The Photo Behind the Iconic Columbia Pictures 'Torch Lady' Logo (2022) | Hacker News Reader

The Photo Behind the Iconic Columbia Pictures 'Torch Lady' Logo (2022)

petapixel.com

107 pointsripe36 comments

One of my most favorite details from the article is the use of Polaroid in professional portrait photography:

> I put a Polaroid back on the Hasselblad camera to start with some test shots.”

> In the old days of film, a kind of early “chimping” was still prevalent, especially on 120 film shoots. Many Hasselblad shooters, including Anderson, would knock off Polaroids to see or show the client 21/4x21/4 proofs.

Another fun fact: Ansel Adams shot President Carter’s portrait of office with a large format Polaroid.

> chimping

For those who aren't aware, the phenomenon where photographers spend too much time looking at the screen on the back of the camera and saying "ooh ooh ooh" rather than concentrating on the shoot.

Personally I check the histogram and overexposure zebra stripes when the exposure changes radically, but other than that primarily keep shooting.

A lot of painted film posters are like this, e.g. Back to the Future posters are all actual posed photographs used for the painting. (probably all the Star Wars ones too as the artist is the same) p.s. BTTFIII poster has Mary Steenburgen cut out and glued onto it later as she wasn't on the original poster that was painted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Struzan

https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/ejsb22/micha...

Alex Ross (comic book artist who paints his pages; https://www.alexrossart.com/) also uses models for most (all?) of his work.

It's just good illustration practice to stage your scenes if you can, as a way of getting the most detailed reference possible. The technique dates back centuries, only limited by the available technologies(grid viewfinders, mirrors, lenses).

By the 20th century photography was available enough to make it relatively trivial to take a snapshot of yourself to get poses and expressions, thus there was a rise in artists claiming they did not use references for PR purposes, e.g. Frank Frazetta made this claim about his paintings repeatedly, even though the documentation exists showing that he staged himself for photos in his comics work back in the 1950's.

The Paramount mountain is the peak of Ben Lomond in Ogden, Utah

What do the model payments look like in this situation? I hope she got more than a one-off payment for becoming the face of Hollywood in a way. Is that further complicated by them using a painting based on the photo?

Pretty sure the history goes she got paid anywhere from $25 to $500 for the photo as a one time payment.

Why? The model gave her time and got paid just like countless other workers. Does a bricklayer continue to receive payment for every year the house is lived in?

Perhaps not a bricklayer, but many of the actors in those same films keep getting paid long after the film is done. And I bet "the Columbia logo lady" is more popular than most of them.

That's because of competition. Royalties are negotiated up front, like any other compensation.

Those actors usually exchange some of their up-front payment for a percentage of the film's profit. In other words, they are taking on some of the risk associated with film production and betting on their own appeal being enough to turn a profit and generate income.

It would be like a bricklayer not taking any payment until the house was sold and therefore taking on the risks associated with the housing market. Most probably wouldn't want that. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It is not a question of popularity, it is a question of negotiating power. Actors have a strong union and the “name” actors are important enough for the success of movies that the studios are willing to accept these conditions.

A leading actor might negotiate a percentage of revenue (profit rarely exists due to Hollywood accounting) but union actors, directors, writers, stunt people, etc receive residuals for reruns, syndication, DVDs, streaming, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_(entertainment_indust...

The bricklayer knows what the end result will be, how it's going to be used, and sets the rates accordingly. After a photo shoot you can end up in the bin, or shown probably close to a million times a day to people around the world for decades.

If the people selling photographs don’t like that, they should license them accordingly, right?

In some imagined utopia, sure. Currently the bar to clear is "stop the production companies from eliminating most actors and destroying the the cinema as it exists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_SAG-AFTRA_strike

I'm not sure who will want to discuss licensing rather than getting another person who needs money immediately and won't ask so many questions. Assuming they'll even bother with a model rather than an AI setup fixed up by a contracted graphics person.

Correct, that should tell you everything you need to know about the market value, and why they don’t get constant royalties for images. There’s a lot of competition because many people are willing to do it for little money.

I do not understand why people think this is bad though, that’s just how the market value of services is determined.

So you think the brick layer should be paid different amounts if the building ends up being used as a soup kitchen or office building?

You know the comparison is flawed and the two kinds of work are very different in almost every way. I expect some kinds of work to be measured in different ways than other, in the same way I don't think programmers should be paid per keypress.

Bricklayers aren't paid by the brick either. They are paid usually by the job (e.g. "build this wall") or by the hour, just like programmers and models. It's really not that different.

The bricklayer's wall could become part of a very valuable property in the future (say if the area became highly desirable), or it could be subject to a natural disaster and fall down. Just like the model's pictures could end up everywhere, or in the bin. But they take on none of that risk.

I reckon a model wouldn't do very well at all with taking the risk. A photographer could probably get through a hundred models in a week and bin 99 of them without giving them a penny.

to nitpick your numbers, working a 40 hour week, 100 models is 24 minutes a model, which isn't enough. 3 hours per model working 40 hour weeks has them getting through 13(.3) models, and even 3 hours seems low.

You're aware that photographs often have more than one person in them?

Some professional photographers stage scenes with hundreds of nude people in them?

What? No. That's impossible.

Seriously though, it's just math.

Math with a singular assumption that negates the time per model result on the 100 per week proposal.

Less math, more arithmetic with spherical cow assumptions.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Seems like the current iteration is the version of the logo Columbia has used the longest: https://www.hatchwise.com/resources/the-complete-history-of-...

Still iconic and I like it but the interesting thing about that is the face clearly shows the light source not coming from the torch.

It always amazes me how old film has such a quality, even after all these years. The photos could've been taken yesterday. Immaculate.

'91 was not "old film" as far as film goes..

Consider not the logo but the clip that opens films. Show the gal, show the torch, show "COLUMBIA".

YMMV, but IMHO the preceding version (pre-90s) was much more, let's say, sensual. More feminine, less severe.

I figured that the new (90s) version was a sop to the Anti-Sex League. Going for a Nancy Reagan vibe.

For comparison, here are all of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YSMJTA5ohI

The 2024 anniversary logo actually cycles through all of them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygaVoEhjyOA

Nice compilation

That video was far longer than I expected. I was thinking that there would be 5-6 variations, tops.

I would not say much more, perhaps a little more. and that was really only the early ones. after the 70's she was more stylized. until the 90's version featured in the article.

The article actually confused me because I was sure that Columbia pictures had been using illuminating Columbia since.. well a lot longer than 1993.

And I was sort of right, it was a series of similar women in similar poses since 1928.

I did find this handy collection of logos however, which was fun to go through.

https://logos.fandom.com/wiki/Columbia_Pictures/Other

> I would not say much more, perhaps a little more. and that was really only the early ones.

"Fair enough" (after reviewing online materials cited herein)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com