|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
How to get this water effect?
What would I use to get water sprayed like this?  Oct 24 14 05:45 am Link As is done in that image? Photoshop. Oct 24 14 06:02 am Link poiter wrote: Assuming you are referring to droplets on the skin here.. Oct 24 14 06:07 am Link The water on the skin is exactly as described above. The rest appears to be computer work, and not photography. Oct 24 14 07:00 am Link Thanks everyone. Please excuse my ignorance. Why do you guys think the water is added in post? What gives it away? I'm asking so I can learn. Oct 24 14 08:00 am Link poiter wrote: its easier and safer so if they effect can be done in PS it usually is. just find a texture online that work for you and overlay it onto your image Oct 24 14 08:12 am Link Doesn't have to be water. One could sprinkle powder or glass beads on dark paper, side light it, photograph it, and use it as an overlay or layer to accompany the primary image. Maybe even motion blur the powder/bead image if you wanted to get fancy. PS and layers can do wonders. Oct 24 14 08:15 am Link It's a shame people assume an shot is Photoshop because that is the easiest way to do it. The OPs photo could have been done in camera, but it would have taken skills and equipment most don't have. Cheers! Noah Oct 24 14 08:37 am Link Noah Russell wrote: it's not a shame at all. if it looks real then we can politely assume it wasn't photoshop. Oct 24 14 09:28 am Link poiter wrote: The water is evenly lit into the shadow side of the subject up by her neck and shoulders. The lighting of the subject would preclude being able to do this without any fill onto the model. Unless the photographer was using some incredibly directional lighting for just the water, and if that was the case I would think the shadow side of the subject wouldn't be blocked up since they would also be able to light it within the dynamic range of the camera for a more dramatic look. Oct 24 14 10:50 am Link There are quite a few studios out there offering water sets. Especially so in Russia. I seen few in Europe as well. A lot of these shots can safely be done there. Back/side light is the trick to get droplets/splashes stand out. Oct 24 14 11:42 am Link Baby oil and a water mister would be my guess. Oct 24 14 11:49 am Link if you look at the front of the model, where her skin/body is black from shadow, the mist is lit. Dead give away that photoshop was used. Oct 24 14 04:05 pm Link Question - if the water droplets were outside of the shadow zone, wouldn't that give the same effect? Possibly using a small aperture, the droplets to the rear could be far enough back and still be in focus, ditto with the droplets in the foreground. Perhaps several shots where the spray is moved and then post processed? Seems as if it could be done easily enough if done that way. I'm no photo wizard (either setting up a shot or in photoshop). Graham Oct 24 14 04:59 pm Link ByGRH wrote: SO you're saying it might not be photoshopped, because someone might have taken a bunch of photos and used photoshop....... Oct 24 14 05:10 pm Link Looking at the skin tones etc. it's been photoshopped anyway. The OP was asking HOW was the water effect done. The resulting comments were, as I understood it, referring to how the water was processed in - as in the water was photographed separately (presumably backlit as for smoke, dust and other small particulates - shadows due to particulate size not being an issue of course). My comment was considering the water spray being captured in camera, not photoshopped in. Assuming several individuals spraying water at the right time/place, then it very well may have been able to do in a single shot. However, an alternate method would be to have the model stay static and several sprays around the model being captured, those images being processed. My apologies for not being more clear in my comment, I assumed it was clear I was making reference with respect to the thread as a whole. Thank you for allowing me to attempt to clarify. Oct 24 14 06:00 pm Link Locutus wrote: ? Oct 24 14 06:27 pm Link Sounds like a possibility Oct 24 14 06:45 pm Link A couple things in this image are suspicious to me. The first is the horizontal line in the mist between the models right arm and her body. I guess that could be explained by barn doors or flags on the light. The other anomalous bit is the lack of light on the model's right shoulder and neck. The top of her right ear is also in shadow. The illuminated mist in front of her suggests a the rim is pretty high. It's also not being obstructed by her head or neck which tells me it's off to camera left. I can't quite explain the lighting on the mist in front of the model's right shoulder. Maybe an optical modifier like a spot or Fresnel with barn doors?? The only way to know for sure would be to ask the photographer that shot the photo. He has another photo of this set on his website and another mist photo with a male athlete. After seeing all of his mist images, I'm leaning toward image manipulation but I'm not completely ruling out the possibility that this was done in camera. Cheers! Noah Oct 24 14 07:20 pm Link To get water droplets to light up, they have to be backlit. The droplets on the model appear to be real. These are 2 separate photograph, and then merged in Photoshop. Oct 24 14 07:50 pm Link Noah Russell wrote: Not worth it. Oct 24 14 08:41 pm Link Ruben Sanchez wrote: Try it. It works. Oct 24 14 09:21 pm Link I believe it is a composite of two images. 1st image. Model shot with some water drops on her chest and abdomen. Maybe shot in front of a black wall? 2nd image of water spray backlit in front of a dark background. Layer blend set to "screen" mode. A mask takes away some of the mist from parts of the models arm and face. As for the original question, how to make the spray drops? It looks like a fairly high pressure spray - maybe from a pressure washer or something else with a fine nozzle. Oct 24 14 10:05 pm Link Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote: Fair enough. I have changed mind and think it's unlikely this was done in camera. There are too many inconsistencies between the lighting on the model and the light on the mist. Oct 24 14 11:03 pm Link There's undoubtedly an element of photoshop here, but that's true of most shots. There's no reason this couldn't be a combination of water misted directly onto the model, with a Plate of mist overlaid in post to make the effect stronger, and put it into parts of the image that didn't have it. If I weas shooting this, I'd have shot and lit for my perfectly wet model, made sure that lighting also worked for the water mist, then shot her and the water together in one image. It may or may not have worked. Which is why I'd also take seperate images in the same lighting for the mist (to overlay on the best frame chosen). Plus some other lighting variations on the mist, which would mostly be a safety in case I needed them. As for people's safety concerns, that's kind of unwarranted. Put your flash gear in plastic bags or specialty made cases, and far enough away or positioned in such a way that the mist wont reach them. Rent a studio with a concrete floor, and be prepared to mop it all up for a clean up. It's not rocket science,  Edit. Oh, and fast flashes to freeze that water, no matter how you shoot it. Broncolor or profoto to on low power settings would be your best bet. most flashes could do it on minimum power though, but Check your specs. Oct 25 14 09:42 pm Link Although you could use photoshop to create the effect its by far easier to do in shot and just do any further enhancements needed to improve it. Doing similar I would use my beauty dish with grid (can also use strip box with grid) to the side behind the model which gives that bit of rim light you see. This one is harsh light which you can see by the strong shadow meaning no fill/reflector. The blue tone you can get with white balance and also gel if needed. Use a spray bottle with water or mixture - and spray mostly from behind and above but play around. The mist is back lit creating the effect. Easy. Oct 26 14 01:57 am Link Caitin Bre wrote: That's what we did on my last shoot. We used a water spraying thingy that you use for plants and flowers Oct 26 14 02:58 am Link yup i assume its photoshopped. Oct 28 14 01:12 pm Link Locutus wrote: i never assume. i look. Oct 28 14 01:19 pm Link I'm not process-oriented. I'm results-oriented. Oct 28 14 01:35 pm Link elementfoto wrote: Actually, most studio strobes have shorter flash durations at full power. This is the opposite of most on-camera speedlughts, which have their shortest flash duration at low power. Oct 29 14 03:32 am Link |
