Thoughts on Peter Hurley kit? $5,500??

[ronlane]

Good conversation here about the Hurley set up. Thing to me is that his lighting set-up is what works for him. I like the idea of constant lighting for the eyes as mentioned and that you can see the light and how it is going to look on camera (one of Hurley's reasons for constant lighting).

For me, I have to remember that Hurley was using a Hassleblad and Keno's until Canon got him to use a 5Ds or a 5Dsr and then Wescott approached him about "making" this set-up. It works for him but you could make s set-up for far less that would work as well.

I've been lucky enough to get to sit in on one of his headshot key notes that was over an hour long. As @Derrel said, it was so much more about the soft skills, the people skills than it was about gear and lighting. He knows what he is doing and gets compensated well for this knowledge and ability to produce images for the people.

 

[mrca]

DGM, I agree, the catchlight is often the highest contrast element in a head shot is extremely important. It gives life to the eyes which look dead without one. Personally, I am not a fan of the crescent catchlight, but I believe they can be easily created with another over priced piece of gear, a 3 piece angling reflector that is positioned under subject to create a low catchlight. For me, and I am only speaking for me, when the catch light becomes suprisingly different than normal, it can become a distraction and detract somewhat from the total impact of the image. I believe some of the great master painters used such a catchlight. but then, they often weren't going for the detail we get with 46 mp. As for seeing the lighting, he is shooting tethered in studio and gets to see it on the monitor with more critical eye than looking across the 6-8 feet at the subject. Besides, I would hope a "professional" has shot enough to be able to envision what he is seeing with the modeling lights and measuring with his meter as it will appear in the finished image. Hell, with a 250 watt modeling light, I could photo by the modeling lights only through soft boxes by taking the trigger off the camera and push iso if needed. Then the same lights that cost a fraction of the latest fad after the kino fad, will pump 650 ws through a 7' octa for full length or on battery pack useable outside in bright light. Those puny things are one trick ponies. In tight in studio because they are so underpowered. I think some folks have pointed out some adorama lights that cost a tenth as much and have more power and will work with full sized modifiers. Physics doesn't change, the larger the relative size of the light the softer and these things are tiny to start and I guess they could be pushed through a diffuser panel to enlarge them, but they ae already low on power. The cost to me just isn't warranted and what they produce isn't anything I want to do. I appreciate Hurley's marketing more than his images.

 

[DGMPhotography]

DGM, I agree, the catchlight is often the highest contrast element in a head shot is extremely important. It gives life to the eyes which look dead without one. Personally, I am not a fan of the crescent catchlight, but I believe they can be easily created with another over priced piece of gear, a 3 piece angling reflector that is positioned under subject to create a low catchlight. For me, and I am only speaking for me, when the catch light becomes suprisingly different than normal, it can become a distraction and detract somewhat from the total impact of the image. I believe some of the great master painters used such a catchlight. but then, they often weren't going for the detail we get with 46 mp. As for seeing the lighting, he is shooting tethered in studio and gets to see it on the monitor with more critical eye than looking across the 6-8 feet at the subject. Besides, I would hope a "professional" has shot enough to be able to envision what he is seeing with the modeling lights and measuring with his meter as it will appear in the finished image. Hell, with a 250 watt modeling light, I could photo by the modeling lights only through soft boxes by taking the trigger off the camera and push iso if needed. Then the same lights that cost a fraction of the latest fad after the kino fad, will pump 650 ws through a 7' octa for full length or on battery pack useable outside in bright light. Those puny things are one trick ponies. In tight in studio because they are so underpowered. I think some folks have pointed out some adorama lights that cost a tenth as much and have more power and will work with full sized modifiers. Physics doesn't change, the larger the relative size of the light the softer and these things are tiny to start and I guess they could be pushed through a diffuser panel to enlarge them, but they ae already low on power. The cost to me just isn't warranted and what they produce isn't anything I want to do. I appreciate Hurley's marketing more than his images.

Hmmmm, a crescent shaped reflector - that is a great idea!

 

[mrca]

Or just create them in post.

 

[DGMPhotography]

I've found creating catch lights in post isn't optimal. They aren't reflective of the actual light source used.

