chaman

A closer view to a pocket watch, a Hamilton, converted to wristwatch. Just tried to emphasize in its mechanical looks.

269A8580-Edit by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

Click on it to see a better version. Thanks for looking.

Joe Blow

Nice.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

I'm really enjoying your collection of watches. They are fascinating all by themselves; but the icing is that they are all very nicely photographed. That is not always so easy with all those reflective surfaces. Well done.
Erich

chaman

Thanks Erich. I just received a PM by a member here saying my watch images are "not acceptable". He mentioned my poor management of the reflective surfaces! LOL!.

Im my own harshest critique when it comes to photography and only try to post images that I think are more than acceptable. These may not be magazine add material but I am very satisfied with the turn out.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

What was so magic about 17 ... one shaft is missing a jeweled bearing.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Just so you know, a watch back where the movement is visable is called an exhibition back.

chaman

Considering low end watches of the era were 5 or 7 jewels....17 was considered a much better movement. In todays movement there are much better movements of course. Which shaft has the missing bearing? BTW, the movement on this watch is of the 1920's. Yes, its old.

chaman

It is. You have watches?

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

Once again, everybody is an expert. I think you rmanagement of reflective surfaces is beautiful. So, is the old girl still running?

chaman

Yes its running smoothly and keeping time. Its a proven mechanism and its history validates it. It also looks very good on the wrist. The dial has a militaristic look to it:

269A8516 by Oscar Baez Soria, on Flickr

About the "expert".....he even started a thread whinnying about me putting him on ignore. I thought about making his messages public but think is not worth it. It was so obvious he just wanted to start something. My watch images according to him are "not acceptable". Well I like them! Glad you do to.

ebrunner Loc: New Jersey Shore

Thank you for not starting something with the person who sent a pm saying your images are not acceptable. This is from our "read-me" thread:

"Welcome to For Your Consideration (FYC) where we have honest, respectful conversations about the art of photography. We are primarily interested in the creative, aesthetic aspects of capturing and editing images, but like all good artists we are also interested in the technical aspects of the tools of our craft. Managed by ebrunner, R.G. and Frank2013.

Think of FYC as a place where you can ask most anything, answer most anything, give and receive feedback, share opinions and tips - and hopefully grow with each other.

If open, honest and courteous conversation interests you, then join us, share your work and your ideas and have fun in the process. We look forward to seeing you here!"

Based on that, I would say that your images are not out of line. You enjoy collecting watches; but you also pay close attention to how you photograph those watches for presentation here. If the discussion were just about watches, then that is another matter. It is not easy to photograph highly reflective materials and you spent a lot of time talking about that. That makes it a discussion about photography.

Erich

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

That is a beautiful example of a classic Railroad Engineer's watch. Ball Watch has been in business since 1891:

https://www.ballwatch.com/global/1/company/history.html