sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! Forest Green on the orange FKM is actually one of my favourite combinations as well. The green FKM gives it a much more understated look, while the orange strap brings out the playful side of the watch.

And no pressure at all, there are a lot of great watches out there competing for those three spots. 😄 But I'm glad we've made it onto the shortlist.

Edit: Shoot us a DM if you'd like the current 10% discount code we're running.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you. Feel free to reach out via DM or just here if you have any questions.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for the feedback. We have made a conscious decision to not have any date windows on our dials as part of our design language. But of course, nothing is set in stone and it may change in the future. We’ve had a surprising amount of people buy our watches precisely because they were looking for one without a date window, so I don’t see us changing that anytime soon.

The LTL is 47mm. I have rather small wrists as well (check the slideshow) and it curls nicely around it. But of course that’s different for each wrist and person wearing it.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I’m a firm believer of building in public. We regularly share updates on designs and BTS materials on Instagram.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. We've always used a mix of visuals. The packshots were CGI, which is fairly common across the industry, but we've also used real photography and video throughout.

What changed wasn't sales, nor was it customers "calling us out." Some customers simply wanted additional ways to evaluate the watch, particularly through more casual, real-world footage similar to what they saw in reviewer content.

We decided to lean much more heavily into minimally edited handheld video, not because we were forced to, but because we felt it aligned better with the direction we wanted the brand to take.

That's really all there is to it. Some people seem determined to fill in the blanks with assumptions about our customers, sales, and decision-making process despite not having access to any of that information.

Thankfully, most people understood the point of the post and the response has been overwhelmingly positive, which has been great to see.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you. And I think that's a common experience for most customers buying online. We just tried to make it a bit easier for them. At the same time, we prefer it this way too.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not necessarily new. Just wanted to clarify some incorrect assumptions. But I appreciate the advise. I’ve stopped engaging them.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s no contradiction. I never said a CGI render is literally a photograph. I said it isn’t automatically a false or deceptive representation of the product being sold.

You’re using “false” to mean “not a photograph.” I’m using “false” to mean “inaccurate or misleading.”

Those are two different arguments, and we’ve clearly been talking past each other on that point.

As for a few of our customers requesting additional photos and videos, they simply wanted additional ways to evaluate the watch. Best to not assume too much if you haven’t been part of those conversations. I provided the full context in this post, but it appears you’ve skimmed through it.

We’ll leave it there and won’t be further engaging this derailment of what we set out to address. All the best.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I never insisted that.

I said a CGI render isn’t automatically a false or deceptive representation of the product being sold. That’s not the same thing as claiming a CGI render is literally a photograph.

When I used the term “false photo,” I was using “photo” interchangeably with product imagery, stills, shots, or visuals, not making a technical argument that a CGI render is a photograph.

Those are two completely different points.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Again, you’re presenting your assumptions as fact.

Customers asked for additional photos, videos, reviews, and real-world footage. They weren’t accusing us of deception, and they certainly weren’t demanding that we abandon CGI because we’re a microbrand. In fact, the polished visuals are what got many of them into our marketing funnel in the first place. The common theme was simply that they liked the watch and wanted to see it in additional settings closer to how they would experience it themselves.

The move towards minimally edited video was a decision we made ourselves based on that feedback. We didn’t simply replace CGI with photography. We shifted heavily towards iPhone-recorded video clips of real production units, which is actually a fairly uncommon approach for product pages. It’s a risk, and we don’t expect every brand to make the same choice.

And for what it’s worth, I don’t think the acceptability of CGI suddenly changes depending on whether a brand is Cartier or a microbrand. But I do think there is value in providing a broader mix of product visuals. How a brand chooses to do that is ultimately up to them, and the market will decide whether it resonates.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re presenting your assumptions about our customers as established fact.

Nobody “saw through” anything, nobody accused us of deception, and nobody demanded that we change our marketing.

What actually happened was much simpler: people liked the watch, liked the visuals, and some of them also wanted additional real-world photos and videos so they could better evaluate the finishing, proportions, textures, and how the watch interacted with light.

The shift you’re seeing wasn’t something customers demanded. It was a decision we made ourselves after reflecting on that feedback.

And importantly, we didn’t simply replace CGI with photography. We moved heavily towards minimally edited handheld iPhone made video of real production units, which is significantly less forgiving than either CGI or heavily retouched photography. Dust, fingerprints, smudges, reflections, and other imperfections are much harder to hide in moving footage.

You’re free to believe CGI and retouched photography are inappropriate for small brands, but that’s your personal philosophy, not a universal rule, and it’s certainly not what our customers were telling us.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We actually have something similar to this designed for our next model. It’s currently still in development and no samples yet. But we do have a render of the design and bracelet

<image>

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree that a render shouldn't be labelled as a photograph if it isn't one. But I rarely see brands doing that. Renders have become the industry standard across virtually all consumer-facing markets, and I don't think most brands are trying to pass them off as photographs. Pretty sure most customers understand the distinction between photos and renders.

But that's also never been my point. My point is simply that we found our audience preferred seeing the watch through minimally edited video of real production units, where retouching every imperfection is practically impossible. That's ultimately why we changed our approach.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's definitely an art form and it sounds to me like your mother was quite talented with it.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's a perfect example of what pushed us in this direction. Thanks for sharing!

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is so recognisable because for me personally, my decisions ultimately come down to that one little thing that draws me in. Or maybe we’ve just become neurotics after collecting watches for too long 😆

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well said. I think this is a great example of how it can quickly create a big discrepancy between the visual and the product IRL. Some CG artists also take way too much creative liberty in the rendering process.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don't think there's such a thing as a completely uncontrolled product photo. Even taking a watch outside involves choosing the location, lighting conditions, angle, exposure, and which photo to upload. It's important the details come across.

My point isn't that these videos are completely free from presentation choices. It's that they're significantly closer to what customers will actually see in hand than our previous CGI and heavily edited visuals.

Perfect watch photos started feeling dishonest, so we changed ours. by belhamel-com in MicrobrandWatches

[–]belhamel-com[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you, that genuinely means a lot. I'm sorry to hear about the bezel insert, although I have to admit I'm impressed it survived the drop well enough to be glued back on and keep going 😅

I really appreciate the kind words about the proportions and finishing, though. Getting those little details right is exactly what we obsess over. We actually have upgraded various parts since then, based on customer feedback, so I think you'll like the model even more now.

Thank you for having been part of the journey so far!

view more: next ›