Coin photography continued
Pedzola
Posts: 1,027 ✭✭✭✭✭
Still learning and tinkering with my new camera and copy stand. Here are the last 3 photo pairs I took of the same coin... difference is pretty much just lighting.
I think all 3 photos are reasonable representations of the coin - I didn't try to edit or hide anything. There are things I like and don't like about each set.
I've found so far that axial lighting provides a look that is reminiscent of trueviews - there is an effect of looking like an illustration more than a photo. But my axial lighting technique seems to wash out parts of the coin and manipulate color.
Direct lighting has a harsher overall look, but you get the cartwheel effect and greater contrast. Photo 1 and 3 are a mix of axial + direct overhead lights. Photo 2 is direct only.
Thoughts? How do you know when you've got the right picture?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Comments
It depends what you are looking for. I’ve concluded that on many coins, I need two sets of images to give me a true feel for it. One shows the in hand look away from strong lighting that shows the full surface detail, for better or for worse. The other is the look with a more direct lighting to show how that coin pops. From your set, I like #3 to see the surfaces and #2 for the wow factor.
I’ve been working on several myself, and I’ll try post over the next few weeks when I get a chance.
Higher the resolution the better the detail.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
I like number 3 the best. It captures some of the luster and the detail well.
These are professional-level photographs. Very nice job on all three!!
All 3 are great!
I like 2 best then 1.
I like the results. I think you will be happiest with direct lighting, tall and vertical, overall.
Ditch the axial lighting. No one uses it. Even PCGS has never used it. And it's worthless with slabs.
I think you're doing great. Stay with it.
Lance.
You're on the right track. Detail and color is very nice. Try to generate a better sense of luster, assuming the coin is lustrous enough. Image 2 is closest to this, but still looks a little matte for my taste. I like lots of contrast on mint state gold coins. Aim for about 5% of the coin to be white-hot and 5% to be so dark that the detail is a bit hard to see. It makes the coin more lively and interesting. The suggestions that Lance made will accomplish this.
How do you know when you have the right picture? Well, you just know. There's lots to critique about this photo. It tends to over-emphasize the hits and abrasions compared to other techniques, but a sense of liveliness is represented well.
Thanks for the feedback and tips, The coin is highly lustrous, has some color variation - hard to capture everything just right. I'll keep playing with it later today. Will try another set with only the overhead lighting.
Instagram
I cannot help with your methods, since my skills consist of point and shoot with a cellphone...
However, regarding the pictures, I think #3 is good for detail and #2 is a beauty shot....ALL are very good, those are my impressions. As far as a choice, as the photographer, I would say the one that best represents the coin 'in hand' would be the best one to select. Cheers, RickO
Some coins, and especially different metals, all present challenges. Photography is not necessarily kind as it will high light the blemishes and marks, etc. But it is those things to me that make the coin real. With that said, I would be happy with any of your shots but 2 has my attention most. Keep sharing what you're doing - they are nice pics to look at.
WS
Here is another try, direct lighting. I moved the camera higher on the copy stand and set the lights higher up as well. 3 lights on obverse and 2 on reverse.
I like this one, getting closer I think. Added it as #4 in my original post for comparison.
Instagram
The new #4 is the best so far, very nice.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
I much prefer the direct lighting shots (#2 and #4) to the axial ones. #4 seems the best of the lot as the surfaces are more evenly illuminated. Job well done!
I like that photo a lot. Very nice. Try it also using only 2 lights, high up and as close to the lens as you can get without causing glare on the slab. I use 3 for certain coins, but just 2 can really make the luster pop.
Very nice coin and images. What are you using for lighting?
For another project a couple years ago I had gotten some "photo studio lighting" from amazon. Brand was LimoStudio. I got a pack of 2 "softbox" lights which have huge oversized flourescent bulbs, and a 3 pack of smaller lights (the bare bulb in the photo) that came with umbrella diffusers.
I used one softbox overhead, one of the smaller lights (zip tied to a microphone boom stand), and for a 3rd light I have a floor lamp with a regular 5k daylight bulb.
These lights werent very expensive. Softbox is very bright but very diffuse... One of those is good for primary lighting and the bare bulb gives me the cartwheel when I move it around the coin.
Instagram
Fluorescent is probably the worst choice for coin photography. It is slow to warm and irregular in color. Flicker can be a problem.
There are probably some corner case advantages (when examining surfaces, e.g.). If you work with them long enough you may find a way to overcome the downsides (Messydesk has used them for years and his images are exceptional.) But why start with a disadvantage?
I'm not sure how the overhead diffusion material helps.
My opinion, FWIW, is to change the lighting to halogen (or incandescent) and set two flood bulbs within inches of the camera, on each side. Spend a little time experimenting with lighting angle. You'll do much better.
Lance.
I like #4 the best. Best balance between sharpness and color/luster.
If it hasn't already been mentioned, get Mark Goodman's book "Numismatic Photography." There's a good bit of information there about when to use point-source lighting and when diffused lighting is better. For coins with very little natural contrast, like circulated copper, diffused lighting can be great. For lustrous MS silver or gold, too much diffusion mutes the apparent luster and leaves the coins looking dull. I use heavily diffused lighting for about 5-10% of the coins I shoot. Here are a couple examples:
I usually use two bright halogens (one at 2 o'clock and one at 10 o'clock) and use little handheld home-made diffusers on the fly to knock down areas that are too hot or to bring out the luster. Sometimes I just use my fingers and hands, but those halogens can get hot.
Previewing all of this on a big computer monitor really helps. My ultimate goal is always to show the coin as it looks in-hand. Display all of its qualities without masking its flaws.
Ditch the fluorescents. They have lots of great applications, but coin photography isn't one of them.
I think your images are great and you’re on the right track. A lot of great advice above that I cannot add to.
Very well done 👍
Alright one more try. I removed the flourescent lights and the softbox and replaced with 2 bare 5k led lights placed right against the camera. Lots of dark spots so i added a 3rd light (flourescent), which I moved around until i found a spot that looked ok.
This one definitely has a different look to it. #5:
Instagram
Bingo!
Looks better. More detail, nice👍
The first four photos show the coin well but only the final one demonstrates the liveliness of the luster and the granular texture of the fields & devices. If I was looking to purchase a coin like this, I would pass over the first four images with scarcely a glance, but stop and linger on the final image. This is an image that allows you to begin to understand the coin. Well done.
Great pics Pedzola. I have found halogens to sometimes give harsh results to both gold and copper (not always), so I think having flexibility in lighting type and knowing how to use each type is key (or having diffusion). I mostly use halogens and they are the best IMO on silver. I used to use fluorescents similar to what we see here, and agree that they take a while to get constant temp/color during warm up, and seem to give dull surfaces to luster challenged coins. But that can work for gold with lots O'luster. I agree with Bryce - do whatever it takes to have the coin look in the image as it does in your hand.
The key is to spend time, work on it, and you will find that diff techniques and lights work for diff types of coins.
Best, SH
Thanks for the comments. It is a super nice coin - very bright, rich color. I was pretty happy with with all of the pictures but the contrast on this last one does give a better sense of the luster and surface texture and has more "impact."
This seems pretty good but I'm sure I will keep playing with it until I've nailed down a system!
Instagram
I like #5
I think they are all great photos. It helps a lot that is an attractive coin. I think you will find that the lighting needs will change from coin to coin. And for any given coin there's no right answer to the lighting, but definitely wrong ones.
LIBERTY SEATED DIMES WITH MAJOR VARIETIES CIRCULATION STRIKES (1837-1891) digital album
Rather than starting a new thread I thought I'd post this here. Which one of these do you think is better? Also, guess the grade / comments on the coin?
1.
2.
Instagram
Bottom or second set of images.
Set 2 has more contrast, but leaves some parts of the coin somewhat dark. I can't decide if I prefer more "cartwheel" or full illumination.
Thought I'd get a few more responses first but I'll share my secret... #1 is the trueview. I took the 2nd set.
Instagram
I prefer the second set by a wide margin. ‘Tis no sin to prefer ones own image over a TrueView. They are magnificent photographers with better equipment and better skills than me, but they’re shooting hundreds (thousands?) of coins per day.
Some coins need a little finesse to bring out their best. It’s always a tradeoff to display the surfaces and portray a sense of luster. Usually I err on the side of luster, even if it means a few dark areas and a few overexposed areas.