# Rate my/your watch pictures!



## CastorTroy3

So I was just reading a thread about people complaining about their pet peeves about others watch pictures on this forum and I thought I might have posted those pics. With that said , I would like to start this thread with the goal of improving the quality of my pictures, providing feedback on others pictures, offering and receiving feedback on the quality of pictures. So here are my suggested rules:

1st rate your own picture on a scale of 1 to 10.
2nd include the specs of your picture and or the camera you took the picture on. Please include settings and lense type. 
3rd include the conditions of the pic so other can understand how lighting effects the pic.

I'll start this off:

Glycine Combat 6
Rating - 6
Olympus OMD EM-5, Olympus M40 mm Lense - ISO 600, F4.0, SS 15, handheld indoor in door lighting conditions with fluorescent lighting. 
After processing the image I dropped the size down to 25% so it was not huge in a posting. 
Post rpcessing time 15 mins









First i I took the shot directly out the camera without introducing the pen or the globe in the background. However, my camera had an issue focusing on the watch. Additionally the bezel came out dull and applying additional saturation didn't bring of the bezel as much as it brought out the would grain in the desk.

I then introduced the pen and the pen really gave the watch perspective and introduced the orange into the bezel. However, the pens didn't help the dial and fuzzed out the numbers on the dial. Additionally the pen introduced significantly more glair into the crystal. In an effort to correct these issues I introduced the globe behind the watch at a significant distantance. Bumped up the Apertiure a little higher and put a t-shirt over the fluorescent light.

Overall I rate the picture a 6 for the following reasons overall this one picture took me about 30 minutes which is way to much time. Additionally there is still significant glare in the picture. Although the placement of the glare is relatively appealing. I think that once I chose to introduce the pen I should have the whole pen in frame and loosing the back tip of the pen is poor framing. The shadowing of the picture is relatively poor and I found it difficult to remedy in post production. The blemish on the face between 8 & 9 is distracting and should have been remedied by cleaning the face or correcting in post production. I see the picture and I say not bad but definitely aperture.

Help me take better pictures and show me your prized possessions.

I hope you find this thread entertaining and educational.


----------



## anonimoman

Great idea, I'm going to start looking through my watch photos!

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

I'll post one of my better shots.

iPhone 5S, possibly using an app called Manual, which I mainly use for a wider aperture and exact focus.









I'd rate it a 6 or 7. Lighting was restaurant lighting, so think of a dozen lights embedded in the ceiling fifteen feet overhead.

The hard part of photographing my Rado is getting the color to look correct. The 5S's camera is pretty good with white balance, but things like this can confuse it sometimes. I also move around to get the lighting to show off the dial as much as I can.

Here's one of my worst Rado shots, taken with a Canon point-n-shoot (I think... maybe it was the 5S again):








It still looks okay, but it doesn't "pop" at all. I don't think I did any color correction, either.

Rate it a 3 or 4. Lighting was a large window to the right and a couple apartment lamps to the left-rear.


----------



## CastorTroy3

I am very happy with this one. I took this one with OMD EM6 at F16, 4ss, in decent lighting conditions. I give it a 9.


----------



## jideta

I don't do a lot of copy work, but I think rule no. 1 is never blur your subject. Why would you want to?
I rarely shoot portraits wide open because of depth of field. If you are at f16 and still not in full focus, you are shooting too close.
Look at watch advertisements: watches are rarely shot sideways.
You want to shoot nice watch pics, copy the pros then put your spin on it. Works for me.

My pic I'd call it a 7 or so. Put together with some stuff I had handy and I was too lazy to get the lighting right.
Remember in photography, it's all about the light baby.


----------



## jideta

I'd call this a 8 because I know technically I can do better. I was limited by the lens I had in my bag (35 f2) and I was too lazy to get down and dirty. I probably should have used my 50mm. This image is cropped down almost to pixelation. Next time I'm using a tele so I can compress the background a bit more and get the sunset in. I was also a bit late on the light, the sun had already set behind some clouds.
For the shot, I had to take off my shoes


----------



## CastorTroy3

jideta said:


> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7073026&d=1455430028"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
> 
> I don't do a lot of copy work, but I think rule no. 1 is never blur your subject. Why would you want to?
> I rarely shoot portraits wide open because of depth of field. If you are at f16 and still not in full focus, you are shooting too close.
> Look at watch advertisements: watches are rarely shot sideways.
> You want to shoot nice watch pics, copy the pros then put your spin on it. Works for me.
> 
> My pic I'd call it a 7 or so. Put together with some stuff I had handy and I was too lazy to get the lighting right.
> Remember in photography, it's all about the light baby.


If your pics is a 7 my pic is a 3. You have excellent work. It's clear I'm missing key elements to get better at photography because I don't even see the blur. I did think the shadows under the watch did look a little dark.

For reference I am fairly new to photography and have been at it for about 3 years. Only started shooting raw in the last 18 months. Till know it's primarily been portrait photography. I think I'm average at portraits and working my way towards average on watch/micro shots.

Can you please elaborate on how your picture was shot? Also feel free to pay into me on what is wrong with my pics. I see all these people clicking with there iPhone, likely no post production, and it makes me think that I just may be blind.


----------



## CastorTroy3

jideta said:


> [iurl="https://www.watchuseek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=7073090&d=1455514130"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/iurl]
> 
> I'd call this a 8 because I know technically I can do better. I was limited by the lens I had in my bag (35 f2) and I was too lazy to get down and dirty. I probably should have used my 50mm. This image is cropped down almost to pixelation. Next time I'm using a tele so I can compress the background a bit more and get the sunset in. I was also a bit late on the light, the sun had already set behind some clouds.
> For the shot, I had to take off my shoes


Thanks for playing. Agree on the lense. I feel a little distant from the subject. Full outdoor and to me a little more contrast against the sand would make it pop. Apologizes if my critics are ametaure or technically incorrect. Mostly trying to demonstrate what I would do so people can correct my ignorance.

Also, wondering why you shot at f2 with such solid lighting. Would you want to close that lense up?

Lastly camera helps because if you state what camera I can convert your camera to micro 4/3rds.


----------



## CastorTroy3

I aspire to be able to do this. Picture casually attributed to the attic photo thread. Which by the way makes me feel insecure about my photo taking ability.


----------



## Ard

That was done with an affordable waterproof P&S camera. The photo is from my photobucket and there are no properties available with the image. What I know is that it was shot at 35mm with the EV set to -1.5 I shoot all the P&S stuff at negative EV because you can almost always lighten an underexposed photo but a washed out over exposed one is usually lost.

The fish is a Pacific Silver Salmon and I really like the water level shots with the fish themselves not removed from their element for a quick photo before release. I won't rate it but I like it, the kayak hull visible in the background was just something that happened in an unplanned quick shot. I really like the way the Silver Salmon looks with my Silver Tag Heuer Aquaracer so I posted it.

What do you think?


----------



## jideta

I shot that with a 50mm at f8 at 1/30 ISO200 on a tripod about a foot and half away. I used a regular 50mm because I thought I wouldn't get enough DOF with a macro and I was too lazy to set up directly overhead. I am using an umbrella bouncing halogen light directly down. As you can see, I'm taking the shot from an angle(from the left) to take out the reflections on the crystal, again I was too lazy to get the polarizer (from the next room!).

