How to Create a Dynamic Pool Shot
This article is written by a member of our expert community. It expresses that member’s views only. We welcome other perspectives. Here’s how to contribute to MM EDU.
So, you’ve always thought it would be cool to shoot in a pool. But as exciting as the setting can be, sometimes the shots come out flat, bland and lifeless. Luckily, with the right setup and model it is very easy to create a striking dynamic pool shot.
We setup this shot in my pool. The model, the lovely Maria Pilar (who also happens to be a former Charger Girl calendar cover-model), stood in the middle. The main light was a Paul Buff Einstein through a 22 inch beauty dish with a diffuser sock, set in front and to the left of me. It was maybe two feet off the ground and set to full power. The secondary/fill/hair/rim light was the sun behind and to the right of the model.
Model: Maria Pilar
The shot was taken with my Cannon 5DmkII with a 135mm f2L. The camera was set to 1/200 sec f/10 at ISO 100.
To get the cool water splash effect, I asked Maria to raise her arms out to her side and slap down into the water. I waited until after the initial splash and snapped right when the second, under splash kicked up because there was much more water then.
The key to these kinds of outdoor shots is balancing your light. You might not immediately realize that I am using a pretty bright, studio strobe light in front of the model. There is no “point and shoot” flash effect because the studio strobe is balanced with the natural light from the sun. Without the strobe, the model’s face would be way too dark, being in the shadow from the sun.
The natural light of the sun is great by the pool, but a little extra lighting makes the difference for your pool shot.
April 11, 2017 at 12:33 pm, Kala said:
Was this the best side of the pool? Wondering why you didn’t go for the natural light and have someone beside her holding a scrim.
A reflector would have filled in your model adequately and more naturally, especially in the middle of the day.
Lights aren’t nearly as effective as reflectors and a scrim for bright midday daylight shooting.
An open aperture would allow you to blur out any background that was behind you anyway, letting you use the scrimmed sun
With a bit faster shutter speed your water droplets would have been more crisp.
I feel that the overall image would have benefitted from a tripod as well, her eyes and face seem less sharp than they might be
March 21, 2017 at 3:30 pm, David Griffin said:
Terrible time of day.. The worst possible.
In the before and after shots, the after is much nicer than the final print. The water is unnatural and over saturated, as is her bikini, the foilage, sky, skin and the rest of the final image. I like the after shot much better. You just crossed that paper-thin line of over-adjustment. Your contrast/levels took a good exposure in the after image and made it look way over exposed on her skin.
Were you working in a RAW format? It looks like jpeg adjustments.
Was it PS, CR or LR? Something else?
Great lighting in the aftershot, overkill in the digital darkroom.
November 11, 2011 at 8:20 pm, Steamyimagry said:
First of all, I find all of the comments and suggestions made here rather amusing. Reuben obviously enjoys what he does and he shows how he is doing it. Most of you guys who are complaining, I only see one thing, complaining. Ok so you don’t like the crop or it’s not warm enough or not soft enough or the field is not shallow enough.
(Sidebar: There is one thing that I really hate is a subject that the forehead the eyes and the nose are tack sharp and everything else on the subject is soft as a baby’s bottom. You want focus on a particular part of a body, do it with light not DOF. Drives me nuts!)
Now back to our regularly scheduled comment. What he has captured is his way of presenting what he sees and what emotions he wants to portray. Those of you who started in the film era were taught how to shoot a certain way because that is what you had to. Now you don’t have to anymore. Stick with the old ways too long and you will become a memory. We are photographers, we need to have an understanding that we do what we do with what we have. If I had a D3 a 1D or any other high end camera I would tear my area a new one.
October 25, 2011 at 8:15 pm, Joe Duerr said:
If the thread is about taking a dynamic pool shot we need to start with a dynamic pool shot… JMO
October 26, 2011 at 2:58 am, Bmwm34drew said:
I agree Joe. This turned out to be a critique thread.
October 25, 2011 at 6:40 pm, Naughtyandnicpix said:
Totally agree with Andy about lighting as well as the background being a distraction…I would of taken a few minutes moving the chairs out. Plus the subject is shot too loose for my taste, especially if you shot it with a 135 mm f/2.0 lense….which happens to be my favorite lense.
But then again it’s all about your own artistic expression and I’m enjoying your portfolio.
October 25, 2011 at 3:31 pm, Isaiah said:
The quote is bomb… I lol’d 🙂
October 25, 2011 at 5:03 am, Hollands900 said:
The before and after are cute, but they look nothing like picture above them. So is your tip on how to take the 2 pics below or on how to post process the pic above?
October 25, 2011 at 2:10 am, Kenneth Aston Jr said:
Very helpful tips, I’m glad Reuben posted this, you should post more looks like it brings out the experts that are willing to share.
October 25, 2011 at 2:16 am, Select Models said:
Actually the experts aren’t as willing to share as they are willing to point out the flaws… and there are quite a few in the OP’s post… 😉
October 25, 2011 at 12:07 am, Bryansmithphoto said:
A nice size scrim, or some sort of block and the polarizer would have been a nice addition to the beauty dish. I also would have liked to seen the 135mm set to 2.0 and cropped a lot closer.
October 25, 2011 at 12:03 am, Cory Willet said:
Toss say a 45-65 degree angle, and we would have some gold here… something about the hair just doesn’t sit right with me, although it could be the depth of the water…
October 24, 2011 at 11:57 pm, Alex Strohl said:
without lighting equipment: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ekna/5999214398/in/photostream
October 24, 2011 at 11:19 pm, john slade said:
i try to use natural lighting as much as possible. know where and how to use the sun is an amazing resource. aside from the sun the model(aside from the obvious) is all important…when doing underwater shot the best natural lighting is not much more than about 4 feet. the use of filters can help to cut back on the blue tint. however personally i like the blue tint, i like my models to look like they are underwater…
October 24, 2011 at 4:45 pm, Xotikmodeling said:
Good Tips Everyone.
October 24, 2011 at 10:04 am, Nicklayton2003 said:
There are some very helpful tips here. I think the two best pieces of information are missed out though. Yes, the dynamics of the water add to the shot, but they aren’t frozen enough, and for that reason, I would have shot at at least 500th of a second. While this creates all kinds of problems lighting wise, a couple of large (or actually small may have worked better) reflectors would have really helped out. Your water would have been closer to correctly exposed with the use of a polariser. Absolute must.
October 26, 2011 at 8:43 am, Tony Anastasi said:
its NOT your shutter speed when using a flashy mate.. it’s the flash duration thats the problem here.. and the lights he used simply doesn’t have a fast enough flash duration.. The flashes i use have 13,000th /sec duration which really makes shot like this shine
October 24, 2011 at 5:52 am, Marcus Marshall said:
Where’s the “dynamic” part?
October 23, 2011 at 5:44 pm, Photographie Inc. said:
I think a reflector if anything would have been my choice. I also would have elected to take the 2 minutes to remove the chairs in the background using this DOF. Looks like a great model to have worked with..
October 23, 2011 at 4:07 am, Cyberstorm316 said:
Would I be able to do such a shot using my speedlights as opposed to a studio light(my 580EX with TT)off camera?
October 23, 2011 at 5:52 am, Gary Abigt said:
If your speedlight was close enough to the subject (roughly 20ft or less), it might work. Otherwise, you’re gonna need alot more strobe output to overpower the sun in the OP’s image configuration.
