Photographing Watches

[Anguz]

Greetings gang,

One of my new favorite procrastinating hobbies is reading about all the watches here and especially looking at the watch pornography you guys do so well. My question is this...

How do you get the photo's so clear and beautiful? I have a digital camera but it takes sh*tty pictures indeed. Is it a lighting issue or is my camera just not good enough?

I will post an example here.

Tasukete!

[By-Tor]

Hi Anguz,

to become a good watch photographer requires a lot of practice and trial & error (to learn from your mistakes). But shooting watches can be incredibly rewarding.

Pugwash's tutorials are a great start (see the stickies in that subforum)

http://www.rwgforum.com/forum/166-pugwashs-tips-tricks-tutorials/

[lanikai]

what setting do you have your camera on Anuz ??? is it a point and shoot..

if it's on auto focus a lot of time the light bouncing off the watch confuses the camera's auto focus..

do you have a "close up" mode.. or you may have to manual focus if not.. or your too close to the lens..if the lens does not have a macro mode..

lighting is key once you have the focus down.. a lot of members have inexpensive camera's but use photoshop to process their images.. you can "clean up" the image.. unbelievable what you can do.. Pugs has great tutorials on this topic here.. and BT takes some amazing photo's with a simple point and shoot I believe..

some use mobile phones and photoshop and create some amazing images..

ya just need to practice and fool around with the setting on your camera.. knowing your equipment is important.. me.. I haven't even read the users manual on mine.. just a lot of reps and practice... sheesh if I ever took time to read books on photography I'd be dangerous..

the watch hobby got me into the photo hobby.. someday I should look into photographing more than watches..

Hope tha helps somewhat.. but please read the tutorials ..

good luck

AC

Lani

[Anguz]

Hey Lani and BT,

I am not the greatest photographer and don't know about all the funtions on the camera, though I do try to play around with it.

I didn't see the tutorials section for some reason, however, I shall check it out now.

Thanks and Cheers!

[freddy333]

Ditto By-Tor's recommendation.

A few steps that help -

• Use your camera's (Macro) setting (refer to your manual for details on its operation)
  
• Position the watch for minimal reflections in the dial/crystal
  
• Best location & time to shoot is outside at sunrise/sunset - when the light is diffuse but not dark
  

[Anguz]

PS Lani,

Living in Hawai'i, there must be some lovely ladies you could get to model for you? Flash a grin, a watch, and a photo or two...not bad for a day's work?

Cheers

[By-Tor]

I have an expensive Canon 7D DSLR and a basic PowerShot A520. I have shot watch photos with both but I haven't seen any difference in results (in the lightbox setting). ZERO. I prefer my PowerShot in watch photos because it's more handy in many ways.

Camera means probably about 0.5% in lightbox watch photos, when you have the ideal lighting. Better camera can only correct (some) problems of the insufficient setup but it doesn't make anyone's bad pictures any better. It can only make them "a bit less awful".

Macros and natural lighting... then it's a different ballgame of course. More advanced camera also has its advantages in very, very large resolutions (we use very large resolutions in the magazine where I'm an editor at) but then again such resolutions are completely useless here as we resize our photos to small dimensions.

It's the most common misunderstanding when people wonder about the bad quality... they usually blame the camera when they should blame their setup. Buying a new camera won't help... just like wearing Diego Maradona's shoes won't make anyone a genius football player.

[Anguz]

Tried a bunch via instructions on Pugwash's part 1...still didn't turn out as I though.I think the trial and error begins now. Hopefully by the time I have some cool reps, I'll have figured something out as I practice on my Bulova M7.

I already burned through a couple of duracells, man does this camera eat the juice out of these things!

Thanks a lot BT, and as always, Lani.

Cheers.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Anguz

[Anguz]

Hey Freddy,

I will attempt to figure out the macros setting online, as I never had a booklet for my camera, I bought it second hand.

Thanks for the tip though...I will check it out.

[Anguz]

I just found out that my camera is fuxed-focus and has no macros...[censored]!

[hiker01]

Tried a bunch via instructions on Pugwash's part 1...still didn't turn out as I though.I think the trial and error begins now. Hopefully by the time I have some cool reps, I'll have figured something out as I practice on my Bulova M7.

I already burned through a couple of duracells, man does this camera eat the juice out of these things!

Thanks a lot BT, and as always, Lani.

Cheers.

Dude...be kind to the environment and save some money to buy your next watch and use rechargeable! SAnyo eneloop is the best I have used so far........

...and I beg to disagree just a little bit with BT and the resolution.....I shot in the highest resolution that my camera allow for the exact reason that when we post, we reduce/rezize, and when we do we lose detail and sharpness.......but then again I'm not a PRO and I could be wrong on this! Maybe I'll learn some more..........

Good luck and have fun shooting!!!

[By-Tor]

@HikeUSA: I think you misunderstood me... my bad, I probably didn't explain it very clearly... yes of course we shoot in the highest resolution. But all basic (decent) cameras have the option to shoot in resolutions high enough. Something like 2272 x 1704 is enough.

I was talking about really, really big resolutions that are required when you take pictures for magazines (I work in one). The requirements are different and those resolutions aren't needed in watch photography (when the photos are taken only Internet in mind).

[hiker01]

@HikeUSA: I think you misunderstood me... my bad, I probably didn't explain it very clearly... yes of course we shoot in the highest resolution. But all basic (decent) cameras have the option to shoot in resolutions high enough. Something like 2272 x 1704 is enough.

