# A Guide to Photographing Watches: Anatomy of one image



## ASRSPR

I recently showcased a few images of my new Seiko 5D88 Direct Drive Moonphase watch over on the Seiko forums. That post marks just over a year of taking pictures of watches, though I have been taking pictures of other subjects for longer. I thought that I should mark the occasion by documenting the process of creating this single image in order to demonstrate my photography workflow and try to teach by example.



I don't have any professional practice in product photography and I'm certainly not the best photographer on these forums; I don't know that I'm qualified to really offer such advice. I do hope that sharing my thought and work processes might be of some use to others. The very basics won't be covered - aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, all of that. There are plenty of introductory photography tutorials that can convey those concepts much better than I can.

The image that I've chosen to document is purposefully a little complicated. The Seiko SRX003P1, with its variety of dial textures, high polish finishes, and multitude of hands is not at all the easiest watch to photograph (that honor might go to the Mk II Paradive, which was very simple to shoot). The angle and framing isn't the easiest either. I think that the final image is maybe not the best or interesting image I've shot, perhaps not even of this particular watch. But it's certainly a decent shot and I hope that these challenges will bring forward the issues and hurdles and self-criticism that will be most useful in this sort of article.

*Contents*:


A few words about gear
Pre-shoot
Shooting
Post-production
Conclusion


----------



## ASRSPR

*1. A few words about gear*

The old adage about the photographer being more more important than the camera is true, but it leaves out the fact that good gear does make things easier. I have no doubt that any random selection of, say, Gary Winogrand's work, taken with his now 40 year-old Leica M4, will still be multitudes better than any of my photographs, shot with a modern digital SLR. But I know that my pictures are better with that DSLR than with my pocketable P&S. There is an objective quantification to these things - if you want to get in close without compromising image quality, you need a macro lens. If you want shallow depth of field, you need an SLR and a large aperture. If you want low noise, you need a good sensor or else lights. These things generally come at a cost - macro lenses are usually a bit expensive, SLRs are more expensive than point-and-shoots, and bigger sensors are non-linearly more expensive than smaller sensors.

Nowadays, there any many excellent "pro" point-and-shoot cameras, but I can only address digital SLR systems here since these are what I have experience in. My setup is pretty solidly mid-range in most respects and probably more costly than most people would want to spend. However, as with watches, there are shortcuts that can be taken. They might not offer 100% solutions, but a 80% solution at 10% the cost is often a good compromise.

















I used a Canon EF 100mm f2.8 macro lens for this image, as I do with basically all my watch photography. It's a 1x magnification macro with impressive sharpness that retails for roughly what a typical Seiko SARB or Marathon TSAR costs. This is a pretty common price point for a standard macro (or Micro, if you're shooting Nikon) lens on most mount system. Good, low cost alternatives are extension tubes and lens reversal or a combination of the two. These techniques will allow a substantial reduction of the minimum focus distance of any non-macro lens at the cost of some image quality degradation, brightness, and/or maximum focus distance. Best of all, since these parts do not contain optics, it's no big deal to go with cheap overseas parts that cost in the ten-dollar range.










My main camera body is a Canon 5D Mark II, a dependable and popular mid-range, full-frame DSLR that's about 2 years old at this point. It's roughly comparable to the Nikon D700 and Sony A900 lines. However, I don't think full frame is generally an important issue for watch photography. You can keep noise down by shooting at a lower exposure index ("film" speed or "ISO"); with the same lens, APS-C sensors offer seemingly larger images through the crop effect since minmum focus length is the same (actual magnification remains constant as well). An APS-C body will also allow the use of crop body lenses (like Canon's EF-S series), which are oftentimes cheaper. A second-hand entry-level DSLR from two or three generations back is a great way to get into the game; it costs less than a bleeding edge fancy point and shoot, and probably produces better pictures (at least in these contexts).

















Tripods are useful. Since watches don't move around, setting a camera on a tripod allows you to wait tirelessly for hands to move into exactly the right position. You can take multiple shots with the exact same angle at different exposures and combine them into a single image. Good tripods and tripod heads are expensive (a good quality ball head can cost more than an entry-level DSLR), so luckily this is one piece of kit that you can go cheap. You don't have to carry the tripod up a mountain, ensure that it doesn't tip over in a thunderstorm, quickly shift angles and lock to capture fast-moving objects, or support a giant 500mm telephoto lens. For some at-home watch photography, a delicate plastic thing with a built-in head will work fine with a bit of patience.

















For lights, I used two external flashes, a reflector, a lightbox, and a shoot-through umbrella. Multiple lights offer flexibility, useful for producing different types of light on different parts of the image. The typical "ebay auction" lighting - a simple lamp shining through a white light tent - produces a diffuse, uniform light that's better than a bare bulb or a pop-up flash, but still kind of boring. Multiple lights, modifiers, flags (to block lights), and gobos (to modify them) all help put light only where you want it and in the right amounts. Going cheap on lighting might mean using lamps with cool or daylight bulbs, natural light, or cheap flashes. It's probably best not to mix different types of lights, since differing color temperatures will likely make post-production a nightmare. A simple folding reflector, propped against a chair or even held in one hand, can act as an easy-to-use second light source adjustable in position and intensity (via distance) and can be very inexpensive. They're versatile no matter how simple or complex the rest of the lighting setup is.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that while you can spend the price of a new Omega Speedmaster on photography kit, you can get most of the way there with some creativity and a budget more suited for an Omega Speedmaster bracelet.


----------



## ASRSPR

*2. Pre-shoot*










In starting to think of how I might want to photograph the watch, I first decided on a general lighting theme. The watch dial, bezel, and case are all various finishes of silver or polished steel. I thought that a dark base might serve well. I had purchased an old square-foot sample of smooth, flecked black tile from a hardware store to stage pictures of my custom silver-dialed Speedmaster a few months ago. I like its color and the fact that while it will offer a reflection, it's a speckled, worn reflection that gives contrast to clean, polished dress watches. The Seiko's alligator-pattern band was black, so I thought that this time I should opt for greater contrast and try for more dramatic and dynamic backlighting.



I decided that I wanted at least two main shots of the watch. One (this one) would be framed tightly to show off the detailing of the dial, which I thought was the main attraction, and one widely to display the whole watch. I wanted to start off with the tighter shot because I suspected that I could keep the lights more or less the same for both shots. It would be easier to see the flaws in lighting in the tight shot and fix them before moving to the easier, less critical wide shot.

Oftentimes, I have to mount watches on stands or place them as to lean on props in or out of the frame. Occasionally, I have to actually tape the back of the watch down. With the Seiko, I found that, because of the curved strap, it could balance by itself on lug, crown, and strap. On this watch, the traditional 10:10 was a good position for the hands, so I set the time back about an hour earlier to give me time to set everything else up. After setting the moon to a more attractive phase and cleaning the watch thoroughly with a microfiber cloth, I was ready to start shooting.


----------



## ASRSPR

*3. Shooting*

A common technique from portrait photography, but useful here too, is three-point lighting: a backlight to highlight the subject's contours and illuminate the backdrop, a key light to illuminate the principle details, and a fill light to soften the contrasts and produce softer shadows. Often, photographers will start by adjusting the exposure to the key light, then adding back and fill light in particular ratios as needed. This can be done with a light meter to figure out precise light ratios, but trial and error is fine too for a watch (models, unlike watches, tend to get fatigued during long shoots).

I thought that a more dramatic back lighting could be achieved by using a Porta-trace lightbox (used for reviewing film negatives and slides) for the backlight. The light box was more uniform and had sharper lines than than a shoot-through flash modifier. I could position it at an angle to the camera vector as to produce a dramatic boundary of light fall-off or else at least have it act as a white backdrop. I'd used it just a few days ago to produce such an effect for a profile shot of another Seiko, my custom "Sea Monster" diver.

Since the light box was much dimmer than what my flashes were capable of and not adjustable for brightness, I started by adjusting my camera exposure for that first, intending to adjust the other lights to match. Since I was going to be close in, I knew I had to use a reasonably small aperture to make the depth of field wide enough to cover the whole face of the watch.










