or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...) - Page 2463  

post #36931 of 48312
Here's a 116234 on me that I tried on a month ago:

ogl2yt.jpg

It looked smaller "in real life" than it does in pics... maybe my eyes play tricks on me?
post #36932 of 48312
Looks great to me.

Lol TC Huston.
post #36933 of 48312

Nice datejust

 

I found out that all of these watches look so much smaller in real life. My first trip to the jeweler after looking at watches online only for months was very interesting psychologically. Seeing them in person just made me realize how small a wrist watch really is. The high resolution, close up magnified online photos distorted my perception of size. The only question is, does physical size have any correlation with overall significance?

post #36934 of 48312
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

Here's a 116234 on me that I tried on a month ago:

ogl2yt.jpg

It looked smaller "in real life" than it does in pics... maybe my eyes play tricks on me?

Fits for me Mr!
post #36935 of 48312
Watches always looks bigger in close up pics.

Some sales associate always asks me to put my wrist on my chest and then look in the mirror to see how the watch actually fits on my wrist because sometimes the size is still a bit misleading even when it is already sitting on your wrist.
post #36936 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post

Very, very timeless and classic! Aaaandd, I can't not say something . . . LOL Coincidentally, my wife actually wears that as her daily. I'm attaching an old pic just so you know I'm not just saying that to give you a hard time, and my wife will tell anyone she prefers "men's sized watches". Seriously, that's a nice choice.

5283374555_24d2aaa317.jpg

Looks good from that angle. My buddy's wife also wears a 36mm DJ - looks great on her, and she has tiny wrists.
post #36937 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by TC (Houston) View Post


I think the PAM in question is actually a 42mm Radiomir . . .

Yes, I had checked on that.  I believe it was another SFer who suggested it was 47.  That being said, generally once watches get into the 42 mm and larger range they are large enough that they will be noticed, so I stick by my statement their size makes them flashy.  Nothing wrong with a little flash if it makes the owner happy.  Some people are more averse to it than others.   

post #36938 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

Here's a 116234 on me that I tried on a month ago:
photo (Click to show)
ogl2yt.jpg

It looked smaller "in real life" than it does in pics... maybe my eyes play tricks on me?

Not at all. Most watch photos are taken with a phone camera these days, and those are invariably fitted with a wide lens. To fill the frame with a small object like a watch, you have to hold it pretty damn close. If you stick your face a few inches away from your wrist, it'll look about the same as it does in that photo.

Here's an example of the difference that focal length makes.

More wide (20 mm):

image credit: philip greenspun

Less wide (35 mm):

image credit: philip greenspun

Even though the subject is about the same size in both images, the difference in perspective from the camera's position changes the relative size of things that are nearer and farther away from the lens. Note the difference between the apparent size of the headlights.

Same deal with watches; the relative size of the watch and the wrist change with a wide lens jammed in close. To get a more natural perspective, use a longer lens held farther away.

Here are a few photos taken with a longer lens that I gripped from Hodinkee which show the DJ's proportions in the same way that they appear in real life:

?format=750w

?format=750w
from A Week On The Wrist: The Rolex Datejust

The current Datejust has a substantial look but still has the classically-elegant thing going on. I think 36 mm is spot-on for a normal wristwatch, even on a larger wrist.

PS — How good do 993s still look!?
Edited by Belligero - 10/23/14 at 12:29pm
post #36939 of 48312
Must be my eyes but I don't see much difference in that two car pic. :lol Hood looks slightly longer in the first pic but that is it.
post #36940 of 48312
DJs are the perfect size for everyone. Srs.
post #36941 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by wurger View Post

Well put about wrist shots, phone cameras distort the size and shape of the watch when the photo is taken close, I think due to focal length.

I try to take the photo as far as I can and use the zoom function to alleviate that.

Yep, it's all about camera position and focal length. To get the same proportions as when you look at your wrist, the camera has to be as far away from it as your eyes are. For a watch to fill the frame from this distance, you need to increase focal length or do a fair bit of cropping (which has the same effect).
Quote:
Originally Posted by RFX45 View Post

Must be my eyes but I don't see much difference in that two car pic. :lol Hood looks slightly longer in the first pic but that is it.

Hold on, I'll superimpose them shits...

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 85

It might not appear to be much of a change at first glance (largely because it's a familiar object and your mind tends to process it in the context of knowing it's the same thing), but the difference can be clearly seen when the images are overlaid. And this is only going from a 20 mm to a 35 mm lens, so it's nowhere near as dramatic as it's possible to get with extremes such as 14 vs. 600 mm. However, I think it's a decent representation of the difference in how a watch appears in a typical camera phone shot compared to what you see in person. It's not enough to be super-obvious, but it's definitely enough to mess with your perception of how a watch fits.
Edited by Belligero - 10/23/14 at 1:55pm
post #36942 of 48312
Well put about wrist shots, phone cameras distort the size and shape of the watch when the photo is taken close, I think due to focal length.

I try to take the photo as far as I can and use the zoom function to alleviate that.
post #36943 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tried and True View Post

If I ever get another steel chronograph it'll be the Overseas.

It's the only reason that I don't have a Daytona in my collection. It wears small for a 42 mm, and love the big date, the the overall Maltese cross design motif.
post #36944 of 48312
Ok went to AD, done with considering 36mm DJs. Just way too small looking in real life.

ffffuuuu.gif
post #36945 of 48312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

Ok went to AD, done with considering 36mm DJs. Just way too small looking in real life.

ffffuuuu.gif

*sigh* I will always disagree with you on that score, but to each their own.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Watch Appreciation Thread (Reviews and Photos of Men's Timepieces by Rolex, Patek Philippe, Breitling, JLC etc...)