Is it impossible to shoot this kind of bottle 100% in camera?

The owner of the shot wants actual product shots (in other words, each item in the store site is the actual item) for the clients, so that they receive exactly what they ordered, I don't believe he wants stock photos of the liquor. At least that is what I gleaned from the earlier posts.

Of course though if that is true, I would think a customer would be shocked that they receive a bottle with 2 stickers on the back, but the photo shows no stickers.

The owner has conflicting requirements.

= He wants the product as is
= He wants a photo of the bottle without the labels
= The labels cannot be removed for the photo shoot
= There has to be a white background
= There is no camera that can selectively make things invisible, whatever the light shows, the camera captures
= Photoshopping on such large label is nearly impossible, again, you break requirement 1, and you would have to "manufacture" liquid where you took out the label.

These are one of those things that is about 99% impossible to do. There is probably a way, but it would cost the owner more in time spent by the photographer (who is paid hourly) than what he will make on the sale.

This is like a car dealer hiring me to take shots of each vehicle he has for sale so he can have inventory shots so that customers know exactly what they are getting, but wants me to shoot them in a way that the dings and scratches don't show up. Preferably in-camera... because photoshopping means that the customer is not getting what they would see in person. Sure I could play tricks with lighting, but each shot will require specialized placement and settings, and that would blow out the costs of taking shots of used cars, where you do these more like an assembly line, run a car into the bay, shoot different angles, get lights into the interior and shoot, and move onto the next...

If I'm the Bourbon company, I would have a problem with my product not being presented correctly. As a designer, it is obvious that the product packaging design purposely intends for it to be viewed by the consumer as the light name being viewd off the dark back of bottle. Trying to eliminate that brand element is unacceptable. If I'm the manufacturer, I would have a problem with a distributor trying to alter my product's design intent.

Would you alter the drips on a bottle of Maker's Mark?

Selling these products as you come across them doesn't:

a) make you a distributor
b) and making the product more presentable online for purchase doesn't infringe on a trademark

Trademarks are there so that you don't create your own product and put those same drip marks on your bottles, nothing more. Trademarks and copyrights exist for the protection of a an individual or corporation's own IP and product markings/advertising so that others don't COPY it.

We already have rulings where it is okay to take somebody's product (including your own posted photos that you took and put online) and alter them. You own an implicit copyright to your own work, but if somebody else takes and changes it substantially enough, you cannot sue them and win. That should worry you more than even this, that hits home a bit more closely than somebody wanting to show the bottle, the liquor inside and the outside markings minus a product sticker sitting on the bottle.

If you are shooting on white seamless can you fill the bottle completely with a white opaque liquid that matches the B/G white?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #18424859
If you are shooting on white seamless can you fill the bottle completely with a white opaque liquid that matches the B/G white?

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18297529

They aren't selling bottles, they are selling liquor. I am not buying liquor from a business that has poured it out, then put it back in.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18424860
https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18297529

They aren't selling bottles, they are selling liquor. I am not buying liquor from a business that has poured it out, then put it back in.

Then I got noth'n. There is no way without a lot of PS or what i recommended or putting something in the bottle between the front and the back to keep the back of the bottle from showing through with a clear liquid inside. It defies physics.

You start photoshopping out those irregular drips and see what MM corporate has to say.

Distributor, seller, whatever. You alter a company's brand image enough, you'll hear from it's legal team. The seller is treading on shaky ground IMHO. You mess with a critical brand element at your own risk.

I think you just shoot it and it is what its is.

texkam wrote in post #18424879
You start photoshopping out those irregular drips and see what MM corporate has to say.

Distributor, seller, whatever. You alter a company's brand image enough, you'll hear from it's legal team. The seller is treading on shaky ground IMHO. You mess with a critical brand element at your own risk.

Well I guess you would have to be a legal expert in the jurisdiction of the OP to really be able to tell, but none of this helpful here, unless you feel the urge to report the OP to the ruling authorities. Let's stay to the topic at hand and not go down the Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole that is "Legal".

As someone who has years of experience in brand standards and working with professionals that are extremely sensitive to how their brands appear in the various visual mediums, I think sharing my wisdom on this subject is relevant and may indeed be quite helpful. The world wide web is a big place. Having a photographer save a possibly unsophisticated client from a potentially legal headache is worth my post IMHO. It's at least worth a mention to the client. I have shared such information with multiple clients. Some never realized and are appreciative. Some choose to ignore, no skin off my nose. My wife just shared that her company chose to walk down a gray area and ended up paying a hefty price for it. Like it or not, today's wonderland is wrought with legal rabbit holes.

Well, once we get a lawyer on the boards, we can confirm or deny what can be done. Being a business owner and an inventor with a patent-able product, I have my assumptions as well, but let's continue with the topic at hand.

Interesting trademark drawing of a Maker's Mark. It doesn't appear they have one standard of how the drips should be (google more images, and you'll see a few different patterns), no matter what size bottle:

I think the conversation regarding trademark is totally irrelevant here.

mybottleshop.com.au (my client) sell one-off individual bottles (they are not a en-mass distributor) and the bottle in the shot is literally the bottle you buy.

The manufacturer often supply their own image, but my client chooses to not use them as he is trying to NOT be just another run of the mill online store selling the same as anyone else.

My client wants to present this bottle in it's best appearance possible - the label on the back should be visible if you are looking at the back of the bottle, not from the front.

I think there is no way possible to achieve this in camera, but I was willing to put it out here in case someone can prove me wrong.

BJWOK wrote in post #18425317
My client wants to present this bottle in it's best appearance possible - the label on the back should be visible if you are looking at the back of the bottle, not from the front.

Isn't the back label visible from the front in reality? If showing a faithful image of the unique bottle that the purchaser will get is so important, your client should prepare for a complaint that "this bottle you sold me can't be the one in the picture."

Having to render transparent objects in 3D, I don't see there's a way to completely eliminate a rear label without Photoshop. The previously suggested techniques of using bottom lighting or a reflective back material can eliminate stray reflections (especially the smaller red label, that's a reflection). But for this particular bottle, the rear black label will be visible because it's part of the refractive property of the back side. IMO, your client should be reasonable and care more about the final image: if you can deliver all the criteria by also using a bit of Photoshop, it shouldn't matter for the end result.