Here's what I should have done: I should have set the composition below me and set the camera directly above. That way, the framing of the surfboard picture is not distorted.
I should have either set up with two lights, the other to get ride of shadow on the left side of the watch, or I should have set the light up more to the right to draw the shadow out. The problem with the lighting is that I would have had to deal with reflections off the crystal and the photo so I decided to just set the lighting as unobtrusive as I could.

I have LR and PS but the most I do is fool with the exposure, add some contrast, and fix the white balance. In this case I went BW because the photo I used was an actual scan of a negative and a little on the purple side. I use LR the most. Remember, post production is not to make an average image great, it's to make a great image awesome! The image is made in the camera, not on the computer.

I've been shooting seriously for about three years also.
I think I learned the most by looking at other photos; I have a flickr account and was quite active up until about six month ago when I changed jobs. As I said earlier, you should look at how the pros do it and try to copy. Once you learn to control the camera, you can pretty much guess how the shots are technically set up. The composition part well, that you just have to study and see what works.
I have a degree in art (not in photo) so I suppose I have an advantage there. I still had to learn how to shoot!

Again, I think to get better, you have to start comparing your work to the pros, or at least folks whose work you admire. How did they get that shot? What about the shot makes it great? What can I do to get a similar shot?

here's two shots so you can see the difference DOF makes:

















In both shots I boosted the exposure and contrast. IN the first I also corrected the white balance.
First shot was at f5.6 the second at f2.8.


----------



## jideta

CastorTroy3 said:


> Thanks for playing. Agree on the lense. I feel a little distant from the subject. Full outdoor and to me a little more contrast against the sand would make it pop. Apologizes if my critics are ametaure or technically incorrect. Mostly trying to demonstrate what I would do so people can correct my ignorance.
> 
> Also, wondering why you shot at f2 with such solid lighting. Would you want to close that lense up?
> 
> Lastly camera helps because if you state what camera I can convert your camera to micro 4/3rds.


Sorry, the f2 is the lens I was using. According to LR I was shooting at f4 1/60. I was shooting through a Marumi CP which is about 2 stops.
The sun is actually behind some clouds so its not so solid.
I try to use a CP when shooting over water so I can control the glare/reflection.
Shooting Nikon D600 here with Nikkor lenses, mostly a 50mm 1.4g.

Your critique of the image is fairly spot on. If I was getting paid I probably would have used a reflector to get some of that golden light on the watch maybe even creating a shadow to increase contrast and to light up the dial.
I gotta say, shooting these watches has made me regret selling my 85mm. Maybe I should get like a 105 micro or a 135! or not!


----------



## BarracksSi

CastorTroy3 said:


> I see all these people clicking with there iPhone, likely no post production, and it makes me think that I just may be blind.


A good camera creates an artist just as much as a brush and some paint creates the next Picasso. In other words, it's not about the camera. A great lens and top-quality image sensor only makes the same mistakes crisper.

But I'm sure you know this. I'll stop lecturing now.


----------



## CastorTroy3

BarracksSi said:


> CastorTroy3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see all these people clicking with there iPhone, likely no post production, and it makes me think that I just may be blind.
> 
> 
> 
> A good camera creates an artist just as much as a brush and some paint creates the next Picasso. In other words, it's not about the camera. A great lens and top-quality image sensor only makes the same mistakes crisper.
> 
> But I'm sure you know this. I'll stop lecturing now.
Click to expand...

Well I'm an accountant with
Clearly no talent just working hard to be average. Seriously is there something wrong with my iPhone lense.


----------



## jideta

CastorTroy3 said:


> Well I'm an accountant with
> Clearly no talent just working hard to be average. Seriously is there something wrong with my iPhone lense.


no, no, no!

practice practice practice!

Henri Cartier-Bresson said: your first 10,000 are your worst!
realistically I didn't see progress until around 10k! Took me that long to learn the camera and to control it fast enough to not miss shots.

Macro shots almost always need a tripod or at least something to brace the camera against.


----------



## BarracksSi

CastorTroy3 said:


> Well I'm an accountant with
> Clearly no talent just working hard to be average. Seriously is there something wrong with my iPhone lense.


Macro shots can use some tricks. These first two were set up with an AF/AE lock on my iPhone 5S (press and hold until the yellow box blinks), then shot in burst mode while I slowly moved the phone about a quarter-inch closer. The two square shots are the first and last pics of a 12-shot burst.

















If I take some more time, I'll shoot with an app called Manual. It lets me set the focus, ISO, and shutter speed manually. I like to have a low ISO for less noise; but a low ISO needs a longer exposure, too, so I either have to shoot very carefully or use a faster ISO and a quicker shutter speed. Some pics of the same watch with the Manual app:


----------



## BarracksSi

To get properly close macro shots with an iPhone, you just need to add another lens. There's no way around it. I don't own any add-on lenses, but I borrowed my sister's loupe to shoot some of my Rado.


----------



## Gunnar_917

CastorTroy3 said:


> Well I'm an accountant with
> Clearly no talent just working hard to be average. Seriously is there something wrong with my iPhone lense.


photography isn't the easiest of things. To start with the lighting in that photo is pretty bad, that's the first place where everything went bad


----------



## chriscentro

This is a photo of my diver watch. I rate it 7. The water splash is not photoshopped as with most advertisements.
Equipment:
Pail of water
Rubber bands
Nikon D90 with remote trigger 
Tokina 100mm macro lens
Nikon SB600 speedlight
Aperture f10
Shutter speed 1/200 sec
And a lot of patience








Here's my setup


----------



## chriscentro

My feedback to CastorTroy3's photo is to take note of the background, to minimize clatter. 
To clean up the watch, there are too many spots on the dial and bezel.
To time the shot so that the hands are placed in such a way that do not block the numbers on the watch. Also to ensure that the hands positions are "balanced" for eg. taking shots at 10:10.
Avoid placing the watch too near the centre of the frame, use photography's rules of third.
Here's what I mean








Here's my "correction", hope you don't mind.


----------



## chriscentro

1 of my fav (self rated 8) , took the shot myself with wifi remote control on a Olympus EM10, 25mm f1.8 lens, tripod and my phone to trigger the shot.
ISO 250
1/8 sec
25mm @ f1.8


----------



## jideta

chriscentro said:


> 1 of my fav (self rated 8) , took the shot myself with wifi remote control on a Olympus EM10, 25mm f1.8 lens, tripod and my phone to trigger the shot.
> ISO 250
> 1/8 sec
> 25mm @ f1.8


nice
the straps are a bit distracting though


----------



## chriscentro

jideta said:


> nice
> the straps are a bit distracting though


If the straps were babes in bikini, then yes it would be distracting. But this photo is for WIS, straps would only compliment the shot instead, lol.


----------



## jideta

chriscentro said:


> If the straps were babes in bikini, then yes it would be distracting. But this photo is for WIS, straps would only compliment the shot instead, lol.


In terms of emphasis they create confusion. I assume you used selective color to emphasize the watch, then why give it competition?
Is the composition about both, as you say complimentary? then why not treat them equally and bring them into focus? between the hand, the straps and the watch, there is no balance. My eyes follow the curve of the hand(because of the high contrast) and go to the straps.
For me, the straps compete with the watch, not compliment.
Of course, it's all subjective.


