Taking Decent Pictures of Coins...OK...have some pics now!

jom · July 27, 2003 1:13PM

OK, I've had it! I've been screwing around ALL DAY trying to get good shots of some of my coins. The damn SLAB is getting in the way with that stupid glare!

Any remedies? I'm going bald pulling my hair out of my head....

Shylock! Help meeeeeeeee....

jom

airplanenut · July 27, 2003 1:15PM

I just solved it today...

Buy a clear salad bowl (plastic) that is a true dome... open the top with the needed width for your camera (I used a soldering iron to melt the circle). Sand the entire bowl so it is rough and a frosty white.

Enjoy!

Jeremy

Russ · July 27, 2003 1:16PM

Jeremy,

Give it a fancy name and you can sell it for $200.

Russ, NCNE

bigbadchad777 · July 27, 2003 1:18PM

Scan them. I had the same problem with a camera.

Russ · July 27, 2003 1:21PM

<< Scan them. I had the same problem with a camera. >>

A scanner will never produce pictures like this:

To really capture the essence of a coin, you need a digital camera.

Russ, NCNE

bigbadchad777 · July 27, 2003 1:27PM

Nice picture, ugly coin.

airplanenut · July 27, 2003 1:29PM

<< Jeremy,

Give it a fancy name and you can sell it for $200.

Russ, NCNE >>

I did actually have that idea... I should try another and see how it sells on eBay... hmmm...

shylock · July 27, 2003 1:37PM

Jeremy -- maybe you could call it the Cloud Dome

PM sent Jom.

Skipper53 · July 27, 2003 1:42PM

I'm no expert but I've gotten good results with a good scanner and a good camera.
With the camera , the keys are , A) resolution , and

lighting. Experiment; even
ideas like frosted salad bowls could work .

airplanenut · July 27, 2003 1:52PM

Slightly too expensive over there, Les... I'd rather not take pictures

I like how my dome worked out... and the insignificant figure it set me back

Jeremy

jom · July 27, 2003 2:22PM

ttt

airplanenut · July 27, 2003 2:23PM

Oh, what camera are you using?

jom · July 27, 2003 2:23PM

Here are some shots and some earlier scans for comparason:

The 1st, 3rd and 5th are scans.

jom

jom · July 27, 2003 2:24PM

It's a Nikon Coolpix 950. It's an older model from 1999 or 2000....

I'm happier now. About half the shots I did were pretty good. The other half...ARGH! BUT...it I like the photos better because they show off the luster MUCH better than scans (because of the flourecent light). The lighting for my photos were with an OTT bulb. Once I edit some of the other pics I'll post some more.

jom

airplanenut · July 27, 2003 2:29PM

Those shots are looking good! I use the big brother 4500

(actually, it's smaller

)

The dome, as I found today, works great... I just need to buy another strong, flexible light to increase overall light, then they will be really good, I think.

Jeremy

Cam40 · July 27, 2003 4:16PM

Wow.The comparison is like night and day.

All I could suggest is use more than one light source for the digital camera set up.
It may be even more difficult to get good shots and not have glare but I think once you
find the sweet spot useing two light sources spread apart some, you,ll have super knock out
images to show. Not that the ones you are showing are too shabby, they,re not, but there is
I think for a little bit more room for improvement.

I knew I was in for a treat with pics by you Jom. I remember some of the coins you,ve shown in past.

relayer · July 27, 2003 4:46PM

Jom - you made some excellent progress

cosmicdebris · July 27, 2003 7:58PM

Nice shots

shylock · July 27, 2003 9:00PM

Looking good Jom. A second Ott light source does help, allowing you to put both just beyond the glare zone but still illuminating the coin enough to draw out the color and lustre. The distance at which you set the lights up usually depends on the coin -- the one's with frosty texture absorb it well so you can get very close, while smooth, prooflike surfaces require backing the lights off a bit.

Colorfully toned proofs, especially IHs, drive me nuts trying to capture both the colors and mirrors since the glare spot is often the only angle in which both can be seen. Makes me want to crack the damn things out of the plastic! I have little hair left so I've resorted to smacking myself in the head with a 2 X 4, and it seems to work pretty well.

newbiecollector · July 27, 2003 10:03PM

Question from a lurker....... that has a Coolpix 995....

What is (are) OTT bulbs?
I find I get very good resolution of detail with my camera but I can NOT get the color correct. I am sure it is the lightining.

<< It's a Nikon Coolpix 950. It's an older model from 1999 or 2000....

I'm happier now. About half the shots I did were pretty good. The other half...ARGH! BUT...it I like the photos better because they show off the luster MUCH better than scans (because of the flourecent light). The lighting for my photos were with an OTT bulb. Once I edit some of the other pics I'll post some more.

jom >>

Placid · July 27, 2003 10:30PM

<< Question from a lurker....... that has a Coolpix 995....

What is (are) OTT bulbs?
I find I get very good resolution of detail with my camera but I can NOT get the color correct. I am sure it is the lightining.

<< 

Ott lights and bulbs. <- is just a example you can find them lots of places. The true color ones are what you want.

newbiecollector · July 27, 2003 10:50PM

Thanks for the link. It will not be possible for me to get one of those lamps here in Norway and I have never seen the bulbs..

jom · July 28, 2003 12:27AM

<< It will not be possible for me to get one of those lamps here in Norway and I have never seen the bulbs >>

Order it! I'm sure they can get them to Norway...

The color problem you have is the same I had: Incandecent (or even halogen) has too low (or is it high...I can never remember) of a color temperature. With the 995 you can use "White Balance" to remedy this. Use you manual to help or research on the internet for more info.

Helpful Link

Here's a picture of the type of bulb I use. Although I think I'm using one with a high wattage:

Pic of Ott bulb

Your best bet is to search around the net using "Ott bulb" or "Ott lamp" as search criteria.

<< Colorfully toned proofs, especially IHs, drive me nuts trying to capture both the colors and mirrors since the glare spot is often the only angle in which both can be seen. Makes me want to crack the damn things out of the plastic! I have little hair left so I've resorted to smacking myself in the head with a 2 X 4, and it seems to work pretty well. >>

Fortunately, I don't collect proofs. I can imagine they would be a real b%tch to capture...

BTW, at this point a 2 X 4 is a bit excessive so I've resorted to the ol' "bang head on desk" manuver, it's a real hair saver:

jom

shylock · July 28, 2003 1:05AM

The lower wattage and wide surface of this Ott lamp works well for coin photography.

Russ · July 28, 2003 1:15AM

<< drive me nuts trying to capture both the colors and mirrors since the glare spot is often the only angle in which both can be seen. >>

Yep, I've frequently invented new swear words when trying to shoot colorfully toned proof coins. Regular or cameo proofs, no problem. Colorful, even wild rainbow, business strikes, no problem. Color on a proof coin? Hair pulling time.

Russ, NCNE

jom · July 28, 2003 1:58AM

Well, if this shot doesn't convince anyone that SLABS are a photographers WORST nightmare I don't know what will:

That one on the right would be perfect if not for a slight problem...

Hell, I'm not even doing proof coins and I'm having all kinds of difficulties. OK...where did I put that shot gun of mine.....? <looks around>

BTW, I can't even imagine how much trouble and expense this would be if I were using film. Yikes!

jom

ANACONDA · July 28, 2003 3:28AM

Russ:

these were created with a scanner:

ANACONDA · July 28, 2003 3:44AM

Also....with regard to color.....it's all about two things when talking about images created with digital cameras....

white balance setting on the camera and

what you do with your imaging software in the "edit the color" options. In Adobe Photoshop, it's "Color Balance". (I'm not sure what it is called on the other image editing software.)

Even after being shot using the proper white balance, most images need color correction.

Also, if you want to get really good, make sure your monitor is giving you accurate colors - take a look at some your images (that you thought were done correctly) on another computer...or go to a BestBuy and look at 10 different monitors showing the same thing....colors on different monitors come out.....differently.

(Which of course can bring up the question of, if every monitor is different, why bother getting it done right? And the answer is, at least it will be done right on the computer monitors of those who take time to correctly adjust their monitors.)

jom · July 28, 2003 5:10AM

Anaconda: Yes, scans do a good job of getting the color...the luster is the problem.

jom

shylock · July 28, 2003 5:30AM

In some cases I can see where it's worth trading off lustre or mirrors for accurate color, like with some of those impossible IH proofs I was talking about. It can be a net gain if it's done as nicely as Adrian's scans (I've noticed he uses his scanner for IH proofs as well).

I try to avoid Photoshop for more than a splash of brightness when needed -- it seems like for every correction PS makes, another quality suffers. But I have a Buff nickel with light purple toning on the profile that only PS color balance can bring out. The best I can do before color balance is pick up purple highlights. The image on the right is what it actually looks like.

jom · July 28, 2003 6:25AM

Verrrry nice. I remember that Buff of yours. The picture didn't look natural, almost a flourecent look to it. Especially the reverse as I recall so this is an improvement.

