George Hurrell 40s style photography

[John in Covina]

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

 

[Taz-man]

Thank you very much John I will check out that video. Your help was greatly appreciated

 

[Atomic Age]

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

 

[Atomic Age]

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.

Doug

 

[The Wolf]

The shots of Miss Raye a great.
Nice work as always, A. A.

Sincerely,
The Wolf

 

[Taz-man]

Thank you for the info and those are great pictures.

 

[scottyrocks]

Your work seems to get better and better. Beautiful photos.

 

[Atomic Age]

Thank you!

Doug

 

[Atomic Age]

Here are some shots from my latest sitting with Northern Arizona model Melissa Misfortune.

Hope you like them.

Doug

 

[Doctor Strange]

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]

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 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.

 

[StudioCB]

Does anyone here work in large-format? Film, that is.

 

[Lexybeast]

Does anyone here work in large-format? Film, that is.

You may want to check out http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/

Doctor Strange, I'd even say as recently as the 90s, pros weren't using 35mm unless it was for photojournalism, nature, etc. There's nothing wrong with 35mm... that you can't fix with medium format!

 

[Atomic Age]

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]

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]

@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]

@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