I started with f/11 and that seemed a good compromise between depth of field and shutter speed. Because the watch ticked at 1hz, I knew that I had to keep it a bit below a 1s shutter speed if I wanted to avoid a ghost second hand. A fair exposure at f/11 necesitated a 1/4s exposure at ISO 800, so I was good. I didn't care too much about composition at this point, I just wanted to get the exposure close. Here's the first shot:










Remember, we're just getting the backlight looking right; it works out pretty much as I wanted it to. The right side is nicely in the light while the left side is dark. The dial is pretty dim because it's faced away from the back light. This will be solved when we add the key light. For this image, the key light was provided by an old Nikon SB-26 flashgun behind a shoot-through umbrella.










But as it happens, I planned poorly and there wasn't enough room in my apartment to place the flash on the right side fo the frame. Instead, I put the flash high on the left and bounced it off of a reflector on the right toward the watch dial for a similar effect.










With both key and back lights in place and after moving the watch around a bit, we start to have some pretty decent light. There's a band of light on the top-left corner, but that's easy enough to fix with a flag or else in post-production.










Time to start thinking about composition. This picture is no good. Only the watch dial and case are in focus, but they occupy a scant quarter of the frame. There's wasted space I can't use to the right; the brand and clasp on the left are outside of the depth of field and messy-looking. This won't do at all. We're not close enough. I meant to highlight the dial and that's even slanted away. So we'll move closer, turn the camera over 90°, and move the tripod so that the dial axis is closer to the lens axis. Things look better with the move:










Of course, the stuff about having a more dynamic backlight sort of goes out the window because the left side is no longer in the frame. Oh well; at least the reflection at the bottom is still nice and dark. We have another problem here though. There's some reflection on the crystal. I traced the vector from the lens onto the crystal and back out and realized that it's just the edge of the tile. Moving the watch and camera further away from the edge and readjusting the light box, flash, and reflector fixed the issue.










Other reflections can be traced the same way. The polished case has been catching reflections from around the room. These reflections are removed through a variety of means. Simply turning off the ambient lights in the room does away with many of them. Placing inconspicuous objects in between the watch and the reflections eliminates the rest (the black box on the tile in the setup shot above was for this purpose). Little bits of pink appear on the watch too - these are cameo appearances by my arms and face. Ducking out of the way (in this case, under the table and using a remote trigger to activate the shutter) is useful here.

Without a fill light, the contrast is a bit sharp. These can be made a bit softer. Instead of another reflector, I just added a flash to the camera hot shoe (I set the other flash behind the umbrella to trigger off of this one) and pointed it straight up to bounce off my modestly tall ceiling. This makes for a nice diffuse light that's just about right for the job.

I'm still shooting at the same exposure as the very first shot. But since the dial is now facing more toward the camera, I can open up the aperture a stop and bring the camera down to ISO 400. The final settings are f8.0, ISO 800, and 1/4s. The shutter speed is slow enough that I'm worried about mirror and trigger vibrations. These are alleviated by using a remote trigger and either mirror lockup or live view mode. So, finally, after more than a few trial shots, we end up with the final keeper.










Of course, things aren't quit over yet. There's still a fair bit of post-production left to go.


----------



## ASRSPR

*4. Post-production*

Post-production starts with a bit of a slog. There's always alot of dust around. Though I made sure to wipe the watch down at the start of the shoot and then routinely blow off new dust with a squeeze blower made for camera lenses, there's always going to be some left. It's not so bad when the watch is brand new, but wear it for even a day and grime will start to accumulate. It might not be noticeable on the wrist, but under a good macro lens at f/16, everything looks horrid. Especially crowns. So, there's alot of tedious work with the clone stamp tool, digitally cleaning things up. I also cheated a bit and removed a reflection I missed earlier.

Here's our out-of-camera shot again for comparison:









And the cleaned up version:









It's about a half-stop underexposed. With digital, it's better to bring up shadows than to bring down highlights, so underexposed is better than overexposed. We'll just globally pull up the midtones on the curves a bit:










The case looks good enough, but we need to tweak just the dial exposure a bit, so we'll apply a few adjustments to the dial, the hands, and the moon:










Almost there. Color temperature's off, so let's cool down the red channel a bit and do some selective desaturation while we're at it (I forgot to remove the blue sticker on the caseback and the clasp has caught a reflection off of it).










