Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye
Like Tree5Likes

Thread: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    317

    Unhappy Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    I've noticed that when I take a photo of a watch (and I'm just using an iPhone XS Max) there are details which are clearer than viewing the watch with my eyes. The details on the screen, any writing of numbers, the features on the face - all become clearer.

    Does this mean that the camera is better than my own eyes. I'll admit to being 52 and a little short sided.
    brandon\ likes this.

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    18

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamnine View Post
    Does this mean that the camera is better than my own eyes.
    Not exactly, unless you have some significant vision problems, your eyes are "capturing" images with higher resolution and dynamic range. It's no contest. When you take a photo with your phone, and then look at it either on the phone screen or computer screen, you are seeing the details better because they are larger - think of it like a magnifying glass. But, it's not that simple, your brain is also constantly doing adaptive processing - so even though the visual data is present, your brain is filtering some of that information out, so you won't "see" certain details. If you look at your watch close enough (or use a magnification device) and long enough (to give yourself time to focus/concentrate on the object) you will be able to see all of the same details, and then some.
    Vlance and drw2 like this.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    3,062

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    Why would it be any clearer if you are then looking the picture with your own eyes? Makes no sense. Maybe your brain has a problem perceiving 3D input from your eyes abd so the 2D picture looks better?

  4. #4
    Member LaneP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    South of Boston
    Posts
    376

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    That happens to me all the time, and it's a combination of having over age 50 eyes that don't resolve detail up close as well (even with 1.5x or 1.75x readers) and viewing an image that's greater than lifesize, similar to if I viewed the object under mild magnification.

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    317

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    Quote Originally Posted by timelux View Post
    Not exactly, unless you have some significant vision problems, your eyes are "capturing" images with higher resolution and dynamic range. It's no contest. When you take a photo with your phone, and then look at it either on the phone screen or computer screen, you are seeing the details better because they are larger - think of it like a magnifying glass. But, it's not that simple, your brain is also constantly doing adaptive processing - so even though the visual data is present, your brain is filtering some of that information out, so you won't "see" certain details. If you look at your watch close enough (or use a magnification device) and long enough (to give yourself time to focus/concentrate on the object) you will be able to see all of the same details, and then some.
    I think you're right and it's just a matter of magnification. I'm forever using the magnify funtion on my phone also to read fine print or numbers etched onto the back of my watch that I couldn't normally resolve.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    1,119

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    Actually, I find just the opposite when photographing for a sale piece. The camera seems to capture all of the little lines and flea bites that are barely noticeable with the eye and seems to magnify them and makes the piece look worse than it actually is.

    Conversely, the camera can also make a clean watch look that much better.
    "The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor." Vince Lombardi.



    Current watches:
    Archimedes 39mm Destro
    G-Shock

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    317

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    Lighting matters a lot too.
    Nokie and drw2 like this.

  8. #8
    Member Nokie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    24,395

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    [QUOTE]Lighting matters a lot too./QUOTE]

    Yup.
    "Either he's dead or my watch has stopped"
    Groucho Marx

    "The only reason for time is so that everything does not happen at once..."
    Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    Member sticky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    South Yorkshire
    Posts
    54,160

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    Have you seen the size of the average watch photo compared to real life? The magnificationthat you invariably achieve in such photos is a big factor.

  10. #10
    Member ZIPPER79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Northern, Ca.
    Posts
    2,322

    Re: Watches looking clearer when photographed as opposed to the naked eye

    Ooh, what side are you short on.....Mine's the right side, LOL


    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamnine View Post
    I've noticed that when I take a photo of a watch (and I'm just using an iPhone XS Max) there are details which are clearer than viewing the watch with my eyes. The details on the screen, any writing of numbers, the features on the face - all become clearer.

    Does this mean that the camera is better than my own eyes. I'll admit to being 52 and a little short sided.
    Lee Rappeport



    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________________

    PREVIOUSLY OWNED

    Glycine Vacuum, Glycine Observer (2), Glycine Power reserve DLC, Rolex sub no date(1967), Rolex sub Chronometer movement, Bulova Accutron RR edition,
    Seiko Orange monster, IWC 38mm Pilot, Chronoswiss Kairos SS, Steinhart O1V, Oris BC3, Oris triple complication, Tissot Sea Star, MK II Seafighter, Seiko SNKF11, Steinhart Ocean 44, Steinhart Ocean Black GMT, Seiko SRP 777 TURTLE, Seiko SUN045 50th Anniversary Kinetic.

    CURRENTLY OWN

    Hamilton Barton (circa 1951), Seiko SBBN035 TUNA, and a $5.00 quartz watch.....

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Replies: 17
      Last Post: July 20th, 2018, 00:26
    2. Watches That Look Good When 'Used'.
      By Eleuthera in forum Public Forum
      Replies: 51
      Last Post: November 14th, 2015, 04:13
    3. Replies: 15
      Last Post: July 15th, 2015, 08:20
    4. What brand of vintage watches should I look for when I'm at the antique shop?
      By deliverusfromgod in forum Vintage & Pocket watches
      Replies: 20
      Last Post: December 9th, 2011, 17:53
    5. Replies: 5
      Last Post: September 15th, 2007, 01:50

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •