ryyannon Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ubi's original series (especially the first two) displays great class - as opposed to the technical perfection of the 'corrected' versions. It's whatever floats your boat, but I'll pick the former over the latter every time. So nice to see watch pics that don't look like adverts for surgical instruments.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usil Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 I like the first torchlite and the granite shot. Not bad and you did say these were an experiment so keep at it. Variety is the spice of life. Usil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Yeah, forgot to say that I like the torchlight shots as well. Third is very, very nice!!! And I agree with Ryyyyyyanon: whatever floats your boat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvt Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 For me the key to any studio shot is in the lighting. People rely on photoshop way to heavily. It drives me crazy because I lot of younger photographers (I am talking pros here, not hobbyist whom which I think this is fine) have no clue how to light something. They take poor shots and then spend hours trying to make them acceptable in PS. If you light something and expose it properly you need very very little PS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 For me the key to any studio shot is in the lighting. People rely on photoshop way to heavily. It drives me crazy because I lot of younger photographers (I am talking pros here, not hobbyist whom which I think this is fine) have no clue how to light something. They take poor shots and then spend hours trying to make them acceptable in PS. If you light something and expose it properly you need very very little PS. I guess that goes without saying. But people see pics differently. I often drag my fiancee to the computer and ask her opinion about some pics I've taken (which pisses her off). She likes some of my pics, but sometimes when I think I've managed to shoot exceptionally good one she mercilessly puts it down. I thought this PO shot was one of the best I've taken (almost zero PS used by the way) the judgment was just harsh: "That's one boring shot!" But I like it... and that's all that matters (to me). So asking opinion about pics is difficult... especially if you're only after positive comments. Just like people reacting differently to art. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flavor flav Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 randy, i'm not a fan of the filtered pics. probably because i enjoy your trademarked granite pics so much. ubi pics without granite are like FF/913 pics without wood Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 And btw Randy: This is one of my favourite shots of yours. I have it saved on my hard drive. Outstanding shot... pure art!!! The watch isn't bad, either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikellem Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ubi, Great Shots! I like it very much.. -MM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devedander Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 (edited) If you start desaturating you have to remove all reflected saturated light from the whole surface (imho). Dave's picture has the same problem as the original... but instead of being too red it's now too green. Interesting... I just had it in my head the granite had that much green in it... it's intersesting what your mind comes up with as "right" given any specific starting point. I have to say though that I feel 100% dessaturation again sticks out as wrong to the eye because the metal should pick up some of the surrounding colors. It's one of those things that I feel isn't often picked out as wrong, but which does feel out of place to the viewing eye... @ubi glad no hard feelings. To each their own, and I definitely tend towards the boring, standard "correct" way of things in many cases, which certainly isn't by any means necessarily "right". @ And Bytor I agree, that shot is very good... I am still not a big fan of the super bright highlight but the stark black face creates enough contrast to balance it out. Not to mention the gradation and edge detail are gorgeous on the bracelet... Edited December 17, 2006 by Devedander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 So nice to see watch pics that don't look like adverts for surgical instruments.... I take two kinds of photos and one of the kinds is your surgical instruments style. The reason I take some clinical shots is that it shows the rep objectively. For review purposes, it never pays to try to be too clever, which is why my review shots are less interesting than my pure eyecandy. Even then, review shots can be made less boring with angles and composition, but they'll never really be as aesthetically pleasing as the ones taken to be pretty. However, By-Tor manages to get prettier review pictures than me, just to make things annoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 If you light something and expose it properly you need very very little PS. I find if a picture is evenly lit, it needs no Photoshop at all and Picasa or iPhoto will be all you need to fine-tune the levels, colours, etc,, and crop it for a computer screen. Photoshop is, however, needed to get around the technical limitations of your equipment, like noise-reduction and dust-cleaning as a well-lit watch can be covered in some well-lit dust. Unless you have a clean-room, this is inevitable. I prefer to use photoshop to make a photo closer to what I actually saw with my eyes instead of what the lens saw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 I thought this PO shot was one of the best I've taken (almost zero PS used by the way) the judgment was just harsh: "That's one boring shot!" See, I like that shot enough to forgive the noise on the dial. Sometimes looking for the faults means you miss the gorgeous photo. "It's like a finger pointing at the moon ... don't look at the finger or you'll miss all that heavenly glory." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Interesting... I just had it in my head the granite had that much green in it... it's intersesting what your mind comes up with as "right" given any specific starting point. I have to say though that I feel 100% dessaturation again sticks out as wrong to the eye because the metal should pick up some of the surrounding colors. It's one of those things that I feel isn't often picked out as wrong, but which does feel out of place to the viewing eye... Yes... I said my "corrected" shot was dead wrong too, just for the reasons you mentioned. It's impossible to make it look natural... when the picture is grossly oversaturated and has white balance wrong. See, I like that shot enough to forgive the noise on the dial. Sometimes looking for the faults means you miss the gorgeous photo. Thanks. This is something I'd like to have people's opinion of: I could correct all noise from the dial with ease... but wouldn't that be considered manipulation? The pic is almost completely untouched (save the contrast/brightness setting). If I'd "fix" the dial it wouldn't be natural anymore. Right? Or would you just consider that "natural enchancing"? Where do you put the line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Or would you just consider that "natural enchancing"? Where do you put the line? I'd do it because you're just counteracting a side effect of digital photography. The line is simple. As soon as you touched the brightness/contrast setting, you crossed it. There's another line further down the road, but noise-reduction doesn't even get close to it. If you pick up a brush or clone tool, that's a different matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubiquitous Posted December 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Hey gang, Thank you everyone for your thoughts, comments and opinions All much appreciated! I learned a lot from this thread... Mostly that I have a lot more learning to do! I do appreciate the honesty by all, positive or negative, as it helps me understand what I need to do to improve. So, for that... Thank you! So... For the next 3 or so weeks, while I am at home looking for something to do as I twiddle my thumbs, I will work on trying to apply what's been suggested here All the best... R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Ok Puggy... I reduced the noise from the black dial. Just simple magic wand -> fill. Frankly, I don't see much difference... or improvement. I guess the monitor plays a big role too. It looks almost exactly the same in 1024x768... on my screen. I know there was some natural noise... but not so much that I would have been bothered. Perhaps people who use modern hi-tech monitors and bigger resolutions can spot these things easier? I shoot all my "studio shots" in "Fluorescent light" mode in my camera. It gives pretty good white balance... but reducing "cyan" just a little bit from the saturation menu is sometimes required. Sometimes I take 5-10 shots and just direct the light a bit differently in each shot. I don't pretend to be any kind of pro...it's more like the "million monkeys" thing for me. Eventually you just come up with a good one. And besides... I've seen lots of people bragging about their equipment and technical knowledge in the gen watch forums... and their shots aren't anything special. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Yes, much clearer. I can see the edges faintly if I look, but that's only because I know you did something. If I didn't know beforehand, I'd think it was perfect, so think of it as spot-on. Perhaps people who use modern hi-tech monitors and bigger resolutions can spot these things easier? I'm on a calibrated LCD and I could see the noise. Maybe it's not so visible on CRTs? And besides... I've seen lots of people bragging about their equipment and technical knowledge in the gen watch forums... and their shots aren't anything special. I see that here too. Oh, but then I look at what TTK does and am reminded what all that stuff is for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slay Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 I really like the granite pictures, in my opinion they are your trademark! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
By-Tor Posted December 17, 2006 Report Share Posted December 17, 2006 Oh, but then I look at what TTK does and am reminded what all that stuff is for. Yep... what I really admire in Neils photos is the way he brings up the bracelet. I've noticed that you need to have exact lighting if you want to bring up the details of the bracelet finish. If you use too much light the details disappear... and if you use too little you get grainy, dull and noisy look. The PO doesn't have very noticeable satin finish (gen or rep)... but I managed to capture my TAG bracelet quite nicely in this shot (another million monkeys thing perhaps). But then again the satin finish is more obvious on the watch. For a shot like this natural lighting and forcing the bracelet reflect white (white A4 paper) works for me. And dark reflector card over the dial. But then again this is by far the toughest of my watches to photograph. No AR coating, polished bezel and very exceptional dial design. 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.