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.
Recent Videos
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 Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Why is the Peak Design Everyday Backpack so widely used? A snazzy design? Exceptional utility? A combination of both? After testing one, it's clear why this bag deserves every accolade it's received.
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.
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 for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
As the year comes to a close, we're looking back at the cameras that have clawed their way to the top of their respective categories (and our buying guides). These aren't the only cameras worth buying, but when you start here, you really can't go wrong.
Plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors in 2023. After careful consideration, healthy debate, and a few heated arguments, we're proud to announce the winners of the 2023 DPReview Awards!
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
Sony's gridline update adds up to four customizable grids to which users can add color codes and apply transparency masks. It also raises questions about the future of cameras and what it means for feature updates.
At last, people who don’t want to pay a premium for Apple’s Pro models can capture high-resolution 24MP and 48MP photos using the iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Plus. Is the lack of a dedicated telephoto lens or the ability to capture Raw images worth the savings for photographers?
Kodak's Super 8 Camera is a hybrid of old and new: it shoots movies using Super 8 motion picture film but incorporates digital elements like a flip-out LCD screen and audio capture. Eight years after we first saw the camera at CES 2016, Kodak is finally bringing it to market.
In this supplement to his recently completed 10-part series on landscape photography, photographer Erez Marom explores how the compositional skills developed for capturing landscapes can be extended to other areas of photography.
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.
Sony, the Associated Press and 'Photo Mechanic' maker Camera Bits have run a month-long field-test to evaluate capture authentication and a subsequent workflow.
A color-accurate monitor is an essential piece of the digital creator's toolkit. In this guide, we'll go over everything you need to know about how color calibration actually works so you can understand the process and improve your workflow.
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.
It's that time of year again: When people get up way too early to rush out to big box stores and climb over each other to buy $99 TVs. We've saved you the trip, highlighting the best photo-related deals that can be ordered from the comfort of your own home.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
Sigma's latest 70-200mm F2.8 offering promises to blend solid build, reasonably light weight and impressive image quality into a relatively affordable package. See how it stacks up in our initial impressions.
The Sony a9 III is heralded as a revolutionary camera, but is all the hype warranted? DPReview's Richard Butler and Dale Baskin break down what's actually new and worth paying attention to.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
DJI's Air 3 and Mini 4 Pro are two of the most popular drones on the market, but there are important differences between the two. In this article, we'll help figure out which of these two popular drones is right for you.
The Sony a7C II refreshes the compact full-frame with a 33MP sensor, the addition of a front control dial, a dedicated 'AI' processor, 10-bit 4K/60p video and more. It's a definite improvement, but it helps if you value its compact form.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.
The iPhone 15 Pro allows users to capture 48MP photos in HEIF or JPEG format in addition to Raw files, while new lens coatings claim to cut down lens flare. How do the cameras in Apple's latest flagship look in everyday circumstances? Check out our gallery to find out.
Global shutters, that can read all their pixels at exactly the same moment have been the valued by videographers for some time, but this approach has benefits for photographers, too.
We had an opportunity to shoot a pre-production a9 III camera with global shutter following Sony's announcement this week. This gallery includes images captured with the new 300mm F2.8 GM OSS telephoto lens and some high-speed flash photos.
The Sony a9 III is a ground-breaking full-frame mirrorless camera that brings global shutter to deliver unforeseen high-speed capture, flash sync and capabilities not seen before. We delve a little further into the a9III to find out what makes it tick.
The "Big Four" Fashion Weeks – New York, London, Milan and Paris - have wrapped for 2023 but it's never too early to start planning for next season. If shooting Fashion Week is on your bucket list, read on. We'll tell you what opportunities are available for photographers and provide some tips to get you started.
Comments