October 23, 2011 at 8:28 pm, Brett said:
Grab some attachable 1/4 & 1/2 CTO gels that will help mimic the natural color of the sun and crank the power up to 1/1 depending upon the distance from the model. Nothing really beats strobes though. Save the money and get them, they’re worth it. I use the Elinchrom Ranger RX series and it’s great for traveling. Good luck…
October 23, 2011 at 4:02 am, Dave Rugh said:
So if this is the framing you want, you should shoot wide open to bokeh out the distracting background. With bright midday sun, you’ll have to crank up the shutter speed beyond the 1/250th flash sync speed so you are going to need to use high speed sync flash or use a reflector instead. (An ND filter will help some but you’re going to need a lot of light reduction). I’d frame it tighter and shoot it wide instead of tall (you are cutting off the trees anyways). High speed will sharpen up the drops also.
October 25, 2011 at 1:55 am, Kenneth Aston Jr said:
WOW now that is dynamic! Colors very rich, awesome sharpness and lighting is on point!
October 25, 2011 at 10:39 pm, Dave Rugh said:
Thanks! If I were to do it over I’d reframe it to get a cleaner background and also pull out some more saturation by speeding it up a little.
October 22, 2011 at 9:43 pm, Glen foster said:
I think the water is washed out to the right side of your model. If you look at the before;after you can see that in the before shot there is not so much bleaching. While I admire you for posing your shot with the “tutorial” you should have paid more attention to detail, such as the shot being level, a distracting line of the pool edge sloping rith to left.
October 22, 2011 at 8:02 pm, Gary Abigt said:
Agreeing with Tommy, Nobo, Andy and Ron on many of their comments concerning your final image. Would also like to add… water is alittle too over exposed and washed out… in fact the whole image appears to be anywhere from 1/2 to a full stop over exposed… no richly saturated colors anywhere in the image. The white chairs are a HUGE background distraction and the flash filled out of focus water droplets on the models face are a major foreground distraction. Also a fan of warmer fill light and a frequent user of the California Sunbounce. Several in and near the water sample images on this MM port.
October 22, 2011 at 3:02 pm, Tommy said:
Nice tech tips, but the background is too busy, it distracts from the model. You would be better off finding a way to shoot with a long lens, wide open to blur out the BG.
October 22, 2011 at 1:02 pm, Nobo said:
You disgraced a great model
October 25, 2011 at 12:12 am, keisha said:
you disgraced humanity in general, so sad….
October 22, 2011 at 12:59 pm, Nobo said:
Styling of the swimsuit is off, the side lighting on her chest is wonky, her chins down to far…. this is who’s teaching “glamtography”??? Portrait would have been better too, the background is NOT selling anything her, and fix her swimsuit, her tits are so far apart….
Not very “dynamic” how about an underwater camera and get IN the pool so you can get right down to the water line, anything else off the roll? Plus her legs in the water are creating some weird funky shit too… this image out of ten is a 3, a high school kid could do better…
October 24, 2011 at 12:35 am, Jake Dillion said:
Relax man…it’s ModelMayhem…
October 24, 2011 at 12:51 am, reuben dixon said:
thanks, jake! 🙂
October 29, 2011 at 10:07 am, Nobo said:
fair enough.
October 25, 2011 at 12:10 am, keisha said:
wow never thought someone needed to be criticized so much on what he loves doing. if you think you are so much better how about you do a photo shoot that has the same main aspects and see if it compares so you can back up what your saying. very rude!
October 25, 2011 at 12:14 am, reuben dixon said:
*high five* thanks Keisha! 🙂
October 29, 2011 at 10:08 am, Nobo said:
Keisha, my book can absolutely back up what Im saying, the comments made alone do.
October 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm, Nobo said:
snoozer…. you can shoot mid day with a simple reflector and still get amazing light… you could have done this shot with even a cheap-o on camera flash… the depth of field is WAY to high… a nice soft background and the model much much closer would have been better…
Isolate the model, the chairs and tennis courts… this image would never sell.
October 22, 2011 at 6:36 am, Andy Pearlman said:
Aside from the exposure boost on the face (allowing the rest of the scene to have more saturation), the main reason for using some kind of flash or reflector is to neutralize (warm up) the blue cast of the water. If this was truly shot with the sun directly overhead, I would use a scrim to kill hot spots on her nose for example, but still use some kind of fill to get the skin tone back, perhaps even a zebra reflector or a warmed-up flash. As someone else mentioned, I find the in-focus background distracting, and probably would have used a ND filter to allow me to open up the f-stop for shallower depth-of-field. And I probably would get rid of the distracting chairs in the background too.
