In the history of photography, the Rembrandt effect a portrait lighting method invented in the late 1860s has endured the longest. The Rembrandt effect is not only widely used today, but it also set the precedent for how the photography community would react to trends: first with acclaim and imitation, then with mockery when the look became overly popular. The aesthetic was frequently revisited after the initial excitement subsided. William Kurtz, a photographer in New York, first used the phrase “Rembrandt effect” in 1868.
By adding shadows to his head-and-shoulders portraits, Kurtz gave them a three-dimensional appearance reminiscent of the gloomy works of the Dutch Old Master painters. Due to the enormous amount of light required by early photography processes, the majority of urban studios were situated at the summit of multistory buildings and were illuminated by clerestory windows or skylights. In early photos, the shadows created by overhead lights—especially those under a sitter’s chin, nose, and brow—were regarded as flaws.
In consideration of their clients’ desires, portrait photographers put a lot of effort into removing not only these shadows from the face, but all of them. In order to retain light in both eyes while casting half of the face in shadow, the Rembrandt technique required directing the light using reflector panels. One potential opponent of the Rembrandt effect said, “There’s no doubt that the most significant benefit of this new style photograph will be the dismantling of long-standing prejudices against shadows.”
Every provincial operator has shed a tear or two over the inconsiderate rustics who want to have their faces photographed in front of the full moon! Some reject a three-quarter head because it is “too black on one side!” Squareto front and in full light. The complaint appears to have significant racial ramifications when viewed through the lens of the twenty-first century. Though the nineteenth-century photographer was more adept at converting colors into monochrome shots, his or her love of deeper skin tones did not always indicate a more enlightened perspective of race.
Reflecting on 1869, Edward L. Wilson wrote in the Philadelphia Photographer that “shadow pictures,” or Rembrandt effects, were “quite the rage.” Numerous additional writers offered guidance on how to create portraits in the incredibly popular style—”the now justly celebrated ‘Rembrandt Effect.'” Some recommended utilizing Kurtz’s patent-protected invention, a sizable foldable frame that focussed and channeled natural light. Others described the still-common technique of using white sheets to produce temporary reflectors.
But by the next year, style detractors had surfaced, branding the Rembrandt look as “unnatural and extravagant.” Some said that because the technology had taken over the market, all portraits appeared to be the same. Upon closer examination, these criticisms target the subjects of the photographs as well as the style of these images, since they were seen to be unworthy of such stylish portraiture. Kurtz said that “commonplace or ordinary faces, when lighted in an ordinary manner, will always remain ordinary” in his written justification of the style.
Kurtz: “It is hardly fair to condemn the entire thing if some, in making this style of picture, go beyond a certain limit and produce work that is simply ridiculous.” The greatest portraits may and often are created in this manner. Those who support a trend frequently assert that it is the “best” or most organic approach to take photos in the industry.
But from the start, as the development and collapse of the Rembrandt effect illustrates, representational movements are closely related to what they depict. Having one’s image taken in the new manner demonstrated the yeoman’s desire for cosmopolitanism as much as the photographer’s proficiency with cutting-edge methods. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that American sophisticates attempted to defend their shaky grasp on their recently acquired social position by leveling allegations of impudence at the trend, which was less outspoken in defending itself than the many social strata it was meant to represent.