Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

George Hurrell 40s style photography

Messages
11,579
Location
Covina, Califonia 91722
Does anybody know what type of camera George Hurrell used or the ones that other Movie Company photographers used primarily during the 1920s and 1930s?

In the past it was of course film not digital. Portrait photography maybe done with 35mm but many photgraphers opted for larger formats such as 4X5. Some used the Speed Graphix type of camera. Also some use what is called view cameras where the lens plane and film plane could be angled to change perspective.

You might chase down the video for the Our Gang short (Little Rascals) "Wild Poses" for a hilarious take on portrait photography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Poses
 

Atomic Age

Practically Family
Messages
701
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
Here are some of my latest images. This is Kathleen Raye, a wonderful model from northern Arizona. Hope to work with her again soon.

7829508016_55ef6c104d_z.jpg


7829496396_d5eab8d6da_z.jpg


7829486986_a144663e42_z.jpg


7829466114_06b7dcccab_z.jpg


7829477062_eb879cd5e8_z.jpg


7829474156_033fdbaf82_z.jpg
 

Atomic Age

Practically Family
Messages
701
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
In the past it was of course film not digital. Portrait photography maybe done with 35mm but many photgraphers opted for larger formats such as 4X5. Some used the Speed Graphix type of camera. Also some use what is called view cameras where the lens plane and film plane could be angled to change perspective.

You might chase down the video for the Our Gang short (Little Rascals) "Wild Poses" for a hilarious take on portrait photography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Poses

George Hurrell shot primarily with an 8x10 view camera. This accounts for the amazing detail in the images, and the very shallow depth of field.

BTSgeorgeHurrell4.jpg


Doug
 

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,252
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
In the past it was of course film not digital. Portrait photography maybe done with 35mm but many photgraphers opted for larger formats such as 4X5. Some used the Speed Graphix type of camera. Also some use what is called view cameras where the lens plane and film plane could be angled to change perspective.

John is sort of right... But 35mm was not used for ANYTHING in the 20s-40s, except casual snapshooting and some documentary and journalism work where small size was key. (My dad, a pro who learned photography in the 30s/40s, wouldn't use 35mm for "important" work as late as the late 60s!) The smallest cameras taken seriously then were rollfilm cameras like the Rolleiflex TLR, and folding cameras that made negatives even larger than the Rollei's 2-1/4" square negs. Sheet film cameras - mostly 4x5 "press cameras" like the Speed Graphic and Graflex, and 4x5 view cameras with the adjustments John mentions - were what pro photographers used. Serious photographers used even larger sheet-film cameras: 5x7" and 8x10".

Most of Hurrell's classic studio work was done on huge 8x10 view cameras. Not so much to get the insane levels of resolution that an 8x10 negative had with the slow films of those days (equivalent to like a 50-megapixel digital image!), but to produce big negatives that were easier to retouch. Hurrell's work was about more than just setup, lighting, posing, makeup... the negatives were extensively retouched to smooth out skintones, remove imperfections, add highlights, and use various tricks to focus the viewer's attention. His subjects weren't really as beautiful as they appear - they had LOTS of help, both in the shooting and afterwards!

See links at the end of Wiki article for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hurrell
 

Atomic Age

Practically Family
Messages
701
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
John is sort of right... But 35mm was not used for ANYTHING in the 20s-40s, except casual snapshooting and some documentary and journalism work where small size was key. (My dad, a pro who learned photography in the 30s/40s, wouldn't use 35mm for "important" work as late as the late 60s!) The smallest cameras taken seriously then were rollfilm cameras like the Rolleiflex TLR, and folding cameras that made negatives even larger than the Rollei's 2-1/4" square negs. Sheet film cameras - mostly 4x5 "press cameras" like the Speed Graphic and Graflex, and 4x5 view cameras with the adjustments John mentions - were what pro photographers used. Serious photographers used even larger sheet-film cameras: 5x7" and 8x10".