----------



## chriscentro

jideta said:


> In terms of emphasis they create confusion. I assume you used selective color to emphasize the watch, then why give it competition?
> Is the composition about both, as you say complimentary? then why not treat them equally and bring them into focus? between the hand, the straps and the watch, there is no balance. My eyes follow the curve of the hand(because of the high contrast) and go to the straps.
> For me, the straps compete with the watch, not compliment.
> Of course, it's all subjective.


Haha, ok. We see it differently


----------



## CastorTroy3

This thread is moving towards what I was invisioning. I really like the criticism of my self and others. I have been on the road so have not been able to adequately participate. I shall study this and post so additional pics. 

Just order a tripod and a remote trigger. Hope to post some more clicks soon. 

Thanks to both of you to for the help.


----------



## jideta

here's a bad one

can't see em but soon as I got down to take the shot ants appeared on the rocks-too close for comfort!
couldn't get close enough for the shot I wanted and was rushing to get boat in the frame
I also failed to see that distracting shadow on the right
I was going to say 5 but now maybe 3?


----------



## rony_espana

chriscentro said:


> 1 of my fav (self rated 8) , took the shot myself with wifi remote control on a Olympus EM10, 25mm f1.8 lens, tripod and my phone to trigger the shot.
> ISO 250
> 1/8 sec
> 25mm @ f1.8


This is a 10 for me! Excellent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LeGuillotine

Greit shots!

Here is mine, I'll rate this for 7½. I like light and background but not much that how the watch is there. Also some spots was not removed...
Watch is on "leather" covered book and backround is also cover of book. Shotted with old Pentax K200D dslr with very old 50mm 1.7 manual lens and extension ring.
If I remembr right I have some LED spot as "studio light"

LeGu

Seiko by LeGuillotine, on Flickr


----------



## jideta

if that's a Pentax SMC 50 1.7, it's a nice lens.


----------



## LeGuillotine

jideta said:


> if that's a Pentax SMC 50 1.7, it's a nice lens.


It is SMC PENTAX-M 1:1.7 50mm and it is marvelous lens 

SMC PENTAX-M 1:1.7 50mm by LeGuillotine, on Flickr

And to not letting this go to OT... This one I rate as 8, above lens used with some extension, camera on tripod.

Seiko 5 by LeGuillotine, on Flickr

Legu


----------



## timeguy123

Nicely taken.


----------



## Mike_1

I took this one evening using a Canon S200 compact at the long end of its zoom, as close as it would focus and then cropped a bit, lit with a floor-standing lamp. I quite like it despite some obvious technical imperfections, but what do you think?
View attachment 7495850


----------



## Mike_1

Here it is again just to see if the image is going to actually upload successfully this time.

View attachment 7495890


Mike_1 said:


> I took this one evening using a Canon S200 compact at the long end of its zoom, as close as it would focus and then cropped a bit, lit with a floor-standing lamp. I quite like it despite some obvious technical imperfections, but what do you think?
> View attachment 7495850


----------



## Mike_1

Oddly the image showed as uploaded in the preview each time, yet failed to load. Editing the second post and adding the image there seems to have finally loaded it successfully. Was this likely to have been a coincidence, or does this method actually work reliably? All input on the uploading problem will be gladly received by new member. Thanks!


----------



## gabriel.bagnasco.5

jideta said:


> View attachment 7073026
> 
> 
> I don't do a lot of copy work, but I think rule no. 1 is never blur your subject. Why would you want to?
> I rarely shoot portraits wide open because of depth of field. If you are at f16 and still not in full focus, you are shooting too close.
> Look at watch advertisements: watches are rarely shot sideways.
> You want to shoot nice watch pics, copy the pros then put your spin on it. Works for me.
> 
> My pic I'd call it a 7 or so. Put together with some stuff I had handy and I was too lazy to get the lighting right.
> Remember in photography, it's all about the light baby.


Very nice composition! That is a 9 for me.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## jideta

gabriel.bagnasco.5 said:


> Very nice composition! That is a 9 for me.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


thanks!


----------



## jideta

Mike_1 said:


> Oddly the image showed as uploaded in the preview each time, yet failed to load. Editing the second post and adding the image there seems to have finally loaded it successfully. Was this likely to have been a coincidence, or does this method actually work reliably? All input on the uploading problem will be gladly received by new member. Thanks!


That's what works for me. I upload, edit and upload again.
go figure...


----------



## William Ayin

I Am honoured that someone used my pic 

Camera: Nikon d3300
Lens: Nikon 18-55mm at f5.6
Shutter speed: 1/200
Iso:800

Photo taken in the sink of my kitchen with a black cutting board underneath XD


----------



## mharris660




----------



## William Ayin

Photo Taken while in a taxi, the guy in front of me was on the phone and seemed to be pretty stressed. I thought it was a daytona at first but upon further inspection, it was a citizen. 
Camera :nikon d3300

details: ISO 100, shutter 1/125, focal length 55mm (same lens as the photo above), at f4.


----------



## Mike_1

Quite a good grab shot, but it can't be at F4, can it? Unless they have a new, bigger, faster kit lens that I haven't heard of yet.


----------



## mharris660

The depth of field looks a little more wide open than f4. I have 2.8 zooms so maybe the shooter has one of those. Exif data would show what lens was used


Mike_1 said:


> Quite a good grab shot, but it can't be at F4, can it? Unless they have a new, bigger, faster kit lens that I haven't heard of yet.


----------



## choppit

These are all very nice and creative watch pics, but what type of pics are good if you're trying to sell a watch?


----------



## O2AFAC67

A recent shot which I would probably rate at least a 6 or 7 perhaps after reflecting on the composition... 
Best,
Ron


----------



## O2AFAC67

Probably the closest I'll ever come to a possible 10 IMO. :think: :roll: Shot this back in 2011 and it has always been one of my facorites simply because of the ridiculously busy detail shown in the pic... ;-)
Best,
Ron


----------



## O2AFAC67

choppit said:


> These are all very nice and creative watch pics, but what type of pics are good if you're trying to sell a watch?


Something like this...


----------



## CastorTroy3

The first one (in the white dish) is a great click. First 10 of the thread.

Would love if you can share the details including how you blacked out the background. Novice here just trying to get educated.

Thanks to all for keeping this thread alive. I haven't had a chance to really use my camera lately. All my clicks have been iPhone clicks. I thought this one was a pretty good one with the city in the background.










I'd give it an iPhone 5. That's the rating not the camera


----------



## O2AFAC67

CastorTroy3 said:


> The first one (in the white dish) is a great click. First 10 of the thread.
> 
> Would love if you can share the details including how you blacked out the background...


Hi, CT. * LOVE *your B01 Navi on black leather. Perfect kit IMO and the IPhone pic illustrates what looks like a perfect size fit for your wrist. Congratulations on the fine acquisition and wear it in good health! 

