Should watch pictures be treated with Photoshop ?

[AMK000]

This has been mentioned in the past

[Pugwash]

I've used Photoshop on my pictures since 1993 and I have no intention of stopping. I'm not taking photos out of journalistic integrity; I don't see a penny from this hobby and I don't have an ombudsman to answer to.

However, in my trade shots and wrist shots, you'll see untouched photos.

[Victoria]

So my opinion is:

For trade

No Photoshop.

reviews

Photoshop okay.

comparison purposes

No Photoshop or with before/afters showing alteration.

My 2 drachmas.

[Pugwash]

If you imagine that Rolex and Omega use Photoshop in their adverts, it's kind of silly to expect us amateurs not to follow suit.

[giorgio]

I think it's fine to use Photoshop on pictures. It's the digital equivalent to a darkroom. Photographers use chemicals to change exposure, colour balance, contrast, saturation, etc when developing film and I don't think too many people would complain about that. Even the guys at your local Wal-mart or whatever do it. As long as your not smoothing out a scratch, or filling in worn parts, etc. I'd say it's even acceptable in ads. How many times have you heard a seller say something like "it's more brown than the pic makes it look"? That's what Photoshop is for.

[Pix]

Hi,

legitimate question.

Well, sharing pictures is for me a big part of the hobby. And I can't imagine sharing poor pictures, even if I sometimes do

What's the difference between a photoshoped picture and a raw one taken in excellent light condition and 0 reflection situation ? Does one have to post ugly pictures to show how a watch is ? Where's the limit between reality and arranged shots ?

I think you can see "the real" thing from some of the dealer's pictures, and also everyone should think before buying : for instance, if a watch is advertized without AR, but appears without reflection on pics, and unless the reviewer specifically comments that the reflection is absent/present, the reader should wonder and consider that the picture has been receiving some "make-up". And make-up is just highliting the existing beauty ( (a lady, please step in... )

In any case, he can ask the reviewer about any information he needs to make his decision. One should not believe pictures only. Basically, all pictures around, in any catalogue and on many websites have been photoshoped.

When I look at a watch shot, my expectation is to "tease my eyes", not to watch at a documentary or a dissection.

That's my hobby, that's my pleasure, I like to share it, but won't share it "under conditions". I don't want to endorse the responsibilty of someone else's purchase (good or bad).

[freddy333]

I think if the poster's intention is to clarify or reveal more details of a photograph, then it is a good thing. But if you are using a photo editor to change/modify or obfuscate details (to deceive), then it is criminal.

[LastDiplomat]

I agree that Photoshop should be avoided in trades/sales. Unfortunately, many dealers use Photoshop on their pictures to some degree. Softening reflections and giving watches a polished look that they may not have in real life. While it's usually easy to tell when an image has been manipulated, it still makes it difficult to see what you're really going to get when you order.

[Pix]

Hiding a defect is condemnable. But you don't need PS for that...

[AMK000]

However, in my trade shots and wrist shots, you'll see untouched photos.

That's the spirit

[AMK000]

My 2 drachmas.

My swett little drachma ...... for collection purposes now I am afraid.

---------------------------------

Back to the subject:

I understand the "hobby" side of it (retouching the pictures) and that's OK, but when trading , reviewing and comparing , people they try to judge both from the comments as well as from the look of the watch.

To me retouching the pictures is exactly the same as the Fashion and Goship magazines (btw , I dont read them, I hate them)

[jiro]

hmm....guess I should say good bye to my photoshop tutorial~ hahahahaha LOL

i don't see anything wrong with using photoshop tho....as long as it's not over done in sales...

I for one don't believe I take good pictures....color wise....There are a lot of times when I get wrong color...

..little redish....sometimes little yellowish....

so I use photoshop to correct these color all the time.....

All in all...If using photoshop to make the watch look like what it's supposed to look like is wrong.......I dunno what to tell ya~

[giorgio]

To me retouching the pictures are exactly the same as the Fashion and Goship magazines (btw , I dont read them, I hate them) which are removing the wrinkles and other "imperfections" from the models and the celebrities.

