ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

GradyPhilpott · 27 February 2013, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benlee

I think I am finally getting the hang of it. Aperture f/16 and a higher ISO at 1600 seems to do the trick. What do you all think?

Pretty good!

benlee · 27 February 2013, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfer

Read up a little on camera exposure and you'll start to figure it out. As you close down the aperture, the shutter speed needs more time to gather the necessary light so you either need a tripod to be rock steady while lens is open or you need more light to decrease the time the lens needs to be open.

Do an experiment like this.
Get a tripod, set up camera and put in aperture mode and start out wide open. Take a shot, close down aperture on step, take another shot, close down, another shot and so on. Then review your pictures.

There are also depth of field charts you can download so you know approximately what setting to use based on lens, distance from target and how much you want in focus (aka brokeh)

Thank you for your suggestion. I will try your idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMT

It's great to see the evolution of the shots as you continue to experiment. There is nothing that I can add, advice-wise, that the good learned folks here have not already shared. Great thread!

Thanks Chris!

Quote:

Originally Posted by salem65

The photos are much better!

I would suggest that you stop the second hand to so that it doesn't blur.
Also, your light is quite harsh and blowing out the highlights. You should diffuse it with some thin paper or bounce it off a reflector.

ISO 1600 is quite high, but your shots look good from what I can tell. It is always nice to shoot at your camera's base iso, in oder to get the cleanest file. You will be able to drop your iso with better lighting and tripod.

Are you shooting in RAW or jpeg?

I am using Tripod but I didn't stop the watch. Not quite sure how because pulling out the crown, the second watch still goes tickling.

I agree with you the lighting is quite harsh. That's because I am taking the pictures in my bedroom at night, probably not the best setting. I shoot this in JPEG, not RAW.

BTW, how do I know what is my camera base ISO?

Quote:

Originally Posted by joeychitwood

Big improvement over the first photo you posted. Keep experimenting with ISO, f-stop and shutter speed settings. When I go outside to shoot star or Milky Way photos, I probably try 20-30 different combinations of settings, then go inside and decide on the best.

Thanks for your suggestion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GradyPhilpott

Pretty good!

Thanks! But not good enough yet I think.

salem65 · 27 February 2013, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benlee

BTW, how do I know what is my camera base ISO?

Nikons are usually iso 200 as base. You can look it up in your specs, but it is usually the lowest iso, without extending.

benlee · 27 February 2013, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salem65

Nikons are usually iso 200 as base. You can look it up in your specs, but it is usually the lowest iso, without extending.

Correct me if I am wrong, but at very low ISO like 200, unless I am shooting in the dark, won't I be sacrificing sharpness and clarity?

salem65 · 27 February 2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benlee

Correct me if I am wrong, but at very low ISO like 200, unless I am shooting in the dark, won't I be sacrificing sharpness and clarity?

In my experience, you will always get a better quality image with a lower iso. Even in daylight with a high iso, the sensor may produce some noise that is visible in the shadows. I always shoot at the lowest iso I can, and I rarely ever go over 400; most of my stuff is at 100. It does come down to your own style and what light is available. You are definitely heading in the right direction

Are you shooting in RAW?

benlee · 28 February 2013, 02:34 AM

I just took these trial shoots. Still using f/16 aperture at 1600 ISO with a different watch. I will try the ISO200-400 maybe for a later daylight shots. I am glad I did not ditch my 105mm lens. It does with proper settings takes amazing watch pictures!

joeychitwood · 28 February 2013, 07:18 AM

Nice shots, Ben. You are improving at a very rapid rate.

Jocke · 28 February 2013, 07:30 AM

I use a Nikon D700 with a Nikon 105mm macro lens and you don't get a sharper lens.

I just shot this one, sharp and crisp all over the place. Practice is the secret when it comes to watch photography.

joeychitwood · 28 February 2013, 07:43 AM

Jocke, how are you lighting your beautiful photo above?

benlee · 28 February 2013, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salem65

In my experience, you will always get a better quality image with a lower iso. Even in daylight with a high iso, the sensor may produce some noise that is visible in the shadows. I always shoot at the lowest iso I can, and I rarely ever go over 400; most of my stuff is at 100.

Can you share here some of your watch shots? Will love to see them.

bondtoys · 28 February 2013, 06:02 PM

... also the white balance is off. Do you have it set to sunlight?

benlee · 28 February 2013, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bondtoys

... also the white balance is off. Do you have it set to sunlight?

It's not off. It's the actual lighting in the room where I took these shots.

benlee · 28 February 2013, 10:32 PM

Taken under fluorescent light.

benlee · 1 March 2013, 12:27 AM

Two more trial shots of my Rolex Explorer II. f/16, ISO 1600..

rohardi · 11 March 2013, 12:15 PM

Wow Ben, Impressive shots! Lots of good info here. Thanks for the link!

28 February 2013, 07:30 AM	#38
Jocke 2024 SubLV41 Pledge Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Real Name: Jocke Location: Sweden Watch: A dozen of Rolex's Posts: 22,541	I use a Nikon D700 with a Nikon 105mm macro lens and you don't get a sharper lens. I just shot this one, sharp and crisp all over the place. Practice is the secret when it comes to watch photography. __________________ This message is written in perfect swenglish. What is best a custom Rolex or a Rolex that is stuck in custom? Buy a professional camera and you´re a professional photographer, buy a flute and you own a flute.

28 February 2013, 02:34 AM	#36
benlee "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: Ben Location: SIN & JKT Watch: Rolex, AP, PP Posts: 9,874	I just took these trial shoots. Still using f/16 aperture at 1600 ISO with a different watch. I will try the ISO200-400 maybe for a later daylight shots. I am glad I did not ditch my 105mm lens. It does with proper settings takes amazing watch pictures!

28 February 2013, 07:18 AM	#37
joeychitwood "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Way Up North USA Watch: Rolexes & Tudors Posts: 6,361	Nice shots, Ben. You are improving at a very rapid rate.

28 February 2013, 07:43 AM	#39
joeychitwood "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Way Up North USA Watch: Rolexes & Tudors Posts: 6,361	Jocke, how are you lighting your beautiful photo above?

28 February 2013, 06:02 PM	#41
bondtoys "TRF" Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: World Watch: 16750 Posts: 2,733	... also the white balance is off. Do you have it set to sunlight?

28 February 2013, 10:32 PM	#43
benlee "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: Ben Location: SIN & JKT Watch: Rolex, AP, PP Posts: 9,874	Taken under fluorescent light.

1 March 2013, 12:27 AM	#44
benlee "TRF" Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Real Name: Ben Location: SIN & JKT Watch: Rolex, AP, PP Posts: 9,874	Two more trial shots of my Rolex Explorer II. f/16, ISO 1600..

11 March 2013, 12:15 PM	#45
rohardi "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Rhode Island USA Watch: 116610LN, 216570 Posts: 787	Wow Ben, Impressive shots! Lots of good info here. Thanks for the link!

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)