October 22, 2011 at 4:49 am, btruong said:
If the house, chain link fence, chairs, and trees in the background draw as much attention as a juicy pair of fake boobs…NOT a good shot.
October 22, 2011 at 5:51 am, reuben dixon said:
Thanks for sharing…
October 22, 2011 at 3:13 am, Ron said:
There are a multitude of ways to shoot this type of image in a manner consistent with high professional caliber. One of the keys is to create separation between your model and the background. In this type of situation, I prefer to do it by shooting with almost a wide open aperture so that I achieve a nice bokeh effect with the background, or by creating a lighting differential of a several stops between the model’s skin tones and the background — or a combination of the two methodologies.
A good reflector, such as the zebra gold California Sunbounce can be used to bring up the light on the model, however the very best practice is to use high powered studio lights. The use of a neutral density filter can assist in bringing the overall ambient light levels down, as well. Another fun technique is to gel your light modifier, e.g., beauty dish, with a 1/2 CTO or similar to warm up the skin tones of the model, in conjunction with bringing the light level up on her.
There are endless other techniques to create separation between the model and the background. Experiment with them and find the look that you like best.
October 22, 2011 at 5:12 am, Dave Alan said:
Ron do you have any examples of shooting WIDE OPEN ? Your work is quite nice but I didnt see any examples of Bokeh on your website or examples of shooting where the background is blown out…by the way this is a type of shooting that is very difficult to do since the field of focus is so narrow. I enjoyed your images.
October 22, 2011 at 5:44 am, Ron said:
Dave — Thanks for your comment. I think you’ll find a handful in my MM body of work that were shot with pretty shallow depth of field. Here’s a link to one that I believe I shot wide open with my Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 on a D3s — http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/19090062#19090062
Here’s another that was shot fairly close to wide open with the same lens: http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/18043937
You’ll likely find others in my MM book at http://www.modelmayhem.com/638600
I enjoy your work, as well, so keep it up!
Ron
October 25, 2011 at 1:58 am, Kenneth Aston Jr said:
Ron those are awesome
October 21, 2011 at 11:50 pm, Dave Alan said:
Maybe the key to shooting in a pool and to get great results is NOT to shoot in BRIGHT sunlight. Maybe the key is to time the shoot so there is some sun and more shade and use FILL FLASH or a reflector to fill in the shadows and balance the light better. And to count the leaves on trees and see such detail in the background only distracts from this beautiful model..and definitely a tighter crop as well would help show off her beauty. If the focus is on the model you wouldn’t know it by your example.
October 22, 2011 at 1:52 am, reuben dixon said:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Dave. I really respect and admire your work, I am always looking to learn and grow as a photographer so I appreciate your comments regarding my photo.
October 22, 2011 at 2:14 am, Dave Alan said:
Your welcome. You make some good overall suggestions for shooting in a pool. I learn everyday…
October 22, 2011 at 3:00 am, reuben dixon said:
I probably should have wrote about this, but we had to do this shoot in the middle of the day, right smack dab in the worst time to shoot. Hence the high aperture. Now I remember that I also wanted to convey that just because you are dropped in the worst shooting conditions you can still get a shot. Will definitely have to re-crop this a little tighter…
How do you handle the bright Vegas desert when you can’t shoot at the best hours?
October 22, 2011 at 3:39 pm, Dave Alan said:
I don’t shoot in the bright Vegas desert…to me it’s all really poor planning on my part to be in such a situation. To have a model out in the heat of the desert squinting an to overpower the sun takes additional equipment I prefer not to carry and don’t normally have assistants to hold scrims or reflectors. In the harsh desert mid day sun I would lose the vivid colors, warmth of skin and tones I like. I also do not like to bring attention to my shoots with indoor lighting as I prefer to travel light. I am a SHADE shooter and use fill flash, along with great reflected light and wide open shooting to get that favorable light on my models. I find shade wherever I am shooting or I don’t shoot. I will use the sun as a hair light and use it for great bokeh in my backgrounds, I love the way the sun can reflect off of leaves and branches and other objects in the background..once blown out the textures an colors seem to blossom into new and exciting ways. To each his own…..hope that helps. So many great suggestions here I encourage you to look at Karls, Andy’s and Ron’s work if you haven’t all ready.
October 24, 2011 at 12:50 pm, Dave said:
If you can’t avoid bright direct sunlight and don’t want to adjust the aperture and are at the limit for ISO/shutter, get some ND or CP filters as Karl Yamashita suggested above. You can even get a variable ND filter that uses two CP filters (one rotates to provide the variance) though they won’t have the quality as a regular ND filter.
October 22, 2011 at 5:49 am, Karl Yamashita said:
Yes you are correct Dave, shooting towards sunset would be better. The ambient light reflecting off the water looks good too. Shooting in the middle of the day i would definetly used a CP or ND filter.
October 21, 2011 at 7:17 pm, Scott Charles Sansenbach said:
A reflector would work just as well. And how about using a polarizer to deepen the blues in the sky and water.
October 22, 2011 at 3:01 am, reuben dixon said:
Unfortunately in this situation, we had to shoot midday and the I’ve never used a polarizer…. will have to give that a try 🙂
And true, a reflector probably would have worked just as well. Normally I prefer a strobe so I don’t have to deal with wind, etc. and have more control over my light. I’ve had more than a few shots “ruined” because the wind or an assistant moved the reflector just so…
December 03, 2011 at 8:45 am, Guest said:
Seriously, you’ve never used a polarized filter? It’s beginning photography? Where did you study?
December 03, 2011 at 11:08 pm, Adam Sternberg said:
Unfortunately Reuben is the quintessential example of the blind leading the blind. He’s an amateur photographer, at best, giving advice when it’s pretty clear that his portfolio does not reflect someone who should be giving advice. If he’s giving tips to other amateur photographers, that’s fine, but posing as someone with even a mediocre amount of experience with a camera is unfair to anyone who reads his advice. This article is no different than his other article giving lighting tips when the image he chose as his example has a blown-out background and bad shadows because his lighting was terrible. Reuben really needs to get a few more years of experience under his belt before he starts teaching technique to anyone.
December 04, 2011 at 7:53 am, Guest said:
I m not saying he’s bad at what he does? Just lucky. Images look ok for commercial but can he do the Zone System?
November 11, 2011 at 7:58 pm, Steamyimagry said:
Too many variables when you use a reflector. Wind, clouds, the subject squinting because of the constant light. Tried it…. went out and got an SB800.
October 21, 2011 at 5:52 pm, dave said:
wouldn’t the shot be just as effective without flash, if her face was exposed properly and the background was a little bit blown out? i’d think it might be even better, to blow out the busy, distracting background a bit.
October 21, 2011 at 6:48 pm, Greg said:
I seriously doubt it would be just as good since the whole scene would be overexposed except for the model. The pool water would lose its blue and the sky behind her would lose much of its color as well. The key to shooting in bright sunlight is fill flash.
October 21, 2011 at 11:57 pm, Dave Alan said:
No Dave the shot would NOT be better without a flash. It would however be better as you suggest to blow out the background, after all it isnt landscape photography right? And the use of a flash or reflector would add the fill and POP to the image and especially her eyes. And by doing so it would be an image that would satisfy the models expectations of how she more than likely wants to see herself.
October 22, 2011 at 3:04 am, reuben dixon said:
Yes, sometimes I do shoot all natural light and let the background blow out. However, for this shot I wanted the crisp look of having the balanced flash. A natural light shot would have a totally different look and feel to it. It was an artistic decision to go this route 🙂