I have PS 5.0 so I'll check it out to see if I can do some minor adjustments.

jom

ANACONDA · July 28, 2003 8:28AM

Yes, scans do not show luster very well.

While they're are many kinds of luster, there are millions of kinds of color.

A PCGS MS 64 Morgan of a particular date will have predictable and not too importantly, a kind of luster than can be readily envisioned. Not so with color.

jom · July 28, 2003 10:25AM

<< a kind of luster than can be readily envisioned. Not so with color. >>

Probably true and it's a good bet that any Morgan collector will know whether a certain dated coin will have good luster or not. The problem is with other coin series (such as the Buffs, gold peices etc) which are NOT readily envisioned. This is a problem because toning in many (if not most) cases can subdue the luster over a period of time (such as in many of the dull and lifeless Commems you see). OR said series is not as predictable in the luster for each date as is the Morgan series.

jom

ANACONDA · July 28, 2003 10:29AM

Have you ever noticed how i have this almost magical power to stop a thread right in it's tracks?

I post to it and the sucker dies like it just drank a gallon of jewel luster.

I wonder why that is.

ANACONDA · July 28, 2003 10:31AM

Thanks, Jom.

Yes, many series have unpredictable luster. In those cases, an image made with a digital camera almost always provides better results with regard to showing luster.

ldhair · July 28, 2003 10:56AM

May I ask a couple of other questions?

When you set the white balance do you use a different color backing (for lack of the proper word) on your copy stand for different coins?

And one more if I may.
Do you tilt the coin to pick up the color and if so how. I can't seem to ever get it tilted the right angle.

Thanks

jom · July 28, 2003 11:15AM

Here are some more that I've been able to finish up.

jom

jom · July 28, 2003 11:20AM

<< When you set the white balance do you use a different color backing (for lack of the proper word) on your copy stand for different coins? >>

You should ask Shylock about this. He has a write up about it. But I'll try to answer anyway: I "think" that, yes, you should have to readjust your WB when you change backgrounds. This occurs when you start bouncing between PCGS and NGC slabs. I think it is wise to do all your PCGS work with some black material behind it and just do the NGC coins as is. Also, it's probably more efficent to do a set with PCGS only pics then go back and do the NGC so you don't have to keep readjusting all the time.

<< Do you tilt the coin to pick up the color and if so how. I can't seem to ever get it tilted the right angle. >>

Basically, I just horsed around enough to get the right angle. Sometime I had to hold the coin with my hand slightly because I didn't have anything steady to (or tall or short) enough to hold it

<< Have you ever noticed how i have this almost magical power to stop a thread right in it's tracks? >>

I could SWEAR that I always do that....

jom

jom · July 28, 2003 4:24PM

Last heard of Buffalos....

Comments? Questions?

Now it's on to gold! Urgh....

jom

shylock · July 28, 2003 7:50PM

Huge improvements over all your scans Jom, your images glisten now. Deep toned Buffalos like yours create a lot of problems so I can see why you've been pulling your hair out. When you illuminate them too much the color washes out so you really have to fiddle around with the placement & angle of the lights. In most cases that means moving them back, so I can't imagine doing it with only one lamp. Is the 38-D the ex. BidD5 monster I saw in LB?

Larry - For PCGS slabs I get better white balance (especially for copper) by using a black background. I let the camera measure it manually without the slab in the picture first. With NGC & ANACS I set the camera against a white background first, matching the white insert in the slab. One good feature of the Nikon Coolpix series is the lens half of the body swivels, so rather than tilting the coin you can swivel the camera instead. If you need to tilt the coin a little ball of clay works well, holding the slab in just about any position you want.

Cam40 · July 28, 2003 8:12PM

They are nice(er) pics Jom, only one (more) thing, and I know your aware of this too,
All the shots are slightly different in lighting etc. I know your still trying various lighting angles
and each coin probably does require it, but if the lighting was the same in all the pics
it might ? help to show some uniformity of the overall selection. If thats even possible.
You know what I mean?
Maybe thats not really possible or that necessary as each coin may need to be dealt with on a case
by case basis.

Now... wheeeres that `24 S ?

`26 S ?..

Taking Decent Pictures of Coins...OK...have some pics now!

Comments

Leave a Comment