I was talking about really, really big resolutions that are required when you take pictures for magazines (I work in one). The requirements are different and those resolutions aren't needed in watch photography (when the photos are taken only Internet in mind).

BT, but am I correct to say though????? "shoot in the highest resolution your camera allow" to compensate for lose of detial and sharpness during editing and resizing? I have read in one of my PS books that we lose about 5 to 10% sharpness as soon as we open a jpeg file to edit? I have been shooting in RAW and process in CS4 and save in jpeg post processing for posting here! Is it overkill then to try and avoid this????

Thanks!

Hike

[By-Tor]

The "raw" photo from the camera comes as a jpg. If you adjust and resave it over you will lose resolution and sharpness immediately, plus create more noise and lose quality every single time you save it over (as a JPG).

That's why you should ALWAYS resave your all "work in process" pictures only to lossless format (BMP). When you're finished with the adjustments, save it as a jpg (highest: 10 in Photoshop). 12 is useless as it provides no additional quality (nothing that a naked eye could see) and the file size difference is dramatic.

When you save the high quality JPG once, you will lose something from the lossless format... but it's nothing that a naked eye could see (providing you do it only once). Always keep a BMP version of your images (if you want to edit them later and maintain the maximum quality).

[Utheman]

BT, but am I correct to say though????? "shoot in the highest resolution your camera allow" to compensate for lose of detial and sharpness during editing and resizing? I have read in one of my PS books that we lose about 5 to 10% sharpness as soon as we open a jpeg file to edit? I have been shooting in RAW and process in CS4 and save in jpeg post processing for posting here! Is it overkill then to try and avoid this????

Thanks!

Hike

That's right Hike. Start with the highest resolution and then edit it down. As far as jpegs go, you only lose resolution when you save or re-save the file in jpg format, not when you open it.

ww

[P4GTR]

Heres a few tips from a guy with a point and shoot.

If your not going to get a SLR/lightbox/time machine, etc..

dude. Get a big piece of white paper. The posterboard. Its 50 cents at crafts stores. set it up under some good lighting or outside. Slap it up against a wall, etc. Look at how the shadows are cast on your subject.

make sure your lens is clean. Make sure your using the correct mode. Use auto, use macro. Try with and without flash. prop the camera on something, dont hold it.

Use microsoft vista to adjust the pics a little bit. if you have it.

$100 point and shoot, 50 cent piece of paper, the right light/settings, and a place to rest the camera...

They aren't that good, but it was EASY to get to at least this level.

First pic is outdoors during sunset, the rest are indoors.

[P4GTR]

The "raw" photo from the camera comes as a jpg. If you adjust and resave it over you will lose resolution and sharpness immediately, plus create more noise and lose quality every single time you save it over (as a JPG).

That's why you should ALWAYS resave your all "work in process" pictures only to lossless format (BMP). When you're finished with the adjustments, save it as a jpg (highest: 10 in Photoshop). 12 is useless as it provides no additional quality (nothing that a naked eye could see) and the file size difference is dramatic.

When you save the high quality JPG once, you will lose something from the lossless format... but it's nothing that a naked eye could see (providing you do it only once). Always keep a BMP version of your images (if you want to edit them later and maintain the maximum quality).

So many good tips, especially this- I had no idea.

[hiker01]

The "raw" photo from the camera comes as a jpg.

Really???......I did not know that! You learn something everyday! I thought if you open it in PS as RAW it stays that way until you save it as jpg! Wow! See.....this is something you don't learn from the books.......or maybe I have to read more books

[lanikai]

PS Lani,

Living in Hawai'i, there must be some lovely ladies you could get to model for you? Flash a grin, a watch, and a photo or two...not bad for a day's work?

Cheers

heheee.. that's Hikes forte... but yeah there are some babes that would look good with thongs and a watch..

[Anguz]

In Niagara Falls here, I could get them to pose with a smile, a watch, and an unknown fatherless child...that's just how they roll here...cociane is a hell of a drug!

Cheers

[By-Tor]

I just found out that my camera is fuxed-focus and has no macros...[censored]!

You can throw that camera away then. It's completely useless for watch photos.

Buy a decent camera. "Decent" doesn't mean expensive... it just means something that has the basic macro options.

Good luck!

[Anguz]

I will keep it I think, for scenery and such. Next year I should be able to get a better camera...I am a student/hobo right now

London 2010, is when I should make my fortune, and by fortune I mean...more than a student, but slightly less than a chav.

[freddy333]

Anguz - Most of my wristies were taken with my 7 year old 4MP Canon A80 point-&-shoot (in Macro mode) & I cannot imagine your camera being much lower end than that. If your 2nd-hand camera is a major brand (Canon, Kodak, Sony, Nikon, etc) & 2MP or higher, it almost definitely has a Macro setting. You should be able to download a user manual for your camera model from the vendor's website. Or just look for the little (Macro) flower icon on the switches & wheels on the camera body. If it is not on the body, it may be switched on/off via 1 of the menu settings. But if the camera is less than 10 years old, it almost definitely has a Macro feature.

Often, you may need to shoot 50 shots to get THE 1 shot you want (this is typical of most photographers).

[fakemaster]

There are a few exceptions but most of the pics I see are PS'd.

[Pugwash]

There are a few exceptions but most of the pics I see are PS'd.

Most photographs you see of anything are photoshopped. Photoshopping is merely the last stage of taking a photo.