HOLLYWOOD PORTRAITS CLASSIC SHOTS AND HOW TO TAKE THEM ROGER HICKS AND CHRISTOPHER NISPEROS. PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE KOBAL COLLECTIONHOLLYWOOD PORTRAITS CLASSIC SHOTS AND HOW TO TAKE THEM ROGER HICKS AND CHRISTOPHER NISPEROS PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE KOBAL COLLECTIONnee eee et eT Td Coveney or anee pee ernie rereent ees Terre rmmeenee eter Des Cee ee rn ere ee neta eee pee ae Cee ee CE Cen er ent) eee Great Eastern Wharf eee) Pea ei! ee Les ne a cen Ceo) Text copyright © Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperes 2000 ee ee aed De ee ee eet Tens authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the ‘Copyright. Designs and Patents Act, 1988, Dee eR ey e(rieval system, oF transmitted in any form oF by any means, electronic, ‘mechanical, photocopying. recording or otherwise. without the prior written rt cea TEISEI IEE! British Library Cataloguing:io-Publication Data Le eo ed is available from the British Library, ELLA) Cee cece rs a en ‘Technical Consultant: Frances Schultz Designers: Alison Lee and Steve Kent Deere ce tae Reproduction by Classic Scan Pte Led, Singapore Printed and bound ia Hong Kong by Dai Nippon Printing Co. (HK) Lid Wusteations: front cover: MGMIGeorge Hurrell (1935): back cover (V) MGMIC. S, Bull (1939); back caver (6) MGM (1939), CONTENTS Tet tse) ‘Genesis: 1930 and earlier 18 UC a mel) BOL Mais ee ed Lit TS Dd Pe tu Picture credits 144INTRODUCTION Even today, many decades afier the heyday of Hollywood portraits, these iconic images still fascinate countless people: movie lovers, connoisseurs of women and handsome men, and, af course, photographers. As far as we are aware, howev beau no. book has hitherto attempted to analyze the fi that was used for specific Hollywood portraits, There have been plenty of books of portraits and books about the stars and books about portraic lightings bur the three strands have not been drawn together It is, of course, next ca impossible to reconstruct exactly how a part “ular shot was lit, perhaps 70 years ago. We do not claim infallibility or anything like it Indeed, there were occasions when we could nor agree between ourselves on exactly how a parnicular picture was lit. We do, however, believe that our analyses are pretty close, so that anyone reading this book will find better equipped to shoot Jer should also be themselves significantly Hollywood-style portraits. The re better able to understand what cannot readily be repli cated, whether for technical reasons or because of the very heavy Hollywood reliance on retouching. In the course of explai jE we may also dispel some of the myths and mis surrounding the technical aspects of these portraits. all this, we hope t derstanding The vast majority of contemparary magazine arti cles abour the stars were, of course, written to bolster the myths behind the images, so the pictures were often ce-up. This described as unretouched and without m may occasionally have been true, but as most stu employed many more retouchers than photographers, it clearly was the exception rather than the rule. Nor should one ignore the fact that lighting plots may sometimes have been guarded as-a trade sectet or the ple truth that many photographers, then and now, take a malicious delight in misleading the technically just for the fun of it. Although it is true that ignora Early Hobywoad porersts retemble rio porta of he rinecrenth century, orth ache delhi ling Tis ix Maron Don, “tari Select Pictures: which dices ito 1918 by 1919 the erede woud Fave bento Cormapalian Pictures, formed by 17 R Hearst wo promoce Ms Dawes orto the Selmch/Zakor snudio. (Cumpbel Stucios New York) With the detlne in the ie of B x 10 in. Q03 x 254 cm) cameras, techical sandurds (which ware never very ih in Melhwcad away) ended t decloe sil ure, This portrait of umes Dean might be rec (5 by the merge camerascb compections secretary toca. sOuEh ten a ecand third or plenty. of photographs purport to shove the lighting cither for a movie set or for a still, when it is passible to compare the picture of che lighting set-up and the final insage, itis often abundantly clear that the setup illustrated bore no relationship to the aetwal lighting. used; all contemporary illustrations of lighting sef-ups should be treated with some reserve, This is, however, part of the fun of re-creating the Hollywood look today. There is an element of detee- tive work in if; a certain radar is needed for detecting wilfully misleading or illsinformed statements, ancient ‘or moderns and there is no substi you have understood what is\nceded, for actually trying it for yourself. We hope that this book will make your quest easier. tute, ance sou thinknt pleture ef Cimer Fryer photographing Joan el in Lawyer Men (1932) pees a good idea of the typeof camera ed 3 ty. wooden Wiew cae) {HN By lag eters Tr RO A indy may not represent the actual gheng setup. Note hia the wel-supperted pose. (Photegrapher not credited 1922) The dacente dim tase of courses Holywood oegnves deterieated tad in 30 or 40 years, anc tracerte bes are net a grea des! beter Modern pobrerter baes are mere sabe, but they &d net itl the 1900s 6 even 1970. (Protograph of Nowe Shearer, Eric Carpenter, HI) CAMERAS, LENSES, FILM. AND RETOUCHING in the 1930s and 1940s Ansco, though Kodak and The classic camera for a Hollywood por was 8 x 10 in. (20.3 x 25.4 em), typic other marques were ind reducing backs were often used on 11 x 14 in. (28 x 35.5 cm) and still larger cameras. As late as the eve of World War It there were still many who reckoned that a 2x enlarge- also used, ment from 4.x Sin, (10 x 12.5 em}weuld show markedly inferior and sharpness to an 8 x 10 in, contact print. They seem co have been in the 1910s and 1920s, hall-plate (4% x 619 inJ12 x 16.5 cm) nlargement well, thou was populag and the pictures do not sta primitive pyro-soda developers may have contributed to this Even in € x 10 in., however, pho aphers tended to shoot large 10 oF 20, and often also kept obvious failures. For example, Jean Harlow had a weak ri are lool ft cye, and in a number of pictures h think that Harlow he photographer or MGM, might have but they dide't. Th of focus és some distance from where it sh rent directions. You m herself, or hrown these our; are also plenty af pictures in which the plane uld be. Of the literally § book, a su thousands of pictures we went d number ~ pethaps as many as a quarter ~ would be regarded as te nical failures by.a critical modern photographer. Leica cameras were used in Hollywood as early as 1932 or so, and after th (10 x 12.5 cm) roll film and 35mm came into much wider use. Asa he war result, the classic look was all but lost. Lenses The usual lenses were long and often surprisingly fast for their focal length, a combination that makes it far easier to focus quickly and positively than is possible with shorter or slower lenses. For instance, isan 18 in the lens data on Hurrell’s camera, shown on page (45 cm) {15.6 Cooke Series WI. From those rare exposures are known, ho’ working aperture, presumably in the interests of depth of field. There was surprisingly little change in the types of lenses used from the earliest days of the movies to the eve of World War Il, and, indeed, bey ver, it seems that {/16 was a common probably the majerity of lenses in use for still photography throughout this period had been introduced in the first decade of the rwentieth century, or late in the nineteenth century. Sharpness, or the lack of it, was a matter of fashion, not of tech nical necessity, and in t berately fuzzy pictures were ashion, Many eda degree st be introduced, however, via deliberate spherical aberration. This claes not same effect as tack of focus, but rather surrounds each point of light with a halo, This explains the * of Hollywood portraits. The smaller the format, the harder soft fox or predict: it is easiest to control when working same-size fon a