Old Hollywood Style Portraits...

I've recently become interested in the old black and white style photos of early Hollywood. It's suprising to myself, because my friends make fun of me for only liking all things modern ie-gadgets, furniture...

I have a Digital Rebel with the kit lens and a new 70-200 f/4.0 lens.

I purchased the book "Hollywood Portraits: Classic shot and how to take them" by Roger Hicks.

http://www.amazon.com …-0003495-5411812?v=glance

I read Mr. Hicks' book and he recommends "Lenses should be longer than 'standard' but not enormoulsy so: even 90mm may be longer than you need on 35mm, and if you can find something like the old 58mm f/1.4 manual-focus Nikkor you may be amazed at how suitable it is."---what lens is he referring to here?

"Continuous or tungsten lighting will make it much easier to light in the classic styles: butterfly, or Paramount and loop. Focusing spots give an effect, a hardness to the light, that is impossible to replicate with conventional electronic flash, even snooted."----So I shouldn't use the White Lightning X1600 strobe I just ordered?


Does the following statement contradict the above?------"you need to light more softly, to compensate for the lower flare of modern, coated lens: lighting ratios should rarely exceed 8:1 (3 stops), even for dramatic character portraits, and 4:1 (2 stops) or less may be adviseable for soft, romantic images."

So has anyone attempted to recreate black and white photos like these old Hollywood style pics? I have some girl friends who are hot and would really look amazing if I can pull off this style.
Any recommendations shooting with a DReb? Thanks

Some examples:

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

I am not sure what lens he is refering to but at f1.4 it sure would collect alot of light.

His idea on continuous light is correct. Ir is easier to meter and set the shadows where you want them to be and to see the end product. Alot of the old styles relied on shadows and high contrasts for the harsher photos. Something like the butterfly you should see a shaow under the nose that looks like a butterfly and that would be hard to make sure that you have that with a flash. The only drawback to continuouse lighting is it can get hot to work under for you models.

The shot of maryln that you posted can be done with a flash just make sure that you difuse the light.

Have fun with this.

I suspect he means the 50mm f-1.4 which is a bit short for the head shots above. I don't remember ever using a 58mm 1.4 lens. Most of us used somewhere between 80mm & 105mm.

As AlSmith & Nike said, "Just do it, refine your process as you go, & have fun with it". Instant feedback - that's what digital is best at.

Many 'standard' lenses were 58mm many years ago. This particular lens likely worked well on the F1...

I have a Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm 1:1.4. The thread is 58mm. I use it for reverse lens macro, and yes, it is very sharp and lets in a lot of light. I imagine the manual version is a good bit older, like the '50s.

No, you can't have it, but I imagine if you scrounge around camera shops that sell used cameras, pawn shops, Google, whatever, you will find one or something close to it.

Photosguy: Does your statement mean you actually did some shooting of this style during the 1940's-50's?

I'm definitely going to stick with my DReb because of the immediate gratification with digital. In the book, Hicks talks about buying a used 8x10 camera setup. I don't even know what that means.

So this 58mm Nikkor lens will work on the DReb? Or it doesn't really make that much of a difference and I can just get a new Canon prime lens?

Thanks everyone, for the replies.

BTW- I read a review about my Canon EF 70-200 f/4.0 lens, and the author stated that this lens is "too sharp for portraiture." Maybe I should get a softening filter...

No.

I've used 8X10 extensively, & trust me, you don't want to do that. More important, you don't need to. The most you could gain in that situation from using 8X10 is grainless prints, & you're already there.
Work on the lighting & the poses. Use what you have, & I think you'll find that the lens you use isn't as important as you've been led to believe.

First quickie attempt. I didn't have a model so I used this Angelina Jolie cutout I had...

HTTP response: 503

BTW- anyone know of a good mannequin I purchase so I can practice lighting setups when I don't have a model or my girlfriend to pose? Does anyone do this or am I the only cheesey indvidual doing this?

Alsmith: Thanks for the Marylin recommendation. Actually, last week I ordered a large Photoflex Octidome softbox. Should be arriving via UPS tomorrow. It's 7 feet in diamter. That's right 7 feet. The bigger the source, the softer the light. Probably over did it with the 7 feet but it looked cool.

And yes I am having fun with this, thanks.

http://www.webphotosch​ool.com …ormations/index​.html#fig2

This is a Octidome softbox pic from Photoflex site. Slightly large huh?

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

wow that's quite the light. If it doesn't work for you you could always hang it over your dining room table.. hee hee

let me know how it works when you get it.

I know this post is like 5 years old, but that bok is where I got my start in Hollywood Glamour Photography. I love that book, and I highly recommend it to anyone.
I am including a comparison of a couple images I did with old photos as inspiration.
Enjoy...
Darkman.

I thought I saw this thread somwehere before!

I'm neutral on the first two (standing), but those second two (portrait with black bkg) are absolute killers to me. Perfect in every respect, even down to detail like those long eye lashes. Killers. Job well done, my friend!