Pugwash

At last. Who has the best Sub revealed.

Then vote with your wallet. Encourage others to do the same. Or, of course, you can spit your dummy and throw your rattle out of your cot. The two appear to be very close, but one is more subtle and doesn't involve accusing people of whoring their principles.

Sure thing. I'll bow out of Ferarri/Palbundi-bashing here for a few days.

Hideous proof that Palbundi have completely lost any hint of vision they might have had. Total rubbish. Cheap knock-off Tag Howler piece of crap. Just when I finally started to come round to the vintage Pals, they come and sit me right back down with this escrescence of lard. No wonder they don't put their name on the watch. Ferarri left $20 on the bedside table after a transaction like this, leaving Palbundi crying in the bathroom, feeling violated and cheap.

In that case ... Stainless Steel watch? Wait until late in the day to set your strap and make sure the watch is warm. If you like your watches tight and you set it cold in the morning, at the end of the day your hand will fall off. Throughout the day, your wrist expands, and the metal on the band expands with warmth, causing it to get tighter. The size should be set slightly too large and you should use the spring bars in the buckle to fine-tune it smaller. If you remember, try to set the strap just before going to bed. It'll feel cold and loose in the morning, but this is normal.

Take pictures and post them here.

Excellent idea ... right up until you took the photo handheld. Ouch. Put it on the desk, on a book, anything. Set the timer, walk away.

That one.

There's a dealer called Rolex. They cost a bit more than the MBWs, but they're worth it. What's more, they actually have the guts to sell them in shops.

455 + 3 = 458

Then, and only then, will you be able to take pictures of your missus in the skud. (edit for spelling)

(quote name='ehtolcad' date='Mar 21 2006, 02:38 AM' post='7818') ok here's a test - can you see this image: IPB Image (/quote) As you can see, the image isn't even stored in the code. If there is indeed an image there, it's getting rewritten by ... er, is it imageshack?

I like reflections as they show the smoothness of the sapphire, and you can play with it as a light source and all sorts. My observation wasn't about the reflections, but about the fact auto-focus will focus on the reflection instead of the watch face behind the reflection. If you manually focus (and on the FZ30, it works just as you'd expect), you can focus on the detail behind the reflection which ... well, you'll see. It diffuses and neutralises the reflection a bit and allows the brain to ignore the reflective surface. Nice camera, you're going to love it. The problems I find with the FZ20, the predecessor to the 30, are that it's crappy in low light conditions if you don't have a tripod. Not a party-night camera. Don't try to spoof it by setting it to ASA400 as it just introduces noise. You'll get used to it, but that lens is totally, totally amazing. Best non-SLR on the market, unless you like taking snapshots at parties or are chasing elusive fading light shots. Oh, and it's not a high-speed instant camera.

He uses 2. 60w iirc.

They are when the money is in the optics. I'll be moving back to Glasgow in a year. I'll have to make a point of scouring Paddy's Market for the kind of stuff TTK managed to blag.

I just opened mine with a flap of rubber, others use balled-up duct tape, rubber balls, dishwashing gloves ... The pros use Rolex caseback tools, though.

Here's my setup: Here's a pic: No, really.

I love DoF when illustrating a watch, because I can give the impression the viewer is an inch tall, standing next to the watch. It's a style thing that I would probably not use if I were selling watches. I like reflections, too, and that's something else to avoid when selling.

I bought my black sub (same batch as the LV) from TTK, and for the price it is hands down the best rep out there. Sure, you can pay more for an ETA-fuelled one, but for the $120 or so they're charging, you won't get better. This is the one I bought from TTK for $120:

Woah there, nelly. Hold up a second! If an AD pays about 1000, that'll be ex-vat, and the price he'll charge will be inc-vat. So, ex-vat, he's charging 1700. In other words, he's buying goods at 60% of retail value. Are you aware that 60% is standard wholesale price for almost every kind of shop? Your shoes will be bought at 60%, your sunglasses will be bought at 60%, your TV will be bought at 60%, but because it's a watch, it has to be different? Markup is normal because he has to cover warranties, pay tax, pay salaries, pay for his AD licenses, pay his insurance, pay his rent ... You can complain if you like, but it's hardly a crime unless you want to call every shopkeeper on the highstreet a criminal.

The Rebel is an EOS-350, so it's probably that. Oh, and the correct answer should be "For this kind of dough, I can at least change lenses to a dedicated Macro", so I'd get on to your Missus to buy a decent Macro lens, or you can do what TTK and I do and not use Macro at all. Ok, sometimes I do, but only when I want a depth of field so tight you can hear it. You really don't need to get in close to take watch pics, if you have eight megaplonkies in the camera. You can crop down to anything webworthy. Remember, the advantage of the SLR is you can change lenses to suit the shot. Ask yonder missus if she's got anything to help for Macro shots if you're determined, cos you never know, she may have a dedicated lens already. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, have you read my photo articles? You don't need to use the big camera if the little one takes pics that make you happier.

Trannie is Transparency. It's like a positive. For instance, when I worked in book design, we used to get the colour art and covers taken as transparencies. They would be 10"x8" or 6"x8" with all the colour and registration marks around them and we would then get these scanned on a drum-scanner at lots-per-inch. It's the industry standard method of transfering paintings to book covers, amongst other things. To get magazine-cover quality, you need to be looking at 150-175 lpi screening, which is the equivalent of about 300 dpi. If you're after 20"x30" at that quality, you're looking at 6000x9000 pixels, which is 54 megapixels. In other words, you will never get a good result, so you have to settle for what you can get. There are no magical shortcuts or special applications that can miracle up pixels out of nothing or extrapolate super-pixels or anything, so you're limited to non-moon-pony solutions that will blur pixels to make it look like the photo is that resolution but a little blurred, or you're limited to a low-lpi screen and large visible dots. A 5MP camera will do you 2500x2000 (rounded for ultra simplicity, bear with me) or so, which gives you around 8"x6" at decent resolution: nowhere near poster-size. Still, if you don't mind a poster that won't stand close up scrutiny, a 6MP or 8MP camera may be enough, as long as the picture is good enough. Remember, Garbage In, Garbage Out.

It takes 120 film. 60mm x 60mm. Heeeoooooge negs if you're used to 35mm, but there's something really cool about square format black-and-white photos.

I always reach for this one for non-Digital work ...

... which is why I wrote the cheapskate's version here. As one of the few people I know with a legal Photoshop license, albeit for v7, I find that ... damn, here I go again. I'll precis: Photoshop is good, but only necessary if you can't get the photo right in the lens. I prefer stuff like Aperture or Lightroom on the Mac for photos, or Picasa when I'm armed with a PC laptop and a camera.