Okay, that looks pretty good. But the bottom half is just a little busy. Let's lower the exposure of the reflections a bit, crop about 5% for tighter framing, and then sharpen the whole thing for web publication. Done!

Here's what all the layers look like in the end:










It's probably a fair argument that I wouldn't have needed to put so much effort in editing if I were more patient with or just better at photography. But not being those thing, I guess it's good that I know my way around an image editor.


----------



## ASRSPR

*5. Conclusion*

The final image again:


Detail:










The lighting setup was pretty robust. I moved the camera down a bit and used pretty much the same light for the wide shot:



It's not always this much work. This wide shot was much easier, in shooting and in post; it was just a much less demanding shot.

So, I guess that's about it. If I made a mistake anywhere, please be sure to point it out so I can make revisions. I hope this has been useful.


----------



## whatmeworry

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Thank you for such a detailed and fascinating thread. :-! 
Your pics are fantastic but I'm afraid I lack the equipment or patience to create anything similar so will probably stick to going out in the garden with my cellphone.


----------



## DragonDan

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Thanks for the thread. I'm experimenting with a similar setup, but with two $5 clip lights on each side of my light tent. For my vintage watches it's pretty good, but I'm getting too much blow-out with the saphire crystal and highly-polished case of my Hamilton king scuba. Yes, it takes quite a while to get the lighting levels correct and kill the reflections - and I'm getting closer.
This is essentially commercial product photography. I do have a greater appreciation for those watch magazine shots now!


----------



## Beau8

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Thanks for indulging the photographer in us. Good shots, btw!


----------



## ancient_mariner

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Excellent article! Thank you for taking the time to write and post it. I really need to start saving money for macro lens.


----------



## johnchoe

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Thanks for this GREAT detailed walkthrough of your workflow! Helps us aspire toward better photos!


----------



## photoshooter

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

_I don't have any professional practice in product photography and I'm certainly not the best photographer on these forums; I don't know that I'm qualified to really offer such advice. I do hope that sharing my thought and work processes might be of some use to others._

I've been a professional photographer for 25 years.
Your tutorial is outstanding as are your images |>
It's a great read, thanks for taking the time to document and post.


----------



## waruilewi

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Awesome you spending the time to write this up - love your workflow and oh yeah, BTW... great looking watch!


----------



## Tremec

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

awesome tutorial, thank you... this should get pinned


----------



## MasterTimer

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

good stuff. Appreciate the breakdown. Now need to make time to try it myself


----------



## AZJack

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

I hope that Watchuseek will keep this thread in the top three or four places. What a great hands-on and practical thread!


----------



## Jerzee201

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Great write up!


----------



## Occam's Crouton

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

I'll chime in as well - I'm a pro and I think you've done a fantastic job. Your lighting and composition are great, and you've got a good grasp on the post-processing aspect of the equation.

And many thanks for taking the time to photograph and describe your setup and take shots of different stages. That sort of thing would have been invaluable to me when I was learning, and I'm sure a lot of people have read this and will take something away from it.

Thanks again.


----------



## seikomatic

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

really appreciate your effort for guiding us through, and I finally begin to see the interesting part of the dial of a piece of Seiko that I never pay attention to.


----------



## baco99

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

i need to study this in detail. thank you!


----------



## enginyr

fyi you are a professional photographer. Infact some of my buddy "photographers" don't know 1/2 what you know.


----------



## Poseidon-Jim

*Wow, excellent instruction and step x step proceedure*

I need to visit this forum and spend some quality time here more often.

Thanks, :-!
Jim


----------



## CzechMate

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Wonderful! thank you very much for this tutorial! Is it sticky yet?


----------



## Watchbreath

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

<| You don't pose a watch laying or on its crown. Say it 500 times, 'a watch on its crown,
is upside down.'


----------



## ASRSPR

*Re: 5. Conclusion*



Watchbreath said:


> <| You don't pose a watch laying or on its crown. Say it 500 times, 'a watch on its crown,
> is upside down.'


Followed by 20 Hail Marys and 20 Our Fathers? Perhaps you should educate us on the reasoning... I'm not aware of any specific prohibition against resting or posing a watch on its crown. I can see that most commercial advertising orient watches on their non-crown side (I wonder what is done with destro watches?) or 12-up, but the goals of commercial product photography may not be completely in line with enthusiast product photography. While virtually every commercial watch image has the time set to around 10:10, I wouldn't go as far as to claim that images not set to this time are "wrong". Variety is the spice of life. Or something like that.

Instead of the mantra you've suggested, I'd actually say that crown-up and crown-down configurations are, in fact, both transverse.


----------



## Watchbreath

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

The reasoning like I said, it's upside down. That's what I learned when I started setting up watch displays and couldn't agree more.


ASRSPR said:


> Followed by 20 Hail Marys and 20 Our Fathers? Perhaps you should educate us on the reasoning... I'm not aware of any specific prohibition against resting or posing a watch on its crown. I can see that most commercial advertising orient watches on their non-crown side (I wonder what is done with destro watches?) or 12-up, but the goals of commercial product photography may not be completely in line with enthusiast product photography. While virtually every commercial watch image has the time set to around 10:10, I wouldn't go as far as to claim that images not set to this time are "wrong". Variety is the spice of life. Or something like that.
> 
> Instead of the mantra you've suggested, I'd actually say that crown-up and crown-down configurations are, in fact, both transverse.


----------



## ASRSPR

*Re: 5. Conclusion*



Watchbreath said:


> The reasoning like I said, it's upside down. That's what I learned when I started setting up watch displays and couldn't agree more.


I agree that orientation is an important consideration when it comes to photography. But if commercial photography differs from enthusiast photography in their goals, I'd think that setting up watch displays differs even more. When you set up a display, the viewer can view the object from a variety of perspectives and in a commercial setting it's important to give a single impression that's familiar and attractive. These are not necessarily concerns with enthusiast photography. I'm not suggesting that there aren't positions and orientations that aren't suboptimal, that there aren't plenty of pictures that would be improved if the watch was placed differently, or even that my positioning in this shot isn't total crap (now that I look at it again, I really wish that I'd aligned the dorsoventral dial-caseback axis toward the lens a little more).

But being as it is a picture and not a watch (now I'm channeling Magritte: "Ceci n'est pas une Seiko"), we should consider that the camera - the reference perspective - is also tilted. Not only that, the photograph is only orientable one way. The image dictates the perspective mercilessly. No matter how you look at it, it's not tilted on its side or upside-down - it's listing at about a 45 degree angle, not unlike a fair number of watch ads.

But I guess that it ultimately comes down to is that I'm not trying to sell watches, so all the little tricks thought up over the decades on how best to do that don't necessarily apply. All I'm trying for it to get an interesting looking shot. Maybe I haven't done that here, but I'd say that it's probably not because it's leaning right instead of left.


----------



## GuySie

*Re: 5. Conclusion*



Watchbreath said:


> That's what I learned when I started setting up watch displays and couldn't agree more.


I couldn't agree less.

In fact, considering most watch store displays, they would be pretty far from the ideal I'd try to mimic in my photography to start with. Never seen something so beautiful be presented so blandly across a full range of stores, be they the corner jewelers or haute horlogerie brandstores.


----------



## RainMeister

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Really nice tutorial!

Moderator needs to make this a sticky.

I'm going to study this to experiment further on my technique, as I also like to shoot my scale model collection.


----------



## WhoKnowsWho

Very nice writeup. It gives me that itch to start doing photography again. I don't take the time to do any of it any longer.


----------



## dewaltwest

Great detailed educational post. You gave me inspiration to go to home depot and buy a piece of black marble tile. There are so many inexpensive and creative way to make a photo really stand out from just a snap shot!


----------



## Elmo18

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Good grief, I need to study up 

Great thread!


----------



## watch-man7777

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

This is now bookmarked as one of my favorites. Thank you for some of the tips, will use them next time I attempt to photograph some watches!


----------



## ErikP

*Regarding exposure*

I have always read that for digital you should expose to the right - i.e. as much exposure as possible without blowing the highlights. The reasoning being that you can retain much more latitude for pulling details out of the shadows.

I notice that you state the opposite, and I can't argue with your results.

Just wondering how you came to the conclusion that exposing left is better and why that might be?

Thanks!

Excellent tutorial!


----------



## ASRSPR

*Re: Regarding exposure*



ErikP said:


> I have always read that for digital you should expose to the right - i.e. as much exposure as possible without blowing the highlights. The reasoning being that you can retain much more latitude for pulling details out of the shadows.
> 
> I notice that you state the opposite, and I can't argue with your results.
> 
> Just wondering how you came to the conclusion that exposing left is better and why that might be?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Excellent tutorial!


This is an interesting point. I must admit that I wrote what I wrote almost idly, without a real considered analysis of my reasoning. The argument is, I think, between prioritization for noise or for not blowing out highlights. With modern equipment, I'd suggest that the latitude in either direction and the differences between each approach are so small as to be of minor consequence, especially for the sort of photography we're talking about here. There's a rather good article that I dug up to educate myself after your post: Prolost - Blog - Exposing to the Left vs. Exposing to the.Right

It seems to espouse a moderate viewpoint - expose sensibly. I think that my own preference for slight underexposure is probably borne of using some pretty ancient digital gear back in the day and for my earlier interest in landscape and street photography, where the EV distance between the sky and shade is a not inconsiderable number of stops. Nowadays, I feel like almost any sensible exposure will do. Here's a shot I took a few years ago in Munich that I only go to editing a few weeks ago that I'm pretty happy with. I don't remember what the histogram looked like, but I know that some pretty heavy curves adjustment filters in both directions went into it. I suspect that I'd have gotten pretty much the same shot exposing left or right. I should revise the article to express a more moderate view.


----------



## ErikP

*Re: Regarding exposure*

Nice shot!

I guess with newer cameras, the noise issue is less significant. I am still shooting a 20D which is pretty much ancient by today's standards and generally I have to be careful when pulling detail from shadows in post. (and still have issues sometimes).

The link you provided was useful so thanks for that. I think his conclusion was _-

"It's so simple to state the combination of these two philosophies that renders both extremes silly: You should expose as bright an image as you can without clipping."

_- which is what I had stated above and was always understood exposing to the right meant as opposed to a combination of the two philosophies, so maybe it is more semantics than a difference in technique. I guess the real skill comes with establishing your lighting as you have done in the original post to allow for some latitude.

I need to reiterate that I think you shot and tutorial are fantastic before I also say that on further inspection, it looks like the blacks could be pulled up a bit more as it looks like you have lost some detail there - although that is not really noticeable unless the viewer is looking for it.

That said, your lighting technique/skill is better than mine and I appreciate you sharing it!

Thanks again.

Erik


----------



## cris.albert

*Re: 1. A few words about gear*

Ohh.. Pls.. I want to have one like that canon.. Pls pls..


----------



## zephyrnoid

Interesting thread.
This pull-quote caught my eye...
" But I know that my pictures are better with that DSLR than with my pocketable P&S"
I don't have the metrics but I can tell you that in my experience this is not true for all aspects of the image. Here's the project that tests the theory...pictures are better with that DSLR than with my pocketable P&S.
GearNinja.com Home
Equipment list:
Camera: 90% Nikon Coolpix 5000, 10% Nikon Coolpix 8800
Lights: Daylight through window, Pocket strobes, various modulators and none of my big studio lights. Secret lighting... Customized LED flashlights.
It started as my retirement ( yes, retirement FROM photography) project and like a medusa, became a professional project of it's own.
Now the nitty gritty:
The two Nikon P&S cameras I used ( CP5K is now semi-retired) have some oddball features.
1) they shoot Killer sharp maco images. Probably due to the formulae used to construct the lenses (smaller are much easier to engineer). They are also slower lenses than DSLR primes and zooms, defeating diffraction more easily than their bigger cousins. But even still, I found that stopping down to f8 is nearly as high a resolving power as f4 for example.
2) chromatic abberration, particularly edge fringing is marked, though much less marked on macro's than on infinity focused images.
3) very deep DOF. More DOF at the same aperture than bigger lenses by about 4 or 5 times I would say.
4) Noise- particularly, shadow noise. It's bad and much worse on the CP5K than the CP8800.
That being said, have a look at all the 'Non Advertisment' pages. 
The quality is not fit for print but I don't care, I don't print.

NOTE: Pros will tell you that none of this surprises them. We often used apo enlarging lenses to shoot macros on our 4X5's .


----------



## ASRSPR

zephyrnoid said:


> Interesting thread.
> This pull-quote caught my eye...
> " But I know that my pictures are better with that DSLR than with my pocketable P&S"
> I don't have the metrics but I can tell you that in my experience this is not true for all aspects of the image. Here's the project that tests the theory...pictures are better with that DSLR than with my pocketable P&S.
> GearNinja.com Home
> Equipment list:
> Camera: 90% Nikon Coolpix 5000, 10% Nikon Coolpix 8800
> Lights: Daylight through window, Pocket strobes, various modulators and none of my big studio lights. Secret lighting... Customized LED flashlights.
> It started as my retirement ( yes, retirement FROM photography) project and like a medusa, became a professional project of it's own.
> Now the nitty gritty:
> The two Nikon P&S cameras I used ( CP5K is now semi-retired) have some oddball features.
> 1) they shoot Killer sharp maco images. Probably due to the formulae used to construct the lenses (smaller are much easier to engineer). They are also slower lenses than DSLR primes and zooms, defeating diffraction more easily than their bigger cousins. But even still, I found that stopping down to f8 is nearly as high a resolving power as f4 for example.
> 2) chromatic abberration, particularly edge fringing is marked, though much less marked on macro's than on infinity focused images.
> 3) very deep DOF. More DOF at the same aperture than bigger lenses by about 4 or 5 times I would say.
> 4) Noise- particularly, shadow noise. It's bad and much worse on the CP5K than the CP8800.
> That being said, have a look at all the 'Non Advertisment' pages.
> The quality is not fit for print but I don't care, I don't print.
> 
> NOTE: Pros will tell you that none of this surprises them. We often used apo enlarging lenses to shoot macros on our 4X5's .


These are some good points, and those pictures are very convincing as well. The problem I have with _my_ pocketable P&S is that it's an S90 and built for speed (f2.0 max aperture) more than anything else (plus, it doesn't have a hot shoe!). I wouldn't consider the 8800 particularly, ah, pocketable.

In regards to the specific details: I think that the only universal advantage you listed for choosing a P&S over a DSLR is that DOF is much wider on a small sensor than a big one for the same apparent focal length. But the cost of that benefit is startlingly high; a 1/1.8'' sensor is 20 times smaller than a 135 "full frame" sensor. And noise isn't the biggest concern for me - the limited dynamic range is. You're making a good argument that inexpensive gear can be used for good results if one understands the advantages and disadvantages. I certainly don't disagree - I'm not trying to be a gear snob (austerity is a quality in photography, if perhaps not in watch collecting ). But I will say that I still believe that the disadvantages severely outweigh the advantages - I'd much perfer an SLR or a so-called EVIL camera with the appropriate lens over most P&S cameras. The cost differential is essentially nonexistent - an entry level DSLR is around $350-400 here and a perfectly fine used or NOS model from a generation or two ago can be found for half that price. This is the range of all but the most basic P&S cameras.

And okay, so I'm of the digital generation that cares about how things look at 100% even if no one ever looks at them at that size. It's about the information, not the display or the print.


----------



## zephyrnoid

ASRSPR
All points well taken. This panel says it all about what happened to me...
GearNinja.com Mystery Shooter & His Gear
The noise and dynamic range of the CP5K are awful! Barely acceptable in fact. Resulting in much labor in post for the shadows.
I dealt with dynamic range by using a composting technique in Photoshop ( I hadn't been aware of automatic HDR)
In truth, if I were dragged back into shooting full time, I'd not use a DSLR LENS to shoot jewelry. I'd use a technique I used alot in my film days prior to selling my Sinar P2.
I basically would mount a DSLR on a view camera and use apo enlarging lenses since they are far better formulated & corrected for Macro . Note that the tiny Nikon CP5K ( not 8800 I procured in Jan 2009) is about the size of 90mm enlarging lens ( say a Rodenstock 90mm Apo ).
I shant begrudge anyone their DSLRs. Heck I sold off ALL my film cameras back in the late 80's precisely in anticipation of the digital domain.
My point is only related to Macro photography.
My P&S Nikons are pretty poor past 10' of lens to subject distance.
The killer....
I paid $950 for the CP5K when it first turned up in late 2003.


----------



## thekody

ASRSPR said:


> And okay, so I'm of the digital generation that cares about *how things look at 100%* even if no one ever looks at them at that size. It's about the information, not the display or the print.


Have you spent too much time on POTN?


----------



## ZIPPER79

*Re: 4. Post-production*

The best way to stop the second hand movement is to hack the watch thereby positioning the hands in whatever position one wants.


----------



## ASRSPR

*Re: 4. Post-production*



RUGMAN said:


> The best way to stop the second hand movement is to hack the watch thereby positioning the hands in whatever position one wants.


The problem is that, generally speaking, photographs of watches with the crown pushed in are desired. And of course, photographing non-hacking watches. Dummy watches are used for OEM photography, but of course this is usually out of the grasp of enthusiast photographers.


----------



## zephyrnoid

*Re: 4. Post-production*

That's what I generally do and then I reposition the crown in Photoshop so it looks correct. 
BTW. The No Crown Down rule is very image dependent. I don't have rules, only results. That's what clients pay for, that's what viewers care about.
My only rule is this:
"Sensa Limiti"
Italian for "No Boundaries"



RUGMAN said:


> The best way to stop the second hand movement is to hack the watch thereby positioning the hands in whatever position one wants.


----------



## zyxwvu

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

very nice tutorial. thanks for sharing..


----------



## Gary123

The point is made about the care and analysis and reshooting that can go into a really good picture. 

I have many years of photography experience: I was a sports photo journalist, then a portrait photographer for many years. These were easy subjects. Watches have proved very difficult for me to shoot well. I have a digital camera that has been producing better pictures for me as I have gotten to know it better. My ultimate challenge has been one watch - my Panerai 209. The two tone of stainless and titanium is difficult to bring out, although I have managed somewhat do it. This partaicular 209, a limited run within the limited 209 run, has a fancy face with faceted stainless steel hour markers that so far have been very difficult for me to capture. Maybe I can get one or two of them, but I cannot capture the faceted markers and the two tone metals at the same time. I look forward to trying some the information presented here.

Good job.


----------



## Chromejob

*Re: 4. Post-production*



ASRSPR said:


> Post-production starts with a bit of a slog. There's always alot of dust around.
> 
> ... Here's what all the layers look like in the end:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably a fair argument that I wouldn't have needed to put so much effort in editing if I were more patient with or just better at photography. But not being those thing, I guess it's good that I know my way around an image editor.


I know well how tedious the dust cleanup in PS is, but how powerful spot healing is ... changing minutes' work into mere seconds.

Thanks for the pic of your layers. I don't usually get quite so particular about things, but then your glamour shot was far better composed and taken than most of mine. I recently reprogrammed my PS keyboard shortcuts to produce adjustment layers for any adjustments I make, once I realized how painful it is to go back to an original and try to recreate 90% of my adjustments. Saving the .PSD file is so much better...

Add my huge thanks for a terrific tutorial. It should be a sticky!


----------



## vserduchka

*Re: 5. Conclusion*

Excellent write up. Thanks!


----------



## kinito

I want to have one like that canon. Regards.


----------



## tats

Great thread. I have been experimenting for a few days and since my previous focus wasn't on macro I think I will have to pick up a set of extension tubes. Currently my lenses are Zeiss 21, 35L and 70-200 2.8 IS II all of which just don't have the magnification I think I need. Well, off to amazon....


----------



## camb66

A fantastic reference. Great job.


----------