Most of Hurrell's classic studio work was done on huge 8x10 view cameras. Not so much to get the insane levels of resolution that an 8x10 negative had with the slow films of those days (equivalent to like a 50-megapixel digital image!), but to produce big negatives that were easier to retouch. Hurrell's work was about more than just setup, lighting, posing, makeup... the negatives were extensively retouched to smooth out skintones, remove imperfections, add highlights, and use various tricks to focus the viewer's attention. His subjects weren't really as beautiful as they appear - they had LOTS of help, both in the shooting and afterwards!

See links at the end of Wiki article for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hurrell

This is quite true with the one Caveat that a lot of street photography was being done in 35mm in the mid to late 1950's, and was being published in magazines such as Life and Look.

Its very true that a huge part of Hurrell's art was re-touching. For many of his photos, he had his subjects (even women) wear no makeup at all. Their skin would be coated with baby oil. Then the "makeup" would be applied on the photograph after the fact. The oil gave the skin a glow through the air brushing.

Doug
 

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,252
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
I was including "street photography" in "documentary and journalism". I meant no disrespect to the fine work shot with early Leicas and Contaxes.

My point was that pros weren't using 35mm for studio work back then. That was a later development, after technological improvements in the fifties (e.g., superior lenses and perfected camera bodies from Leica and Nikon, the introduction of finer-grained films and developers) made 35mm an outstanding medium for nearly every kind of photography.
 

Atomic Age

Practically Family
Messages
701
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
I was including "street photography" in "documentary and journalism". I meant no disrespect to the fine work shot with early Leicas and Contaxes.

My point was that pros weren't using 35mm for studio work back then. That was a later development, after technological improvements in the fifties (e.g., superior lenses and perfected camera bodies from Leica and Nikon, the introduction of finer-grained films and developers) made 35mm an outstanding medium for nearly every kind of photography.

OH yes this is quite true. Even up to the transition to digital, 35mm was not being used for magazine shoots. Medium format was the smallest image most magazines would accept for submissions even as recently as 8 years ago.

Doug
 

Doctor Strange

I'll Lock Up
Messages
5,252
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
My dad was a total 4x5 (Graphic View II) and 120 (Mamiya C330 and RB-67) guy, but we ultimately used 35mm for stuff like catalog work that was going to be reproduced very small, state liquor license photos, industrial documentary shots, and other instances where super-detailed resolution wasn't required.

Agreed that 35mm wasn't used for stuff like pro fashion and magazine ad work where resolution/detail and accurate color reproduction was key... apart from more documentary things like Life and National Geographic.
 

KenCarsonCowgirl

New in Town
Messages
22
Location
The Heart of the West
@Atomic Age
Wow! Very well done. (re: the original post.) Sometime I'm going to wrangle our Canon Rebel XT and figure out how to do shoots like that. {grin} One suggestion on the second shot in your original post: I'm a bit over-analytic, but the way the vase is placed behind her makes it look like she's wearing a crown. {laugh} I always have to catch myself before I snap the shutter and be sure I don't have things 'growing' out of the subject's head. Thoughts of a photographer........

And ooooohh the makeup! {drooling} All these shots are totally 40s. You nailed it!
 

Atomic Age

Practically Family
Messages
701
Location
Phoenix, Arizona
@Atomic Age
Wow! Very well done. (re: the original post.) Sometime I'm going to wrangle our Canon Rebel XT and figure out how to do shoots like that. {grin} One suggestion on the second shot in your original post: I'm a bit over-analytic, but the way the vase is placed behind her makes it look like she's wearing a crown. {laugh} I always have to catch myself before I snap the shutter and be sure I don't have things 'growing' out of the subject's head. Thoughts of a photographer........

And ooooohh the makeup! {drooling} All these shots are totally 40s. You nailed it!

Thank you! Thats actually a lamp behind her. I noticed that too. I was hoping that my depth of field was shallow enough that the lamp shade would be out of focus more than it was. That shoot was actually my first serious attempt to emulate the 40's style of George Hurrell.

Doug
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
109,261
Messages
3,077,512
Members
54,217
Latest member
crazyricks
Top