Does this Rolex look big on me?

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by Chilly Coconut

Or proof that photos taken of an image in a mirror are naturally distorted, like the third pic. Fun house mirror effect.....

Nice spin, though.

By the way, a 40mm watch looks fine on a 6.5” wrist.

On the contrary. The regular wrist shots folks do as #1 or #2 are the distorted ones because of the effects of the lens.
Here is a far away wrist shot and you can clearly see how much smaller it appears compared to wrist.

[Providence Collector]

To my eyes all 3 picks look like it fits well.

[Old Geezer]

Looks fine. No lug overhang so it’s all good.

[Chilly Coconut]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

On the contrary. The regular wrist shots folks do as #1 or #2 are the distorted ones because of the effects of the lens.
Here is a far away wrist shot and you can clearly see how much smaller it appears compared to wrist.

There you go....best representation so far. Pics of a mirror image are notoriously misleading. Close-up wrist pics can be, too.

[faimag]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

On the contrary. The regular wrist shots folks do as #1 or #2 are the distorted ones because of the effects of the lens.
Here is a far away wrist shot and you can clearly see how much smaller it appears compared to wrist.

This looks indeed fine. But it is closer to pics 1-2 in terms of relative size than pic 3. If anything, in pic 3, some may say the watch looks too small for your wrist. The fact of the matter is that any watch will look different in real life and from different angles. Let along in pics and mirror pics and so on.

[Chilly Coconut]

Originally Posted by faimag

This looks indeed fine. But it is closer to pics 1-2 in terms of relative size than pic 3. If anything, in pic 3, some may say the watch looks too small for your wrist. The fact of the matter is that any watch will look different in real life and from different angles. Let along in pics and mirror pics and so on.

Indeed.

[sensui]

That's about what a 40mm maxi case looks like on my wrist (6.375") also. That's the sweet spot in terms of size IMO (but I have a fond weakness for nice 36mm watches as well).

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by faimag

This looks indeed fine. But it is closer to pics 1-2 in terms of relative size than pic 3. If anything, in pic 3, some may say the watch looks too small for your wrist. The fact of the matter is that any watch will look different in real life and from different angles. Let along in pics and mirror pics and so on.

True but that supports the main intended message behind my post which is that all angles and method taken will affect size appearance but the worse of all is photo #1, which is the most common wrist photo posted on this forum and the the one folks are incorrectly told “too big for you”.

[mimeocase]

if youre asking if a watch looks to big, then IMHO you already think it does and you need validation from others convincing you that its not. I wear what i want because i like it - NOT what you or anyone else may think, i get the same snickers and or BAD ASS when people see my Daytona on a nato, IDGAF i like it

be happy with your choice. what we think REALLY mattes NOT, if that were the case Boy George would have never dressed as he did!

[mg Barcelona]

does my bum look big in this? (UK 90's joke)

[ras47]

Wrist presence is a very personal thing. Strictly a matter of taste. A watch is only "too big" IMHO if the lugs stick out past the edges of your wrist. Then it looks like a kid wearing his dad's suit jacket. But otherwise it's all good.

And even if it is subjectively too big, if the one wearing it likes it, it's all good.

[lenfried29]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

How many times has this question been asked?
How many times opinions are based on improper information, e.g method photo was taken?
Here is the same watch, the same wrist, with three completely different looks.

The latter, where the watch appears the smallest, is a more realistic presentation of how the watch actually looks, taken from reflection on a mirror. To me, looks like a properly fitting watch on a 6.5” wrist. In contrast, as you can see the first two photos tell a bit of a false different story.

So, when judging or wanting to be judged on “is it too big for me”, understand how the photo was taken can be completely misleading.

I learned, the pictures doesn't do the justice.

[123Blueface]

Thanks to all for responses.

Some of you may have missed the intent of my post.
I personally could never care what anyone thinks about something I like.
Heck, I wear up to 44 and think they look great.

The point of my post is don’t rely on photos of wrist close ups if you are really interested in an opinion on how it looks because that photo won’t be truly illustrative at all of how it really looks on you.

[rolexpatek363]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

True but that supports the main intended message behind my post which is that all angles and method taken will affect size appearance but the worse of all is photo #1, which is the most common wrist photo posted on this forum and the the one folks are incorrectly told “too big for you”.

Stop worrying!

The watch is a bit on the large side, but that's the current fashion, so you are all good. I wouldn't get anything any bigger, though, and you may find that a 36mm suits you a little better? Maybe worth trying a DJ?

At the end of the day, it's all subjective, so as long as you're happy, then that's the important thing.

[Burlington]

I would say photos 1,2&4 are fairly similar but 3 does look off - as someone else suggested must be distortion.

I think only the wearer is best judged to decide if it’s too big or not, as this is the only viewer’s perspective which matters.

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Some of you may have missed the intent of my post.

I'm convinced many members here don't bother reading before responding. It seems obvious to me that most responders here read your title, looked at your pics, and then posted without taking the time to read the full post to see what your actual point was. I've seen a number of other threads where this has happened, as well.

Per your point, I agree that the impression of size in a wrist pic varies per a number of factors, and the standard closeup wrist shot often makes the watch look misleadingly large. That said, I think shot number 3 in your first post makes it look misleadingly small. I too have a 6.5-inch wrist, and my SubC never looks that small on me. It typically looks more like the second pic in your first post, or the pic in post #31.

[123Blueface]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

I'm convinced many members here don't bother reading before responding. It seems obvious to me that most responders here read your title, looked at your pics, and then posted without taking the time to read the full post to see what your actual point was. I've seen a number of other threads where this has happened, as well.

Per your point, I agree that the impression of size in a wrist pic varies per a number of factors, and the standard closeup wrist shot often makes the watch look misleadingly large. That said, I think shot number 3 in your first post makes it look misleadingly small. I too have a 6.5-inch wrist, and my SubC never looks that small on me. It typically looks more like the second pic in your first post, or the pic in post #31.

Agree.
Glad some caught that as was the other intent in my post. To show how a camera can make you see just about anything depending on how taken.
The more realistic photo is actually the fourth one, taken further away, showing most of my arm. Funny thing is I showed that 3rd mirror shot to three people and all here felt that was the most realistic out of the first three shots, in spite of it too being inaccurate.

As a wedding photographer, whenever I photographed an overweight bride, rather than use a normal lens or telephoto (which I would never consider in that situation), I used a wide angle and shot full lengths, avoiding close ups and 3/4 shots. They looked amazing in the photos and loved the slendered view so much, they would buy a ton of photos.

Some may say it was deceptive but I called it making the final product look what the customer dreamed it would. They loved it and bought tons of photos. No different than using soft filters for folks with skin issues or as they do today, photoshop, which didn’t exist back then.

The moral really is, don’t take close up shots that are unrealistic and expect a realistic opinion. Just wear what makes you happy. Only opinion that counts is yours.

[997.2]

oh baby

[JacksonStone]

Originally Posted by 123Blueface

Some may say it was deceptive but I called it making the final product look what the customer dreamed it would.

Weddings are no time for truth in advertising. They'll have a lifetime to dwell on each other's imperfections.

[travisb]

Perfect on you.

[SVH]

Nope, it looks great on you

[johnnyjazz]

It is a beautiful watch and i think it has a perfect balance on your wrist, oh and i am a guy who prefers a watch that is smaller and tighter.

[opaline460]

Looks perfect on you

[SA1]

Looks ok to me

[BlakeA]

Originally Posted by JacksonStone

Weddings are no time for truth in advertising. They'll have a lifetime to dwell on each other's imperfections.

That was hilarious.

[situasian]

Too big.

[Ljung]

I think OP's intention of this post is to point out some important factors to take note when taking wrist shots, and not asking for input whether is the watch too big for him.

@123Blueface, please correct me if I am wrong.
And thanks for pointing out. Especially wide angle lens, e.g. taking close shot with phone cam, subjects nearer to cam tends to be enlarged and become out of perspective

[z32turbo]

Your good. Enjoy!!

[azs.77]

Great post OP. As mentioned, size doesn’t matter. It’s how well you can carry it off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bratz]

Prefer the look on the 2nd pic

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk