SWK Black Watch

**BassClefB** · 17th December 08, 01:57 PM

It's certainly the Black Watch, though it is very muted for sure. The lighting was low as well, so that added to the muted nature of it I'm guessing, though it *is* the least bold of any of my kilts, all of which are Stillwater Thriftys at this point. The colors and the tartan are correct (I just looked at SWK's website to confirm) but my kilt definitely has less obvious separation and boldness in the colors than the photo on the web shows. Maybe the lighting over-enhanced the colors on the SWK site? Either way, it's a Black Watch. Thanks for the comment!

**sathor** · 17th December 08, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by BassClefB

It's certainly the Black Watch, though it is very muted for sure. The lighting was low as well, so that added to the muted nature of it I'm guessing, though it *is* the least bold of any of my kilts, all of which are Stillwater Thriftys at this point. The colors and the tartan are correct (I just looked at SWK's website to confirm) but my kilt definitely has less obvious separation and boldness in the colors than the photo on the web shows. Maybe the lighting over-enhanced the colors on the SWK site? Either way, it's a Black Watch. Thanks for the comment!

That would make sense. I think my sons was a lot brighter,

technically, I believe that it still counts as a SWK thrifty, and that is a black watch.

I wonder if all the adult sized Bw are such muted, I actually would like mine when I finnaly order it to look close in color to my son's.

**BassClefB** · 17th December 08, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by sathor

That would make sense. I think my sons was a lot brighter,

technically, I believe that it still counts as a SWK thrifty, and that is a black watch.

I wonder if all the adult sized Bw are such muted, I actually would like mine when I finnaly order it to look close in color to my son's.

That I can't say... I looked back at the photos more closely after color-correcting, and what's getting lost is the deep blue between the brighter green sections of the tartan. Honestly, the photo of your son's kilt is true in color to the way mine is. I don't think there's a difference. The photo was brightened and color-corrected quite a bit, so some of that sharpness and detail is getting lost. Mind you, it's not a 'loud' kilt at all... not as bold overall as my Black Stewart or MacLaren. If you're at all in doubt, I'd ask Jerry to do a side-by-side comparison and see if there is a difference. If not, you'll know it's just my poor photography and lighting skills. haha!

**sathor** · 17th December 08, 08:29 PM

To be honest, I can't remember if that was with a $100 camera, or my '$600' camera (and that was what I payed for it used.) but I think it was the former, all I would have done is remove red eye and crop. Changing brightness and colors can do that to an image, as well as the light in which the image was shot, ie flash vs incandescent vs fluorescent vs sunlight....

But I will take your word for it that they match as you say with more than a fair amount of relief. I was worried there for a time.

Originally Posted by BassClefB

That I can't say... I looked back at the photos more closely after color-correcting, and what's getting lost is the deep blue between the brighter green sections of the tartan. Honestly, the photo of your son's kilt is true in color to the way mine is. I don't think there's a difference. The photo was brightened and color-corrected quite a bit, so some of that sharpness and detail is getting lost. Mind you, it's not a 'loud' kilt at all... not as bold overall as my Black Stewart or MacLaren. If you're at all in doubt, I'd ask Jerry to do a side-by-side comparison and see if there is a difference. If not, you'll know it's just my poor photography and lighting skills. haha!