Even over at GC Phil has been having some trouble with glare, but he's mostly gotten to the same spot the rest of us are at - manage the glare best you can, and roll with the consequences in texture and image depth.
@FlyingAl have you tried a macro ring flash mounted on the lens, I'm curious to know how that compares to using the glass technique? I know with a ring flash, the light is probably about ~80-95 degrees over the subject since it's on the same plane as the lens vs what i'm doing now which is ~65-77 degrees for 2 overhead lights. Referencing the Goodman book, higher angle of incident light is better.
@Seraph21 said: @FlyingAl have you tried a macro ring flash mounted on the lens, I'm curious to know how that compares to using the glass technique? I know with a ring flash, the light is probably about ~80-95 degrees over the subject since it's on the same plane as the lens vs what i'm doing now which is ~65-77 degrees for 2 overhead lights. Referencing the Goodman book, higher angle of incident light is better.
Just finished building a 2 way mirror bracket for 45° use with my new led light source and my canon cameras. Hope it to be a fun challenge, as I have always struggled with photos of toned coins. Always sent them to my buddy @crazyhounddog , thanks Joe. Maybe now I can pickup enough to photo my own toned proofs. Then maybe not. Lol Thanks for the info.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
@Seraph21 I don't recommend it. I got one some five or six years ago and used it until I found a better means to do axial. The light illuminates the devices and generates awkward effects in the field while causing the overall image to appear flat.
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you. https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
@The_Dinosaur_Man Wow, ya, that doesn't look that great. I guess it's because the illumination comes from all directions, but also is not 90%. There no sense of luster at all. Though it looks very nice if the goal is to find the imperfections.
Has anyone ever tried using a teleprompter beam splitter glass and polarizing filter to do axial photography? Once work slows down a bit, I will give this a try.
@FlyingAl said:
Even over at GC Phil has been having some trouble with glare, but he's mostly gotten to the same spot the rest of us are at - manage the glare best you can, and roll with the consequences in texture and image depth.
It's a challenge, to be sure.
Phil Arnold Director of Photography, GreatCollections
greatcollections.com
@FlyingAl said:
Even over at GC Phil has been having some trouble with glare, but he's mostly gotten to the same spot the rest of us are at - manage the glare best you can, and roll with the consequences in texture and image depth.
It's a challenge, to be sure.
I must say you seem to have it figured out - I do like the process of the dual shots though. One axial, one standard. Gives a much fairer representation of the coin overall.
@in2Coins said:
Has anyone ever tried using a teleprompter beam splitter glass and polarizing filter to do axial photography? Once work slows down a bit, I will give this a try.
A polarizing filter will cause more problems than it solves. You're likely to get rainbows in the plastic.
@in2Coins said:
Has anyone ever tried using a teleprompter beam splitter glass and polarizing filter to do axial photography? Once work slows down a bit, I will give this a try.
A polarizing filter will cause more problems than it solves. You're likely to get rainbows in the plastic.
Thanks @messydesk! You’ve just saved me hours of testing with polarizing filter.
Below are my tests pics with normal components. No editing except cropping. I’m waiting for the beam splitter glass to arrive and will give that glass a try later.
While I continue to experiment with some slab shots, here some shots of my whitman album toned merc and roosie for over head vs axial. I'm also curious what @rmpsrpms thinks of these shots, I seen some of your posts from other forums. Also I don't know if the owner of the Artemis collection is here or not, but they've also taken some amazing pseudo axial shots (though still raw).
Don't mind the conditions of the coins, they were from when I first started collecting and didn't know better.
Ok, next try, using a optical quality diffuser between the light and plate beamsplitter instead of direct to BS.
Shot on a mirror so i can do white balance calibration through the slab.
(Cropped to just show the coin)
Straight out of camera:
ACR: fix white balance, +100 dehaze, +15 clarity
ACR: contrast + 10, white + highlight -25, shadow + black +25, curves clip on and black.
