For those of you with short attention spans (like me) and an interest in old Hollywood glamour – here’s a brief history for your edification...structured to satisfy nearly any low level attention span...
When one thinks of the Hollywood portraiture of the 1930’s and 40’s, one thinks of classic glamour. But its origins actually lay in the 1920’s when one big technical innovation made that kind of portraiture practical.
Truly efficient photomechanical reproduction meant that popular illustrated journals and periodicals could now include lots and lots of photos. Till then illustrations, engravings, and even wood cuts were the norm.
The epicenter of photography until the early 1930s was New York. Photographers enjoyed a rock star like status. At his high water mark, Alfred Cheney Johnston could command 1200 to 1400 dollars for a portrait! If a Hollywood starlet wanted a portrait, and she wanted the best, she went to New York.
But the need for portraits grew exponentially. Frequent cross country travel wasn’t yet practical. Though that was doubtless not the only reason, this certainly gave the Hollywood photographers like C.S. Bull, George Hurrell and Laszlo Willinger opportunities to step into New York’s limelight from Hollywood soil.
Along with many others, these photographers shaped and defined glamourous Hollywood portraits.
Their trademark looks owes great debt to 2 factors (not just these 2, but they feature big).
1)The preferred camera format (8x10 for contact prints), which required poses that are easy to hold because of the time it took between focusing and taking the picture.
2)Their dependency of movie lighting, which were so powerful the tended to feather them or move lights back great distances. Many were spots which also give the hard light feel. These lights were so powerful, they caused "Klieg Eye" which was basically a retinal sunburn.
A close inspection of the Hollywood portraitists’ work shows they used every lighting setup under the sun (even presaging future lighting trends). They tended to shoot sloppier, be scornful of exposure meters and crossed shadows apparently didn’t much concern them.
Despite this (or perhaps because of it) they developed some of the most memorable lighting set ups created. One classic set up is so popular, it’s now called Paramount or butterfly lighting (though I’ve seen several derivations where the key and fill are placed differently relative to one another).
In all probability, the vast majority of Hollywood Portraits were retouched. Many quite heavily. One studio employed 7 retouchers for every photographer. Alterations were made directly on the negative, often with a soft pencil, though there were several other techniques.
By the late 1940s, both technology and sensibilities would change enough that the style waned (though remained in use well into the late 50s).
Not comprehensive or academic, but there you go. I’ve sourced many books and websites, but the brilliant Hollywood Portraits by Roger Hicks and Christopher Nisperos is a must read/view for anyone interested in this stuff.
This’ll still be way too long for some, but that’s as short I could make it and still make it not so choppy as to lose its compass completely. Hope you find it of value. I enjoyed creating it in any event.