# Trouble Taking Watch Photos with Nikon D40



## WatchBuff0 (Nov 11, 2009)

Moving a conversation from the Images forum -



jay.scratch said:


> I just got a BM and snapped some pics of it [deleted]. I just couldnt get the camera to focus correctly so the pics came out really bad and didnt end up posting them on my thread ( took the pics to post at S.O.C. forum).


What kind of camera are you using?



jay.scratch said:


> nikon D40 with the 18-55mm lenses


A bit of research on the web indicates that the 18-55mm lens that comes with the D40 kit should be able to focus at a distance of ~1ft. This would be at the 18mm end of the lens. It will not be able to focus at that distance when set to 55mm.

So take a test shot by setting the lens to 18mm, set up about 1 to 2 feet from the watch, and take a photo. Is it in focus?

A watch photo taken with this lens is attached. Photo by Ken Rockwell (www.kenrockwell.com)

Post your test shot - we'll take it from there.


----------



## Empty_Quarter (Oct 14, 2009)

I do not have the D40, but I do have the D60 with a similar lens 18-55. The only difference as far as I know is the stock lens that comes with the D60 has VR while the stock D40 18-55 lens does not.

I haven't had an issue with my camera focusing at a close range. I am able to get it to focus at 18mm within a minimum range of about 7 inches or so.

Here's a quick and dirty picture of one of my watches taken from a range of about 7"

flash is on and you can see the shadow of the lens on the bottom.










My camera finds no issue in focusing at the same range even at 55mm.


----------



## WatchBuff0 (Nov 11, 2009)

Empty_Quarter said:


> I do not have the D40, but I do have the D60 with a similar lens 18-55. The only difference as far as I know is the stock lens that comes with the D60 has VR while the stock D40 18-55 lens does not.
> 
> I haven't had an issue with my camera focusing at a close range. I am able to get it to focus at 18mm within a minimum range of about 7 inches or so.
> 
> ...


You are right at the edge here for focus. The front of the watch including the front of the strap are not in sharp focus.

Look at the pattern in the material just to the right of the camera - you can see how the pattern changes from out of focus in the foreground to sharp focus and then out of focus again in the background.

I would recommend moving back a little. If the watch does not fill the frame you can always crop the image afterwards to create a full frame image.


----------



## Empty_Quarter (Oct 14, 2009)

Is it possible to get the entire frame to focus on such a close range like that? Im just curious, without cropping of course.


----------



## WatchBuff0 (Nov 11, 2009)

Empty_Quarter said:


> Is it possible to get the entire frame to focus on such a close range like that? Im just curious, without cropping of course.


The amount of an image in focus is called the Depth of Field (DOF). The amount of DOF is dependent on a couple of factors:


 The aperture setting of the lens. The smaller the aperture (opening in the lens) the larger the depth of field. Shooting at F22 will put much more of the image in focus then shooting at f2.8.
 The magnification. As magnification goes up, DOF drops. So when taking macro shots (close-ups) there is limited DOF available.

The limited DOF can be used effectively to blur parts of the image and keep other parts sharp.

If you want a close-up of the face of a watch, try to keep the face parallel to the back of the camera. This will minimize how much DOF is required to keep the entire face in focus.

The image below of my Hamilton Aviation QNE was shot with the aperture wide open to focus on one specific detail of the back of the watch while keeping the rest out of focus.


----------



## jay.scratch (Oct 14, 2009)

WatchBuff0 thanks a lot before anything else |>
Well I just got home from work and snapped a quick pics in automatic mode. Weird is that I was able to focus at around 1 feet away with 55mm and 18mm.
Maybe the reason i wasnt able to focus the watch the other time was because I was shotting during day time (with 55mm). I was getting direct sun light and obvious had a lot of reflections. Definitely next time gotta use 18mm instead and then crop the image.
Heres the quick test I did:

18mm









55mm









I wasn't using a tripod btw. But still a lot of pic when I crop them they dont look sharp even when using a tripod (the object doesn't look blurry but neither sharp)

ps: btw when i couln't get any focus when pointing at the watch the other time I was trying to get a pic like this http://s884.photobucket.com/albums/...ew&current=MI0498191600x1200sRGB.jpg&newest=1 (your pic lol) the watch and glass were directly exposed to sun light


----------



## WatchBuff0 (Nov 11, 2009)

Based on this test as well as what Empty_Quarter indicated, the 18-55mm lens can focus at 1ft - which is good!

Shooting at 55mm will mean fewer items in the background as there is a narrower field of view.

Now that you have focusing figured out plus a tripod you can start to determine what type of shots you want. If you want a shot with a reflection it's going to be a challenge with your small mirror. I doubt impossible, but you are going to have to be creative.

As for the referenced photo, on the thread where I originally posted this image I added some details on how the shot was created:

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=337983

Enjoy - keep posting you results.


----------



## jay.scratch (Oct 14, 2009)

bookmarked that thread |>
yeah the mirror is really small im gonna try with different shiny materials. 
Usually I take "OK" photos, nothing out of this world but they are fine. Problem is that I cant make them much better on photoshop. I can't even try to fix the levels because it ends up with the colors all messed up. I have a good tutorial from some photo magazine in here. Have to read it a few more times to see if I get it once for all lol.
Anyway thank you for your time once again. I will try to snap some photos and keep you posted |>


----------



## crazyfingers (Jun 3, 2009)

WatchBuff0 said:


> A watch photo taken with this lens is attached. Photo by Ken Rockwell (www.kenrockwell.com)


Thats a great site! So much info, especially for newbies. Thanks for sharing :-!


----------



## CReid (Mar 19, 2008)

WatchBuff0 said:


> The amount of an image in focus is called the Depth of Field (DOF). The amount of DOF is dependent on a couple of factors:
> 
> 
> The aperture setting of the lens. The smaller the aperture (opening in the lens) the larger the depth of field. Shooting at F22 will put much more of the image in focus then shooting at f2.8.
> The magnification. As magnification goes up, DOF drops. So when taking macro shots (close-ups) there is limited DOF available.


3. Working distance - DOF is proportional to the subjects distance from the lens, DOF increases with working distance.

Carl


----------



## cnmark (Jul 30, 2006)

CReid said:


> WatchBuff0 said:
> 
> 
> > _The amount of an image in focus is called the Depth of Field (DOF). The amount of DOF is dependent on a couple of factors:_
> ...


4. Focal length - the DOF decreases with increasing focal length.


----------



## nanok (Jan 12, 2010)

great entertainment site, yeah. he's a joker, don't take anything seriously. it's _just_ entertainment, if you like that kind of joke.


----------



## WatchBuff0 (Nov 11, 2009)

CReid said:


> 3. Working distance - DOF is proportional to the subjects distance from the lens, DOF increases with working distance.
> 
> Carl





cnmark said:


> 4. Focal length - the DOF decreases with increasing focal length.


These are rules of thumb, but it comes back to magnification. If I am trying to take a macro image at 1:1 magnification - that is, the subject size is the same in real life as on the sensor (film) then I will have the same DOF regardless of the lens used (focal length) or the distance from the lens.

Wide angle lenses appear to have more DOF because the magnification is less in general.

I routinely use a 200mm lens for close-up work. This allows me to pull back from the subject and to have less clutter in the background. If I were to use an 18mm lens to get the same image size, I would have to be much much closer but I would not get any more DOF.

Shooting with a point and shoot camera or cell phone gives you more DOF then an APS or Full-frame DSLR because the sensor is smaller. This means the magnification is less to project the image over the entire sensor. This is why it is more difficult to blur the background with these type of cameras - that and the generally smaller aperature sizes.


----------



## jay.scratch (Oct 14, 2009)

nanok said:


> great entertainment site, yeah. he's a joker, don't take anything seriously. it's _just_ entertainment, if you like that kind of joke.


care to explain?


----------



## CReid (Mar 19, 2008)

WatchBuff0 said:


> These are rules of thumb, but it comes back to magnification. If I am trying to take a macro image at 1:1 magnification - that is, the subject size is the same in real life as on the sensor (film) then I will have the same DOF regardless of the lens used (focal length) or the distance from the lens.
> 
> Wide angle lenses appear to have more DOF because the magnification is less in general.
> 
> ...


DOF is merely a function of focal length, aperture and distance to the subject, simple as!!! Sensors may change etc but the old hard and fast rules don't......

Magnification is "irrelevant" as a measurement as magnification in itself is a function of lens design plus focal length plus distance to target (sound familiar??), who knows what magnification their lens is at in any given situation??

Best wishes


----------



## WatchBuff0 (Nov 11, 2009)

CReid said:


> DOF is merely a function of focal length, aperture and distance to the subject, simple as!!! Sensors may change etc but the old hard and fast rules don't......
> 
> Magnification is "irrelevant" as a measurement as magnification in itself is a function of lens design plus focal length plus distance to target (sound familiar??), who knows what magnification their lens is at in any given situation??
> 
> Best wishes


We're getting off topic here - but a bit of research indicates we're both right.

Have a read through the wikipedia article on DOF:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

For macro and close-up work, magnification & f-stop is a better indication of DOF while at greater distances focal length, distance to the subject and f-stop given a better indication.

Format size does play a role in DOF. It's been long established that a 4x5 camera has less DOF for the same field of view then a 35mm camera. People used 4x5 view cameras however for the flexibility in changing the film plane/lens focal plane relative to the subject to improve focus in certain situations.


----------



## nanok (Jan 12, 2010)

i was talking about the (in)famous ken rockwell. he is a sort of chuck noris of the photography world, if you wish (that only makes sense if you know the chuck noris jokes  ). 

he has strong opinions on anything photographic, but he is generally unable to substantiate anything he says, and to make it more confusing he changes his mind every so often (and not from "it's raining" to "it's damp" but to "it's sunny and so hot i can't breathe"). he is funny sometimes, but boring after a while. he sounds like a (annoying) sales rep who just won't give you space to breathe, and he manages that in writing too. no wonder, as his site is all about you buying stuff from adorama through his links. 

in short: if you are a beginner, don't take seriously anything he says, do your own research, and take his words as entertainment _only_. he might be right or he might be wrong, but it's too much of a gamble with ken. if you are an experienced photographer you already figured him out, most likely, and don't need me to tell you all this 

of course, for reasons yet unexplained, "we all love" ken.

hope this helps


----------



## jay.scratch (Oct 14, 2009)

yea I did some research and seems like it either "love him or hate him" 
He does have somehow a good write up about the nikon d40 tho


----------



## nanok (Jan 12, 2010)

mhhh. yes, if you own one and can use the reassurance . other than that, if you look at it critically, it is...well.. useless . don't get me wrong, i have nothing against the guy, i had a good laugh every now and than thanks to him (i especially liked http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm and other funny blunders similar to this one), but lately he seems more and more boring. oh well


----------



## Tim7 (Oct 18, 2008)

*Here's Some Pics With Mine*

Here's some pictures with my D40 with the standard lens. It' a lot of work. I would like to have a micro lens to get better shots. Limited depth of field with this lens. Lighting is everything, and a lot of experimentation.


----------



## nanok (Jan 12, 2010)

*Re: Here's Some Pics With Mine*

very nicely done. i agree, light is everything (and this goes for photography in general). the nice thing with shooting watches is that it is so much easier to control the light, you can use _anything_ to light a watch (flashlight, desk lamp, flash, candles, you name it), you can use reflectors, and so on, anything you can imagine you can build, as they don't need to be too big. get a tripod to make your life easier, and you're in for a lot fo fun (note to self: i need more watches).

however, one word of caution: while macro lenses (mikro in nikon terminology) will not give oyu better depth of field, they are better suited to macro (closeup), but dof is defined by the reproduction ratio and the aperture when shooting macro (close to 1/1 ratios). you seem to be doing a good job with that kit lens . i use prime lenses and extension rings (lately a bellows extension, actually).

note about the lume shots: i like the first much better, as i can see some details on the watch, the lume seems a tad overexposed to me though (or is it?)

the aviator is gorgeous, and the shot is very good as well. maybe getting the watch a bit further from the red background would help a bit with the separation (now it is neither sharp nor blured, somewhere at a confusing inbetween), it would be easy to do, as you haven't included all of the strap anyway. is the wb off, or is the watch that "yellow" overall in reality? (not that i mind, just curious; my shots of my modern "poor mans aviator" also have the wb off, i kind of like the look nevertheless)


----------



## WatchBuff0 (Nov 11, 2009)

Tim -

Good job on the images. It can be time consuming to create just the right shot - but there does appear to be a lot of WIS who also enjoy this part of the hobby.

I use close-up rings on a standard lens. This allows flexiblity through moving the rings from one lens to another depending on the shot I'm working on.

Latest close-ups on a automatic winding rotor:


----------



## Tim7 (Oct 18, 2008)

*New Pics Today With the D40*

Thanks Nanok for reminding me about the white balance, much different results, set it on automatic. Big difference on the Aviator. Extension tubes look interesting.


----------

