Should watch photos be enhanced or not?

Since it is a well known fact (or at least it should be) that a camera (either a mobile phone or a $$$ FF camera) can't capture the same dynamic range our eyes can - some changes must be made to a photo captured by a camera:

• Slightly increase the contrast
• Slightly increase the saturation to correspond to the internet colorspace. Often sRGB
• Remove dust particles from the watch

That's all. IMHO.

I think photos can serve different purposes. Some photographers want emphasize specific aspects of a watch, or even the feeling/vibe a watch may bring. Others may just want to show off what today’s flex is on the wrist. I don’t think there is any right or wrong way to shoot/develop a photo, there is enough room on IG for all of us 😂 Just my two cents 🤙

Enhancement is good. Unless one is trying to deceive. 

It's not a documentary, edit the photo. Also no website will let you upload in .RAW format :P

As long as it's a real photo with good lighting I'm happy. 

Not happy with the CGI that brands use for their product shots.

The CGI-route is a big no-no. 100% agree. 

Well spoken. 

Probably a perfect "horses for courses" post. Agree. 

Either way that GS looks lovely (yep, fanboy!)

Give it to me RAW.

Or I will know it was you...

Fredo.

I agree that one needs to compensate for dynamic range, possibly color balance based on the lighting conditions. The same goes for cropping to avoid unneeded detail. But I wouldn't go any further.

What I would in particular avoid are selective changes. Leave the dust particles where they are, and don't selectively increase contrast or color saturation to make a watch pop.

I feel like posing and cropping is already trying too hard.

When I take a wrist shot I always make sure that the camera is focused on my wrist hair.

As long as the camera catches what I see, I upload "RAW".

With certain light and/or watch that's not possible, and I try to touch it up.

Just curious; any idea about the wrist size on that photo?

Impressions of real versus unreal invariably effect and limit the accessibility of recordings of all kinds, particularly those on a budget, for which digital artifacts may become a part of the art. To limit the use color, gamma, brightness, contrast, white balance corrections etc would be a shame, first and foremost limiting the believability of the image, more so than enhancing it with artifice. The hardware limits or expands the output's realism on its own, so please MOR JPG. Be more beautiful, tougher, more successful, more artful, even super-real. But don't lie, please. 

Photography for me is all about light, so I don’t have a problem with enhancing elements such as the exposure, but if your totally changing the representation of what you see with your natural eye, that’s when I draw the line.

I try to get the shot in the camera. If I'm using a phone to take a picture. Most often I don't care enough to do any editing outside of light cropping or picture rotation.

Not a fan of over worked pictures, one thing that would always piss me off was. I would submit a well composed photo to see it run cropped and over corrected

Sorry Not watch photo's. example, what I sent in

what got published

Looks like he's grabbing some cloud in photo #2 😉

this is a really good subject , as a semi pro photographer, some manufacturers do exceptional work at shall we say jazzing up the color , or any number of things that are not representative of the watches in person. I think they should all take a vow of no editing celibacy.

and maybe if you're the company , write on the photo the size of the watch, that is where I have been fooled the most

I think it's ok to say on @WatchCrunch, the point is to showcase the beauty of timepieces and a little bit of judicious enhancement to bring out the elements of a watch we're talking about at any given time is probably OK.

Indeed, when posting to #wruw you are afforded some basic cropping and filters, so it's kind of built in. (I'll admit to snapping off a few shots for #wruw  if I'm not happy with how it looks!)

On the whole, our fellow Crunchers are very good at watch photography and it is always wonderful scrolling through posts and being able to see what's on people's wrists.

Tangentially related: 

Contrast the wonderful pics people post here with the absolute sh*t you encounter when buying a watch online. Either you get renders from big manufacturers that look nothing like the watch in real life (looking at you #seiko) or if you are looking at an auction, #ebay or even some AD sites it looks like they've taken a photo with a potato! 🥔

I've often wondered if we can't have a standard for watch photos - at least if you're selling one. For the love of god please

1. Show me the dial straight on
2. Don't point a light directly at the crystal
3. Show me the case back
4. Learn some macro skills and show me the crown
5. I don't need excellent, hi-res 600 megapixel photos of one particular link in the bracelet (I'm probably going to replace it anyway)
6. Try and get a picture of any noticeable scratches on the case (or crystal... Although I'll concede that's difficult sometimes). I'll decide whether I can polish it out. 
7. Photograph the watch on a neutral background. I don't want to play "where's Waldo" when looking at a watch. 
8. OMG! Clean your watch before photographing it! know it's a 30-year old watch, I don't need to be reminded that it probably comes with 30 years worth of dead skin cells. Thank you. 🤮

Everyone nailed it. In this day in age, if the DSLR is in use, shoot raw, edit to fix lighting, color calibration, and clean up dust. 

You need to add another category called "Tragic" which will apply to 99.9% of my photos.

Maybe your photos are weak but your watches are cool and you've got 123 followers. 

Always edit.

I do it sometime but then I'm only a regular joe using a 10 years old Canon G12. Professional publications do it all the time so I don't see anything wrong with it.

Some adjustments must be allowed. You can influence stuff with lighting and settings when taking the photo. I got issuses when it's photoshopped

It is not easy to display a watch in a photo as it is perceived in the flesh. In order to do so it is necessary to process the picture in some ways.

It shouldn't be exaggerated or completely different from reality. 

If I manipulate a photo, it is to give the photo what my eye sees that the camera does not capture well.