PetaPixel

Incredible Light Painting Product Shots Lit Using Only an iPad and an iPhone

This is just awesome: professional-looking product photography done using nothing more than a tripod, an iPad, an iPhone and your camera of choice. Given the extremely affordable nature of the process, the results are downright epic.

The project was undertaken by photographer Laya Gerlock, who shared his work through the folks at DIYPhotography. Basically, one night, he came up with a simple challenge for himself: light paint using only the iGadgets he had on hand. What he settled on was using his iPhone to light the subject itself, while using the iPad for background patterns.

Head over to DIY Photography for the full breakdown of how you can do this yourself, as well some sample shots that show the impressive final product!

Stunning Product Shots With iPhone and iPad LightPainting [DIYPhotography via ISO 1200]


 
  • olafs_osh

    In that case post news about long exposures taken with help of a SIMPLE LIGHT BULB as well…

  • Kaouthia

    Title’s a bit misleading. They were “lit” with an iPhone and iPad, but that looks like a DSLR on the tripod. :)

  • Pannda

    Oh the irony, the moment I finished my Pixelation, light and movement video for university you show me this… However, still a great, great piece of work!

  • tubetoprocker

    thats a pretty cool idea!

  • Renato Murakami

    Nice!

  • Akshay

    Just because the light source is an Apple product makes this so special ? :/

  • worker88

    No.

  • Alex

    This would really only be cool if it was TAKEN on an iDevice. Using it as an expensive flashlight isn’t special.

  • OnePhotogsOpinion

    well, apple products have a cleaner white light than its competitors. This is why apple still has (at the present moment) some of the most colour accurate screens on the market.

  • Omar Salgado

    Why does he seem to be rubbing the iPhone against the camera? Really?

    It says much about his technique: poor, since all you have to know is the intensity of the light source, its distance from the subject (and the consequent receding power to the square) and the time it will shed its light upon. In knowing that, there’s no need to “play around with it to get the best results.”

    It is more of an ad than something to learn from. Really.

  • Omar Salgado

    Well, to be tecnhically correct, you should talk about CRI and not “colour accurate”. I bet those displays have a poor CRI, just as LED lights.

  • Jake

    Yeah, but who has light bulbs these days? They don’t have apps or 4G. You might as well expect someone to make a call with a “simple telephone.”

  • Eric J. Hoar

    They’re are not any shots of him doing it without the ‘rubbering’ technique he used, so there is no frame of reference for it being a bad technique. I am not saying you’re wrong but I think it’s a little harsh to call it a poor technique. Also he was very fluid and stable when moving the iPad which probably took a lot of trial and error to get right.

  • olafs_osh

    to get an iPad and stick it into the ceiling with LampApp on – that’s an idea!

    *gone shopping

  • Terry Clark

    Oh what a wonderful, new, EPIC idea! Oh, wait, I forgot, we did this back in the 70′s, only we used FILM and a gelled, color corrected FLASHLIGHT. Everything old is new again, only this time it’s followed by the excitable exclamation point and words like epic! incredible! and amazing! Yeah, sure.

    Try using this technique with film, for a paying client, on a deadline, then you’ll find out what amazing really means.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Well, Hosemaster it ain’t (not sure if that’s good or bad, Hosemaster got to be a bit overdone for a while in the 90s).

    You can do this with any type of light-source. When I needed a really quick Christmas card to send to friends (my commercial one was to commercial to send loved ones) via email I took a few materials that I had on hand (tree lights and an ornament) and kicked this out in about 6 minutes (including tripod setup time); I wasn’t going for white balance, but this type of technique has been used by a lot of shooters for a long time… Most pros have done a ton of light painting with everything from pen-lights to LEDs to everything imaginable in their time (many photo students experiment with this as well)

    I wouldn’t exactly call the images shown professional quality product shots (great product photography has more precision and control over highlights, light placement), so all the exclamation marks may be over-doing it a but, but the technique a decent take on an old favorite.

  • theawefultruth

    Weak, and lame.

  • Guest

    done totally with an iphone edited on ipad

  • daasssh

    done totally with an iphone edited on ipad.

  • http://www.bobcooleyphoto.com/ bob cooley

    Actually at the length of some of the exposures, you really don’t have to have the times, etc. narrowed down so specifically – if shooting at a high aperture, the exposure are so long (say a minute or more in pitch black) that the difference between a 20 seconds of rubbing and 25 seconds of rubbing only amount to 1/8 of a stop difference in total light (since the next full stop is at 40 seconds (and because of the ‘rubbing’ motion, the amount of light on the area is going to be pretty feathered.

  • Splitting hairs

    Would it make you happier if it just said “smartphone” and “tablet” instead of iPhone and iPad? Or would you then be griping that they didn’t properly identify the products used?

  • Omar Salgado

    Look at the video, that’s where I base my saying.

    In my little experience, I consider it a poor technique because instead of “rubbering”, I look carefully at what I want to be lit, taking into account the “3Dimensionality” of the object, the morphology and the representation as a whole, then making all the required measurements (Cooley, below, is right when he says that the difference could be pretty feathered at the length of some exposures).

    We’ve all done trial and error, but I’m not permissive on a video that is intended for public show off jusf for the sake of a good idea (which it is). First, it would have been better as a thorough tutorial; second, the quality of the the light coming out from an LCD panel is poor (but not harsh, ha!). But in lacking these two considerations, it seems to me more of an advertisement (“Hey, get your iThing and shed some light on this)”, even more when someone said “In that case post news about long exposures taken with help of a SIMPLE LIGHT BULB as well…”

    I, no doubt, think there are gonna be some good pics using this trick, but why make them the hard and long way when we already have theory?

  • Eric J. Hoar

    Thank you for shedding light onto my dimly lit knowledge of photography. I have zero knowledge when it comes to lighting. You obviously know what you are talking about and I am sorry if I ruffled your feathers. Thank you for the feedback Omar.

  • Jemi

    I agree on this.