[pure-silver] Re: Skin tones
- From: "BOB KISS" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 20:49:54 -0400
DEAR RALPH,
I thought so but as I wasn't sure I followed suit, as it were.
CHEERS!
BIB
Please check my website: http://www.bobkiss.com/
"Live as if you are going to die tomorrow. Learn as if you are going to
live forever". Mahatma Gandhi
-----Original Message-----
From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Ralph W. Lambrecht
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:52 PM
To: PureSilverNew
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Skin tones
Richard
Just a minor point, Hurrell is spelled with two Rs and two Ls.
I love his work!
On 2006-08-28 00:00, "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "BOB KISS" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 6:49 AM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Skin tones
>
>
>> DEAR RICHARD,
>> I was not judging from early sound movie: I know from two
>> sources that
>> Hollywood still photographers used ortho:
>> 1) Murray's book where he discusses his techniques.
>> 2) View Camera magazine ran an article some years ago
>> about getting "that
>> Hollywood look" and stated that most of those
>> photographers used ortho film
>> ESPECIALLY for women and that it gave them rich skin
>> tones. They cited
>> quite a few photographers.
>> 3) We all know that the Hollywood stars were heavily made
>> up (I was a
>> beauty and fashion photog and directed some commercials in
>> NYC and Europe
>> for two decades and I KNOW make-up) but there is nothing
>> like green
>> sensitivity to smooth out skin.
>> These seem like reliable sources of information which
>> correlate with my
>> experience ever since doing a test of skin tone
>> rendition as a function of filter color with Tri-X in the
>> early 70s at RIT.
>> CHEERS!
>> BOB
> Please read more carefully, I was saying that the films
> and techniques for still photography were different from
> those generally used for motion picture photography up to
> the sound era.
> I don't know which Murray you are refering to.
> There were several well known portrait photographers in
> Hollywood who either worked for the studios or were in
> private practice. Probably the best known were George Hurrel
> and Clarence Sinclair Bull, both of whom worked for
> Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Hurrel is famous for the very extensive
> retouching he did to his negatives. Bull probably did, or
> had done, some retouching but not to the same extent. There
> were probably about a dozen other photographers, mostly not
> as well known, who also produced publicity photos of stars.
> These were portrait photographers: there was another group
> of photographers who made stills on the set. Some of these
> were for publicity but many were record photos in case
> reshooting was necessary.
> I don't think any one book can tell you exactly what the
> practice of any of the portrait photographers was. My
> sources are many and some are from personal conversations
> held pretty long ago. One good source would be photo
> archives, like the one at the Getty, where some original
> negatives still survive. These would make it clear what film
> was used.
> Note that most of the 8x10's fan photos from the studios
> were from duplicate negatives, mostly on some sort of
> commercial film, so those would not be useful.
> Lighting in the movie still portrait studios was mostly
> the same lighting equipment used on sets, that is, small to
> medium sized spot lights and large flood lights, but
> probably not arc lights. Lighting equipment changed rather
> rapidly from the introduction of sound until about the late
> 1930's.
> Orthochromatic film tends to exagerate skin blemishes.
> While makeup can cover these its still easier to get smooth
> looking skin using pan film. There is also the question of
> reproduction of clothing.
> In any case, I know that Karsh used panchromatic film
> because he specifies the film in some publications. At least
> in the 1950's he was using Kodak Pancromatic Portrait film.
> Probably Tri-X sheet film is the closest current film to
> this.
> Ortho film was widely used for press photography with
> flash on the camera because it tended to compensate for
> washed out skin caused by the small angle of the flash from
> the lens (tends to cover up textures) and the excessive red
> output of the flashbulbs.
> I suggest experimenting. Ortho film is still available.
> It has a look that can not be easily duplicated by filters.
> BTW, skin has relatively low green and blue reflectance
> which is why green and blue backgrounds are used for both
> motion picture and television special effects keying.
>
> ---
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
============================================================================
==
> ===============================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,)
> and unsubscribe from there.
============================================================================
=================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
