-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Avedon's "Beauty Light" as described by one of his long term assistants
- Thread starter Ellis Vener
- Start date
ScratchDisk
Veteran Member
I kind of doubt that set up would be mechanically similar I am thinking it would be closer to something like a hard light in a deep reflector with Rosco ToughSpun.
i just found this behind the scenes photo: https://goo.gl/images/jxdFJZ
By the late sixties Avedon’s assistants were talking about moving the umbrella (probably a hard silver finish or a Balcar Zebra umbrella which had alternating silver and white panels)) with the model so I am sure exactly what tool is used doesn’t matter as much as how it was used.
Last edited:
ScratchDisk
Veteran Member
Thank you. That photo helps a lot. The 'how' more significant than the 'what' - quite so.
I also found this photo by Victor Skrebneski showing how he lit Diana Ross
http://sidvasandani.blogspot.com/2010/01/case-study-light-of-legends.html
Skrebneski wrote about this photo "I left the light in the frame because people always ask 'what kind of light do you use'," says Skrebneski. "So I figured I'd leave it in so that everyone could see how the lighting was done." ( thanks to Sid Vasandani http://sidvasandani.blogspot.com/2010/01/case-study-light-of-legends.html)
More by Victor Skrebneski is at http://skrebneskiphotographs.com/home.html
Last edited:
bicho
Forum Enthusiast
And let's not forget the 'who'. Or as someone put it "To shoot pretty pictures, shoot pretty people".
Or put in a more philosophical way - can light actually be beautiful, or is it actually shadows that hide what isn't "beautiful", and the rest (the light) is left for us to be affected by. The more beautiful parts, the easier it is to light "beautifully".
("Beautiful" can of course also be something interesting in other ways than just pure beauty. Sometimes the "ugly" can be the interesting parts for an image. You know what I mean.)
The photographers practical skills and his/hers artistic eye is what makes the photographer. Avedon was a true master of his time. It is of course super interesting to see how the masters (and others) did their thing, what gear they used and be inspired by their craftmanship.
Thanks for sharing the link!
tugwilson
Veteran Member
This https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...v=onepage&q=1,500-watt Saltzman flood&f=false
Says that it was diffused with two layers of fibreglass. The photograph of it in use makes it look like a very large dish.
The closest I can come to a modern version is the Bowens 40 Degree Sunlite Reflector with the Super Soft 600 Diffuser https://www.wexphotovideo.com/bowens-super-soft-600-diffuser-1004989/
B
Brooke Meyer
Guest
I'm using my Buff Omni (with an Einstein) on a boom, more and more.
1 with the Diffuser Sock
2,3 and 4 on same background setup, just added the grid.
All with one light. I'm spoiled by dancers, I can have them move to the light
Buff Omni & Diffuser Sock
Buff Omni with Grid on Boom
Buff Omni with Grid on Boom
Buff Omni with Grid on Boom
1 with the Diffuser Sock
2,3 and 4 on same background setup, just added the grid.
All with one light. I'm spoiled by dancers, I can have them move to the light
Buff Omni & Diffuser Sock
Buff Omni with Grid on Boom
Buff Omni with Grid on Boom
Buff Omni with Grid on Boom
Last edited:
Obviously I love Avedon's work, and I find these journeys down the rabbit hole interesting. But I think it's somewhat foolish to pursue matching the style of his light modifier for use in contemporary work.
You need to understand he worked with film, specific stocks, and they each have a specific tonal response, and he had top notch printers developing his stuff for a dominant end medium which is no longer in fashion (print).
As a result, the distribution of tone and contrast played off the tools he was using. If he were alive today, shooting to a digital sensor, you can believe he'd not just use a specific light, but would also have a raw workflow that distributed tones in a way that was likely similar in response to the values he accomplished with film. There are so many, and so many good options for a "beauty light", and they each offer roughly the same effect.
What separates one work which is excellent, from a million which are fair, has less to do with the spread of a modifier and more to do with the energetic exchange, the atmosphere, the mood between the photographer and model, the nature of the model themselves... and then lastly, way lastly... subtle things like distance and size of the modifier.
My friend Kirk Tuck put it best: Expression trumps lighting. Lighting trumps lens. Lens trumps camera. Getting it all to work together is the ultimate goal.
You need to understand he worked with film, specific stocks, and they each have a specific tonal response, and he had top notch printers developing his stuff for a dominant end medium which is no longer in fashion (print).
As a result, the distribution of tone and contrast played off the tools he was using. If he were alive today, shooting to a digital sensor, you can believe he'd not just use a specific light, but would also have a raw workflow that distributed tones in a way that was likely similar in response to the values he accomplished with film. There are so many, and so many good options for a "beauty light", and they each offer roughly the same effect.
What separates one work which is excellent, from a million which are fair, has less to do with the spread of a modifier and more to do with the energetic exchange, the atmosphere, the mood between the photographer and model, the nature of the model themselves... and then lastly, way lastly... subtle things like distance and size of the modifier.