big. ground glass. Another reason for the “glow’ was that ‘uncoated lenses are flary. This lightens shadows and can also mimic true sole focus, After World War Il anti-reflection coating became all bot waiver I, though some photographers stuck to theit uncoat- cd lenses because they considered coated lenses “too sharp” or Film and Development In about 1931 Eastman Kodak introduced Eastman Super-Sensitive Panchromatic Film, known.to its friends as S$ Pan. This soon displaced ortho film in ¢ jority of Hollywood studios, as its ensitivity meant that it did nor render red lips so dark s0 rosy. Super! nin general in the | enhanced 1 or complexio , with still better red sensitization, c 19305, bur it was still rated ht than to dayle replaced $5 P, stop slower to tungsten insofar as comparisons are possible, about ISO 80 and 100 respectively, With all of these » halation — the tendency for a halo to form around light sources ehlights — 3» more marked than with modern films. 1 1930+ films and plates were often underexposed -d by modern standards, resulting in thin, contrasty negatives, Later, more exposure was given, but it was sill not gence- aced; this meant that the negatives in, but Less conteasty, The negative in the above righ se was presumably regarded as reasonable - why show a bad negative, after all? ~ bur it looks very thin by modern standards, Retouching Although seme Hollywood portraits are miore are ~ very heavily. This was done on wched at all, many ative: comparatively casy on an 8 x 10 in. negative for contact printing and not too diffi cult.on a4 x Sin, negative for enlargement, but next to impossible on roll film. Not just minor flaws in the complexion were taken out: complexions were completely remodelled with a soft pencil, backgrounds were cheerfully ‘blown out’ with the airbrush, and hammer and chisel* tive retouching was applied to faults on the negative und Marlene Dictsich’s fingers (right) is a good example The retouching Retouching om 8x 10 in. negatives is actually cash cr than one might expect, though thece are a few tricks worth knowing. Use a s ‘or you will end up with shiny areas that won't take any pencil, Don't press too hard retouching. Work with tiny ticks, scribbles, or ight: don’t try to follow lines toa clearly. Fix: the retouching with steam from a kettle, but remember to let the negative dry fully afterwards INTRODUCTION By modern standards. this neaowe of IGM Saree Viegas Grey hopelsty anderenpesed bet yo many ef the peures in ths book shim onspuwout by At abtenee. (Protoprapher sed ne ite) When you! are rating conmce prets.eipecity lowly, you Can pee aay wth much Heat sue wthing han KesnleIoe enarpecent — the rove 1238 there no Cater tec bene saterng Gormg enirgerses) ma comact pret Thaswhcle of this picture appears on page 79.INTRODUCTION POSES, PROPS, AND MAKE-UP By and large, porcraiture with 8 x 1 in, cameras requires poses that are easy to hold. This is because there is a long gap between focusing and taking the pis hotographcr must close the shutter, insert the film-holder, pull the ure. After focusing and composing the picture, the darkeslide, and then fire the shutter. This must all be done without sng, What is mo long exposures, even with es and slow films aften mea powerful sof between Yio-1s second were common: was not all chat difficuls place. Keeping the camera from moving like a kecping the subject from moving was an mera stands thar were used in the pre-war period lwok flight of steps far bo rather than a tripod. But +r matter, AS soon as you start to look for this, you realize just how many poses were chosen specifically because they almost locked the subject Actresses recline in languid poses where they have only to relax and he chaise longue support them: actors le: lid, immobile dosing: ht exposure) aii m image an page 16 Props Perhaps the most commonly encountered prop is one of the smallest Iman era when to ertesand (occasionally) pipesis almost shocking ~ but it is not unrealistic 10 say onc of the quickest ways to create a Hollywood-ambience is 0 ick, Cigarettes also solve the pere do with a subject's hands; and despite decades of subject a cance problem of what rational, scientifically based. propay ° doubt that cigarettes did indeed have a certain glamour in Hollywood, if only by association wi T 40 remember when d sling, with all other props are that they should not be shabby part of the picture), and that they should not dominate The first can be problematic if the photographer wants to create a certain image, and the subject is unhappy with the chosen props. ys been true) af gunss among the many pic a this book 4 Gary Cooper, looking as if he would have been’ happier holding his revolver af arm's length with a pair of tongs. The most successful portraits make use of some= thing that the photographer fas already noticed to be characteristic of the subject: a favorite bangle pethaps, or eyeglasses (even a mon- or a walking-stick, Some re-creat- traits, too, are under- mined by anachronisms: a digital watch, Shabbincss is particularly apparent in sill pictures, possibly because we can examine the picture so carefully. In a prop may be an the sercen for only a fraction of 8 second, and where our attention is distracted by the main subject, shabbiness is much less of a prablem, inating the subject, uns and cigarettes can provide good examples if the subject is not at As for props di home with then but equally, a face or human figuee will almost invariably ture, flom aster statuary, unless the lighting is exceptionally incompe tent. Millions of years of exolation have joned us to scan the landscape for friend or foe, and we do the porteait, The subject's relations matters, If there isn’t the props is wh oF if the relationship is un able, then the pi fe won't work. Make-up Many magasines dating from the 1930s, and some of the photographers, sw that no make-up was used This may have been true sometimes, but most of the time it is clearly untrue, We believe that sometimes they were simply lying in, he stars were perfect and thar on Ke-up at all ‘order to presceve the myth th: other occasions they did not count ‘street’ make-up as n clearly been made, at the very least, of little In many pictures, use h sparen powder to kill highlights, and it is possible th was used for shaping. Almost invariably, too, the women were swearing eye make-up, even if no other make-up is apparent, although, in all fateness, foundation (‘pancake most unlikely that many of the female stars could have mustered the kind of eyelashes that appear in so many pictures unless they had ome help, INTRODUCTION A rauncediooking Frank Sarr fat one cue Matywcod prep a ht hand ind anotha m4 shelter btuter in tha 1954 United Aruna pictere for Sdsenp (Proteprapher net eregtedPte thy th I ghia hk appear hoe: Jn sh how of Ain Gardner, ken by Roy Jones 1946 for The Filer. Ohe mutipia shadow of the table reveal that the overhead lamp ia abe is almost There is, however the point that very heavy ching may have been easier on un-made-up faces, and there are even a couple of references to oiling the akin for photography = exactly the ‘opposite of what any modern photographer would normally do, LIGHTING BASICS In the early days of movies, and offen throughout the 1930s and 1940s, movie studio lighting was used for portraiture: big Mole Richardsons and KI s. Some of these were massive: spots a yard There was a whole vocabulary of these lights: “inkies? or “inky dinkies? ‘kegs’ were barrel shaped spocs,cypically 500\; “sof lights’ were big, rectangular lights similar to these in the picture on were small focusing. spor page 47; and ‘scoops’ were lamps in reflectors 18 r 20 in. (46 wo Sem) across, Unfortunately, the vocabulary was not entirely standardized. Often, t00, the names of particular manufacturers’ individual lights were used as generic terms, sometimes to the chagrin of the man tufacturers, Descriptions of power (in kW) were, however, quite stand. 5 kilowatts and so forth. The biggest lamps in com- mon use were 10K, Even after still lighting became divorced from movie lighting, focusing spots remained a very popular cd: a 2K" is 2 kilowams, *SK" ‘way of lighting portraits, These were almost all Fresnel spots with a lens in front of the lamp, rather than the “open-face’ variety more com- ‘mon today, when the focusing effect is varied by moving the lamp rel- ative t0 a reflector, Lighting Distances Because movie lights were so enecmously powerful, they were often the subjects, and n of the retina caused by the very high UV tused at quite large dittances in order to avoid fry Ki ye" (in effect sun st of carbo ares) was a recognized hazard of early movie acting. ‘The extremely high UV content of carbon-arc lights was quite impar- tant, 8 it meant that an unfiltered exposure was disproportionately and violet light, rendering lips dark and m ing rosy complexions look far more dramatic than they were. mal tungsten lighting was used, working distances were smaller, but they may still have been greater than is regarded 38 normal today: by the end of the twenticth century; people scemed more willing co have hug lights very close co them. In general, itis ceasier to work with close lights than with distant ones, because the cffects change more rapidly, but there arc some techniques, such as very hard shadows, that require either special projection spats or greater working distances, Booms Supporting lights on ‘boonis’ or cantilevers was a ‘common way to light from overhead or almost overhead, and some photographers used two, thres, or even more boom lights or hung their lights from permanent overhead fittings, as ona movie stage. It can he difficult to duplicate this effect without booms, as the lighting stands will appear in the picture. Unforrunately, a conventional boom is around 10 ft (3 m) long, $0 to use a couple of boom lights at a yard (1m) apart, at least with any degree of ease, the studio needs to be at least 16 fe (5 m) wide, and preferably 20 ft (6 m) wide. It also needs to be high: 2 minimum ceiling height of around 10 f (3 m) and preferably 13 ft (4 m) or more. Feathering Very often, though far from invariably, movie stills were not made with spotlights focused tightly and shining directly onto the subject. Rather, the spot was defocused somewhat, and the edge of the light beam was used, a technique known as “feathering.” Lighting Ratios ‘The lighting ratio is most simply defined as the ratio of the key light to the fill ight. In other words, if there is a key light comi direction of the camera, the left-hand side of the subject will be more brightly lit than the rightchand side. If there is three times as much light falling om the feft-hand side as on the right-hand side, the lighting ratio is 3:1. A wide variety of lighting ratios will be found in this book. The important t light falling on the subject, so unless the key and fill are diametrically opposed, it is not possible to measure lighting ratios by wurning the lights on alternately. Some photographers actually measure lighting ratios using either a flatecepcor incident light meter or by taking a reading off a gray card, while others judge the ratios by eye feam camera left and a fill coming from the to realize is that the lighting ratio refers to the total amount of Brightness Ranges The brightness range is quite different from the lighting ratio, [tis the ratio of the brightest part of the subject to the darkest, but it is com: plicated by the face that it m: be measured at four stages. There is INTRODUCTION “Scory’ Watbowne shetenr9oh les Lupine fer Warner Beos in (40. The moet neeresting thes utd piewre ae dhe mane camara and — no ‘Remy wiped here — and the alos for a dazen x10 a fan holders tat ean be seen on the nde of he Mad on the righe of the putire: halaing 24 shee of himINTRODUCTION the brightness range of the original subjects the brightness range of ge on the ground glass; the brightness range recorded on the negative; and the brightness range of the print. Hollyw prtraits were quite often lit with a fairly broad light ly giving a subject brightness range of 64:1 oF more. ed lenses of the day would reduce a 64:1 brightness fatio by 1 oF 2 stops, to 32:1 or even 16:1, Fairly short exposures would thea lose a fair amount of shadow detail, leaving the shadows inky and" vpty’ Finally, the papers of the era before World War Il often hi ness ranges that were very short by modern highlight on the than the darkest shadow would be regarded as normal, partly asa result of brighter whites, bur principally as a result of blacker blacks, Tungsten versus Flash Continuous or tungsten lighting will make it much easier to light in the classic, formulaic ctyles: ‘butterfly,’ also known as Param + (pages wpe 59). Focusing spots give an effect, a hardness ic flash, even snaoted Fresnel flashes are availal cobbled together. Although it is possible to do a surprising an with a single lig g spot and one hroade light makes it possible to do a great deal more, The only style of lig ft lighting, ing for which electronic flash is clearly superior is ver when an umbrella or (much better) a soft box bears anyu do with rungsten and is, in addition, more comfortable for the subject. Shadows In most varicties of po ic, double or “crossed” shadows arc any student on a craft-oriented photog nations if he ar she turned in portraits with such a defect In Hollywood portraiture, this convention doesn seem t0 apply, pethaps because crossed shadows don't normally marter ina movie: when the subject is moving, we expect the shadows to move, while in nicely" and natural use of light. a still portrait, we expect a more i x art looking for crossed shadows while you are watching movies, they are so common and so blatant that you can quite lose teack of the storyline In the course of researching this book, we rejected numerous por ad photographers than we can today, partly page 35, We believe that the Hollyw LIGHTING BASICS ‘There is a basic. vocabulary of lighting thar remains in use to this day, First, there are the uses to which the lights are put: key, fill, effects, and background. Then there are the ways in which lights are modified, to make them harder or softer, or 10 shade off parts of the subject. In.color there is also the question of ‘gels’ (pronounced ‘lls, from ‘gelatine,’ although they are now typically made from acetate). These are used (0. modify the color of the lights and they do not affect us here. Key lights cast the principal shadow, Where there are conflicting shadows = as there often are in Hollywood portraits ~ the light thar determines the shadows-on the face ts taken as the key. Fill lights, as their name suggests, fill in the shad- ‘ws so thar they are more er less ‘open? and not empty or inky. Kickers, also known now as effects or FX lights, fare used to light specific areas, The hair light is pethaps the most widely used effects light: others may be used for jewelry, for example, or to bring cour details in a fitr. The distinetion between kick- ers and fill lights can sometimes he hard to. make in Hollywood portraits, Background lights; logically enough, light the background, although this may also be lit with from other lights. Any of the above lights may be modified ina umber of ways, Some of the more common terms are listed here: Barn doors are doors mounted on the front of a light. They are partially opened oF closed to-con- trol the area lit by chat Lamp: INTRODUCTION Egg crates are grids of slats, somewhat resembling ain egg crate, They are used to make the light from «abroad, soft soarce more directional. The modem “honeycomb grid” for electronic flash uses exactly the same principle. Snoots are conical or cylindrical tubes, mounted in front of the lamp, that are used to-fimir the area lit Flags.or French Mags are sheets of opaque materi al, used to shade or "flag off” areas of the subject so that the light from a particular Lamp docs not fall full on them, They may alsa he used to shacke the camera lens to prevent flare. The term ‘gobo is used instead of flags by some photographers, ‘Cutters are long, thin finger-shaped fags. Cookies are figs with holes, aypically used 10. proiecta dappled light on a\lbackgroned. Cookie is allegedly an abbreviation of ‘eucaloris, but equally ‘eucaloris’ may be a backsfoemation from cookie, fam which holes appear to have been cut with a cookie cutter, Then there are these suho say that the word is “cucalorum* or “cocalo- tum Some photographers call cookies "gobo: Serims are diffusers made of wire mesh or fabric to, soften a light. Fingers are long, thin scrim, ike a scrim version of acutter Dots are small round serims, about 3 in. (7.5m) in diameter. Quite often two are used together to ereate shaped shadows, particularly to shade the shoulder nisarsr the camera. 8 in. (20 em) in vn ag “silks”, “Targets are bigger dots, abo diameter, They are also knINTRODUCTION The best Holywood porta are porerans xe Hollprood second Tha plnure of Katrine Hepburn wat then by Robert Coburn in 1933 for Chmoper Shr isa superbly execiied 8x 1. shar bu au far feces repective rma peture Uke by some of hs conampararins you cel et 6 photographs looked good, In other words, it is not good cnough today to equal the Hollywood mas- ters: we must surpass them, at least in this respect. RE-CREATING THE HOLLYWOOD LOOK There are certain ground rules that can give any portrait a Hollywood flavor. Poses are an obvis f you don't need easy-to-hold poses ot the same reasons that the old Hollywood portraitists did, they are still a part of the Hollywood look. So-are eigarertes, though as noted on page 10, the subject muse be able to hold them convincingly. The same is true of guns for the tough-guy look. Make-up, hair, clothes, ry should either be timeless or as close as possible 0 1930s and 1940s originals. Keep backgrounds simple bur don’t use mod= em, bland, seamless paper and mottled fabric backgrounds, Use pools of light, or dramatic shad ows, or cookies, to add though, that in Hollywood, things are not alw ‘what they seem: the “shadow” in the image on page 14 must be a cardboard cutout, not a real shadow at all. Don't worry ab had any — s0 keep exposures short, but do not skimp on develop. ment. This is the exact opposite of most modern advice, which is to example: & jewel rest. Remember, it shadow detail = Hollywood portraits rarely expose generously and curtail development. After this, the easiest way to re-create the Holl work as closely as possible to the way that the or photographers worked: use an 8 x 10 in. camera and long, fa ced lenses. This need not be as expensive as you might think. Fewer and fewer professionals taday use $ x 10 in, cameras, so old, second-hand monorails can often be found at the same sot of price as a decent new mm compact of a mid-range digital camera. Old lenses are harder 4, but when you do find them, they arc rarsly expensive. Then venerable front-of-lens shutters do you need a shutter, but once ag Jens and shutter together need cost no. converter for 35 mr, Once you have the not cost much: than a and shutter, all you need is an 3 x 10 in, film holder, some film, some- where dark to load and process the film; and a big, solid tripod The note shadow in th oerat of Norma Shearer could bs happler bz he Incerentrg parts the Buring ofthe movi beaded dren Gurng an exponure shat probaly ran t Yk second. Once the camara it-on a tripod. the Beret ‘anger to Vurprets & the ibjeet Movey dhoser of further away between sographir not ered 1927) een ind epi If you reject this approach, you will have to resort to fudging, and faking. To begin with, you néed to light more softly, to compensate for the lawer flare of modern, coated lenses: lighting ratios should rarely exceed 8:1 (3 stops), even for dramatic character portraits, and 4:1 (2 stops) o less may be advisable for soft, romantic images. Lenses should’ be longer than “standard* bur not enormously so: even 90 mm may be longer than you need on 35. mm, and if you can find something like the old 58 mm ff1.4 manual-focus Nikkor you may be amazed at how suitable itis, On 645 and 6 x 6 cm go for 100 ‘or 110 mm if you can; on 6 x 7em something like 127 mm or at 150 mm and on 4x51 even on 6 x 7 acetate film base Dictrich, Marlene 9, diffusion $8, 76, 92 dots 15 Douglas, Birk 134, 135 E Eastman Kodak film 9, 41 “Eastman Super Sensitive Panchraraatic (85 Pan) film 9, 41 ‘emg states 15 English, Don $4 Engacad, Jobe 112126 cecapism 88, 125 expoaure 9, 10, 48 85 lie of sight 58,64, 76, 110, 134 F feathering 13 exampl filties, the 125 AE lghes 15 files bases 8 formar 17,21 speed 9,17 types 9%, 17.21.41, 92 see also development; negatives fiver, blue 17 Fingers 15 flage/Feeneh flags 15 flare 9 flash (clestronie) 14, 8 rol 80,81 facucing spots 1 ties, the 90-91 cr, Bud 1 Fresnel spors 12 Erewlich, Roman 110 25, 136 SG mer 8 45, 106, Gardner, Ava i Garland, Jody 82, 83 Genthe, Arnold 22 Ibert, John 34, 55 ch, Lillian 24, 25 ‘glow’ #9 gobo 18 Grant, Cary 74, 75 Grey, Vsnnih 9 guns 10,11, 16 sce alvo props H air 16, 114 ice alto makeup halation 9, 41 ‘Harlow, Jean 8, $0, £0, $1 hate 66,84, 98, 110 ‘Hayworth, Rica 90, 94, 9¢ ‘Hepburn, Audéey 136, 137 ‘Hepburn, Katharine 16 ‘Hollywood lighting, re- ‘Horeell, George 14, 32-33, 36, 46, 48, 52, 78, 86 1 Word Dea 100 fin 92 Iiford XP2 Supe Ankewiinky dinkies 12 J jemelry 16,26 Jones, Jennifer 94 Jones, Ray 12 K Keaton, Buster 36, 36, 37 Kens 12 Kelly, Gene 112, 475 Kelly, Grace ey lighee 15 Kickers (effects, FX lights) 15 Klicg eve 12, 2 Kodak cameras 8, 41 Kodak film 9, 41 ornman, Gene 128 L Ladd, Alan 90 Lake, Veromica $3, 116, 11> Lamar, Mey 102, 205 Lamour, Dorothy 108, 108, 109 Leica cameras # Leigh, Vivien 75, 92493 lenses 8-9, 17, 32 mncoated 9, 14,16 lighting basics 12-15 lighting distances 12-13 Tighting eatios 13, 14, 17, 62 lighting, Fe-ereating Hollywood 7 lights, types of 12-15, 41 Lippman, Irving 62 ‘Longworth, Bud 10 “hoop lighting 14 examples 58, 65 Loulse, Rath Harriet 10, 34 Loren, Sophia 138, 139 Lupino, Ida 15 Mayo, Virgmia 4? Michle, Joi: 91 Milland, Ray 60, 62 Monroe, Marilyn 132, 152, 168 Moargumery, Robert 32 movement of subject 10, 16, 56 negatives, deteriaration of 8,600 Novarto, Bi ° ‘ortho tele 21 P Paramount lighting sce "buttertly" lighting Phefe, Hal 5é polyeste poses 10, 16) ‘examples 6, $6, 62,74, 100, 112, 130, 134 Powolay, Frank 7%, 132, Presley, Elvis §, 140, 142 props 10-11, 1é examples 78, 80, 100 tee also cigarettes: c ings guns hac jewellery R Reagan Rooald 10 rexteating Hoth woos li re-ieating the look 16-1 retooshing 75 9,12, 41 ‘examples 26, 30, 80, 100, 104, 108 Riche, E.R. 20.28, 39, 38, 66, 68,73, 90, 116 Rogers, Roy 130, 13" Rows, Shitley 17 Russcll, Jane 128, Ss Schafer, ALL. "Whitey! 94, 108 scoops 12 scrim 15 shadows 14, 16 Shearer, Norma 3, 16,32, 52, 52.55 Sheridan, Ann 86, 86, 87 Sidacy, Sylvia 68,69 Sinatra, Frank 2 Six, Bert 102, 104 Et spones 15 soft focus 8-9,17.41 examples 22, $2 soft lights 12 $5 Par fen 9, 41 Seewatt, James 120, 122 subjest, movenient of 10, 164.56 Super XN fila % 41 T targets (silks) 15 Tylor, Flizabeth 118, 119 Taylor Hobsoa fens technical weakness 8, 15, 138 Temple. Shirley ¢, ‘examples 82, 84, $6, 96, 100, 104, 128, 134 Tracy, Spencer $6.57 tacetate fli hase 3 rngsten lighting 12, 14. Turner, Lan 100, 108 u sunceated Jenses 9% 14, 16 Vv Valentino, Rudolph 26, 2° w “Walling Je Wotan ‘Wayne, John 84. ¥¢ “Weissmulley Jotony 4,45 Welbourne, Scotty" 10, 24,41. 9, 108 Welles, Onion 97 West, Mae 64, 67 “Willinger, Lalo 14 Wing, Toby 64. 65 60,44Crete ce on Se eed OC eee tr ear er ee using influences and techniques from the golden age of cinema Pe eee eee eu Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe enables readers to create Brea ae ee ne ee fey mm Ome etal tl SU ace Cele te) dole RR Cee ee eh eee UC a Me ey ete ee eg ISBN’ co rs B S il | cone oes olaeiBss eee oon