new dog learning old tricks

[jetrim]

Have an old Hollywood glamour style shoot coming up soon, so I've been doing some research on the technique. This was shot with a snoot as the key light, at 45 degrees right and a large softbox for fill at 90 degrees left. The "old trick" is to place a black silk stocking over the lens to create soft focus diffusion, and my question is - Is this actually TOO diffused? I've also attached a shot taken "clean" for comparison. (the subject is another photographer who I trade assisting duty with from time to time - Simon)

[Grandpaw]

I don't do these type of shots but it looks too much to me. Wouldn't Photoshop have something that would give this effect that can be adjusted to get just the right amount of effect you need? Jeff

[draymorton]

Too diffused? Yes.

Cool experiment, though.

[gahspidy]

Jet, I am not certain bout the glamour style of old hollywood but I'm thinking they do have a cinematic quality about them, meaning soft glowy lighting wrapped around the subject in a flattering way. I have seen more dramtic type shots that use snoots and very defined lighting but they usually always have the entire subject still stand out from the background. This subjects hair is getting lost on the backdrop. I do realize you are merely experimenting with the effects of glow and so on.
I find the "diffuse filter" in PS gives some good results but you have to first eliminate any hot spots on the face or they can blow out fast. One drawbac also is it only works on 8 bit images.
I think your effect with the stocking is too much here, perhaps try a white stocking stretched very tight but I think doing it later in PS would yield good results with more control

[jetrim]

Thanks for the responses. I guess you guys have confirmed my suspicions . Gary, I'm pretty confident I can pull of the sharp, hard-light style you refer to, and I know this one coulda used a hair light for better seperation. I'll continue to tinker with this over the coming weeks and see if I can produce a better in-camera result. The thing that intrigued me about this result was the grain it introduced that is so tough to reproduce digitally

[gahspidy]

Thanks for the responses. I guess you guys have confirmed my suspicions . Gary, I'm pretty confident I can pull of the sharp, hard-light style you refer to, and I know this one coulda used a hair light for better seperation. I'll continue to tinker with this over the coming weeks and see if I can produce a better in-camera result. The thing that intrigued me about this result was the grain it introduced that is so tough to reproduce digitally

I'm sure you can pull it off too, looking forward to the result.
forgot to mention the diffuse filter also has a pretty good grain effect that is very under rated and overlooked. . .

[GB1]

Now what you have to do is collage these two, one behind the other (perhaps the B&W in the back) with one back and off to the right of the front one. It will look like two separate eras. I think the diffused effect would be perfect for that.

G

[BlueRob]

Cool experiment Jet, but yes I think it is a little overdone...interesting technique no doubt.
I guess we replaced the stockings for the Gaussian blur

If you add more tension to the stocking it will spread the fibers and maybe it will give you less diffusion and thus a clearer image? maybe?

[gahspidy]

I guess we replaced the stockings for the Gaussian blur

If you add more tension to the stocking it will spread the fibers and maybe it will give you less diffusion and thus a clearer image? maybe?

Or, a ripped panty hose could perform like a lens baby. . .

[BlueRob]

Or, a ripped panty hose could perform like a lens baby. . .

Boy! and I thought I was creative :lol:

[jetrim]

Met up with a buddy last night after he'd just returned from a Rolando Gomez workshop in Palm Beach. He said they had practiced a bit of this and the missing ingredient was "more power". The idea is, the more light on the subject, the more it burns through the stocking, so the subject is clearer and better defined - also suggested a single large softbox, so I'll give that a try later this week.

[gahspidy]

Met up with a buddy last night after he'd just returned from a Rolando Gomez workshop in Palm Beach. He said they had practiced a bit of this and the missing ingredient was "more power". The idea is, the more light on the subject, the more it burns through the stocking, so the subject is clearer and better defined - also suggested a single large softbox, so I'll give that a try later this week.

I can see that idea working out. Also the large softbox will help soften the increased exposure, but I'm thinking that trying a snoot into the eyes mught be a nice effect in addition. I see many hollywood glamour photos where the subjects eyes are always very lit and glowing, much like in the old cinematic techniques where the close ups of the character would have a strong soft light in the eyes and face.