Photographer Dustin Dolby of workphlo is back with another of his straightforward, easy-to-follow lighting tutorials. This time, he's showing us how to shoot (and post-process) a professional-looking splash photography shot—a very popular ad style—using just the affordable speedlights in his home studio.
As usual, his setup is extremely affordable. To start, he places the empty glass-and-lime combo onto a sheet of plexiglass, with two diffusers behind it and a cheap Yongnuo speedlight behind that. Then he uses a second speedlight off to the side to light the garnish, and that same speedlight is what he'll use to light the splashes once he adds water and begins throwing in his fake ice cube.
From start to finish, here are all of the exposures he captured and combined in post to create his final image:
Along the way Dolby offers a bunch of little tips and tricks that help really round out the final image, and produce something beautiful. Here's the final shot, after a bit of post-production magic:
To see the full tutorial, click play above. And if you love product photography his YouTube channel is definitely worth a look.
All photographs by Dustin Dolby/workphlo and used with permission.
Nice going kid! What I am not sure about in your final product is a really dense shadow on the lime skin making it look like it has known some seriously better days. Also, I would keep a vignette more symmetrical with this this much of light fall-off involved.
Interesting tutorial which includes some handy hints and reminders. Interesting too, to note his workflow, dedicated to post-production assembly in Photoshop, or in my case, Pixelmator and Affinity Photo. Please keep posting the tutorials. Thanks.
Please keep posting these interesting tutorials. Not because I need them, but because there are a lot of people here who clearly need therapy by venting their anger,jealousy, frustrations, insecurities and inadequacies at anyone who is successful and they aren't. Cheer up guys. You're making progress.
As someone who gets a kick out of learning new things I appreciate Dustin's tutorials. But I am smewhat confused with the criticism , is this tutorial an oversimplified hot mess with a ratty lime OR step by step set of instructions to throw professionals out of a job?
No professional photographer will lose work because of this.
Also no amateur photographer photographer will learn anything to help him to become a professional.
I've been-there-and-done-that, from the mid 1970s until 2010. I also did some of the motion-control model shots (photographic effects gaffer: Apogee, Inc) for Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). Here's my International Movie Database page http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1379875/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cr125
People like this have never cost me even one days lose of work. I just don't like people being misled.
Charles, thanks for sharing the perspective of a professional. I agree that only the most insecure pro (or crabbed DPR member) would be concerned about such a tutorial, but I'm not sure how Dolby's efforts would mislead anyone. What did I miss?
As an aside, what was it like working with V'ger? : )
@453C, V'ger (top view) was about 50 feet long, a very large miniature. The Klingon ship had a more reasonable wing span of maybe 5 feet.
Most scenes were made-up 20-24 shots married on a aerial image optical printer.
The cone of laser-light was an ultra strong unit that could burn through a 2x4 piece of wood in about 15-20 minuets, when cranked-up. It was aimed at a spinning mirror, which made the cone of light. No-one could be on the stage when the laser was at full power—too dangerous.
Charles, I'm willing to challenge your experience with mine. Not because I'm bigger than you. The exact opposite. Because I am SMALLER than you.
If I got things correctly from your post:
- you're working (or have worked) at Hollywood level. Like any high end pro, I seriously doubt, even better, I doubt with a passion that you have any solid idea what it is to battle in the lower end of the market.
Do you know what it is to start out *today*?
- If I got it correctly, you've been working up until 2010. Anything before that, the market was reasonably healthy.
IMO, it was past 2010 that the photo business have shown its illness.
From day 1 to year 2000: healthy photo industry due to film barriers.
2001 - 2006: healthy industry. Digital still in its infancy, which means expensive, and small selection of used products.
2007 - 2017: Digital is now mature. New gear becoming cheaper and cheaper. Lots of stuff in the used market, lots of workshops, tutorials, internet, You Tube...
Above, that's my 2011 beginner's portfolio. In that video, I wasn't half the photographer I am today.
Is there quality in that portfolio? Some say yes, some say no, it really doesn't matter.
What matters is that I don't even get a "yawn", because the agency guy has already seen 200 portfolios that week, he's fed up, and won't waste any time seeing more portfolios.
Simple as that.
You don't even make it to the *starting* line. You're out before even trying.
A reality someone who started out in 1970 probably isn't familiar with.
The problem with a lot of traditional high-powered strobes is that they have very long flash times—like 1/800 of a second or even slower. Speedlights can get you up into 1/10,000 or faster. It's definitely not a rule, but it is something to check before you get too far down the road. Different manufacturers use different electronics.
Next idea for a video: how about amateurs / enthusiasts learning easily and for free brain surgery?
Let's make some of those well paid doctors out of work. They're overrated anyway, I'm sure every enthusiast out there can do it at home, for a fraction of the cost.
So here's my suggestion, but please feel free to offer yours as well.
Undervaluing a whole profession and putting people out of work must be a lot of fun, right?
I never quite get this "putting people out of work" mentality. If the world has progressed to the point that people no longer need to purchase your services, then you simply need new services to offer. It's always been this way and will always be this way.
Marcio - Hear, hear! My good man, I am with you to the end!
It is easy for the unthinking mob to suckle knowledge from the teat of this Mister Dolby, but how soon they forget the plight of the poor splash photographer, toiling away for decades in his dark, wet studio. He braves the mysteries of this new-fangled electricity to bring us fruity photographs of spirits in motion, only to have this crafty ragamuffin give away the crown jewels of his very livelihood? Nay! Nay, I say to this travesty!
Aye, work has been scarce for this hard-bitten craftsman ever since the Great Buggy Whip Debacle of '09. Bennett Buggies gave my people hope in the 1930s, but it was a tough go of it until I transitioned to splash photography from splash sketchery.
Saurat, I dearly hope you are right. Time has been kind to those of us that have honed our skills with the ice & crystal, but these Youtubians and their indiscrete moving pictures have shaken the IGSFP (International Guild of Splash & Fire Photographers) to our core. Praise be to kind souls such as yourself and Marcio for giving a thought to those of us in the cellar, using the dark arts to capture the magical commingling of ice and alcohol.
Egads! What devilry will next be visited upon us? Will this Mister Dolby provide instruction that leads to people driving their own automobiles? Think of the chauffeurs, man!
I'm going to jump to "marcio_napoli's" defense a little bit because it's obvious that people commenting have never faced the issue he's talking about.
There are in industries what are known as "trade secrets," those little techniques that insiders know that give pro work that extra edge. You had to either go to school to learn these little techniques or work in the biz to acquire them.
Over the years, people have been giving trade secrets away for free to make tons of cash via internet marketing. Because the amateurs don't appreciate the value of these techniques, they then produce and give away professional images for dirt cheap/free or wind up flooding the marketplace based off of those trade secrets.
This issue is part of the reason why Adobe and other companies went subscription-based. Too many amateurs learning trade secrets off the web were getting copies of Photoshop, 3DS, etc. giving away work for near free and devaluing graphic design and computer graphics in the process.
If a "trade secret" is so simple it can be taught in a ten minute youtube video, then charging through the nose to use that trade secret on a job is nothing more than a con. If it's a real skill and despite knowing the secrets the amateurs can't get the same results, then people will continue to pay for it. If anyone can do it, then it doesn't have value and shouldn't be kept a secret just to keep conning people.
Ah, the minababe has returned, feelings of hurtness in tow from a past failure on these inter-webs! I see that good humour is not a friendly companion in your travels. No matter; we of the IGSFP deeply value your support in these matters. If not for the pathos of the minababe, all is lost!
"Next idea for a video: how about amateurs / enthusiasts learning easily and for free brain surgery?" It is not so complicated, I've seen this several times in "The Walking Dead".
Please for a little more imagination. There are a lot of similar films on the youtube. Why do you all want to photograph the same issues? Glasses, bottles, watches, cosmetics, food, jewels, rings, splashes , bokeh, fire, … Shoot something new-different. And the most important. Do not satisfied with the average shoot.
@ william .... i remember that and i was adapting nikon lenses with modified body caps glue and giant washers in 2009 to my ep-1 before many adapter were made ... i hung on to my contax g lenses and knew someone would create a gearing adapter someday ... it changed what a camera was for me
the corner evf evf i waited ages for came in the pen f which i have but fuji has my attention now
thanks for the cool memory of the most creative camera ad ever , house of cards style.....lol
Again... people should learn to be able to do this kind of thing in one shot. It is not hard. If you have to composite so many images together it's more photoshop than photography, and it shows you've understood the basics... but no more than that.
Given you said it's not hard, where is your tutorial for doing this kind of thing in one shot? Also, if the end result is the same, why does the process matter?
Ah of course, because I haven't posted a tutorial I must be lying...
It matters a lot. If you want to spend a lot of your time in post processing by all means, but that's time you can also spend on other clients, other projects, or I dunno, just chilling :-) Second, the more you photoshop the more you move away from actual photography. I know everybody draws the line somewhere else, but generally I'm far less impressed with a good shot if I find out that it was just blended together afterwards. Getting it right in one go takes effort, and allows a little bit more pride in your work.
I understand your sentiment wrt getting the shot in one go, use film when possible, etc., but the guy has put in effort and shared his methods, which work perfectly well, and explained it very well too. When you say something is not hard, and I thought his methods were hard enough, you need references. Whether you are lying or not is not important.
Alright I'll admit, saying "it's not hard" may have been a bit harsh. If you understand lighting, it's prefectly doable with a little extra effort, but if you've never done product shots before and are new to lighting then it may not be very easy. But I have done this kind of shot as a method of experimentation before, and I didn't need to composite multiple images.
I do believe that when you intend to teach other people something new, you should do it right. For example, instead of removing a shadow in post processing, position everything so that the shadow is avoided. I don't make tutorials because I don't consider myself an authority (but at least, better than him :p )
It did seem odd that he continued working from the side of the flash after shooting his shadow multiple times. Maybe that had more to do with his tutorial video set up than the splash photography.
This guy is a joke. I'm no better with speedlights, I'll admit. I clicked on this video to learn how to use speedlights, not Photoshop. I'm well sufficient enough in PS to make composites . Maybe if he took his time setting things up, instead of trying to look like he's effortlessly doing this , he would have to do each step 16 times. Just saying .
The tutorial beginning was the part that was the speedlight tutorial, rest was just tutorial for process to capture the needed files for image manipulations purposes.
Part 1: The stand, diffusers and camera location etc as general product photography and giving the general tip to use multiple diffusers in stack to diffuse light even more (works with any light)
Part 2: speedlights at lowest power (he has them 1/128 and camera set ISO 1600) has shortest flash duration so fast motion freezes efficiently and could use side speedlight in one hand, but couldn't because needs both hands free as doesn't have a optical/sound trigger like MIOPS.
Part 3: REST is about how to shoot many many frames with variable lighting (black cardboard to add contrast to highlights and mentions the image editor layer effect mode to get it visible) and to just do pure luck trick to get wanted splashes.
The actual tutorial part of the subject was like 30 seconds.
Splash, long exposure flowing water, milkyway, star stripes, northern lights, person walking through doorway, person taking step on empty street, shallow DOF, freezing objects in the air (splash, food, phones etc etc), young women biting her lips or incapable keep mouth closed, while dressed sexually, eagle in flight, eagle diving to fish, birds against backlight, aerial drone shots...
All those and many many other things are just cliches.
And there are millions of people who see them first time or few times and get the experience seeing them as great ones...
It's a nice idea but this guy is doing a huge disservice to his viewers if he thinks any client would accept his trailer park production values and ignorance of subject matter. First of all that raggedy lime wheel wouldn't even pass muster at a Skid Row bar, and as every practicing alcoholic knows, a martini is always garnished with an olive. In reality a shot like this begins days before with the assembling of a wide variety of glass shapes, fake and real ice, bar picks, and of course sizes, shapes, colors, and stuffings of olives. The shooting and compositing are almost incidental to the finished product.
...He clearly states that the idea of the video is the workflow of the shooting, not the technicality of his garnish or glass that he's using. Get over yourself.
Agreed.... I have been trying to get over myself for the past 50 years but, as you point out, with only limited success. Nevertheless, teaching others is a solemn obligation and you can't weasel out of your duty by saying "I'm a nice guy so ignore this heinous mistakes I'm making in part of these instructions." It's just not the way serious people do things. And now I will go back to my "Get Over Yourself in 90 Days" workbook. If I complete three more pages, I get a sticker!
Workflow means everything from start to end. In this case as OP says, it starts days before by planning and gathering elements and making decisions and testing all kind exposure setups etc and then getting the final image to out....
But this was a tutorial of speedlights usage in 30 seconds from whole video with only a two information that was worth it.
1) speedlights at lowest power gives fastest flash duration needed
2) you can use speedlights to do this kind photography but prepare to overcome (or try at least) many of challenges that studio lights and proper studio solve more easily.
Meaning the tutorial was more for a enthusiast who just got their speedlight and wants to take one or two splash photographs to impress friends and family of high skills...
So yes, good job in video but hardly a topic tutorial.
Why? I can never understand that flawed logic you people use, when you go: "it's easy with digital, try doing that with analog". Why would you use inferior gear to try to achieve the same result?
No client ever told me: "no, I'm not paying for this image because you produced it with digital gear and processed it in Photoshop". It doesn't happen. You know why? Because the only thing that matters is the result. No one is interested in your ego or your biases. No one gives a toss about difficult or easy it was for you to create an image. The only thing that matters is the result and your ability to produce it.
Using the gear that's available to you to produce something worthwhile is what photography is about. It's fine to love analogue gear (many of us do) as long as it does not turn into elitism.
It's not about the digital/analog gear. It's about telling "how to shot a photo". In fact you shoot multiple pictures to create one resulting out of it, which is, in my humble opinion, no photo but a composition. Is this a photo after all? Problem of the definition... for me not.