I think that's the misconception most people have about Photoshop. They equate "Photoshop" with "airbrushing". I agree that if you are smoothing, smudging, or otherwise manipulating a part of the picture to hide something in a trade ad, that's wrong. But in every other case most poeple's raw photo's look nothing like the actual thing that they're photographing. In real life , the only time you will see a "raw" photo is if you have a Poloroid. Even the tech at your local one hour photo usually "enhances" and "corrects" your pictures without your knowledge.

[giorgio]

...If using photoshop to make the watch look like what it's supposed to look like is wrong.......I dunno what to tell ya~

Well put.

[Emmzy]

Obvious isn't it? Don't enhance photos of a sale/trade item to a degree where they misrepresent the watch for sale/trade.

For photo sharing, boasting, bragging and sheer showing off either the finished photo or your stunning purchase/modification by all means use the best camera availabe with the snazziest software.

Me, I use my Canon EOS 400D on the 'P' setting with a lot of Spanish sunlight and Picasa 2 irons out my amateurish attempts.

My 2 pesetas worth.

[UB7]

Completely agree with everything thats been said ...In the collectors section, and on sites that sell the watches I think just normal light box pictures with no photoshop is mandatory..I mean we want to see the exact product we are getting not a photoshopped pic...But for wrist shots, reviews, showing off and stuff like that I think that photoshop is great...I've been trying to teach myself PS tips since I joined, and also the camera(and ps) tutorials are phenomenal(jiro)...The quality of pictures when I first joined don't hold a candle to the quality of pics I post now...Thanks RWG!!

Edited October 24, 2007 by UB7

[Corgi]

As an amateur photographer, I like to use photoshop to correct the problems in many of the photos I take. That being said, I try to avoid over-using it. I also never crop out damaged portioned of watches, like a permanent blemish and so on... there are limits, and I find photoshop is of excellent personal use to repair aesthetic mistakes, but I do agree should not be used to 'cover up' blemishes or debris; especially during a sale.

[Bazz]

Obviously using it in the trade section to misrepresent an item is not on but for wallpapers etc I say knock yourself out.

Some of use probably use it less than you think.

[Pugwash]

Some of use probably use it less than you think.

... and more than you'd think, at the same time.

[Bazz]

Yea, I know I have some that I have put quite a lot of work into but generally speaking most of mine are just cropped, sharpened and levels adjusted.

Once I understood how to use the manual functions it makes it a lot easier to get right 'in camera'

[TeeJay]

On a personal level, I'd say if it's a sale/trade photo, then it should be un-touched (other than re-sizing the image) If it's purely a display shot, then sure, why not be artistic. On a technical level, I think catalogues and whatnots often have a blurb stating that the purchased product might not exactly match the stock photo. Maybe that kind of standard might be worth considering, providing such disclaimers are clearly displayed.

[Pix]

Hi,

I'm wondering about the background of the thread...

If the intention is to say "don't hide defects in watches for sales", that makes sense. But again, you don't need Photoshop to cheat : have the problematic part of the watch not pictured, hide you have a defective movement etc... The question is not about using artifices, but about being honest. I think there's no direct relation between both things.

[AMK000]

Hi,

I'm wondering about the background of the thread...

If the intention is to say "don't hide defects in watches for sales", that makes sense. But again, you don't need Photoshop to cheat : have the problematic part of the watch not pictured, hide you have a defective movement etc... The question is not about using artifices, but about being honest. I think there's no direct relation between both things.

The intention behind this topic is to state that when reviewing, trading , comparing etc....through

[Pugwash]

The intention behind this topic is to state that when reviewing, trading , comparing etc....through pictures, try to show how the watch really looks like in bear nak

d eyes.

... and that takes an awful lot of photoshop to achieve.

[Dizzy]

i think photoshop is fine becasue like it was said earlier.. its the digital equivilant of better photographer. for example my photoshopped pics are VERY poor incomparison to unmodded pics from someone like Pug. But when you start erasing flaws or making changes to misrepresent the item, then thats just being dishonest. But the question is... how does a buyer know if the pic has been photo-chopped or not? Maybe we need to put a disclaimer in our sales posts that the photos are not modded to misrepresent the items in any way.