(1) Master the finer points of lighting.
(2) Photograph the most beautiful women in the world, but only the ones who really come across well to the camera.
(3) Master the details of retouching. In George's case, it was with pencil, razor blade, and airbrush. PhotoShop will do for todays digital images.
(4) Practice, practice, practice, and if you are really good, you might begin to approach his level of skill.
Seriously, I am not trying to be a smart ass here. George Hurrell's work cannot be easily reduced to the sort of two paragraph description of technique that suits this place and answers posted here.
If you aspire to take photos in the style and with the skill and perfection of George Hurrell, you have set yourself a most worthy goal. Plan to devote the next decade or two of your life to the single-minded pursuit of that goal.
(1) Master the finer points of lighting.
(2) Photograph the most beautiful women in the world, but only the ones who really come across well to the camera.
(3) Master the details of retouching. In George's case, it was with pencil, razor blade, and airbrush. PhotoShop will do for todays digital images.
(4) Practice, practice, practice, and if you are really good, you might begin to approach his level of skill.
Seriously, I am not trying to be a smart ass here. George Hurrell's work cannot be easily reduced to the sort of two paragraph description of technique that suits this place and answers posted here.
If you aspire to take photos in the style and with the skill and perfection of George Hurrell, you have set yourself a most worthy goal. Plan to devote the next decade or two of your life to the single-minded pursuit of that goal.
Everyone has to have goals but more looking for digital darkroom advise. If you would of looked at the ones on the photographer's site that I linked to you would of seen what I am talking about.
Striving to meet the level of a superb photographer is always the goal or I would stop.
SoCo n Lime
Posts: 3,202
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
1st image unfiltered rim light aimed from behind subject giving the rim effect more than likely a stop and a half above filtered or reflected frontal fill light. the rim light is reflected in the wall just behind subject wether it was meant or not.
combination of x 2 strobes unfiltered in an other pic are obvious creating high key areas one top area one bottom area of subject. with the amount if light being blasted from the strobes it could be enough for creating over all fill but my guess is there is a frontal fill at all times
subject , styling, lighting , black and white feel all have an important role to play in making the imagery work
SoCo n Lime
Posts: 3,202
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
post work.. lots of blurring but masking of eyes or important features that you want to keep sharp. when grey scaling take out green and blue channels in black and white.
for example click on red channel when you've opened your rgb file in PS and then select greyscale and disgard other channels
allot has to do with the lighting (high key areas) and the all important styling if going for a old vintage glamour film star era
pellepiano
Posts: 2,172
Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
Im very fond of the old Hollywood look. When I try to shoot in that style I use my cheap china strobes without diffusers, and also do some softening and some dodge and burn to add or decrease contrast.
I think much of the look depends om props, makeup and model.
You are not asking how to shoot like George Hurrell, but how to shoot like a woman that takes Hurrell as her inspiration.
Honestly though, I don't think her work reminds me of Hurrell very much. Her work lacks the chiaroscuro and drama of his work. She is like a dodgy photo copy of Hurrell and you are asking about making a photo copy of a photo copy.
Why not go straight to Hurrell?
Or simply drop Hurrell from your post and ask about this woman's work? They are two different animals.
Well, when I taught this in classes, I asked students to remember several things.
1. Hurrell was using tungsten lighting which has a very different quality to atrobes. You need the smoothness.
2. Hurrell used large scoop reflectors (what we would call beauty dishes)
3. Hurrell used the same techniques as cinema lighting technicians such as focussing spots with fresnel lenses(you might get the same results with snoots and small mesh )
4. Hurrell used very dark ruby red lipsticks & very dark pencils for eyebrows etc. because of the film sensitivity
5. Hurrell used fine mesh filters in front of his lenses (you can try a piece of black nylon stocking) You can also use white depending on whether you want to diffuse highlights into shadows or vice vera
6. As pointed out elsewhere, and what I used to teach students to do in film classes, Hurrell also used papers with long grey scales and retouching tools such as negative etching knives, opaquing dyes (not pencils) etc. Most of these effects are reproducible with PS.
While the examples you mentioned are very very nice they very different to George Hurrell's Photography. They do not have the deep shadows, dramatic expression and intimacy Of Hurrell's images.
Shoot film.
large medium format or 4x5.
Lighting. Hot lights. Fresnel spots. For strobe the Elinchrom SL35 comes closer than anyother strobe.
Hurrell also used many flags, cutters and fingers to create shadows.
A little tribute of mine to George Hurrell:
Fuji GX680 250mm f5.6 @ 11 or 16.
Light
But it's important to use a dense fillament bulb. Longer lasting cheap modern lamps don't create the right edge shadows.
ThePharmakon wrote: You are not asking how to shoot like George Hurrell, but how to shoot like a woman that takes Hurrell as her inspiration.
Honestly though, I don't think her work reminds me of Hurrell very much. Her work lacks the chiaroscuro and drama of his work. She is like a dodgy photo copy of Hurrell and you are asking about making a photo copy of a photo copy.
Why not go straight to Hurrell?
Or simply drop Hurrell from your post and ask about this woman's work? They are two different animals.
Sabot Images wrote: Everyone has to have goals but more looking for digital darkroom advise. If you would of looked at the ones on the photographer's site that I linked to you would of seen what I am talking about.
Striving to meet the level of a superb photographer is always the goal or I would stop.
All truisms.
I looked at the ones to which you linked before I answered. The question you asked, however, is pretty fundamentally too wide open to yield an answer more detailed than what I gave you. In essence, you said "hey, my car broke, tell me how to fix it." No reasonable answer is possible. You want some specifics, you need to ask specific questions.
I quite realize that being able to even formulate specific questions requires a certain level of expertise already. The question you ask is not the question of someone with such a level of expertise, it is the question typically asked (and asked VERY commonly here) by someone seeking a three-instruction recipe for duplication of the images shown. This is beyond the capacity of either mortals to answer or this forum to provide. You will get either generic answers such as I gave, or tons of very specific details, the sum of which, if you ever manage to digest it, might get you some hints.
The truth is that George melded all those techniques in his own fashion to produce his images. Do you want to know about his lighting? Ask about it. Do you want to know about how he went about correcting the flaws in the human beings he turned into such icons of flawless beauty? Ask about retouching techniques. The list of areas of expertise needed to "get these photos" is huge. Ask a question that CAN be answered.
And I really am not trying to give you a hard time here. I really am trying to help you get where you want to go, believe it or not. What I'm trying to say here is that there is a flaw in your approach.
So, what, exactly, do you want to duplicate about these particular photos. "The look" is not a good answer. Too broad.
You need a camera and lens capable of capturing fine detail without becoming harsh. My experience in film was that the technique was much easier on 4x5 than medium format and almost impossible with 35mm.
The old timers used harder light sources than most of us today. Put away the softboxes and umbrellas, work a beauty dish, smaller reflectors, and maybe snoots and/or grids. Their lighting was often more specific to a face and pose than the more generic setups most use today.
Good makeup helps, though I've heard it said that Hurrell himself preferred to photograph a natural face then apply his "makeup" in retouch.
One of the secrets is to pump a lot of flare into the highlights while preserving detail in the darks, such as eyelashes and lips. The old portrait lenses like the Rodenstock Imagon were champions at this. You can do a pretty good imitation in photoshop: Create a duplicate image layer and dial down the opacity to 30% or so. Put in too much blur (Gaussian or whatever you prefer), add a steep contrast curve to your layer, and fine tune with opacity and masking.
Someone mentioned darkroom. If you want to try this on film I'd suggest you use 6x7 or 4x5. The old lenses are still out there if you look for them -- I think the Imagon was even available in a Mamiya 6x7 mount. Failing that try a piece of sheer white fabric in front of the lens or a very light diffusion filter. A red filter will lighten skin and help hide blemishes, making modern film look more like older emulsions, but it will also lighten red lipstick so you may want very dark lips if you use one.
Light Writer
Posts: 18,236
Hayward, California, US
Klieg Lights.
Can't do it without Klieg Lights.
I would start by looking at real Hurrell images. But remember you're not really seeing them if you've only seen digital representations on a computer of a half-tone print in a book. One element is the lights though. Flashes and Strobes really do light things differently from hot lights and the lighting is very important for the Hurrell-inspired images. Working in an environment where the lighting is fixed is a useful exercise in and of itself.
Check out my website for videos, lighting diagrams of Hollywood Glamour Photography.
Get yourself some Fresnels and go at it.
http://www.darkmansdarkroom.com/
Nope. The zoom spot is a Leko. It produces very nice light, similar to sunlight, but is not very efficient. For full length head to toe you will get about f8 when used with a 3,000 watt pack. It's really for projecting gobos on backgrounds.
I use it for full length and portraits. It produces vert sharp crisp shadows so you can't really use flags to create anything other than sharp shadows.
The Elinchrom SL35 is no longer in production.
You can make something similar buy buying an ADB 2k theatrical fresnel spot and removing the cowling on the back and attaching a chimera speedring in place of the internal reflector of the ADB. These are very nice spots.
NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote: I have the fresnel lens from a Mole Richardson 1k baby solarspot.
I notice it fits into the mouth of an Alien Bee 7" reflector.
I wonder how that arrangement would work, even if you can't change the focus.
It would not work because the reflector would be too close. You need the reflector to be furthur away from the lens. Also the lens is designed to focus on a small source with a specular dish a couple of inches behind the light source.
Megan Farquhar
Posts: 17
Huntington Beach, California, US
Fred Greissing wrote: A few tips.
Shoot film.
large medium format or 4x5.
Lighting. Hot lights. Fresnel spots. For strobe the Elinchrom SL35 comes closer than anyother strobe.
Hurrell also used many flags, cutters and fingers to create shadows.
A little tribute of mine to George Hurrell:
Fuji GX680 250mm f5.6 @ 11 or 16.