The black background which you see in many of my clicks is simply a black T-shirt upon which I pose the composition. Using a black background usually makes cropping and framing a shot very easy. I use only natural light coming through a picture window in my dining room. The subject sits in an old watch winder box (placed on the table) with the top and front sides cut away and the T-shirt placed inside. I diffuse the light by holding up a white cloth diaper behind the tripod mounted camera. After positioning the dial to reflect the light directly into the lense I position myself between the diffuser cloth and the light source to correctly "shadow" the shot. Using the most depth of field available (55mm, max zoom) on the Canon's standard 18-55mm lense, I position the camera as close as possible to the subject allowing the autofocus to sync the shot on the details I want to feature. I set the auto shutter timer to countdown and fire in ten seconds which gives me time to hold up the diaper and position myself behind it. Sometimes I manually set the lense focus and F stop but most often I just let the Canon work automatically. After downlading the shots I prefer onto my computer I use Picasa3 to edit the photo and then Irfanview (both freeware) to losslessly downsize the photo for storing on Photobucket and then posting on the forum. I've used this simple home grown amateur technique for so long now I can typically set up a shot and have it posted on the forum in less than a half hour easily. Surprisingly, some of my pics will fool the real photographers into thinking I know what I'm doing which is nonsense of course. ;-):-d

Thanks so much for your kind comment and more than generous rating.  I hope explaining my technique doesn't disappoint. :-d Good luck with your own trial and error and I'm looking forward to seeing more shots. :-!
Kind Regards,
Ron


----------



## BarracksSi

Is "click" the new term for "shot"?


----------



## O2AFAC67

BarracksSi said:


> Is "click" the new term for "shot"?


Hmmm... :think: Why not?! :roll: I like it!! :-!
Best,
Ron


----------



## Okapi001

My first attempts at creative watch photography and focus stacking (second photo).


----------



## O2AFAC67

Okapi001 said:


> My first attempts at creative watch photography and focus stacking (second photo).


Love it. Here's a straight ahead method of stacking for you...


----------



## CastorTroy3

O2AFAC67 said:


> I hope explaining my technique doesn't disappoint.
> Kind Regards,
> Ron


Dissapoint? That down right pisses me off. Clearly I'm no artist and have only one eye. The natural light is key and unfortunately I seem to only find camera time in the evenings which makes it more difficult. I like the set up though with the black tee. Will see how linty my tees are .

Thanks on on the Compliments on the navi. I really do love it and have been forcing myself not to wear it every day.


----------



## CastorTroy3

BarracksSi said:


> Is "click" the new term for "shot"?


Thats what I call it. If it catches on just remember that I coined it.


----------



## CastorTroy3

Stacking...all four photos are really great CLICKS. Particularly the macro shot of the movement. I can't lie I had to google what stacking is. Maybe after I can learn how to take a single focus shot I will try some stacking.


----------



## Mike_1

Hmmm, don't think it's all that new, to be honest! 


BarracksSi said:


> Is "click" the new term for "shot"?


----------



## CastorTroy3

What will I will now term as the O2AFAC67 Method Take 1. Results failure.

So I figured I would try out the O2AFAC67 Method to see if my pics come out nearly as good as Ron's. The results prove that its not the method or the camera. For all those that can't take a good click, let me help you feel better about yourself. So I got my set ready took 10 clicks. Determined 5 were import worthy. Upon import determined that 1 was worth at least posting to disclose my lack of skill.

I rate this on a 2. Oh ya and I spent 1.25 hours on this but feel free to mock me as I am already mocking myself.









Only thing I did differently is use light room instead of Ron's programs.


----------



## CastorTroy3

Mike_1 said:


> Hmmm, don't think it's all that new, to be honest!


See people are already trying to steal my trademark.


----------



## O2AFAC67

Hi, CT. Begging your indulgence, I spent a minute on your shot for comparison sake...



And BTW, I often shoot as many as fifty or more pics trying to get just the "right" one to work on with the editing software Picasa. All I did to your pic was click "I'm feeling lucky" (first tab), increase "Fill Light" to about halfway (second tab), "shadows" to about halfway (second tab), decrease "color temperature" just a skosh (second tab) and decrease "saturation" (third tab) to a pleasing level. Give it a try and tell me what you think... 
Best,
Ron

PS. Heck of a lot better than a "2" doncha' tink?...


----------



## CastorTroy3

Looks so much better. That fill the light trick is really cool. I had to google how to do it in Lightroom. It's called tone curves in Lightroom for jokers like me who might care.

i was having a problem getting the black background dark enough while maintaining the light on the bezel. Solution...tonal curve. Thanks for the schooling.


----------



## O2AFAC67

I think I like this lume shot enough to give it about a 7 maybe... 
Best,
Ron


----------



## O2AFAC67

Really simple composition with a watch which belonged to my granddaughter and still a favorite of mine...


----------



## William Ayin

Mike_1 said:


> Quite a good grab shot, but it can't be at F4, can it? Unless they have a new, bigger, faster kit lens that I haven't heard of yet.


Just wrote what the photo data says.


----------



## CastorTroy3

O2AFAC67 said:


> I think I like this lume shot enough to give it about a 7 maybe...
> Best,
> Ron


The watch looks great. The brass knuckles the picture was taken on makes the picture look a little busy. The O2afqc67 method does generate some great shots though. It's like a nice little photo studio.


----------



## O2AFAC67

CastorTroy3 said:


> The watch looks great. The brass knuckles the picture was taken on makes the picture look a little busy. The O2afqc67 method does generate some great shots though. It's like a nice little photo studio.


Thank, CT. Actually, the watch is posed on a Waterford crystal piece in the shaped form of the continental U.S. which is surface cut as the national ensign (U.S. flag). How in the heck you saw brass knuckles escapes me... :think: :roll: LOL. ;-):-d
Best,
Ron


----------



## chriscentro

Some recent shots.


----------



## Marbl Productions

real nice. How did you get so close to the dial on the Rolex pic?


----------



## chriscentro

Marbl Productions said:


> real nice. How did you get so close to the dial on the Rolex pic?


Thanks. I used a macro lens for that Rolex shot. The camera I used was a micro four thirds camera (m4/3) which has a smaller sensor than a DSLR's. The m4/3 will produce a more close up photo due to the crop factor (of the sensor) when compared to a bigger size sensor camera (eg. Nikon D800).


----------



## johnny action

Top this, suckahs.......









---•••---•••---•••---•••---•••---
Time is Relative.


----------



## O2AFAC67

johnny action said:


> Top this, suckahs.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---•••---•••---•••---•••---•••---
> Time is Relative.


??? :-s


----------



## CastorTroy3

Is that watch in a donut? Did you dip it in coffee too. Mental note, don't buy used from Johnny.


----------



## johnny action

CastorTroy3 said:


> Is that watch in a donut? Did you dip it in coffee too. Mental note, don't buy used from Johnny.


Why not? I'll give you a sweeeet deal! Get it? Sweet? Like a frosted donut? Sweet deal?

Ahhh....fuhgeddaboufit.


----------



## Robert78040




----------



## jideta

I gotta say, one of my pet peeves about watch photography is use of depth of field.
In portrait photography, you almost never see just the tip of the nose in focus with the rest of the face blurred. Seriously, why would you want to place your subject out of focus?
Depth of field, or bokeh if you will can be a beautiful tool if used correctly (with the right lens), blurring a distracting background to focus on the subject. Irritating if used incorrectly.
My opinion only.
By the way, I'm not talking about any particular image in this thread, just about watch pictures in general.


----------



## chriscentro

@ f16


----------



## SN13

jideta said:


> I gotta say, one of my pet peeves about watch photography is use of depth of field.
> In portrait photography, you almost never see just the tip of the nose in focus with the rest of the face blurred. Seriously, why would you want to place your subject out of focus?
> Depth of field, or bokeh if you will can be a beautiful tool if used correctly (with the right lens), blurring a distracting background to focus on the subject. Irritating if used incorrectly.
> My opinion only.
> By the way, I'm not talking about any particular image in this thread, just about watch pictures in general.


Sometimes the intent is to highlight a certain aspect of the watch. For instance, if you wanted people to focus on the Bezel or Indices or even a reflection in the watch crystal.

That being said, Usually in portraits you're dealing with a larger depth of focus specifically because you're dealing with subjects further away than 0-2ft.


----------



## diablogt

Love the dark creamy background. Vant believe its F16



chriscentro said:


> @ f16


----------



## jideta

SN13 said:


> Sometimes the intent is to highlight a certain aspect of the watch. For instance, if you wanted people to focus on the Bezel or Indices or even a reflection in the watch crystal.
> 
> That being said, Usually in portraits you're dealing with a larger depth of focus specifically because you're dealing with subjects further away than 0-2ft.


its sort of like basketball or billiards-
you gotta call it


----------



## jideta

boy, I wish I could delete these images
but since they're up we should play 'what's wrong with this picture(s)'


----------



## LeGuillotine

Hi jideta

Not bad "clicks" at all. My (not professional) opinions are:

First one is lacking dof, I like if all of bezel is sharp. 6/10

Second is better, but centered composition is not good. And reflection on crystal... 7/10

Third is the best. Maybe some tweeking for wb. And maybe watch on left side and not so near border... 8+/10

Legu

Lähetetty minun SM-G800F laitteesta Tapatalkilla


----------



## jideta

LeGuillotine said:


> Hi jideta
> 
> Not bad "clicks" at all. My (not professional) opinions are:
> 
> First one is lacking dof, I like if all of bezel is sharp. 6/10
> 
> Second is better, but centered composition is not good. And reflection on crystal... 7/10
> 
> Third is the best. Maybe some tweeking for wb. And maybe watch on left side and not so near border... 8+/10
> 
> Legu
> 
> Lähetetty minun SM-G800F laitteesta Tapatalkilla


you sir are too kind!

I wouldn't rate any of them above 3 or 4 seeing as they are at the very least 'pictures.'
I kinda liked the last one but that was yesterday and today I'm embarrassed to claim ownership.

I think part of getting better is not just seeing the good, but also determining why an image is 'bad.'
There's a lot of bad going on in them pictures!


----------



## LeGuillotine

jideta said:


> you sir are too kind!
> 
> I wouldn't rate any of them above 3 or 4 seeing as they are at the very least 'pictures.'
> I kinda liked the last one but that was yesterday and today I'm embarrassed to claim ownership.


Dont be too hars to You 



jideta said:


> I think part of getting better is not just seeing the good, but also determining why an image is 'bad.'
> There's a lot of bad going on in them pictures!


Indeed, unfortunately it doesnt help me :|
Also You need patience and little more patience. I might take dozens photos before there is one keeper.
Sometimes nothing helps, yesterday I took about twenty photos of my quartz Seamaster with RayBan sunglasses chasing feeling of 80's ad.
But what I got is only headache o|

So keep trying!

LeGu


----------



## jideta

LeGuillotine said:


> Dont be too hars to You
> 
> Indeed, unfortunately it doesnt help me :|
> Also You need patience and little more patience. I might take dozens photos before there is one keeper.
> Sometimes nothing helps, yesterday I took about twenty photos of my quartz Seamaster with RayBan sunglasses chasing feeling of 80's ad.
> But what I got is only headache o|
> 
> So keep trying!
> 
> LeGu


yeah, I usually take 5 to 10 shots and sometimes none of them work


----------



## chriscentro

1 shot today


----------



## LeGuillotine

chriscentro said:


> 1 shot today


Thank You for boosting my self-confidence :-d

Great shot, thank You for sharing it!

LeGu


----------



## diablogt

Wow. Magazine quality



chriscentro said:


> 1 shot today


----------



## diablogt




----------



## chriscentro

LeGuillotine said:


> Thank You for boosting my self-confidence :-d
> 
> Great shot, thank You for sharing it!
> 
> LeGu


I'm sorry, I hope you find this a little bit better, lol


----------



## LeGuillotine

You are sharing only 10/10 stuff. Awesome job!

Sent from Gotham City phone booth


----------



## PATCOOK

anonimoman said:


> Great idea, I'm going to start looking through my watch photos!
> 
> Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk


sometimes better is the enemy of good .you must be a perfectionist because i find you quite harsh because I think this shot is just brilliant and the centerpiece shine like a diamond .


----------



## Mike_1

Are you saying that you feel that the entire subject needs to be in focus, and that you find it irritating when the photographer doesn't achieve this? It's a personal thing, but if this is what you mean, I certainly don't agree as I enjoy seeing photos where DoF has been used creatively, whatever the percentage of the subject that is in focus.



jideta said:


> I gotta say, one of my pet peeves about watch photography is use of depth of field.
> In portrait photography, you almost never see just the tip of the nose in focus with the rest of the face blurred. Seriously, why would you want to place your subject out of focus?
> Depth of field, or bokeh if you will can be a beautiful tool if used correctly (with the right lens), blurring a distracting background to focus on the subject. Irritating if used incorrectly.
> My opinion only.
> By the way, I'm not talking about any particular image in this thread, just about watch pictures in general.


----------



## jideta

Mike_1 said:


> Are you saying that you feel that the entire subject needs to be in focus, and that you find it irritating when the photographer doesn't achieve this? It's a personal thing, but if this is what you mean, I certainly don't agree as I enjoy seeing photos where DoF has been used creatively, whatever the percentage of the subject that is in focus.


I believe I've already stated that it's my opinion only.
DoF is great when used creatively.
Mostly its abused, and used as a novelty.
Show me one commercial watch advertisement with some part of the watch face out of focus. It's just not done.
*DoF has to be one the most abused tricks in photography.*
Okay, you can add forced perspective to that list.
This is about good watch photos and not trickeration and to me, my opinion, a good watch photo is one where the whole watch face is in focus.
Again, why oh why in the name Cartier Bresson would you WANT to blur your subject?
Blur the foreground, blur the background but...hey if it floats your boat...
In my opinion, typically in photography if it's not in focus it's not really your subject.
One more time: YMMV

and I hope that explains where I'm coming from


----------



## davidkmendel

Thanks guys this thread has just cost me a Sony RX10 plus a stack of other gear. Perhaps the money could been better spent elsewhere?

Sent from my ASPERA_R6 using Tapatalk


----------



## jideta

davidkmendel said:


> Thanks guys this thread has just cost me a Sony RX10 plus a stack of other gear. Perhaps the money could been better spent elsewhere?
> 
> Sent from my ASPERA_R6 using Tapatalk


welcome to the other money pit.
besides watches I mean.


----------



## davidkmendel

Might have to use the camera clock to tell the time now.

Sent from my ASPERA_R6 using Tapatalk


----------



## chriscentro

Speaking of DOF, I actually prefer less of it most of the time.
@ f4.2


----------



## germanshepherd72

To our accountant friend with the Seamaster, I think you captured that dial splendidly.
My tablet is locking up so it made a new post. o|


----------



## germanshepherd72

Here's my old Duo


----------



## LeGuillotine

germanshepherd72 said:


> Here's my old Duo


Great shot! I'll give You 8-, only criticism is about background. Composition and dof are great, watch is awesome and needs some better backround.

Legu


----------



## xxjorelxx

Here's a few shots I took recently that I posted to my IG.


----------



## JiltedGen

xxjorelxx said:


> Here's a few shots I took recently that I posted to my IG.


Nice pics!


----------



## xxjorelxx

JiltedGen said:


> Nice pics!


Thanks. The pics are a combination of my two passions: horology and photography


----------



## masterdelgado

351 with Pentax K5 - Tanrom 16-50










Regards
Gustavo


----------



## William Ayin

f5.6 at iso100


----------



## CastorTroy3

I like that the Breitling guys take good clicks and have nice watches.


----------



## BarracksSi

CastorTroy3 said:


> I like that the Breitling guys take good clicks and have nice watches.


Funny you say that, because our wedding photographer wore a Breitling.


----------



## O2AFAC67

CastorTroy3 said:


> I like that the Breitling guys take good clicks and have nice watches.


Thanks, CT! Much obliged... 
Best,
Ron


----------



## masterdelgado

Regards
Gustavo


----------



## jasonzhang921

This is what I wore today  a panerai 127









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kapeee

How about this?


----------



## Robert78040

kapeee said:


> How about this?
> View attachment 7846274


Wow looks great. What brand and model is it? Looking for something similar

Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk


----------



## kapeee

Robert78040 said:


> Wow looks great. What brand and model is it? Looking for something similar
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk


Thanks. It's a mwc 300m gtls, www.mwcwatches.net/collections


----------



## germanshepherd72

LeGuillotine said:


> Great shot! I'll give You 8-, only criticism is about background. Composition and dof are great, watch is awesome and needs some better backround.
> 
> Legu


Thanks. It was a quick shot with my cell. Background was my polishing cloth!

Sent from my InFocus M330 using Tapatalk


----------



## turbojoly

Beautiful timepiece! Very sporty and classy



jasonzhang921 said:


> This is what I wore today  a panerai 127
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## turbojoly

Very nice! I would love to buy one in a near future. What is the crown size?



masterdelgado said:


> Regards
> Gustavo


----------



## leftnose




----------



## Ukpemor

My first Rolex at Watersmeet


----------



## sicert




----------



## Morethan1




----------



## Carl Stevens

CastorTroy3 said:


> So I was just reading a thread about people complaining about their pet peeves about others watch pictures on this forum and I thought I might have posted those pics. With that said , I would like to start this thread with the goal of improving the quality of my pictures, providing feedback on others pictures, offering and receiving feedback on the quality of pictures. So here are my suggested rules:
> 
> 1st rate your own picture on a scale of 1 to 10.
> 2nd include the specs of your picture and or the camera you took the picture on. Please include settings and lense type.
> 3rd include the conditions of the pic so other can understand how lighting effects the pic.
> 
> I'll start this off:
> 
> Glycine Combat 6
> Rating - 6
> Olympus OMD EM-5, Olympus M40 mm Lense - ISO 600, F4.0, SS 15, handheld indoor in door lighting conditions with fluorescent lighting.
> After processing the image I dropped the size down to 25% so it was not huge in a posting.
> Post rpcessing time 15 mins
> 
> View attachment 6998330
> 
> 
> First i I took the shot directly out the camera without introducing the pen or the globe in the background. However, my camera had an issue focusing on the watch. Additionally the bezel came out dull and applying additional saturation didn't bring of the bezel as much as it brought out the would grain in the desk.
> 
> I then introduced the pen and the pen really gave the watch perspective and introduced the orange into the bezel. However, the pens didn't help the dial and fuzzed out the numbers on the dial. Additionally the pen introduced significantly more glair into the crystal. In an effort to correct these issues I introduced the globe behind the watch at a significant distantance. Bumped up the Apertiure a little higher and put a t-shirt over the fluorescent light.
> 
> Overall I rate the picture a 6 for the following reasons overall this one picture took me about 30 minutes which is way to much time. Additionally there is still significant glare in the picture. Although the placement of the glare is relatively appealing. I think that once I chose to introduce the pen I should have the whole pen in frame and loosing the back tip of the pen is poor framing. The shadowing of the picture is relatively poor and I found it difficult to remedy in post production. The blemish on the face between 8 & 9 is distracting and should have been remedied by cleaning the face or correcting in post production. I see the picture and I say not bad but definitely aperture.
> 
> Help me take better pictures and show me your prized possessions.
> 
> I hope you find this thread entertaining and educational.


Good work,,brilliant idea..


----------



## CastorTroy3

Really nice click. Don't tell me this is an iPhone too. You guys and your great iPhone clicks are making me want to hang up my camera.



Morethan1 said:


>


----------



## Morethan1

CastorTroy3 said:


> Really nice click. Don't tell me this is an iPhone too. You guys and your great iPhone clicks are making me want to hang up my camera.


Yup. iPhone 6+
Thanks for the compliment


----------



## CastorTroy3

Morethan1 said:


> Yup. iPhone 6+
> Thanks for the compliment


Manual app?


----------



## Morethan1

CastorTroy3 said:


> Manual app?


The stock photo app. No filters. No retouching.


----------



## BarracksSi

If it's an iPhone, a photo is not a "click", it's a "tap".

Unless you use one of the volume buttons, then it is indeed a "click"...


----------



## CastorTroy3

Touché!!!!


----------



## CastorTroy3

Its been a while since I broke out the camera and snapped a few. Ran into an old Canon FD macro lense and decided to pull the trigger on a macro lense. Its not bad but I will say that manual focus makes getting a good click even harder. Here is a few of the shots I took using the O2FAC67 method. They are not Jdieta quality but I am making progress.


----------



## jideta

CastorTroy3 said:


> They are not Jdieta quality ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ha!
> 
> Need to stop down to increase depth of field, that way you have some leeway with the focus. I set my camera to one center focus point and let the focus indicator in the viewfinder guide me.
Click to expand...


----------



## CastorTroy3

jideta said:


> CastorTroy3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not Jdieta quality ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ha!
> 
> Need to stop down to increase depth of field, that way you have some leeway with the focus. I set my camera to one center focus point and let the focus indicator in the viewfinder guide me.
> 
> 
> 
> are you saying that because the second pic is out of focus on the bottom right or do you think the pics are flat in general. I just purchased an old macro lense and am using an adapter to mount it on my OMD EM-5. The adapter doesn't transfer the auto focus and this was my first experiment with the new lense. Overall though I did shoot them with the lense pretty closed as I was finding that the low A with super slow shutter speeds was coming up with what I that were better pics.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## jideta

CastorTroy3 said:


> jideta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CastorTroy3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not Jdieta quality ...
> 
> are you saying that because the second pic is out of focus on the bottom right or do you think the pics are flat in general. I just purchased an old macro lense and am using an adapter to mount it on my OMD EM-5. The adapter doesn't transfer the auto focus and this was my first experiment with the new lense. Overall though I did shoot them with the lense pretty closed as I was finding that the low A with super slow shutter speeds was coming up with what I that were better pics.
> 
> 
> 
> To my eyeballs, none of your shots are crisp/tack sharp. Not sure about Olympus but the sensor should read focus no matter the lens (I believe its looking at contrast). There should be a focus indicator in the viewfinder. Again stop down, try f5.6-f11, that should help. If your shutter is too slow use your tripod.
> I think tack sharp images are especially important when shooting macro.
> By the way, I like dark background, makes the watch faces really pop.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## CastorTroy3

Alright I broke out the camera and the macro lense again tonight in the goal to get my images tack sharp. I failed. I shot this one on F22. Of all the clicks this was the only tolerable shot were most of the image is in focus. However, the right lower quadrant is still out of focus. I'm using manual focus (no choice with this lense), a tripod, and a remote shutter but I still can't seem to get the entire thing in focus. Any suggestions? So far I feel like I was better with a kit lense rather than the macro.


----------



## davelemi

I'll give it a 7 and it's only that high due to the colorful nature of the moss and because the watch is gorgeous.
Olympus EM1; 12-40mm 2.8
F5.6 1/160 ISO200


----------



## jideta

CastorTroy3 said:


> Alright I broke out the camera and the macro lense again tonight in the goal to get my images tack sharp. I failed. I shot this one on F22. Of all the clicks this was the only tolerable shot were most of the image is in focus. However, the right lower quadrant is still out of focus. I'm using manual focus (no choice with this lense), a tripod, and a remote shutter but I still can't seem to get the entire thing in focus. Any suggestions? So far I feel like I was better with a kit lense rather than the macro.
> 
> View attachment 8808602


Distance from lens affects DOF also. Back off the subject to get everything in focus then crop in post.
By the way, don't stop all the way down, it causes diffraction (you'll lose some sharpness). Try f11...and again, shoot from a bit farther back.

Nice shot except for the lighting.


----------



## CastorTroy3

jideta said:


> Distance from lens affects DOF also. Back off the subject to get everything in focus then crop in post.
> By the way, don't stop all the way down, it causes diffraction (you'll lose some sharpness). Try f11...and again, shoot from a bit farther back.
> 
> Nice shot except for the lighting.


ya I had been meaning to adjust the lighting on my iPhone. I think that the iPhone just showed it brighter than when you pull up on a decent screen.


----------



## Sxgt

CastorTroy3 said:


> ya I had been meaning to adjust the lighting on my iPhone. I think that the iPhone just showed it brighter than when you pull up on a decent screen.


Much better with the lighting adjustments.


----------



## SeikoSicko

chriscentro said:


> Some recent shots.


Here, I cleaned up your post for you.


----------



## SeikoSicko

chriscentro said:


> @ f16


Whoa, looking good!


----------



## Atleo

These are combination DSLR and Iphone pics. I think the Citizen ones and the SKX/glock pic are the only dslr ones. Citizen was a Nikon d600 and SKX was probably an Olympus OMDem5, which is technically a mirrorless but whatever.


----------



## julio13

super macro mode Olympus tough


----------



## Hamstorm

My latest, but not necessarily greatest shot.

Shot wit my Canon 1DS MARK III with Canon EF 100MM MACRO

Lit with Alien bees 800 and White lightning studio strobes

Sitting on a Ellinchrom EL Multi-table and surrounded with tons of diffusion materials.

Edited with Adobe photoshop. took me about 15 minuets to edit.


----------



## Hamstorm

This may be my current favorite that I've completed. This is fourteen separate images "two sets of focus stacks" combined into a composite piece.It took me 8 hours to complete.

Gear; Canon 1DS MARK III canon EF 100MM MACRO Alien bees studio lights.

all shot at F11 SS 200 ISO 100 combined and edited in Adobe Photoshop.


----------



## CastorTroy3

Hamstorm said:


> My latest, but not necessarily greatest shot.
> 
> .


i'll take your "snap shots" any day.


----------



## CastorTroy3

Hamstorm said:


> View attachment 9058554
> 
> 
> This may be my current favorite that I've completed. This is fourteen separate images "two sets of focus stacks" combined into a composite piece.It took me 8 hours to complete.
> 
> .


absolutley spectacular. 8 hrs well spent.


----------



## ChristopherChia

Some of my recent shots. Btw, I'm also chriscentro, lost my password and had to re-gister.


----------



## CastorTroy3

Love the sub picture!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gunnar_917

Pulled straight out of the camera - no editing whatsoever


----------



## ChristopherChia

By the window shot.


----------



## CastorTroy3

I'm super excited about my new watch. Not so satisfied with its first pics.


----------



## BarracksSi

CastorTroy3 said:


> I'm super excited about my new watch. Not so satisfied with its first pics.


I dunno about not being satisfied -- the pics look as old as the watch, so they look pretty cool to me.


----------



## zappy2

Really awesome watch you've got there! I think you could do some colour correction on the pictures, otherwise I think they're quite awesome!


----------



## CastorTroy3

More mediocre pictures. But it's always fun trying.


----------



## ZRymland

O2AFAC67 said:


> ??? :-s


Watches and Donuts - two of my favorite things - I LOVE THIS PHOTO:-!


----------



## ChristopherChia




----------



## CastorTroy3

Got to shooting tonight. Put the kids to bed got really drunk and think these were some pretty good shots. Am I drunk or just lucky:


----------



## ZRymland

I am kind of new here, and it sure is hard to add any after those last couple of sets, but here it goes. Working on taking of few nice shots of this beauty before I put it up for sale...


----------



## ZRymland

And one more... One of a kind Steinhart Ocean 2 v1 Orange Premium...


----------



## CastorTroy3

Shot hit looks crisp but I can't dig pilling out 25% 0fthe face



ZRymland said:


> I am kind of new here, and it sure is hard to add any after those last couple of sets, but here it goes. Working on taking of few nice shots of this beauty before I put it up for sale...
> 
> View attachment 9330970


----------



## ZRymland

I hear you. I thinking was to make it more intimate, draw you in, wanting more... AND to show the beautiful LOD this watch has. But maybe that didn't work with these two photos.


----------



## CastorTroy3

Thanks giving and I got away for some additional clicks.


----------



## MJACLA09

iPhone


----------



## MJACLA09

iPhone again


----------



## Ulotny

picture host


----------



## tzwick

jideta said:


> View attachment 7073090
> 
> 
> I'd call this a 8 because I know technically I can do better. I was limited by the lens I had in my bag (35 f2) and I was too lazy to get down and dirty. I probably should have used my 50mm. This image is cropped down almost to pixelation. Next time I'm using a tele so I can compress the background a bit more and get the sunset in. I was also a bit late on the light, the sun had already set behind some clouds.
> For the shot, I had to take off my shoes


 9.


----------



## tzwick

Ulotny said:


> picture host


 Wow, this is actually insane. Easily a 10/10.


----------



## kudalaut888

rate it


----------



## MJACLA09

Love the GG


----------



## kudalaut888

Love Lange



MJACLA09 said:


> Love the GG


----------



## kudalaut888

Love Lange



MJACLA09 said:


> Love the GG


----------



## kudalaut888

Rate it


----------



## pegasuswatches

8/10 well done


----------



## taildraggerpilot

One of my Sinn 103's at work.
Just a simple iPhone photo.


----------



## ajk1000

iPhone 7 lume shot

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## rockmastermike




----------



## MJACLA09

Chrono Bleu


----------



## citjet

In my opinion photographing watches is similar to people portraits. You want your subject to pop and be separated from the background. If you want to incorporate objects to compliment it then you want to have those also in focus. An advanced way of doing that is focus stacking but thats difficult with a watch because its running. So there are several techniques that can be used.

I prefer as my style to use a shallow depth of field.


----------



## rockmastermike




----------



## xcellr8tion

Love this shot of your Tudor!



citjet said:


>


----------



## CastorTroy3

The Tudor shot is great. The depth of color in the grass is really well done. I'd say almost perfect but for the reflections of light on the glass. For that t will deduct a 1/10th of a point .

You say say you like to shot with a shallow depth of field which I find interesting. What do you shot with? I find it nearly impossible to get my subject in focus under F8. My pictures are never s deep as your pictures there. The focus on the grass in front of the watch also adds to the depth and you were able to get a large amount of items in focus. I also assume that you artificially added depth by increasing the bokeh I assume with a blur filter. Maybe brushed in a little black with a soft brush.

Are you adding some focused graduated filters to enhance the colors.

love for your to share your technique because I will say that your pictures are more unique as I find even the best shots on this sight to typically be very flat and at least a portion of the subject is slightly out of focus.

Nice watches BTW.



citjet said:


> In my opinion photographing watches is similar to people portraits. You want your subject to pop and be separated from the background. If you want to incorporate objects to compliment it then you want to have those also in focus. An advanced way of doing that is focus stacking but thats difficult with a watch because its running. So there are several techniques that can be used.
> 
> I prefer as my style to use a shallow depth of field.


----------



## Sri

Shot with iPhone 7...


----------



## Sri

Shot with iPhone....










Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## CastorTroy3

First Tudor not so good. Give it a 3 or 4. All black, to much shadows, and way to much a glare. Looks about as good as my pictures though.

second Tudor is very good. I give it an iPhone 8. The Xmas lights in the street creat a great background for the dynamic Pelagos. The lighting on the dial is nearly perfect and some how with an iPhone you have no glare is the crystal. It very often you can actually see the reflection of the phone in the crystal.

Thanks everyone for participating and I really need to take a couple of shots with the camera. Been so busy these days I never get to play with the camera and the watches. Just iPhone wrist shots. I leave you with one that I poached of a thread early of what shall be my next watch. And since it's been all Tudor here it fits.









Cant remember who took the picture to give them credit but this is Yurikim quality.


----------



## watchdoc...

These are amazing!!!


----------



## MJACLA09

CastorTroy3 said:


> The Tudor shot is great. The depth of color in the grass is really well done. I'd say almost perfect but for the reflections of light on the glass. For that t will deduct a 1/10th of a point .
> 
> You say say you like to shot with a shallow depth of field which I find interesting. What do you shot with? I find it nearly impossible to get my subject in focus under F8. My pictures are never s deep as your pictures there. The focus on the grass in front of the watch also adds to the depth and you were able to get a large amount of items in focus. I also assume that you artificially added depth by increasing the bokeh I assume with a blur filter. Maybe brushed in a little black with a soft brush.
> 
> Are you adding some focused graduated filters to enhance the colors.
> 
> love for your to share your technique because I will say that your pictures are more unique as I find even the best shots on this sight to typically be very flat and at least a portion of the subject is slightly out of focus.
> 
> Nice watches BTW.


If he used a 100-120mm plus telephoto he could have been farther away with f8 focusing on a broader depth.

The pic is cool.


----------



## CastorTroy3

^^^good advice. I just tried to see what my telephoto would look like if I did that and I think it would work in good lighting and extra long shutter speed


----------



## MJACLA09

CastorTroy3 said:


> ^^^good advice. I just tried to see what my telephoto would look like if I did that and I think it would work in good lighting and extra long shutter speed


Looking forward to seeing your work.


----------



## CastorTroy3

Took. Few more shots. I think that this one came out the best. I'd give it a 7









This was was plain average. I'd call it a 5









This is one I'd tag a 4 because of poor color.


----------



## vintage_collectionneurs

Was chopping fruits in the kitchen and decided to try watch and fruit combo.


----------



## mui.richard

I don't have a basis to rate this...but I'd say it's a solid 8, maybe? 

Nikon D5, Nikkor 58mm f/1.4...I think I was at f/11 or 16 can't be sure without checking the EXIF data.

edit: that's a typo it was taken with a 28mm Nikkor

Rolex 6694









a watch is meant to be worn


----------



## CastorTroy3

I don't know Mui...I don't see much room for improvement in that click. The dial just floats of the page. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sphynx88

SeikoSicko said:


> Here, I cleaned up your post for you.


Nice shots - What was the moon for? Was it to show this is at sea?


----------



## userealwasabi

Home shot, on a day full of natural sunlight, from the iphone5 camera!









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MJACLA09

mui.richard said:


> I don't have a basis to rate this...but I'd say it's a solid 8, maybe?
> 
> Nikon D5, Nikkor 58mm f/1.4...I think I was at f/11 or 16 can't be sure without checking the EXIF data.


Cool fauxtoe. 
Nikor 58mm or 85mm? I think my 1.4 85mm is great.


----------



## mui.richard

MJACLA09 said:


> Cool fauxtoe.
> Nikor 58mm or 85mm? I think my 1.4 85mm is great.


Looks like you got me...it was a typo and that particular photo was taken with a 28mm.

I do have the 58/1.4 and 84/1.4, and both are great lenses depending on what you're trying to achieve.

But if wide open sharpness is your thing nothing comes close to my 200/2...it's a monster of a lens.

a watch is meant to be worn


----------



## mui.richard

Nikon D4s, Zoom-Nikkor 35-70 f/3.3-4.5. taken beside bedroom window with a thin curtain as diffuser.

Tudor Heritage Ranger on bund



















and the lens these were taken with









a watch is meant to be worn


----------



## spencer17

I would agree with an 8 rating. Out of curiosity, what was your setup for this shot as far as lighting and the material you have the watch on?


mui.richard said:


> I don't have a basis to rate this...but I'd say it's a solid 8, maybe?
> 
> Nikon D5, Nikkor 58mm f/1.4...I think I was at f/11 or 16 can't be sure without checking the EXIF data.
> 
> edit: that's a typo it was taken with a 28mm Nikkor
> 
> Rolex 6694
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a watch is meant to be worn


----------



## mui.richard

spencer17 said:


> I would agree with an 8 rating. Out of curiosity, what was your setup for this shot as far as lighting and the material you have the watch on?


Single speedlight softboxed on PocketWizard, watch is placed on my Sony notepad. 

a watch is meant to be worn


----------



## spencer17

Thank you, I will have to give that a try.


----------

