Do you agree with the following statements regarding Trueview images of toned coins?
shish
Posts: 1,106 ✭✭✭✭✭
Usually toning/colors appear saturated.
Sometimes toning/colors appear when there are none visible under most lighting conditions.
Ordinary viewing angles and lighting don't show toning/color this way.
Usually capture a coins appearance under direct halogen lighting at a very narrow range of angles.
Do you prefer images that capture a coins appearance when viewed under a halogen light at a very narrow range of angles? Or do you prefer images that capture a coins appearance when viewed under a wide range of different lighting and angles that closely approximate what a coin looks like when viewed in the vast majority of environments?
Ideally, I like multiple images that capture the different looks that toning displays under different lighting and viewing angles. However, if limited to only one type of image I prefer the one that most accurately captures what a coin looks like in the vast majority of environments.
I have seen some TV's that do accurately capture a coins toning/color, unfortunately they are in the minority.
resized.jpg)
Comments
I prefer simple direct lighting for purchases. But Trueview glamour shots can be aesthetically stunning.
In hand viewing is always best.
In general, the TrueView service and quality is phenomenal. Given the choice between two equal coins, I strongly prefer (and will pay more for) a coin with the TV. Otherwise I will send it for reholdering to get one. I just shipped a batch of 20 to PCGS for this service.
As far as image quality, they’re known as “glamour shots” for a reason—they image the coin at its best. I see no problem with that. It’s the difference between taking a cell phone photo of someone, vs. a studio shoot. I want the best possible appearance of my coin showcased in my registry sets, in the same way I want a professional headshot to capture me at my best.
Nothing is as expensive as free money.
Glad most of mine are Phil era shot.
@Broadstruck are you saying that Phil is not behind the lens anymore?
BST transactions: dbldie55, jayPem, 78saen, UltraHighRelief, nibanny, liefgold, FallGuy, lkeigwin, mbogoman, Sandman70gt, keets, joeykoins, ianrussell (@GC), EagleEye, ThePennyLady, GRANDAM, Ilikecolor, Gluggo, okiedude, Voyageur, LJenkins11, fastfreddie, ms70, pursuitofliberty, ZoidMeister,Coin Finder, GotTheBug, edwardjulio, Coinnmore...
I think TrueViews catch a lot of flak due to some images coming out wrong at times. Of course, when you take a few thousand images a day, I'm surprised more don't come out looking wonky. That's why I voted for exceptions, because there always will be.
Remember that the TrueView department has seconds to adjust the lighting and take the shot. Most images you see here were minutes of lighting adjustments and multiple shots, and yet quite a few can't rival the TrueView. That's a testament to the quality of work they put out there.
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
As long as I can see the tarnish, then I can avoid purchasing the coin.
Cheers, RickO
If I like it then it's 😎
Phil Arnold is still running the photography department. His staff includes photographers and editors.
Lance.
My issue with TV’s is that they skew red with a bit of added contrast, saturation, and black level. Most likely that’s due to automation scripts that are tuned for a particular look but don’t need to be used for every coin but are due to time constraints.
Something like nutilt, if it ever evolves further, is a better idea. I’d support it more if they improved their apps and interface.
TurtleCat Gold Dollars
In general, I find current TVs of toned coins to be too saturated, too red, and too flat. Finding the sweet spot of mixing color and luster and making sure the color is correct when post-processing can take more time and effort that can typically be spent in a mass-production environment.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars
TV's are what they are, glamor shots. However I find that TV shots are not ideal for evaluating a coin for purchase, and most of the time I will avoid buying a PCGS coin if only a TV is supplied by a seller.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
The vast majority of my TV's are gorgeous, and I would not change a thing. Yes, a few are not great, but whatever.....Coin collectors are the pickiest bunch....You can't satisfy all of them. I think the TV's are fine as is and it's a massive step up in my enjoyment of the hobby.
A True View should be just that, a True look of the coin in hand!
I collect toned type coin, no proofs. I have found TVs for my coins (that have one) to be consistently lacking in representing the in hand view as compared to other coin photographers. Not always, but this has been my experience. As such, I prefer to not have TVs associated with my coins and turn off this feature in my registries.
I also don’t like that some dealers default to using TVs on their websites leading me to mistrust what the coin reasonably looks like in hand.
Toned coins should NEVER straight grade, they are all technically environmentally damaged. Dip em all as they say. RGDS!
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
I love TrueViews. I, personally, think most coins should have them. They are beautiful, and can reveal some issues with the coins, but I agree with most here that they are often not very accurate, having oversaturated colors and stuff like that. However, on a certain coin on eBay that I was interested in for a while, the seller's photos were way more appealing than the TrueView. I've never seen the coin in person, though, so I don't really know which is more accurate, but the seller's photos didn't seem "tinkered with."
Young Numismatist
Phenomenal results at times for those of us in love with aesthetics. I've been in the astronomy hobby for decades and the advent of the ccd cameras connected to synced clock drive telescopes was a revolution even for amateurs. This seems a little like that.
This could stand more thought.
That makes sense.
This could stand more thought.
I think this is because of the TrueView "proof angle" that they like to use. The slab shot is likely much more accurate at the majority of angles based on my experience.
I had to say this, because it's driven me crazy for years: Why on earth does the TrueView department not take a picture that shows the contrast on major proof rarities in CAM/DCAM? Let's give an example proof gold (mid to late 19th century if you will). Take any proof gold coin image from CoinFacts from this time period, and there's a good solid chance that of the coin's got contrast, the TrueView doesn't show it. Why why why? It drives me crazy at times!
Young Numismatist, Coin Photographer.
Whenever I see a picture of myself I hate it. Why can't photographers show my Tom Cruise good looks?
Lance.
Well, I don’t suppose there is any one photo technique that is universally optimal. TrueViews do seem a bit over saturated, but detail is usually exceptional. When evaluating a potential purchase, a TV is a useful data point but usually only one of many.
The technique is reasonably consistent and that lends itself well to interpretation. As for my registry sets, I use my own photos and not the TVs. My own photos usually represent what the coin looks like to me.
Another point to remember is that they have the advantage of shooting raw coins. Shooting through plastic makes it difficult to capture the intensity of color that many coins will demonstrate at an ideal lighting angle.
Over time I’ve generally gained the ability to interpret the look of coins when they are imaged consistently. This includes the big auction houses and GC. Yeah, they all have limits, but consistency is important.
Love TV as a glams however I need to see and study the true views pictures of the coin of interest on my decision making.
With any MS/Near MS/Proof Coins, you're dealing with a reflective surface that looks different from different angles and with different lighting. ANY photograph is just the coin from a single angle with fixed lighting of a fixed type, so it's going to be missing something. You can adjust angle and lighting to get as much and many of those attributes that you think represents that coin as much (or as optimally) as possible, but you'll always come up somewhat lacking. You can also adjust things post-shot, but you run the risk of being accused of "juicing" your photos, and even if you "get away with it" its not easy to do that and still get a both attractive and accurate photo. Anybody that does coin photography and does it well gets a tip of the hat from me
To me, the more photogenic a coin is, the better. There are different uses of photographs of coins. To show off your coins you want to draw attention to the positive aspects of how a coin looks. If you are selling or buying a coin based on photographs it’s more important to be able to see both the positive and negative aspects of how a coin looks. I think it is going a bit overboard to make sure to highlight the negative aspects of a coin if you are just showing it off.
Mr_Spud
I'm mostly fine with the Trueviews the way they are. The Quarter Eagle I recently submitted turned out great. They were able to capture the subtle red toning on this piece...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.