[codiac2600]

Hey everyone, just for a background on this, I'm getting some money to put together a 50's style pinup girl shoot and need some ideas to help make things run extra smooth. I've done my research, found my poses, got a serious lighting kit (of course all wireless), they paid for the model who is absolutely gorgeous, we've picked outfits and the hairstyle. Now my problem stems from never shooting with a serious lighting kit and needing some tips on making sure the lighting works the way I envision it and also on any stray ideas for poses, props, and such that you could think of because this is huge for me and want things to work better than I expect.

Here is a small document of my favorite poses to try:




The base premise in the pinup style to make an ordinary house wife turn heads. The pose makes or break the whole premise and I'm going to have a couple of practice shoots with other models before this one so I can get things right.

I have two 360Ws heads, one 160Ws head, two octagonal soft boxes, one strip soft box, one large honeycomb snoot and one small honeycomb snoot. For additional fun lighting I have my AF540 and AF360 flash to add some placement light or special effects lighting to the shoot.

My basic idea here from my light knowledge of serious lighting is to setup one 360Ws head with an octagonal soft box at about 1/2 power at 45 degrees from model, the second 360Ws head with strip soft box on the opposite side of octagonal for some side lighting prolly 1/4 power and then the 160Ws head with a honeycomb snoot for a hair/shoulder light at less then 1/4 power. If that makes sense I should be good, but if you feel there would be a better way to light things let me know because like I said, total amateur here. I'm looking to shoot at 125th f5.6 or higher which sounds just about right to me with the light output and I'd also like to lower the power and put on the FA35 2 and shoot at F2 and try the FA50 1.4 with a low aperture for some fun shots.

My props are a 50's camera, decks of cards, chess set, a velvet green chair, a barstool, some fancy frilly pillows and a hand mirror. My backgrounds are photo black seamless paper, white seamless paper, black and red muslin and green/white/black muslin. I'm going to pick up some velvet red fabric and have it like old wallpaper in the background in a few shots and of course an oversized wooden picture frame to do some of those jump out the picture... pictures.

If anyone has any ideas or just thinks I'm on a great roll and am worrying too much just let me know. I hope someone with better lighting knowledge will jump in and help me out if I'm way off base. Well I'll keep everyone posted on the progress and thank you all for your support!

[little laker]

You can't beat a 1927's Ford T-Bucket in Flat Black as a prop
If I remember correctly I always saw something like that in the drive in pictures.
You might be able to line one close to you up through this forum

Other than that I can't help you Chris,

I'm looking forward to seeing your results.

[roscot]

Knowing the work you do, I don't have much to add (except I'm jealous as hell). I've a similar lighting kit. The only thing I can add is to keep in the back of you mind when you are figuring your lighting ratios, that your 160ws light is half the power of your other 2 so the power settings will be different than you would expect. For example, if you are trying for a 2:1 main to hair light ratio, you might be tempted to set the hair light at half what you set the main light (depending on distance to subject, and all else being equal), but that might not be the case. The good thing is you've got the LCD and Remote assistant to check the actual lighting. You also have a great idea to practice first.

See if you can get a copy of Master Lighting Guide For Portrait Photographers, by Christopher Grey. He does a whole section on old fashioned movie poster lighting. It might be helpful. I got mine at Barnes and Noble.

Good luck. I'm looking forward to seeing your results.

[codiac2600]

You can't beat a 1927's Ford T-Bucket in Flat Black as a prop
If I remember correctly I always saw something like that in the drive in pictures.
You might be able to line one close to you up through this forum

Other than that I can't help you Chris,

I'm looking forward to seeing your results.

I wish I could get a cool car for a prop, but I haven't got one nor would it fit downstairs into my studio LOL.

I'm also looking forward to the results and actually am a little nervous about it even though I know I shouldn't be. Oh well, after this I don't think much else in photography will phase me.

Knowing the work you do, I don't have much to add (except I'm jealous as hell). I've a similar lighting kit. The only thing I can add is to keep in the back of you mind when you are figuring your lighting ratios, that your 160ws light is half the power of your other 2 so the power settings will be different than you would expect. For example, if you are trying for a 2:1 main to hair light ratio, you might be tempted to set the hair light at half what you set the main light (depending on distance to subject, and all else being equal), but that might not be the case. The good thing is you've got the LCD and Remote assistant to check the actual lighting. You also have a great idea to practice first.

See if you can get a copy of Master Lighting Guide For Portrait Photographers, by Christopher Grey. He does a whole section on old fashioned movie poster lighting. It might be helpful. I got mine at Barnes and Noble.

Good luck. I'm looking forward to seeing your results.

Lol, don't be jealous, get even If there is one thing I've learned with photography is everyone has an equal chance of excelling and I boost my own skill by constantly finding models who need portfolio work or by having cute friends that are photogenic so I bolster my portfolio. My only problem with doing so is that I haven't sat down and practiced real meaty photography like studio lighting and such.

You made my day Rascot as I totally forgot about the whole power thing so if I keep my main light at 1/2 I'd also keep my hairlight at 1/2 cause it woul dbe more like 1/4. I always have a hard time checking my histogram in the studio since I take one test shot and just kinda get into it and don't stop taking pictures until I'm out of memory cards, which is 12 gigs lol.

You've solved one question and that is huge help and have noted that in my written guide for the shoot and I truly appreciate that. Off to more studying and some delicious breakfast!

[stewart_photo]

(snip) I have two 360Ws heads, one 160Ws head, two octagonal soft boxes, one strip soft box, one large honeycomb snoot and one small honeycomb snoot. For additional fun lighting I have my AF540 and AF360 flash to add some placement light or special effects lighting to the shoot.

My basic idea here from my light knowledge of serious lighting is to setup one 360Ws head with an octagonal soft box at about 1/2 power at 45 degrees from model, the second 360Ws head with strip soft box on the opposite side of octagonal for some side lighting prolly 1/4 power and then the 160Ws head with a honeycomb snoot for a hair/shoulder light at less then 1/4 power. If that makes sense I should be good, but if you feel there would be a better way to light things let me know because like I said, total amateur here. I'm looking to shoot at 125th f5.6 or higher which sounds just about right to me with the light output and I'd also like to lower the power and put on the FA35 2 and shoot at F2 and try the FA50 1.4 with a low aperture for some fun shots. (snip)

I don't see what you're trying to gain by cutting down the main light. More light would provide smaller apertures with greater depth of field, which would seem better suited for several of the poses you've chosen (and should work fine for the rest). I'd start with the main light at full, with the other light units set in proportion to that.

I also don't see how you're arriving at those exposure settings. The lighting setup with modifiers is too complicated for anything short of a flash meter or a series of test exposures, but I see no mention of either. A flash meter is obviously quicker than test exposures each time the units are repositioned or light output adjusted.

Rembrandt lighting (the light placement you describe) is fine, but to gain even more modeling with the soft boxes, I'd spread the light units out to about 10-25º in relation to the model (further to the sides and only just slightly in front of the model). The fill would be placed opposite in the same relative position, with the hair light placed on the same side as the main light, above and behind the model in the same relative position as the front lights (to the side and just slightly behind the model - enough to keep the light off the face). Since obvious shadows were commonplace in many images during that period, I'd cut the fill down to only about 10-15 percent of the main light (experiment with this to find the right balance between good facial fill and good shadows, adding a small amount of light to the face with a reflector if necessary to achieve this).

That lighting setup should provide modeling similar to the typical 50's style image, with distinct shadows a little softer (due to the soft boxes) then was commonplace back then. Since they didn't use muslin, I'd stay away from that and use the seamless paper instead. Backgrounds were often very simple, so you could probably get by with just the white background. Painted backgrounds were commonplace, but too much of an investment for a single shoot (unless the client has deep pockets). You could try adding a few such backgrounds (obviously painted) afterwards during post processing, but I wouldn't bother with this.

