I always wondered how watch catalogues managed to get such great head on shots with no reflections on the watch glass as I spent months with various equipment and different set ups and then I found the answer by chance on another forum.

......the watch companies remove the glass for their professional photograpers

 

Sometimes yes, but other times they take pictures with the light coming from different angles and use a special program to remove shadows and reflections.

 

Oh, okay!
Do you know if it is photoshop that they use or is there a dedicated program?

 

There are quite a few options. Google something like "removing reflections", "removing reflections in after effects", or "photo post processing".

 

Polarizing filters will eliminate most light reflections before the picture is taken. Refracted light is itself polarized; aligning your filter 90 deg will block it.

 

Watch Companies themselves will remove the crystals for you before the watch reaches the Studio - Usually the mechanism as well - You are provided with a perfect 'photo sample' - perfect non functioning 'dummy'

However when I have shot Vacheron Constantin, & Audemars for Harrods, in the distant past - Their franchise jewellers provided a full set of original watches, which you deploy a polarizing filter on.

You have to play with the lights, to understand what will record, & what will not - Every single watch has a different set of internal reflections that you need to understand how to defeat, to produce a clean, ( commercial ), image of the dial.

 

Stability and lighting matter so much more than the camera and the lens. I make my living as a photographer and everybody wants to know "what camera took that picture". I am not saying it doesn't matter but $10,000 worth of camera equipment won't take a good picture in bad light. Good light can be a window and a bunch of makeshift reflectors. Just be intentional about light and shadows.

JohnCote

 

Around election time I grab as many of those "vote for joe schmo" yard signs as I can. 10 minutes with a can of silver spray paint and you've got a dozen cheap and effective light reflectors. (If you want brighter/harsher light you can get some 3M spray adhesive and glue some aluminum foil to the sign rather than paint it.)

 

Tried to use the combo but my TC-17E only fits my 70-200 and 200-400 my 105 is unfortunately nor a VR - back to the drawing board!

 

As 'Interstatetime' / John Cote, another consummate professional, in an earlier post, re-iterates thoughtfully, successful photography is NOT about equipment - It is about the approach you take to experimentation, playing around, having fun with, & understanding how you can manipulate the intensity, & the passage of light, & it's reflection back, to achieve a spectacular result.

To be quite honest, sometimes a good 'Compact Camera' with a proven bit of 'melted sand' at the sharp end, will easily outperform high end DSLR's simply because of the freedom of movement, it affords the photographer to pan fluidly around the subject, changing angle, catching specular light 'crossing & catching' a crucial element of the design.

Who needs 12+ inches of murky lens barrel / converter between them, & their subject ?

In terms of stability............A large ( & cheap ) bean bag will often provide all the 'grounding' you need, one you have found the 'sweet spot' - that marriage between light, & angle, that you will instantly instantly recognise, when you find it.

Although I have Nikons / 'Blads - I very often use a compact Leica D Lux6, when shooting watches in macro, then PhotoShop to tidy up the composition, raise contrast, & sharpen. ( rare with a Leica ! ).

Stop planning, & accumulating pointless kit - Just cut loose, & shoot lots, & lots, & lots, of images in different lighting situations ( never on-camera flash !) & learn far more through viewfinder experience, & careful investigative review, then ever you will derive otherwise.

My credentials for such arrogant claims, are 25 years as a high end Advertising / Fashion photographer in the UK working for 'Blue Chip' clients across Europe - I now teach 'Creativity', to Adult University Students.

 

A real cheap option is to buy a camera with a macro setting. And to build yourself a what is called a lightbox. I used a cardboard box. Cut out as much as you can before you loose the structural integrity of the box on three sides. Leave the bottom and one side uncut. Cover the holes created with white tissue paper. Use two or three lights shining on the tissue paper. I slid a piece of white paper to cover the bottom and back of the box. Prop your watch up in the box. Take your picture. This method of lighting of highly reflective material reduces/eliminates any reflection created by the lights. Take a look at my photos in the section showing what else interests us of my antique glass for results.

 

Nice collection of pics!

 

I just purchase a new piece of glass and took a picture of my lightbox setup. Here's what it looks like.
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u242/barmy1/Glass/Lightbox1_zps312fe1f5.jpg
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u242/barmy1/Glass/Lightbox2_zps0afd49fb.jpg

I'm in a rush so in the following pictures I've taken, I could have reduced the reflections from the light adjusting the angle and location of my two desk lights. I've used Lightroom to adjust the colour in the picture to the colour of the light coming from the lamps. Here are a few of the pictures I took.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u242/barmy1/Glass/Firing6_zpse32537ee.jpg
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u242/barmy1/Glass/Firing3_zps9c600f8d.jpg
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u242/barmy1/Glass/Firing1_zps6a805cbf.jpg

 

Other options you can try: an extension tube for a 50mm or 85mm lens or a reversal adaptor and turn around a 28mm or 35mm lens. All these lens choices can be purchased for very reasonable prices.
The extension tube basically moves the point of focus further away from the sensor/film which means you can focus closer and get greater magnification….you do lose some light though.

If you do the lens reversal technique, you will get very very close macros and a wider field but your subject will be very close to your lens...some times this is an advantage. You will lose the camera's brain, so you have to use your own. And with the wider angle, your shutter speeds won't need to be as fast to stop mirror blur (of course you are using a tripod...but at speeds around 1/4 of a sec you might still get mirror-vibration blurr on a DLSR without mirror lock-up). With slower required shutter speeds you won't need as much light while you are using very small apertures for DOF....also an advantage. Typically 1/focal length is a good rule of thumb for min shutter speeds to avoid motion and mirror blur.

 

The best watch shooter I know doesn't even use a tripod. Sets his flashes such that they set the exposure time (fast enough) to freeze everything.

 

Have just ordered a new Nikon f2.8 VR11 should be here in about a week - looking forward to mounting this together with a 1.7TC I already have and taking a few shots. I an hoping it will perform like the old 2.8 200mm macro Nikor used to- always regretted selling it.

 

The longer the lens, the shorter the plane of focus (aka the depth of field). Therefore a 50mm could be said to have a greater depth of field in comparison to a longer focal length (eg 100mm). So to correct you: longer lenses = less inherent depth of field.
To increase the apparent plane of focus, use a smaller aperture (eg f32 instead of f2.8).

 

New lens has arrived and with the 1.7 extender seems to work admirably
Scan is D800 105 f2.8 + 1.7 at f40 MU at 1/30sec