Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Self-winding wristwatch (transparent backside).jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 9 Dec 2016 at 08:16:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
- Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
- Info Self-winding wristwatch with transparent backside. Clock is not new, but still very nice shot. My work. --Mile (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Mile (talk) 08:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Question - No vote from me yet, but what does this mean? "weigth is rotating at hand movement thus giving clock energy". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Its automatic clock. If you dont move, weight isnt getting momentum, hence no energy filling. --Mile (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- In other word, you mean "The watch's weight gains energy whenever the user moves their wrist, enabling the watch to self-wind". Isn't that right? By the way, as a matter of English-language terminology, if you can wear it on your wrist or in your pocket, it's a watch. Clocks are bigger than watches, although the basic mechanism is the same. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Something like that. It also has some autonomy if you wear it some time, that time spring is "full". --Mile (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I will edit your caption, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice work. (the clock and the photo...) --smial 10:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Great photo! The problem with self-winding watches is that you also need this. :) Also, thanks for the copyediting Ikan --cart-Talk 12:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support I would have expected the inside mechanism to be darker and more contrast but possibly the glass back is reflecting some glare that reduces the contrast. I wonder if a polarising filter would have helped. I'd have preferred if the lugs on the top left were not cropped out. -- Colin (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Done --Mile (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Yann (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 19:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Nice, smooth tones. Looks like it was shot for an ad. Daniel Case (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support - I have spent some time looking at this photo, and this is such a magnified closeup that I wonder whether part of what looks like noise in the far side of the watch's dial is actually reflections in the natural bubbles in the glass. Either way, I just can't argue with that degree of closeup. How did you do it? Valuable, too (nominate for VI). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ikan The magnified closeup is achived by using a macro lens, in this case "OLYMPUS M.60mm F2.8 Macro". A macro lens is defined as one that renders an image onto the sensor that is at least as large as the subject is in reality. Typically the subject has to be very close to the lens, at the minimum focus distance of the lens, in order to achieve that degree of magnification. [Here the watch is larger than the sensor so it won't be a 1:1 macro]. The photosites in a crop sensor (such as APS-C or Micro-four-thirds) are usually much much more densly packed than in a full-frame sensor, which means that the resulting JPG is even more magnified than with a typical full-frame DSLR. However, the depth of focus at such close-up subject distance is tiny e.g. 1mm, so multiple images are taken and then "focus stacked" in software to select the sharp bits from each image and merge them. The focus can be changed either by rotating the focus ring on the lens, or more usually by puting the camera on a "macro focus rail" which lets one smoothly slide the camera forwards or backwards in tiny increments by rotating a knob. Everyone who buys a macro lens takes a photo of their watch. It's simply the done thing. :-) -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- As Colin said, you can see lens used in bottom of EXIF. Macro lens of course. Other stuff is to put it in softbox, use one light, and see where light will be best - you move and move, not just light but reflection also. Light is very important, good handed position make it ad, as Daniel Case saw. Bottom was some black textil (softbox is all white), which i had to remove some latter, still visible at close distance. So for better, i would lift watch for some centimeters above, after what cleaning would be probably unnecessary. Colin is probably thinking on my watch. 5 eur, with 2 batteries. --Mile (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC) p.S. Will put to some "Backside Automatic" on VI. As you can see, we dont have much watch photos, only one is really FP.
- Yeah, that's a superb photo. But this one isn't bad, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ikan The magnified closeup is achived by using a macro lens, in this case "OLYMPUS M.60mm F2.8 Macro". A macro lens is defined as one that renders an image onto the sensor that is at least as large as the subject is in reality. Typically the subject has to be very close to the lens, at the minimum focus distance of the lens, in order to achieve that degree of magnification. [Here the watch is larger than the sensor so it won't be a 1:1 macro]. The photosites in a crop sensor (such as APS-C or Micro-four-thirds) are usually much much more densly packed than in a full-frame sensor, which means that the resulting JPG is even more magnified than with a typical full-frame DSLR. However, the depth of focus at such close-up subject distance is tiny e.g. 1mm, so multiple images are taken and then "focus stacked" in software to select the sharp bits from each image and merge them. The focus can be changed either by rotating the focus ring on the lens, or more usually by puting the camera on a "macro focus rail" which lets one smoothly slide the camera forwards or backwards in tiny increments by rotating a knob. Everyone who buys a macro lens takes a photo of their watch. It's simply the done thing. :-) -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support lNeverCry 19:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support --Laitche (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment lovely photo, but why not identify the make/model if it is to be featured? Charles (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Charles: my goal was to show mechanism, not PR of producer. And since its not their inovation i think i can skip their naming. --Mile (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC) p.S. Probably would do that in front shot.
- OK. That's Ok for FP, though needed for VI I think. Charles (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
- Charles: my goal was to show mechanism, not PR of producer. And since its not their inovation i think i can skip their naming. --Mile (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC) p.S. Probably would do that in front shot.
- Support --Famberhorst (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support--M★Zaplotnik (edits) 07:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects