Guest ThePhilosopher Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 (edited) I think you can learn faster if you have to shell out for film processing (35mm or MF, but definitely not LF) but that's just me holding on to how I learned photography. Edited July 24, 2009 by ThePhilosopher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltatahoe Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 i've certainly learned a lot from all the 'togs here; i think what most beginners don't realize is how easy taking a decent picture can be. the key element really is good lighting (which can be easily created with a light tent or even better, with natural light). i pretty much exclusively use natural light, so the biggest challenge for me is finding a way to minimize crystal & dial reflections. any suggestions you guys have on that front would be helpful deltatahoe ps. Us rep guys piss all over the gen guys for skills. couldn't agree more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThePhilosopher Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 i pretty much exclusively use natural light, so the biggest challenge for me is finding a way to minimize crystal & dial reflections. any suggestions you guys have on that front would be helpful deltatahoe couldn't agree more Circular Polarizer or shooting at 90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltatahoe Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Circular Polarizer or shooting at 90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThePhilosopher Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 so my issue is less about the light reflecting off the dial -- it is more about things in the background showing up on the crystal and/or dial. currently i hold up something dark (i had been using a dinner tray but just bought a piece of black foam board at chieftang's suggestion) to hold up and block the background objects out, but sometimes that blocks too much of the ambient light. i think a combination of your idea (shooting the watch at 90 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Using anything to block the light is a no-no. It usually creates noise on the dial (and other areas too). The key is to diffuse and filter the lighting so it's smooth and even all over the watch. You also want to bring up the details of say, brushed finish on the bracelet/lugs... so you want to utilize all light you can get (without over exposure). Finding the right balance between enough light and too much light is the key factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltatahoe Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 The key is to diffuse and filter the lighting so it's smooth and even all over the watch so to be clear, are you saying that with the right amount and type (as in diffused/filtered) of light, there won't be any reflections on the dial or crystal? thanks by-tor -- i appreciate your help deltatahoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 The dial and crystal are only reflecting what there is (to reflect). If there are items/things that cause reflections, block them off. Yeah you can use a black reflector card too, but it might create noise because the dial needs light as well. Plus that kind of cards are difficult to position so that they are not blocking light from the strap/bracelet and creating noise. I don't use any of that stuff. If the light exposure has been set correctly + you're using a tripod the dial isn't reflecting anything (providing you shoot in a dark room) where only the lightbox is lit. For pictures like that WM9 Sub above... well there is only the white transparent lightbox roof. i.e no reflections because the "roof" is smooth and blank. I use a transparent plastic flower pot as a lightbox (perfect) and 3-4 lamps. 2 on the both sides, 1 on the back and (sometimes) 1 on the roof (when the dial pattern is special and needs extra attention) like the SMP. Sub must be the easiest watch in the world to shoot. SMP is tougher as you have to keep the bracelet details visible and capture the "pattern" simultaneuously. You can't do stuff like that with post processing, you have to get the light exposure correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltatahoe Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 If the light exposure has been set correctly + you're using a tripod the dial isn't reflecting anything (providing you shoot in a dark room) where only the lightbox is lit. ok your comments are making more sense now by-tor -- you are talking about shooting with a lightbox. maybe i wasn't clear, but i only shoot outside with natural light, so obviously i have tons of stuff around that is going to reflect off the dial. you can't just block off the outdoors this is why i have to have something black behind the camera so that the dial doesn't reflect off the sky/ocean/hot chicks walking down my street/etc deltatahoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Ah... ok. But you can also take the lightbox to the balcony/yard and use it there. The natural light exposure can be very rich and useful and work well with the box. Then your lightbox might work as a reflection blocker. Give it a shot! I have sometimes used white blank piece of paper to filter the lighting and to block noise. Haven't snapped any outside shots in a long time (besides wrist shots) though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lazarini Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Canon 40D with 24-70 f. 2.8. L. LaZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Canon 40D with 24-70 f. 2.8. L. LaZ I had the same lense a while back. Great everyday lense Recently parted with the DSLR and waiting for D90. In the meantime, I'm shooting with a Canon SD780IS, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwatch Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Here's some helpful shooting tips from a company that sells lighting box kits. Some great info and the lighting kits look pretty stellar too! Table Top Studio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrissej Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Canon eos400d - EF 50/1,8 II / (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) But the cleanes macro I'm shoting with: Olympus C-760UZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 Canon eos400d - EF 50/1,8 II / (EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6) I have those plus a EF-S 55-250mm. Good selection of cheap lenses. Amazing value, especially that 50mm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packard Posted July 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 I've shot watch pics with very expensive camera (the that my company owns... can't remember the model name) and my standard Canon PS. It makes virtually ZERO difference. The more expensive camera can correct problems with an insufficient setup and perhaps reduce noise, but when your setup is perfect you can shoot just as good photos with just an ordinary (decent) camera. Buying an expensive camera won't make anyone a good photographer. Just like getting Wayne Gretzky's old stick won't make anyone a great hockey player. 85% is the setup: lighting. 13% is the post processing skills (Photoshop). Camera means maybe 2%. All great watch photos have been post processed. People who say that "they do everything with the lense" are lying & talking out of their ass (or then their pics aren't anything that special). Post processing alone won't make a photo great though... you have to get a very good "base" photo which comes from an excellent setup. Expensive camera makes much bigger difference when you're shooting other things... like capturing the motion, etc. But it means very little in watch photos (in studio setup). The resolution and sharpness requirements for images posted within these pages is not very high. If the images need to be printed on paper larger than 8" x 10" many point and shoot cameras will fall short. So for posted images the P & S is adequate; good lighting is essential. For large prints a high end SLR is essential as is good lighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 The resolution and sharpness requirements for images posted within these pages is not very high. If the images need to be printed on paper larger than 8" x 10" many point and shoot cameras will fall short. So for posted images the P & S is adequate; good lighting is essential. For large prints a high end SLR is essential as is good lighting. I think this is missing the point a little. The advantage of an SLR isn't the resolution; it's the changable lenses. Depth of field and close focus is exceedingly important for watch photography. A camera phone or point and shoot that doesn't have aperture control or a fast enough lens to have predictable DoF will not be very good for watches. Having said that, as long as a camera fulfils these minimum requirements, pretty much anything will do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ThePhilosopher Posted July 24, 2009 Report Share Posted July 24, 2009 I think this is missing the point a little. The advantage of an SLR isn't the resolution; it's the changable lenses. Depth of field and close focus is exceedingly important for watch photography. A camera phone or point and shoot that doesn't have aperture control or a fast enough lens to have predictable DoF will not be very good for watches. Having said that, as long as a camera fulfils these minimum requirements, pretty much anything will do. While true, 10MP out of a tiny PnS camera will look bad compared to any 10MP SLR due to pixel density issues. I'd take my 5MP E-1 over a 12MP PnS any day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.