Can the pictures be "To" Good…???

[Clay]

I can't tell you how many times I have purchased a watch, only to be pleasantly surprised at how much better it looked in person…

I have certainly had the opposite experience, and there are, of course, sellers who take pictures that are not only terrible, but useless...

As I write, I have on my wrist my K series 16600…I remember when I saw the pictures of the watch, I thought; "Wow, that thing is beat up!!!"

But it was unpolished and I didn't much care about the scratches as it was to be an everyday, do anything watch (I hate the term "Beater")…

So I bought it…

Low and behold, when the watch arrived, I was very surprised…It looked wonderful…!!!

Yes, the scratches were there, but hard to see…and when on the wrist, impossible to see…And what looked to be large "Dings" in the case, were nothing at all...

Now… I am a firm believer in "Full Disclosure" when selling a watch, but I can't help but wonder if sometimes these Hi-Def, extreme close-ups, aren't a bad thing…???

[CrownMe]

I totally agree clay. Ive noticed that for inserts. Many of these Macro shots make them look worse then they really are. It is nice getting the watch in the mail and its better then you expected.

[nsumner]

Yes, they are too good sometimes. I tend to try and take good/detailed pics of any watch I list. 9 times out of 10 the new owner will comment on how much better it looks in person. This is and isn't due to good macro technique. Almost anything looks better in person then depicted in a picture.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by CrownMe

I totally agree clay. Ive noticed that for inserts. Many of these Macro shots make them look worse then they really are. It is nice getting the watch in the mail and its better then you expected.

I am guilty of this on selling inserts that the over detailed photos do not accurately display how it looks. My technical skills are great on clarity but lousy on color balance .

[CrownMe]

Originally Posted by linesiders

I am guilty of this on selling inserts that the over detailed photos do not accurately display how it looks. My technical skills are great on clarity but lousy on color balance .

Whoaaa. I don't remember seeing that Tudor. That thing is AMAZING. New?

[Frosty]

I bought a couple of inserts that the pictures had minor scratches. When I got then I had to look really close in direct light, otherwise I did not notice them.

Greekbum is very good at taking pictures. I liked the pictures of the watches, down to the very small scratches on vintage, the beautiful dial, and the bevels. I embraced the watches when I got them because everything I expected was there and nothing unexpected!

[springer]

Originally Posted by nsumner

Yes, they are too good sometimes. I tend to try and take good/detailed pics of any watch I list. 9 times out of 10 the new owner will comment on how much better it looks in person. This is and isn't due to good macro technique. Almost anything looks better in person then depicted in a picture.

X2. Yes, they can be "too good."

[Beaumont Miller II]

Potential buyers keep this in mind. The macro pics will obviously make everything look huge. To keep things in perspective, compare any ding, nick, or imperfection to a lug hole that is many times in the same pic. If the ding is so small that you can fit four of them into a lug hole it has to be a Very small ding.

[linesiders]

Originally Posted by CrownMe

Whoaaa. I don't remember seeing that Tudor. That thing is AMAZING. New?

66 7928 - Dial is a redial but everything else is in good order (though winds a little rough). Price was fair as a redial. Insert did not come with it - there was a nice black fat font that came with the watch. I used that image as it is realtive to this thread and because I sold that insert "over there" and it was returned as I could not properly capture the color. It was too nice an insert not to use on this watch.

Original insert: