Tutorial: How to shoot a martini splash photo using only speedlights

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.

Neat stuff. Being there at the beginning of motion control and CGI must've been fascinating. Thanks!

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...

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!

Not a single person will lose their job because of this video. But it sounds you've been out of work a very long time?

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!

453C: So unfunny and pompous.

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!

I lost my job because of this video, I was supposed to be working and my boss caught me goofing off doing this instead.

scratch previous comment, you said (quoted?) 'good martini' ;)

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 )

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!

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.

Good luck filling a whole class(room) with water...

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.

If someones job can be so easily taught in a youtube video, then they simply need to get a new job.