Cineversity

I have seen many tutorials with a glass of beer or other liquid as the subject of the tutorial. Typically they aim to teach how to recreate the beads of water, shape of the glass and liquid in it, etc. However even though their result is pleasing to the eye, I have to say that, being educated in Commercial photography in the eighties, the results would not be useful in commercial production. Usually the liquid seems lifeless versus professional photography. As an example, I attached a photo of a beer mug used in a production because I want to get the “glow” that is painstakingly made in the studio. I use reflected light using handmade reflectors behind the mug to get this result.

My question is: What techniques are employed by graphics studios to get this result? Is this purely done in a texture or do you try to imitate what is done for live photography? Many HDRI setups are trying to imitate real studio lighting.

Hi Vrauckis,

This is a very complex question. Why complex? As far as I understand it, the parts needed for it might work only if used like an orchestra, and not in fractions of it. Besides that, the practical “studio set” up for an object like this is mostly more un-natural than one would think. Food-photgraphy does usually a lot of these weird tricks for example, but no one takes just a “pint” from a beer-bar and take a snap shot to achieve this.

My favorite photographer and author for that subject matter is “Dennis Savini” (Masterclass: Professional Studio Photography, Publisher RockyNook). If you take a minute only to check out the pages 167-183 (perhaps the following as well), you might see that the preparation for such a job is manifold, and doesn’t end up “on set” alone. Using “Turtle wax” and many other tricks allow for a good start. He uses even Photoshop to increase his results to the perfection hi-key clients like to request.

It has a lot to do with preparation: Light is sometimes placed beneath the glass and certainly strong enough to show off light transmission through the foam, as in your example.

To make a long story short, allow some short personal thoughts: to use only lights with 100% max or HDRI alone will not cut it. To leave light without caustics or the “detail” to default might ignore some reality in the first place. To think that the applied gamma curve allows for an render and done product will fail as well rendering in integer and ignore the nature of light. The soft high-light roll off, that we enjoy from cinema quality cameras, but that is barely available in ENG cameras “illuminates” (pun intended) this problem only too well. The reflections are crisp and signal freshness.  I guess the most important part is the imperfection in all the perfection that something like this has. It takes a good eye to use the references well. With good eye I have in mind to see what the whole process has done to Object in the first place to get were it is later on in the print.

This is just my two cents, and I believe that most people do not like to share their secret “formula” to get top quality, as it takes a lot of time to find the best balance. Each part counts, is the least I can say. In other words, the more you create object buffers, the more control you gain in post.

But perhaps this should be in the “Tutorial request section” ;o)

Good luck

Sassi