saying how I would tackle it. I reckon I'd only waste about 50 sheets of film before I was happy!
comp_wiz101
Compulsive Tinkerer
Yes, if you were going to redo it: large format, low depth, and tungsten spotlighting.