Also remember the poses must actually look posed. Since indoor exposures were often longer back then, poses were chosen to allow the model to remain still for several seconds during the actual exposure. To get the same look, you want those same static poses. The examples you provided are good. Just avoid the temptation of trying to capture poses with more movement if you want the images to look authentic.

And, if you want a truly authentic 50's look, you'll also need a hair stylist to handle the 50's hairstyles. You'll also want slightly older models (19+) since the age of consent laws for these types of images were stricter back then. However, all this may be more authenticity than you're actually seeking.

Of course, if you have time to do so, test everything (especially the lighting) at least once or twice before the actual shoot. Good luck.

stewart

[codiac2600]

I don't see what you're trying to gain by cutting down the main light. More light would provide smaller apertures with greater depth of field, which would seem better suited for several of the poses you've chosen (and should work fine for the rest). I'd start with the main light at full, with the other light units set in proportion to that.

Ahhh, you have struck the nail on the head here with that sentence. I wasn't thinking in terms of depth of field, but more of good exposure after playing with the lights. I'm taking a guess at aiming for an aperture greater than 5.6, probably around f8.0 would be sufficient to keep everything in focus with either of the lenses I will be using.

I also don't see how you're arriving at those exposure settings. The lighting setup with modifiers is too complicated for anything short of a flash meter or a series of test exposures, but I see no mention of either. A flash meter is obviously quicker than test exposures each time the units are repositioned or light output adjusted.

I fired some shots using a light meter to test the value I had, ever mentioned it though.

Rembrandt lighting (the light placement you describe) is fine, but to gain even more modeling with the soft boxes, I'd spread the light units out to about 10-25º in relation to the model (further to the sides and only just slightly in front of the model). The fill would be placed opposite in the same relative position, with the hair light placed on the same side as the main light, above and behind the model in the same relative position as the front lights (to the side and just slightly behind the model - enough to keep the light off the face). Since obvious shadows were commonplace in many images during that period, I'd cut the fill down to only about 10-15 percent of the main light (experiment with this to find the right balance between good facial fill and good shadows, adding a small amount of light to the face with a reflector if necessary to achieve this).

Hmmm, ok, I think I see where this is going. Place the light sources wider to gain some shadowing and control that shadowing with the fill light, but don't try to eliminate that shadow. That does seem to look a lot like the images I see and when I came up with my lighting angles I was reverse engineering some shots I had seen and they always seemed to be 45 degree and with or without a hair light. My question to this is the model will almost always be slightly turned away (never facing perfectly forward) and will this lighting angle at 10-25 degrees cause some shadows with here arms across her body? It looks like it might, but it may be better to just test it and find out, which I will have plenty of test time with 2 other shoots exactly like this before the real one.

That lighting setup should provide modeling similar to the typical 50's style image, with distinct shadows a little softer (due to the soft boxes) then was commonplace back then. Since they didn't use muslin, I'd stay away from that and use the seamless paper instead. Backgrounds were often very simple, so you could probably get by with just the white background. Painted backgrounds were commonplace, but too much of an investment for a single shoot (unless the client has deep pockets). You could try adding a few such backgrounds (obviously painted) afterwards during post processing, but I wouldn't bother with this.

Didn't even take that into the equation Stewart and this is why I love getting input from others on this site. I had no idea that muslin wasn't widely used nor even had the slightest idea about the simple backgrounds. I saw mostly black, blue and white backgrounds in a photos of girls from the era and in a couple I saw some sort of fabric backgrounds. What I think I will do is rely heavily on my assortment of paper backgrounds I have now and throw in the other backgrounds for a few poses just to mix things up.

Also remember the poses must actually look posed. Since indoor exposures were often longer back then, poses were chosen to allow the model to remain still for several seconds during the actual exposure. To get the same look, you want those same static poses. The examples you provided are good. Just avoid the temptation of trying to capture poses with more movement if you want the images to look authentic.

This is a point I brought up with the model in the few conversations we've had and that was the pose makes or breaks this shoot. The whole idea of pinup was to have these sexy poses that would take a fully dressed housewife look like a vixen. The poses are all "posed" looking and that is the feel we want with big cheesy sexy looks and smiles and these come hither poses. Thank you for bringing that up Stewart!

And, if you want a truly authentic 50's look, you'll also need a hair stylist to handle the 50's hairstyles. You'll also want slightly older models (19+) since the age of consent laws for these types of images were stricter back then. However, all this may be more authenticity than you're actually seeking.

Yes the company has listened to me and together we found a hairstylist to do the 50's hair and we are also picking up some flowers to place in her hair kind of like the image 1 top row picture 4. That is the exact hair style she will have and she is 20 years of age and that was another point I stressed was no one too young.

Of course, if you have time to do so, test everything (especially the lighting) at least once or twice before the actual shoot. Good luck.

I have two shoots with my own models to practice everything so no worries on that. I'm going to hammer this one out and get things right the first time and I'm really happy you helped me out here Stewart and will give everything you mentioned a go and shake off some photographic anxiety.

[hamidlmt]

Chris, not sure how much I have to add here. I love this style of posing, but don't have much experience with off-camera lighting, except for my lone AF-540, which I don't often use.

The examples here are a great sampling of posing from the era, but they look like artwork, rather than photography. A lot of the pin-ups were on location too.

What's so sexy about the genre is the playful, yet innocent, girl-next door nature of the posing.... not really trying to be sexy. If the model tries too hard, it loses the appeal.

You won't have any problem... your lighting is great and you have a good eye. Just have a blast!

[stewart_photo]

Originally Posted by Stewart
Rembrandt lighting (the light placement you describe) is fine, but to gain even more modeling with the soft boxes, I'd spread the light units out to about 10-25º in relation to the model (further to the sides and only just slightly in front of the model). The fill would be placed opposite in the same relative position, with the hair light placed on the same side as the main light, above and behind the model in the same relative position as the front lights (to the side and just slightly behind the model - enough to keep the light off the face). Since obvious shadows were commonplace in many images during that period, I'd cut the fill down to only about 10-15 percent of the main light (experiment with this to find the right balance between good facial fill and good shadows, adding a small amount of light to the face with a reflector if necessary to achieve this).

Hmmm, ok, I think I see where this is going. Place the light sources wider to gain some shadowing and control that shadowing with the fill light, but don't try to eliminate that shadow. That does seem to look a lot like the images I see and when I came up with my lighting angles I was reverse engineering some shots I had seen and they always seemed to be 45 degree and with or without a hair light. My question to this is the model will almost always be slightly turned away (never facing perfectly forward) and will this lighting angle at 10-25 degrees cause some shadows with here arms across her body? It looks like it might, but it may be better to just test it and find out, which I will have plenty of test time with 2 other shoots exactly like this before the real one.

The key words in my paragraph are "with the soft boxes." They're going to wrap light around the model, hence the suggestion to spread the light units wider to minimize that somewhat from the camera viewpoint. Rembrandt lighting works best with smaller, more directional, lights. You can try both lighting positions, but I suspect you'll need the wider spread just to see distinct shadows in the final images.

And, yes, you'll have to watch where those shadows fall. But I suspect controlling shadows was as important as controlling lighting in the images taken years ago.

stewart

[little laker]

I wish I could get a cool car for a prop, but I haven't got one nor would it fit downstairs into my studio LOL.

Pop on up here, with your model and I'll help you out with the car
Although we'd have to spend a day or so putting it together enough for some exterior shots

I've got 2 vintage cars, I'm hoping on making into future running / driving props, even from the right era.
But both money and a bad back don't help me finish them

[Marc Langille]

Hey Chris,

One thing, which may already be taken care of or considered, but I am not sure if you or anyone covered it: the lipstick from that era seems to be a very deep red or burgundy in color - sort of high contrast to the pale skin and ruby lips look that was popular then. Something to consider...

My experience with studio work is that F/8, 1/125 sec. are good exposure settings to start, so the subject is pretty much all in focus. Of course, Stewart and you have already covered most of that - power level, etc....

Cheers,
Marc

[codiac2600]

Chris, not sure how much I have to add here. I love this style of posing, but don't have much experience with off-camera lighting, except for my lone AF-540, which I don't often use.

The examples here are a great sampling of posing from the era, but they look like artwork, rather than photography. A lot of the pin-ups were on location too.

What's so sexy about the genre is the playful, yet innocent, girl-next door nature of the posing.... not really trying to be sexy. If the model tries too hard, it loses the appeal.

You won't have any problem... your lighting is great and you have a good eye. Just have a blast!

Thanks Hamid and I shall have a blast!

The key words in my paragraph are "with the soft boxes." They're going to wrap light around the model, hence the suggestion to spread the light units wider to minimize that somewhat from the camera viewpoint. Rembrandt lighting works best with smaller, more directional, lights. You can try both lighting positions, but I suspect you'll need the wider spread just to see distinct shadows in the final images.

And, yes, you'll have to watch where those shadows fall. But I suspect controlling shadows was as important as controlling lighting in the images taken years ago.

stewart

That makes sense and you explained it much better then my mind put it together. Thanks you again Stewart!

Pop on up here, with your model and I'll help you out with the car
Although we'd have to spend a day or so putting it together enough for some exterior shots

I've got 2 vintage cars, I'm hoping on making into future running / driving props, even from the right era.
But both money and a bad back don't help me finish them

LOL, hat would be fun, but I think the flight to BC would be a little out of my expense for the the shoot unless you wanted to come to Rockford?

Hey Chris,

One thing, which may already be taken care of or considered, but I am not sure if you or anyone covered it: the lipstick from that era seems to be a very deep red or burgundy in color - sort of high contrast to the pale skin and ruby lips look that was popular then. Something to consider...

My experience with studio work is that F/8, 1/125 sec. are good exposure settings to start, so the subject is pretty much all in focus. Of course, Stewart and you have already covered most of that - power level, etc....

Cheers,
Marc

Deep red or burgundy... didn't even think about that and you are correct. I'll have to remind here about the makeup!

Thank you again Marc, you always seem to find something hidden and let it be known

[Niki]

I truly am a newbie when it comes to lighting and camera settings, but hair and makeup, that I can do.

Another quick thought about the makeup, truly it is a key element.
If you dont think it can be achieved by you or the model, you might consider taking the model to a salon where a make-up artist could duplicate a pin-up look.

Marc was spot on, deep colored matte lipstick and pale, pancake makeup. Dark eye liner in a thick line on the top lash eyelid only. Very tailored eye brows. Long, dark, luscious eyelashes. (P.S. they make great fake ones you can pick up at any beauty supply store)
Not too much eye shadow, if any. Very little blush.
Hair is just as important, study older photos well, try to mimic something there.

I hope you post your photos, Im excited to see what you come up with!

[PDL]

Head to the library and look up some old car magazines. They had some pinups in them - for the guys in the shop. If you want to use a period car - contact a local car club, I would think that you would have to beat them off with a stick - although if your studio is in the basement or 2nd floor it could get tricky.

Try some furniture rental outfits - they may have some 50's retro stuff that you can get for a week or so - you might even be able to build a relationship with them - sort of put the model in their chair for their advertising? It could happen.

While doing research in old car magazines – check out LOOK and Life magazines – look at the ads, not the articles. (Hard to do – but possible) See what was on sale – there might also be some ideas if your library has some 50’s Sear’s and Montgomery Wards catalogues in the stacks.

The Elitist – formerly known as PDL

[lithos]

KODACHROME.

Oh, wait...

Damn.

[and]

KODACHROME.

Oh, wait...

Damn.

good one