The same roosie from earlier in the thread
ACR: fix white balance, +100 dehaze, +20 clarity
This one I lowered the white + highlight -100 so I can check that there's still detail from the flow lines of this proof with clear mirrored surfaces.
What does everyone think. I think this method came out really well with just edits via adobe camera raw. I'd need to brush up on my photoshop skills to improve it. If anyone has some photoshop tips for improving this further, I'm open to learning some more tips (of course I'll play with the levels and curves some more). Editing a axially lit image is very weird, it's like editing a negative image.
Comments
Even over at GC Phil has been having some trouble with glare, but he's mostly gotten to the same spot the rest of us are at - manage the glare best you can, and roll with the consequences in texture and image depth.
@FlyingAl have you tried a macro ring flash mounted on the lens, I'm curious to know how that compares to using the glass technique? I know with a ring flash, the light is probably about ~80-95 degrees over the subject since it's on the same plane as the lens vs what i'm doing now which is ~65-77 degrees for 2 overhead lights. Referencing the Goodman book, higher angle of incident light is better.
I have not tried that.
Just finished building a 2 way mirror bracket for 45° use with my new led light source and my canon cameras. Hope it to be a fun challenge, as I have always struggled with photos of toned coins. Always sent them to my buddy @crazyhounddog , thanks Joe. Maybe now I can pickup enough to photo my own toned proofs. Then maybe not. Lol Thanks for the info.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
@Seraph21 I don't recommend it. I got one some five or six years ago and used it until I found a better means to do axial. The light illuminates the devices and generates awkward effects in the field while causing the overall image to appear flat.
Custom album maker and numismatic photographer.
Need a personalized album made? Design it on the website below and I'll build it for you.
https://www.donahuenumismatics.com/.
@The_Dinosaur_Man Wow, ya, that doesn't look that great. I guess it's because the illumination comes from all directions, but also is not 90%. There no sense of luster at all. Though it looks very nice if the goal is to find the imperfections.
Has anyone ever tried using a teleprompter beam splitter glass and polarizing filter to do axial photography? Once work slows down a bit, I will give this a try.
It's a challenge, to be sure.
Phil Arnold
Director of Photography, GreatCollections
greatcollections.com
I must say you seem to have it figured out - I do like the process of the dual shots though. One axial, one standard. Gives a much fairer representation of the coin overall.
I agree, the photos at GC are excellent when it comes to color representation for both proof and toned coins. It's very close to in hand look imo.
A polarizing filter will cause more problems than it solves. You're likely to get rainbows in the plastic.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Thanks @messydesk! You’ve just saved me hours of testing with polarizing filter.
Below are my tests pics with normal components. No editing except cropping. I’m waiting for the beam splitter glass to arrive and will give that glass a try later.
Agreed, thanks!
In my opinion it’s not worth the trouble.
While I continue to experiment with some slab shots, here some shots of my whitman album toned merc and roosie for over head vs axial. I'm also curious what @rmpsrpms thinks of these shots, I seen some of your posts from other forums. Also I don't know if the owner of the Artemis collection is here or not, but they've also taken some amazing pseudo axial shots (though still raw).
Don't mind the conditions of the coins, they were from when I first started collecting and didn't know better.
Ok, next try, using a optical quality diffuser between the light and plate beamsplitter instead of direct to BS.
Shot on a mirror so i can do white balance calibration through the slab.
(Cropped to just show the coin)
Straight out of camera:
ACR: fix white balance, +100 dehaze, +15 clarity
ACR: contrast + 10, white + highlight -25, shadow + black +25, curves clip on and black.
The same roosie from earlier in the thread
ACR: fix white balance, +100 dehaze, +20 clarity
This one I lowered the white + highlight -100 so I can check that there's still detail from the flow lines of this proof with clear mirrored surfaces.
What does everyone think. I think this method came out really well with just edits via adobe camera raw. I'd need to brush up on my photoshop skills to improve it. If anyone has some photoshop tips for improving this further, I'm open to learning some more tips (of course I'll play with the levels and curves some more). Editing a axially lit image is very weird, it's like editing a negative image.