High Resolution photo of 1954-D RPM-001 with new technique

rmpsrpms

I shot a 1954-D RPM-001 using a new stitching technique. All my previous efforts used "subject pan" stitching, where the camera + lens are kept fixed, and the subject + lighting are moved across the panorama. This technique results in a more "clinical" and less "natural" lighting style since the lighting angle changes from tile to tile. This new image was shot with "sensor pan" stitching, moving the camera versus the lens + subject + lighting. Sensor panning relies on the lens to have a large image circle, and the sensor is "simply" moved across the panoramic image of the coin. The result IMO is a more natural appearance to the image, since the lighting is not changing from tile to tile.

I was prompted to convert my system to this new method due to failure of the subject-pan method on more brilliant coins. The tile boundaries were more obvious than with the less-brilliant coins I've been shooting.

This new system configuration gives me a couple new capabilities as well, and I made it easily-converted back to subject pan method as needed for some coins or other applications.

Take a look here at the 54-D RPM-001 Stage B in high resolution here, and let me know what you all think about the overall "look" of this image compared with the previous ones I've been posting:

https://easyzoom.com/image/239899/album/0/4?mode=manage

Kurisu

What is the goal with the technique?
Any actual movement (subject or camera) as you shoot lowers the sharpness.
And, are you using multiple light sources or 1?

I've got a degree in commercial photography so I know some things
I'm assuming you already know plenty too, but just in case there's something you haven't tried...

If you're going for maximum true color and true detail...
Everything motionless...polarizing filter on your lens, and one over the light source (that's called cross polarization and it's also how we eliminate random reflections when photographing flat art properly) and even better if you use either two light sources slightly on opposite sides and equal distance and/or one light source in front and above or even better some form of axial lighting.
Ask away if any of that means nothing lol!

Oh yeah....and if you use polarizing filters...once you're set up, rotate one of them slowly until you see the reflections disappear that you don't want, that's how you'll know it's properly cross polarized.

rmpsrpms

My goal is to publish single images of whole coins which can be zoomed-in to view the variety details. Lighting is very critical for achieving this goal. Too high (axial or near-axial) gives great color reproduction but tends to hide surface details. Too low and the surfaces are overly-enhanced, and the edges of the design features are illuminated, giving an unnatural look. My lighting is a compromise between the two, and I can adjust the angle from near-axial to near-flat in order to optimize the detail presentation. I've tried cross-polarization but have not found it to give great advantage, and the polarizer reduces sharpness unacceptably.

Kurisu

@rmpsrpms said:
My goal is to publish single images of whole coins which can be zoomed-in to view the variety details. Lighting is very critical for achieving this goal. Too high (axial or near-axial) gives great color reproduction but tends to hide surface details. Too low and the surfaces are overly-enhanced, and the edges of the design features are illuminated, giving an unnatural look. My lighting is a compromise between the two, and I can adjust the angle from near-axial to near-flat in order to optimize the detail presentation. I've tried cross-polarization but have not found it to give great advantage, and the polarizer reduces sharpness unacceptably.

Ok thanks for answering :-)
If you're going for what feels right to you I think you're doing the right things with experimenting.

A good polarizing filter if your lens accepts one (not knowing your camera) will not effect sharpness whatsoever.
What might be happening is that it cuts your exposure by about 1/2 a stop and you might be going to too high an ISO or reducing your shutter speed too much to compensate. Brighter or closer lighting would solve that for you.

Or...what you might be perceiving as a sharpness issue could simply be a very slightly missed focus also being caused by the exposure being adjusted. When you get into close up photography world you can start to loose focus in a millimeter! In that case go for a smaller aperture which will increase your focal length (your Depth-of-Focus aka Depth-of-Field).

Also...you can buy a sheet of professional polarizing filter, it can be cut and used either in front of a lens or in front of the light or both to cross polarize. You can also cross polarize by polarizing both light sources and not the lens but to cross it must be two polarizations combined.

rmpsrpms

Polarizers may be OK for low mag shooting, but they do affect sharpness at higher magnifications and NA's. Now, the NA for this system is fairly modest at 0.1, so a thin coverslip won't do much, but a thick polarizer between coin and lens can cause problems. Indeed this is another issue I've had with axial lighting, as having the glass at an angle causes additional problems. I've experimented with very thin splitter optics, and have some 700um glass waiting for yet another axial experiment (I've done many). I'll likely publish those results here when available.

I shoot almost wide-open to maximize resolution and sharpness, and focus stack to eliminate any focus errors. The image shown above is composed of 6 tiles, each with 15 stacked images, total of 90 shots. I have optimized the workflow to maintain sharpness.

Flatwoods

That is really impressive on my phone. I'm sure it would look even better on a real monitor.
Very nice!

Kurisu

@rmpsrpms said:
Polarizers may be OK for low mag shooting, but they do affect sharpness at higher magnifications and NA's. Now, the NA for this system is fairly modest at 0.1, so a thin coverslip won't do much, but a thick polarizer between coin and lens can cause problems. Indeed this is another issue I've had with axial lighting, as having the glass at an angle causes additional problems. I've experimented with very thin splitter optics, and have some 700um glass waiting for yet another axial experiment (I've done many). I'll likely publish those results here when available.

I shoot almost wide-open to maximize resolution and sharpness, and focus stack to eliminate any focus errors. The image shown above is composed of 6 tiles, each with 15 stacked images, total of 90 shots. I have optimized the workflow to maintain sharpness.

Hmmmm...I must be missing something, what kind of camera are you using?

The main issue I'm seeing from your response is "shooting wide open"...if you mean larger aperture that is how you decrease focus. In the pro photography world wide open means very tight depth of field, like for a portrait and totally blurring the backgrounds. You need to shoot with the smallest aperture to increase focus, ESPECIALLY IN CLOSE UP WORK because the depth of field is already tiny. Resolution is dots per inch in the image and is not affected at all.

And if you are focus stacking for macro photography if it's not absolutely perfectly post processed that is definitely not helping. Focus stacking is a much better application when you're trying to bring out hidden details due to some parts of the image being in a different "zone" and requiring more exposure...like taking an ultra sharp intensely colorful photo of the Moon for example.

I have used polarizers in both filters and sheets and even in large format macro photography and high-end digital, if anything they increase sharpness by reducing any haze effect no matter how subtle.

As a professional photographer even when it was my full time career, I have never heard of a polarizer effecting sharpness.
Magnification genuinely has nothing to do with it, unless we are talking about lens and camera quality, which is why I asked about the camera you are using.

Just as an FYI I am currently using a Canon T6i but most of my posting photos are actually tripod stabilized cellphone shots

rmpsrpms

I'm using an "HRT2i", which is an older 18MP Canon T2i with AA filter removed. "HR" is High Resolution, which is what MaxMax calls the AA filter removal modification. I have a T7 in process as a backup since I don't expect the T2i to last forever.

I think you are confusing focus stacking with HDR.

cheezhed

Incredible surface detail.

Kurisu

@rmpsrpms said:
I'm using an "HRT2i", which is an older 18MP Canon T2i with AA filter removed. "HR" is High Resolution, which is what MaxMax calls the AA filter removal modification. I have a T7 in process as a backup since I don't expect the T2i to last forever.

I think you are confusing focus stacking with HDR.

Nope, HDR is about the quality of color, and the actual image processing, it's just a digital application not optical from the lens.

If your "HR" setting is actually just digital it's not increasing image quality whatsoever. it operates like a digital zoom, similar to simply cropping the entire image.

Aaahhh...now I see, AA filter removal... that's a mod to a lens...here's the rub...
Not only does that compromise the "perfectness" of that lens set up by the manufacturer (and void the warranty) it also can cause interference within the lens.

I'll put it this way... I have a friend who's been a master auto mechanic for like 40 years and whenever he sees a modified/lowered/or whatever car... his famous line to me is "yup, I bet they did a better job on that than the Honda engineers" lol!

I can't speak to your modification but my choice would be to simply buy a good reversing ring or a macro attachment of the same brand as your lens and or camera...then you get the best of everything and no risks to original equipment.

I did warn you, I know some things I hope this actually helps some!
Your images are excellent by the way...but some of us see things others don't, and you can't unsee things lol!

rmpsrpms

HDR stands for High Dynamic Range, and is a technique for merging multiple images taken at different exposure levels in order to ensure that all pixels in an image are properly-exposed. Focus Stacking is somewhat similar in that is a technique for merging multiple images taken at different focal planes in order to ensoure that all pixels in an image are in proper focus. Neither technique has anything to do with color, and both techniques can be applied to monochrome (ie black and white) images.

Lenses don't have AA filters. The AA filter removal is done to the camera body. I'm not worried about warranties or "perfectness" as I am trying for best performance, and that comes with some risk.

I'd welcome constructive criticism of my images, so if you see something, don't hesitate to comment!

Kurisu

@rmpsrpms said:
HDR stands for High Dynamic Range, and is a technique for merging multiple images taken at different exposure levels in order to ensure that all pixels in an image are properly-exposed. Focus Stacking is somewhat similar in that is a technique for merging multiple images taken at different focal planes in order to ensoure that all pixels in an image are in proper focus. Neither technique has anything to do with color, and both techniques can be applied to monochrome (ie black and white) images.

Lenses don't have AA filters. The AA filter removal is done to the camera body. I'm not worried about warranties or "perfectness" as I am trying for best performance, and that comes with some risk.

I'd welcome constructive criticism of my images, so if you see something, don't hesitate to comment!

You bet...yup I'm not very familiar with actually doing camera mods, but my same concept applies even though it's the camera body.
HDR absolutely applies to color (and luminosity) because it has to do with the processing of the raw image to final display.
All the digital processing to images may "enhance" the visuals but only the lens and camera drive the original image quality that is being processed. As well as aperature, exposure time, and image sensor type.
Focus stacking is only one type of "image stacking" and it's interesting but again, it's a digital process.
I saw no "flaws" in your image I was mainly interested in understanding what you were doing and what the goal is, because for me it's genuinely interesting.
Thanks for replying to it all

rmpsrpms

I completely and absolutely agree that the camera and lens drive the image quality. I see that you use a Canon T6i. I assume you shoot in Live View so that the camera uses the EFSC shutter, correct? That is one of the most important improvements to sharpness I made in the last decade. It is why I only recommend folks use Canon cameras for coins or any other closeup or macro work, unless they are using flash. Of course some Nikon, Sony, etc cameras have EFSC/EFCS, but only on the high end models. The lowest-end Canons have it, and also have free tethering software, so Canon gets my vote.

For lenses, I've evaluated literally hundreds of lenses over the last 10 years with the goal of finding the best one(s) for coins. Indeed I have narrowed it down to a dozen or so that do well, and a few that do superbly. It is those lenses that I use for all my high resolution and other critical work.

But in the end, the camera and lens can only take you so far. If you want to produce images like I'm showing, you must use the advanced digital techniques, including taking utmost care in the processing workflow.

Kurisu

@rmpsrpms said:
I completely and absolutely agree that the camera and lens drive the image quality. I see that you use a Canon T6i. I assume you shoot in Live View so that the camera uses the EFSC shutter, correct? That is one of the most important improvements to sharpness I made in the last decade. It is why I only recommend folks use Canon cameras for coins or any other closeup or macro work, unless they are using flash. Of course some Nikon, Sony, etc cameras have EFSC/EFCS, but only on the high end models. The lowest-end Canons have it, and also have free tethering software, so Canon gets my vote.

For lenses, I've evaluated literally hundreds of lenses over the last 10 years with the goal of finding the best one(s) for coins. Indeed I have narrowed it down to a dozen or so that do well, and a few that do superbly. It is those lenses that I use for all my high resolution and other critical work.

But in the end, the camera and lens can only take you so far. If you want to produce images like I'm showing, you must use the advanced digital techniques, including taking utmost care in the processing workflow.

I'm loving this discussion lol!
Yup, Live View...if I have questions about digital I'm coming to you!
I even still have my original Canon, my A-1 35mm. And the lenses, which also work on my T6-i, because... Canon.
But I have two nice new lenses for the T6i that I use.

ironmanl63

That is the best image of a coin I have ever seen. All I can say is amazing. How long would you say it takes to get a photo of that quality?

Edited to add you can actually see the depth of the luster!

rmpsrpms

@ironmanl63 said:
That is the best image of a coin I have ever seen. All I can say is amazing. How long would you say it takes to get a photo of that quality?

Edited to add you can actually see the depth of the luster!

Wow, thanks very much! Those images are a bit of work. With the new method I have it down to less than 60min total, and more than half that is unattended (automated XYZ movements, file conversion and processing, etc).

shortnock

Out of sight imaging!

JeffMTampa

@rmpsrpms said:

@ironmanl63 said:
That is the best image of a coin I have ever seen. All I can say is amazing. How long would you say it takes to get a photo of that quality?

Edited to add you can actually see the depth of the luster!

Wow, thanks very much! Those images are a bit of work. With the new method I have it down to less than 60min total, and more than half that is unattended (automated XYZ movements, file conversion and processing, etc).

In my book you are the GOAT! Amazing!

leothelyon

At first I thought you might be able to find some kind of life form on the surface......but than I saw some foreign object in Roosevelt's nostril. Incredible detail. There are a load of folks that could use this on their Jefferson nickels......to help them see what's missing/lacking on their coins. lol

Leo

ricko

I have no idea what those terms/techniques mean/are.... But the picture is great. Cheers, RickO

JeffersonFrog

Yeah, the techno-speak was beyond me, but I agree the pics are great. What's even more impressive is you can see the high resolution on your cell phone. Nice work.

rmpsrpms

Thanks guys. Seeing the images clearly on the cellphone is a function of the EasyZoom hosting platform. This is part of the reason I like using them.