May be not, but it is the lighting technique that I am particularly
interested in. As for sheet film, I am able to borrow an 11 x 14 Gandolfi if
needed. In which case I would probably use HP5 plus or 320TXP souped in D-76
and contact printed on to Kentmere bromide or Ilford Multigrade FB.
(Provided I can get hold of the film sheets in the UK).
The trouble is, I have never used a sheet film camera before, let alone a
monster of this size. Perhaps I will stick with the Mamiya.
Thanks.

It's true that Hurrell used coninuous output lights, and it's also true
that film responds differently to different types of lighting (strobe,
tungsten, fluroscent...). Nonetheless, light source size and position
matter most for the character of lighting.   So flashes with appropriate
 reflectors will give results with a very similar character to tungsten
movie lights.  Morever, tungsten movie lights are very difficult on the
model if he/she has to look near them.  Movie stars of the golden area
were used to this type of thing, and they paid for it with such maladies
as "klieg eyes", but modern models will probably not be. Moreover, movie
lights are hot, and you need to use screens to protect the model if the
halogen lightbulb were to shatter. My experience shooting "Hurrell"
style has been that I prefer flash. Flash also helps limit problems with
subject movement. (In my case, I used an 8x10 studio portrait camera
with a Veritas lens. Like Hurrell, I prefer to stop this lens down to at
least f11 or f16. Even with HP5+ and a 2000 watt "blonde" mainlight, I
had fairly long exposures.)

As someone alluded to already, Hurrell, or his assitant, would spend
hours retouching the negatives, mainly with pencils. He often had his
models wear only eye and lip makeup, as heavy retoucing where models
used foundation would lead to "plastic" looking skin. In one of the
recent books on Hurrell, there is an example of a print from an
unretouched negative of Joan Crawford next to one from a retouched
negative. There's a huge difference!

-Peter
www.desmidt.net

As usual, Tom Fill-Lips is full of it. You definitely can reproduce the
results with electronic flash. You will find that you have to open the
aperture, but especially recreate the color range of the originals.

"Keith Tapscott" <not@home.com> wrote

Ah, accessory to narcissism.  Having played around with this to no good
end (the photography, not the narcissism, though some do differ on this
point) my take is:

Try to locate a fellow going by the handle of Zeitgeist, often to be found
on the MF groups.  He knows what he is talking about.  

But for the usual ignorant Usenet view I can say:

For books of photos from that age I get books from the Cleveland Public
Library which is reasonably huge and from the regions other libraries
via inter-library loan. The style had a bit of a revival in the 50's
using the LuridColor (reg. tm.) process - a good reason to pour
over old issues of Playboy.

Sometimes I can divine the original lighting setup from the highlights
in the model's eyes and by paying attention to filled shadows (a soft
box these days) and hard shadows (a bulb in reflector), and bright
highlights (a spot).  As strobes didn't exists until after WWII,
the 30's shots were taken with hot lights.   The lighting used
was as in movies where the lights hang from the ceiling of the
studio.  In the pics I have seen all the lights are up on 12' poles.

So much for history.

I find hot lights a lot easier to work
with.  They don't have to be very hot: I use 60/100/200
watt lightbulbs.  I shoot 35 mm at 1/4 second and the lens
at f2.0 so the lack of brilliant light isn't a problem.

I use a diffuse source (or two), a somewhat hard modeling light
that grazes the surface of the face and a spotlight from above/back
for the hair.  The hair light has to be tightly controlled so it
doesn't light up the fuzz on her clothes.  It is fun to play around
with different 'structures of light, such as a long diffuse source
(a 24" fluorescent light) for the fill.  It will cast shadows along
the short dimension but not on the long dimension.  I found if I
make this source too long it makes for a Sci-Fi look.

In deference to Hurell, I prefer to have the modeling light at
the same level as the camera so the shadows are easier to control.

I shoot from a foot or two above the head and have the model lean
forward and sideways a bit then turn her head over her shoulder
and peer up - too much of this and I end up with Princess Di,
and it looks just too-too, you know.  With the model peering
up just right I hide the neck and emphasize the chin - which
is good if she doesn't have thick black hairs growing from her chin.

I use an incident meter.  It makes balancing the lighting ratios
easier.  I measure each light individually and go for a 1-2 stop
difference between the modeling and the fill.  The ratio depends
on how forceful I want the shadows to be.  I measure the background
with a spot meter and try to its lighting uniform.

For a softbox I either bounce a light off a large white
card, light up the back of a thin sheer curtain or use a
window (with or without a sheer curtain).  

For the modeling light I use a very large spun aluminum reflector -
the type that show up in rummage sales.

For the spot I have one/two/three coffee cans (bottoms
removed) taped with duct/gaffer tape to make a collimating
tube: I support the tube with a set of stands and put a
bare lightbulb, held on a separate stand) poking into
the far end of the tube.  Attaching a sheet of board with
the appropriate hole to the end of the tube can be
used for tighter control, but I never got this fancy.  

For me, quantity assures quality when fooling around
with this stuff - just random chance will produce
one good shot out of the hundred carefully thought
out bad ones.

You can, as you mention, borrow an 11x14.  For
learning I would advise a 35mm and the cheapest
Jessop's film you can find.  I've used up _lots_
of film trying to get portraiture down pat.  I can see
why, when a portrait photographer gets it all set
'just so', he nails the lightstands to the floor.
Take good notes, I don't.

I like 35mm TechPan.  It works well because it's
red sensitivity hides skin blemishes.  When enlarged
to less than 8x10 the quality is awfully close to 4x5.  
I have the model use very dark lipstick; I check
it by looking through a light red filter.  A wee dram
of diffusion is a good idea, but I have never found
a filter that is wee enough.  Another homeopathic dose of
diffusion filtering when enlarging gets rid of any
vestigial grain.

Like most photography I find it easy to do but very
hard to do well.

Yes you can still; as of this moment get Azo, www.michaelandpaula.com

Tom,
Can you clarify you comments about flash duration?