Well they might at some point, although I think for the MIL-SHIPS the market probably prefers a mechanical movement. In general though I'm a massive fan of HAQ and high frequency quartz ... the Astronaut's in my daily rotation.
Lowest common denominator and risk management = sterile photos. Don't want to risk offending one market or another with something in the background, a tone of skin color, etc. I suspect also it's the bigger companies or companies with more in their value proposition than the story the particular watch is telling. I wouldn't be surprised if the visuals are more organic the smaller the company — the low price or newer companies are establishing their market while the high price have to margins (and hopefully taste) to make sure things look great
I know a bit about photography and Photoshop, but nothing about rendering, so here's a naive question: is creating a computer rendering of a watch that much easier/cheaper/faster than taking good photos of it? I mean, in the hands of a pro, lighting and composing a photo of a watch, and then doing some relevant Photoshop work (sharpening, tweaking contrast, etc), can't be insurmountably difficult, can it? Mind you, I'm not suggesting it's easy (I know it's anything but), but we're talking about professional photographers here, not amateurs; knowing the best and most efficient ways to take photos of challenging subjects is their job.
If the answer is yes, rendering IS that much easier/cheaper/faster, then the reason for using renderings over photos is clear. But if the answer is no, renderings are NOT that much easier/faster/cheaper, then why use them at all?
I think renderings probably are cheaper to produce – after all everything is prototyped in CAD and 3D renderings are produced before the first gear tooth gets cut so the assets exist anyway. Good product photographers aren't cheap but I've worked with some of the best (including Sherlin Beckham at 1916 Co. and the amazing Tiffany Wade at Hodinkee) and you can get really solid product shots, which are still more or less market-neutral, in a days' shooting and another half day in post, depending on the photographer.
I think the advantage with rendering is in the volume of images that can be made from the model, especially if you’re dealing with small variations (e.g. colorways, hands, &c.). Hiring a photographer to take photos of each model adds up (when I think of renders I don’t think of the Swiss—I think of Seiko and Citizen).
I’ve also been told that taking truly “neutral” photos of watches—perhaps especially affordable ones—can be a bit laborious, too, e.g. taking off crystals to ensure good definition of the dial and handset (tasks often left to the product photographer). Of course there’s no such thing as a truly neutral environment, so is it so bad to use an unreal watch for an imagingary environment?
I’m not in retail so I can’t really judge the value of neutrality to the customer—if I’m interested in a watch I’ll probably seek out images of it on people’s wrists. I think there’s value to seeing “imperfect” (or even amateur) pictures of watches in context—and going further the romantic (or LARP) value of a watch on someone exciting’s wrist is obviously a selling point—but then again I already like watches and can imagine situations where I’d own *another* one, which isn’t exactly the marginal watch consumer’s situation.
Well, I agree with you that non-professional shots of a watch often tell you more about the watch than professional photos although honestly, nowadays, it is hard to tell the difference. Smartphone cameras can take images that in terms of basic IQ are equal to anything you could have shot professionally as little as five or six years ago, and we've all seen enthusiasts – albeit sometimes enthusiasts turned full time watch content producers – producing stellar quality images under very adverse conditions at trade shows. To take just one example, Breitling's latest press kit for the Navitimer Chrono Perpetual Ice Blue included some very nice product shots. I don't think it's necessary to take off the crystal either – I've never done it nor have any of the product photographers I've worked with – a piece of black foamcore cut to fit the lens diameter lets you get away with so much 😂
It’s a pity they didn’t offer it with a precisionist movement as well!
I have the Super Seville which must be the most accurate cheap watch there is.
Cheers.
Well they might at some point, although I think for the MIL-SHIPS the market probably prefers a mechanical movement. In general though I'm a massive fan of HAQ and high frequency quartz ... the Astronaut's in my daily rotation.
Daily rotation!!!
I hear Italian enthusiasts change theirs at lunchtime.
Mines on a weekly basis,that’s what happens when you’re retired.
Lowest common denominator and risk management = sterile photos. Don't want to risk offending one market or another with something in the background, a tone of skin color, etc. I suspect also it's the bigger companies or companies with more in their value proposition than the story the particular watch is telling. I wouldn't be surprised if the visuals are more organic the smaller the company — the low price or newer companies are establishing their market while the high price have to margins (and hopefully taste) to make sure things look great
I know a bit about photography and Photoshop, but nothing about rendering, so here's a naive question: is creating a computer rendering of a watch that much easier/cheaper/faster than taking good photos of it? I mean, in the hands of a pro, lighting and composing a photo of a watch, and then doing some relevant Photoshop work (sharpening, tweaking contrast, etc), can't be insurmountably difficult, can it? Mind you, I'm not suggesting it's easy (I know it's anything but), but we're talking about professional photographers here, not amateurs; knowing the best and most efficient ways to take photos of challenging subjects is their job.
If the answer is yes, rendering IS that much easier/cheaper/faster, then the reason for using renderings over photos is clear. But if the answer is no, renderings are NOT that much easier/faster/cheaper, then why use them at all?
I think renderings probably are cheaper to produce – after all everything is prototyped in CAD and 3D renderings are produced before the first gear tooth gets cut so the assets exist anyway. Good product photographers aren't cheap but I've worked with some of the best (including Sherlin Beckham at 1916 Co. and the amazing Tiffany Wade at Hodinkee) and you can get really solid product shots, which are still more or less market-neutral, in a days' shooting and another half day in post, depending on the photographer.
I think the advantage with rendering is in the volume of images that can be made from the model, especially if you’re dealing with small variations (e.g. colorways, hands, &c.). Hiring a photographer to take photos of each model adds up (when I think of renders I don’t think of the Swiss—I think of Seiko and Citizen).
I’ve also been told that taking truly “neutral” photos of watches—perhaps especially affordable ones—can be a bit laborious, too, e.g. taking off crystals to ensure good definition of the dial and handset (tasks often left to the product photographer). Of course there’s no such thing as a truly neutral environment, so is it so bad to use an unreal watch for an imagingary environment?
I’m not in retail so I can’t really judge the value of neutrality to the customer—if I’m interested in a watch I’ll probably seek out images of it on people’s wrists. I think there’s value to seeing “imperfect” (or even amateur) pictures of watches in context—and going further the romantic (or LARP) value of a watch on someone exciting’s wrist is obviously a selling point—but then again I already like watches and can imagine situations where I’d own *another* one, which isn’t exactly the marginal watch consumer’s situation.
Well, I agree with you that non-professional shots of a watch often tell you more about the watch than professional photos although honestly, nowadays, it is hard to tell the difference. Smartphone cameras can take images that in terms of basic IQ are equal to anything you could have shot professionally as little as five or six years ago, and we've all seen enthusiasts – albeit sometimes enthusiasts turned full time watch content producers – producing stellar quality images under very adverse conditions at trade shows. To take just one example, Breitling's latest press kit for the Navitimer Chrono Perpetual Ice Blue included some very nice product shots. I don't think it's necessary to take off the crystal either – I've never done it nor have any of the product photographers I've worked with – a piece of black foamcore cut to fit the lens diameter lets you get away with so much 😂