 

[adamhiram]

Hmmmm, a crescent shaped reflector - that is a great idea!

Sounds like you want a Westcott Eyelighter... I've used one and the results are pretty nice, but the price is pretty steep for what is essentially just a big curved reflector. DIYPhotography.com has a few tutorials for DIY versions that probably do the job just as well.

 

[mrca]

DGM, the low curved catchlight isn't that hard to do add in post. If you have your low fill with little or no catch light, it can be added in post if it that is an effect someone likes. Adam, $300 for a one trick pony for a funky catchlight just doesn't compute for me. I thought I had seen one that was 3 sections as well. I just don't like a low catch light. I just want one. In another post I showed how I hang my low fill so I can maneuver it's catchlight out of the eye. And if it is there, I just remove it in post.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Yeah, like I said, I don't like the look of adding one in post, and I'd rather just get it done in-camera.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, like I said, I don't like the look of adding one in post, and I'd rather just get it done in-camera.

And of course "adding a catchlight in post" does not, in any manner, modify the light at the time of shooting. Pushing a few pixels around is not the same as reflector fill, or a specific type of key light. The in-camera work that creates a specific catchlight is also part of the lighting set-up...not everything can be done in post work.

As far as it goes, one of the things Hurley's clients are after is a headshot that "stands out" from the 10,15,20, or 50 other headshots that might be under consideration...he's definitely trying to make his photos "stand out"...to be different.

There are a lot of ways to light faces. He's not known for shooting portraits, but for actor headshots.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Yeah, like I said, I don't like the look of adding one in post, and I'd rather just get it done in-camera.

And of course "adding a catchlight in post" does not, in any manner, modify the light at the time of shooting. Pushing a few pixels around is not the same as reflector fill, or a specific type of key light. The in-camera work that creates a specific catchlight is also part of the lighting set-up...not everything can be done in post work.

As far as it goes, one of the things Hurley's clients are after is a headshot that "stands out" from the 10,15,20, or 50 other headshots that might be under consideration...he's definitely trying to make his photos "stand out"...to be different.

There are a lot of ways to light faces. He's not known for shooting portraits, but for actor headshots.

Exactly.

 

[mrca]

Exactly, adding a catch light in post doesn't change the lighting, but if using a low fill light with a small modifier producing a small low catch light, it creates the fill for the shadows, maybe somewhat different than some silly $300 curved reflector, but that small catchlight can be expanded in post for the curved catch light. If you want side fill, bring in reflectors or foam core on either side. I doubt someone picking an actor is swayed by a rectangular Hurley catchlight or a curved lower one. If I were the person hiring, I would ask why this guy has such weird looking eyes and was the light too bright because he is squinting or does he just have a vision problem? Just another couple of ways for photographers to be fleeced of more money for gear. And we all know how photographers love aquiring gear.

 

[chuasam]

I don't like his kit. Peter Hurley is a bit like the HardRock Cafe of the headshot world.
Famous but passable and not amazing. His real strength is connecting with the subject, not lighting.
I don't like LED for portraits. I've used them before.
constant light means your subjects wince (especially those with pale blue eyes) because the light is too bright.

 

[mrca]

Chuasam, I wonder if that is why he developed the "squint" schtick like it is cool when it is a disadvantage of his lights. As for great connection with subjects, good but no cigar. Impressive to someone who doesn't shoot portraits regularly or for a living, but just another day at work for those who do. Bottom line, I see him as an ok photographer who has marketed his schtick and it took off. My question is specialist or one trick pony?

 

[sergezap]

He is the guy with impressive communicative skills, imho.

If you have shot something interesting with your Nokia 3310 it is an interesting shot.
If you have shot teaspoon with your Leica Noctilux it is one of thousands teaspoons with Leica Noctilux in EXIF on Flickr.

 

[mrca]

Just a thought on the curved reflector for a semi circular catchlight in the lower eye. The painting masters used to lighten the lower part of the iris on the theory that the brow shadowed the upper iris making it darker and the lower iris was illuminated by the light that was usually higher than the subject. I wonder if that is what the curved reflector is trying to emulate and provide fill at the same time. I have never heard it advocated for that, but just a thought.