C&C "Watch"

Clawed · May 2, 2009

I took this pic of my wife's watch. Let me know what you think! (CLICK INTO IT OR IT GIVES AN UGLY RESIZE)

UPDATE (added pic 1): Does the first work any better?

fast1 · May 2, 2009

nice! watch looks expensive as well

LaFoto · May 2, 2009

I lke how the glittering background helps point out that it is a glittering watch. Usually I would think this background is too busy, but for some reason I can't really point out well enough, it works fine (for me) here! DOF is a bit shallow, though, it would have been nice to also have the near rim of stones in focus.

Clawed · May 2, 2009

LaFoto said:
I lke how the glittering background helps point out that it is a glittering watch. Usually I would think this background is too busy, but for some reason I can't really point out well enough, it works fine (for me) here! DOF is a bit shallow, though, it would have been nice to also have the near rim of stones in focus.

Ahh, yes, I would have liked to get a bit more in focus as I shot this at f/2.0. I just wanted the background to blur out as much as possible.

Thanks a lot for looking though!

Sherman Banks · May 2, 2009

Nice bokeh. I actually would've like this with just the background, no watch.

Clawed · May 2, 2009

Sherman Banks said:
Nice bokeh. I actually would've like this with just the background, no watch.

It's funny you say that. It does almost feel as if the watch is in the way... Thanks!

Photoadder · May 2, 2009

Another advert photo ;-) Nice.

bluemary · May 2, 2009

I like both of them, and the watch does look expensive. which works better in the first picture I think, because the colors make it look more luxurious and classy.

Clawed · May 2, 2009

Photoadder said:
Another advert photo ;-) Nice.

I suppose not a very good advert. photo though... the hands covered the name

SrBiscuit · May 4, 2009

+1 for bokeh

inTempus · May 4, 2009

#1: The lack of focus on the whole watch face is the biggest ding on this pic. Also, there's a light band across the lower left side of the image that's very distracting. I know it's just part of the background lighting, but it looks odd because it goes dark then all of a sudden a band of light appears.

#2: The whole image is too dark (under exposed) and the white balance if off. The watch face looks yellowish. The lack of focus is also distracting.

Good shots though. I know how hard it is to shoot watches, especially if you use a strobe of any sort... Natural lighting does help with the glare issue, but then you're forced to use a really wide aperture (in this case) which leads to a partially out of focus subject.

Clawed · May 4, 2009

tharmsen said:
#1: The lack of focus on the whole watch face is the biggest ding on this pic. Also, there's a light band across the lower left side of the image that's very distracting. I know it's just part of the background lighting, but it looks odd because it goes dark then all of a sudden a band of light appears.

#2: The whole image is too dark (under exposed) and the white balance if off. The watch face looks yellowish. The lack of focus is also distracting.

Good shots though. I know how hard it is to shoot watches, especially if you use a strobe of any sort... Natural lighting does help with the glare issue, but then you're forced to use a really wide aperture (in this case) which leads to a partially out of focus subject.

It's difficult to understand how you can point out so many negatives, but then add "Good shots though..."

I took these with almost no light at all (a small flashlight... I'm not even sure what a 'strobe' is). Therefore, there is very little DoF. As far as the white balance goes, I know that it's off in one shot and it was intentional. However, I agree that it does not look right, especially after posting a second shot that is correct. You mention the distracting band of light in the first... I can definitely see that as a problem, so thank you for bringing an outside perspective on that.

Thank you for taking a look and the time to post your thoughts

SrBiscuit · May 4, 2009

Clawed said:
It's difficult to understand how you can point out so many negatives, but then add "Good shots though..."

i think it;s meant to help balance out the "harsh factor"...leaves the comment on an encouraging note.
i find myself doing it too.

inTempus · May 4, 2009

Right, I'm just pointing out some things that I noticed since you asked for a critique (that's what C&C means

). I didn't want you thinking the shots suck because they don't. Most of the issues can be fixed in post production with the exception of focus. That's one of those "I'll do things differently next time" things.

When I shoot stuff like this, I always shoot it with different settings. I would have taken the aperture up a couple of stops and shot with the same composition. That gives you some latitude after the shoot to find shots you like. If you couldn't go up a couple of stops due to lack of light, you might want to look into some lighting solutions. There's pretty cost effective ways to get proper lighting, and lots of good info can be found here: Strobist

Clawed · May 4, 2009

tharmsen said:
Right, I'm just pointing out some things that I noticed since you asked for a critique (that's what C&C means ). I didn't want you thinking the shots suck because they don't. Most of the issues can be fixed in post production with the exception of focus. That's one of those "I'll do things differently next time" things.

When I shoot stuff like this, I always shoot it with different settings. I would have taken the aperture up a couple of stops and shot with the same composition. That gives you some latitude after the shoot to find shots you like. If you couldn't go up a couple of stops due to lack of light, you might want to look into some lighting solutions. There's pretty cost effective ways to get proper lighting, and lots of good info can be found here: Strobist

No, I totally understand it's a C&C, and I can take criticism pretty well. In fact, I appreciate the negs more since I can take a harsh look myself and improve (what I am saying is I am sorry, I did not mean to come off the way I did).

I took these in RAW, which is why I tried a couple different WBs. Also, I did not want more depth of field since I did not want the background in focus (I used glass spice bottles to create the background effect and shot the light from the flashlight into them).

Thanks for the link! I have heard the word 'stobes' used, but wasn't sure if it was a general lighting term or a specific type of lighting. I will definitely check it out.