Product photography + technical camera You don't find a single digital camera better than that.
Downside, you only have single exposure that you don't see right away.
Good side, you can always drumscan negatives and do same image manipulations if required for digital but when customer pays *a lot* that they get a authentic single film negative.... You can't use multiple frames!
Snapa, I don't care for these images and it seems you don't either, but this (at least in the past) used to be a very specialized niche in commercial photography.
A niche that dedicated photographers could build a whole career on, and earn a very decent living.
This video (and many others of similar nature) is essentially killing or at least undervaluing a lot professional photography.
So back to the start: you and I may not care for these images, it might even appear to be an innocent thing.
But it's quite realistic to say a video like this is making someone out of job (or at least having a harder life) as we speak.
The a7R IV is Sony's latest high-resolution interchangeable lens camera, but that doesn't mean it's just for landscape photographers. Get all the details about this 60.2MP full-framer in our full review.
The Osmo Mobile 3 is DJI's third generation gimbal for smartphones, arriving with updated controls and a new foldable design. If you want a stabilizer for your phone it's worthy of consideration.
The Live Planet VR system may look like something out of a science fiction movie, but this stereoscopic, 16-lens camera and its associated cloud platform may be one of the best tools out there for live-streaming events in 360 degrees.
The Canon 90D is a DSLR that operates best when used as if it were a mirrorless camera. It offers live view autofocus that's competitive and easy to use, class-leading image quality, and video specs that'll appeal to the masses, all in a familiar, DSLR-shaped package.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel, and recommended the best.
What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.
Long-zoom compacts fill the gap between pocketable cameras and interchangeable lens models with expensive lenses, offering a great combination of lens reach and portability. Read on to learn about our favorite enthusiast long zoom cameras.
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
Google has confirmed it's ending its free 'original quality' image backups with its Pixel 4 and Pixel 4 XL smartphones. This marks the first time the popular perk isn't offered since the launch of the original Pixel smartphone.
In a story shared on 35mmc, photographer Steve Boykin tells how he stumbled upon a Fujifilm XF 23mm F1.4 R lens he had lost four months prior during a trek in the wilderness and discovered it still works fine.
Our testing of the Canon G7 X III continues, which means we've brought along on plenty of day trips and adventures to get a feel for its performance in a number of situations. Take a look at some of the resulting images.
Shimoda Designs has launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund its new 'ultra-aggressive' lineup of camera bags that includes three backpacks, two rollers and a handful of new and improved accessories.
Meike has added yet another mount option to its 85mm F2.8 manual macro lens, which was previously available for Canon RF, Canon EF, Sony E/FE and Nikon F mounts.
Google has officially unveiled the Pixel 4, with the addition of a telephoto camera headlining the camera updates. Other improvements include real-time HDR preview in live view, added brightness and exposure controls, and an updated portrait mode with better depth mapping.
The a7R IV is Sony's latest high-resolution interchangeable lens camera, but that doesn't mean it's just for landscape photographers. Get all the details about this 60.2MP full-framer in our full review.
Google's Night Sight has justifiably been considered the low light king, but with the iPhone 11 Apple is challenging for this title with its own Night Mode. Take a look at how they compare side-by-side.
Be vigilant on what's being reflected in eyes (or glasses) before posting photographs of yourself or others online. High resolution photographs aren't always beneficial.
Host Ben Krasnow of YouTube channel Applied Science shows how film cameras used a micro LCD projector and a small incandescent light to project the time and date onto photographs.
Sony Semiconductor's 24MP sensor has been at the heart of many excellent APS-C cameras over the past few years, but the impressive results we saw from the 90D's new 32MP sensor suggest that Canon has finally answered with a formidable chip of its own.
We would expect the iPhone 11's Portrait Mode to outperform the Pixel 3, and it does. But Google has its work cut out in more than one way if its next-gen flagship is to stay competitive.
Researchers from Institut für Mikroelektronik Stuttgart have developed a pixel design with the potential for massively increased dynamic range thanks to the ability to 'count' the number of times an individual pixel resets when it becomes saturated with light.
Pixelmator Pro version 1.5 Avalon comes with a number of upgrades, including support for macOS Catalina, the Mac Pro and Pro Display XDR, as well as machine-learning powered noise reduction and improved performance.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
In news that won't surprise anyone with a basic understanding of physics, a new promo video shared by Canon Korea confirms canon's forthcoming RF 70-200mm F2.8 lens will feature an extending zoom barrel.
The 'new' film is a re-worked formula of Lomography's Berlin Kino B&W film that's said to add ''an upgrade in [photographers'] freedom of creative choice, no matter if they shoot with 35mm or 120 format.'
Comments