Light
But it's important to use a dense fillament bulb. Longer lasting cheap modern lamps don't create the right edge shadows.
Fred Greissing wrote: It would not work because the reflector would be too close. You need the reflector to be furthur away from the lens. Also the lens is designed to focus on a small source with a specular dish a couple of inches behind the light source.
Sooner or later I'll get around to seeing exactly what it does do. I can also build a tube extender to place the lens further away if need be.
I know it wants to take a point and make it parallel, and you are saying my source is more than just a point, but in the case of a parabolic reflector it has parallel (reflected from the parabola) rays mixed with non-parallel (direct from the source) rays and it isn't the worst thing, so...
Fred Greissing wrote: It would not work because the reflector would be too close. You need the reflector to be furthur away from the lens. Also the lens is designed to focus on a small source with a specular dish a couple of inches behind the light source.
If I take a laser and shine it in parallel rays backward into the fresnel lens the rays will converge on the spot where the source needs to be in order to produce parallel rays.
If you are trying to recreate the look of George Hurrell, don't start by copying the images you referenced. Try some actual Hurrell work for examples. The images you referenced are lovely, but they are not even close to Hurrell. Hurrell has much more depth and drama.
Rent some Arri fresnel kits. They come in bundles of three or four hot lights. Get some cinefoil and black foam core to fabricate cookies, cutters and gobos.
I love my Baby and Junior - Mole-Richardson's marroon is unusual but sexy.
The Zoomspot 18 to 24 is derived from a Selecon Acclaim theatrical light.
You can make your own out of a selecon acclaim by putting a speed ring on the back of the Selecon Acclaim. It's about $ 290 from a theatrical lighting supply company.
The SL35 is a Fresnel lens spot with a 35cm diameter front lens.
Sometimes they pop up on ebay, but they are expensive even used. Broncolor made a knockoff of the SL35 called the Flooter
(Flooter... the name sounds like a melodic fart or something).
However it did not produce the same look as the Elinchrom due to the shape of the bron heads. Also the Bron pilot light was to far forward compared to the flash tube so you would get a significantly different shadow pattern compared to the final flash.
Here is what comes out of the SL35....
It also makes a rather nice deep boompff sound rather than the sharp crack sound of a head in something else.
Tom Sparks wrote: If you are trying to recreate the look of George Hurrell, don't start by copying the images you referenced. Try some actual Hurrell work for examples. The images you referenced are lovely, but they are not even close to Hurrell. Hurrell has much more depth and drama.
if you are going to resurrect a 2 year old thread at least have the courtesy to read the previous posts in the thread. a) your point was covered years ago by many and b) you might learn something.
Not to pick on you but why is everyone resurrecting zombie threads today?
Tom Sparks wrote: If you are trying to recreate the look of George Hurrell, don't start by copying the images you referenced. Try some actual Hurrell work for examples. The images you referenced are lovely, but they are not even close to Hurrell. Hurrell has much more depth and drama.
Actually I think that the images referenced would be a good start.
Start with the less extreme light and from there add more darkness and depth.
I think that any exercise and expoloration of Hurrell and Hurrell inspired work is
going to be very constructive.
Another option is to get your hands on an ADB television spot.
They have a plate on the rear of the spot that can be removed and you can mount a flash head onto the bulb focusing.
Well, when I taught this in classes, I asked students to remember several things.
1. Hurrell was using tungsten lighting which has a very different quality to atrobes. You need the smoothness.
2. Hurrell used large scoop reflectors (what we would call beauty dishes)
3. Hurrell used the same techniques as cinema lighting technicians such as focussing spots with fresnel lenses(you might get the same results with snoots and small mesh )
4. Hurrell used very dark ruby red lipsticks & very dark pencils for eyebrows etc. because of the film sensitivity
5. Hurrell used fine mesh filters in front of his lenses (you can try a piece of black nylon stocking) You can also use white depending on whether you want to diffuse highlights into shadows or vice vera
6. As pointed out elsewhere, and what I used to teach students to do in film classes, Hurrell also used papers with long grey scales and retouching tools such as negative etching knives, opaquing dyes (not pencils) etc. Most of these effects are reproducible with PS.
Hope this helps.
Hurrell did use large Scoop Light Sources, They are not Beauty Dishes, not even close.....
Sometimes, Hurrell used fine mesh in front of his longer lenses, putting todays nylon over a current day lens is not the same. Hurrell DID NOT use this technique for All the images!
Hurrells negatives and prints were worked over, with dyes and pencils.
Dont know if its been mentioned or not...but other than a constant light sources for lighting (and you can find his set up in some of his books) please remember he also shot film and 8X10. On most days using up too 100 sheets per shoot. It can be done with 4X5 too. You can also look up Clarence Bull for a similar style.
To get the "look" takes a minimum take 4X5 or bigger, preferably 8X10. Anything less looks very weak. In addition to the lighting it takes the proper format and glass.
| 
| 
| edu