Product Photography... Done in Photoshop or Not?

I agree with the comments on lighting above, but there is something else that makes it very difficult to tell between retouched real objects and 3D rendered models (which would be created in a proper 3D application, not Photoshop).

Real objects usually have some marks and defects on their surface which, in the kind of photograph you show, would be retouched to remove them. This can be very successful - take a look at retoucher Earth Oliver's sessions on frequency separation that he made for Adobe Max.

 https://www.adobe.com/max/2020/sessions/frequency-separation-20-part-1-photoshop-fs20-reto-l6153a.html

https://www.adobe.com/max/2020/sessions/frequency-separation-20-part-2-taking-images-to-th-l6153b.html

https://www.adobe.com/max/2020/sessions/frequency-separation-20-part-3-problem-solving-tec-l6153c.html

Conversely, when modelling and texturing objects in 3D applications, it is common to add such defects to the surface in order to make the rendered image look real. It doesn't take much, just a small bit of edge wear, fingerprint or scratch. By doing so, it is quite possible to make a 3D modelled object look more "real" than a photographed and retouched actual object.

The only way you would get a definitive answer would be to ask the creator of the image.

Dave

For a little background information; I have owned a commercial photography studio for thirty-plus years.

There is no simple answer to your question. Yes, it does appear that much of your sample advertisement is generated in post-production, but the level of manipulation is based greatly on the project and client. Some projects have minimal manipulation and others take days.

warmly/j

Here's a very simple DIY backlighting setup. This completely eliminates any need for masking. The principal light here is a large overhead softbox:

I have to be careful what I post for copyright reasons, but these crops should be safe. All these images come straight out of Lightroom, no Photoshop whatsoever. No masking:

Softboxes are incredibly flexible lighting. Not only smooth light and very soft, subtle shadows, but you can also use them for light/dark effects to emphasize shape:

Studio flash units and softboxes cost a little money. But if you plan to do this a lot, it's a very good investment that will cut your hours down to fractions of what you would spend in Photoshop. And there are varieties of this, like the light tent to simulate "white-out" lighting, very effective in some cases.

When you look at those ads and wonder how to do it, this is how. It's not Photoshop.

Product photography is done with lighting. Several studio flash units and a range of soft boxes of different shapes and sizes. Very often backlit backgrounds to remove shadows. Most of what you see is done by highly skilled photographers with tons of experience.

Yes, the lipstick is vector, but the other one is a real photograph. It was probably shot just like that, with minimal touch-up in Photoshop. People often think that looks "unrealistic" because they can't do it themselves, so they think "it must be Photoshop". But it's not. It's just good photographers.

Had to get that off my chest...

Lipstick image is vector, so likely was done in Illustrator, using gradient mesh to illustrator lipsticks.

The other image was shot with this camera then likely retouched

The lipstick sample is a fake image and while you can do it in Photoshop, 3D software like Dimension, Iclone or Blender do a much better workflow

the cleanser could be real or fake... its very bland either way