This goes back to the discussion of how long it takes to take a great watch photo. A lot of what it CAN take to MAKE a great watch picture is "post production." Post production is not necessarily a bad thing if the aim is to make a photo look like what the watch really looks like. Cameras alone do a not so good job of this. A metaphor for what a camera does in human vision terms is that a human sees with a lens (the front of the eye) and a sensor (the receptors in the back of the eye) but mostly with the brain which does the "post production" work. A camera, for the most part, has the lens and the sensor but not the same brain.

When post production is used to remove dust or some glare or correct color to true color I think it can be said to be making a photo true to what a viewer of a watch in the metal would see. When post production is used to make a watch look better it is another thing completely.

In the world describing watches as part of a sale the latter type of post production is totally unacceptable. In the world of describing watches for a reference book or an art book some of the latter may be acceptable.

Again, Thanks for bringing this to the attention of the community Carlo. This, in my humble opinion is BS.

JohnCote