My friend Kirk Tuck put it best: Expression trumps lighting. Lighting trumps lens. Lens trumps camera. Getting it all to work together is the ultimate goal.
markintosh13
Veteran Member
very well said
Gato Amarillo
Forum Pro
This looks pretty typical of the things I remember from my early days in photography -- the 'hot lights' were mostly retired in favor of flash but I'd see them sitting around in studios or camera stores. There are more detail photos at the site linked.
https://www.ebth.com/items/7736161-vintage-studio-light
Note that the square frame is just to hold the barn doors. The light itself is round, usually around 16 to 20 inches as I recall though some were much larger.
The most wattage I ever saw in use was 1,000 and you could feel the heat from several feet away. Sweat was a real problem. I wouldn't care to be the assistant holding 1,500 watts -- or the model in front of it.
Gato
https://www.ebth.com/items/7736161-vintage-studio-light
Note that the square frame is just to hold the barn doors. The light itself is round, usually around 16 to 20 inches as I recall though some were much larger.
The most wattage I ever saw in use was 1,000 and you could feel the heat from several feet away. Sweat was a real problem. I wouldn't care to be the assistant holding 1,500 watts -- or the model in front of it.
Gato
Last edited:
B
Brooke Meyer
Guest
B
Brooke Meyer
Guest
In the past 2 weeks I went from 2 to 4 of these and from 1 to 2 of these . With barn doors and snoots. Cheaper than air fare to Paris and Studio Harcourt
Rico Tudor
Senior Member
Seems like fiberglass was addressing heat issues. With flash, we should be able to repro the effect with the usual modern equivalents: Rosco sheet diffusers or silk in front of a dish. I actually like these materials in front of a fresnel but the light is quite hard.
Probably it helped dissipate some of the heat heat and protected the model in case a bulb blew, as well as diffusing the light. And no doubt, it looked good as well.
I also wonder how many shots they would do before giving the model a break. In "Avedon: Something Personal" by his long time business manager Norma Stevens and journalist Steven Aronson, portraits are typically described as only taking a few minutes as Avedon knew exactly what he was looking for before he picked up the cable release (one assistant held the light and "danced" with the model and the Avedon, a second held the reflector right under the lens, and a third operated the 8x10 view camera as the shoot progressed. It sounds complex but apparently the team worked like a fine watch movement.
He had other assistants as well: a darkroom crew, and a retouching crew.
I am always amazed by the subtle differences between different diffusion materials and honestly it can be hard to see the differences between them especially if you are using standard flash equipment.
I worked crew on a celebrity portrait shoot for a big music brand and... we spent, no joke, a full prelight day and much of the next morning, maybe 10 hours total, trying out different lighting combos - size, distance, position.
First off, simplest is often best - a socked Photek close to the subject, with both close to the wall, looks surprisingly masterful.
And secondly, as you say, it *is* amazing what a difference diffusion can make. We were doing Opal Tough Frost on both a 7" reflector and a Magnum and, even just one sheet was perceptibly better than none at all (to my taste). It's in my kit now and I love it - I think if I had to describe what it does, I'd say it holds mid-tone detail where a stock reflector is all highs and lows with little or no mids.
First off, simplest is often best - a socked Photek close to the subject, with both close to the wall, looks surprisingly masterful.
And secondly, as you say, it *is* amazing what a difference diffusion can make. We were doing Opal Tough Frost on both a 7" reflector and a Magnum and, even just one sheet was perceptibly better than none at all (to my taste). It's in my kit now and I love it - I think if I had to describe what it does, I'd say it holds mid-tone detail where a stock reflector is all highs and lows with little or no mids.
Why discriminate? 
I love Avedon, and I also love Karsh & Hurrell. I'll check out the others you've mentioned.
Speaking of Hurrell, how do you feel about Vincent Peters?
Also... speaking of Karsh, how much time do you spend checking out BTS of his stuff around the web? I've seen stuff from his shoots in the oval office and... it's like 5 hard dishes Dude was a master of placing people middle and left along the "histogram". I can't find the one I'm thinking of, but here's a couple...
I love Avedon, and I also love Karsh & Hurrell. I'll check out the others you've mentioned.
Speaking of Hurrell, how do you feel about Vincent Peters?
Also... speaking of Karsh, how much time do you spend checking out BTS of his stuff around the web? I've seen stuff from his shoots in the oval office and... it's like 5 hard dishes
Dude was a master of placing people middle and left along the "histogram". I can't find the one I'm thinking of, but here's a couple...
B
Brooke Meyer
Guest
Not trying to sand bag anybody, Zorn was a painter. About a year ago, there was a really good exhibit at the Petit Palais in Paris. I spent a lot of time there and took snap shots just as notes on his lighting.
For portraits, when I find someone willing to take the time and I'm not trying to freeze a dancer, I love to use my Mole Richardson Tungsten Fresnels. Local film guy was cleaning out his closet and I scored two more Mini's last week, with barn doors for $50.
For portraits, when I find someone willing to take the time and I'm not trying to freeze a dancer, I love to use my Mole Richardson Tungsten Fresnels. Local film guy was cleaning out his closet and I scored two more Mini's last week, with barn doors for $50.
Doug MacMillan
Veteran Member
He also used top notch airbrush artists who enhanced film gradation and his printer's dodging and burning.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum