Some dramatic examples of the difference lighting and angle make in imaging colorful coins.

Russ

This thread's genesis is the thread I posted about the Morgan toners I picked up at the show. My first images were shot to capture all of the color in the coins, but they captured none of the luster. The ensuing discussion was very educational and interesting, so I reshot the coins to try and capture some of the luster.

Thought this might be a good seperate thread to demonstrate what a dramatic difference lighting and angle can make in the appearance of a coin in an image. No software editing other than to crop, resize and merge.

1885-O Morgan shot to capture all the color:



Same coin shot to try and capture luster:





Another 1885-O Morgan going after the color:



Same coin looking for luster:





1887 shot for color:



Same coin trying to capture luster:



The fact is, it's pretty easy to make a coin look better or worse than it is in reality. This creates a situation that is both good and bad for us as collectors. Good in the sense that there are still some sellers, (Teletrade comes to mind), that are lousy at imaging color so we can scoop up the occasional bargain.

Bad in the sense that there are some sellers that are very good with imaging and software manipulation, so the coin may look far better than reality.

Russ, NCNE

MadMonk

Good examples Russ!

jonesy

The luster shot on the 1887 is so much better than the latter. Great photo's Russ.
Glenn

eagle7

Russ, from looking at all the pictures the colors appear now to be original. However I like the 85 and the 87. I would pass on the O mint coin because of the fingerprint and the rim gouges. For the price you paid however I would say you got a real bargain. The 87 is just a soft strike and the flat spots are the original planchet showing. I think it will come back at least an MS63. And yes this is the problem with buying coins on EBAY. The differences in the photo will either net you a bargain or paste the word sucker on your forehead!

Russ

Hey, I think that big fat print is cool! I imagine a dad sitting with his little boy sometime back 50 years or so putting the coin in to an album right after a Sunday afternoon BBQ while he still had sauce all over his hands.

Russ, NCNE

jonesy

DAMMIT BOY!!

Russ

Bump in case anybody's interested.

Russ, NCNE

NumisEd

putting the coin in to an album

Russ, that is NOT funny........in the least. Please reconsider.

nwcs

Some pretty cool pix, Russ. It's amazing what we've been able to get that ricoh to do for less money than others.

Steve27

Which picture of the 87 do you feel most accurately portrays the coin (I'm guessing it's the second one)?

Russ

Steve,

Neither. Combine the colors from the first with the luster from the second and you'll arrive at what the coin looks like. In other words, try to imagine the images merged.

Russ, NCNE

cosmicdebris

Great shots and lesson Russ. By the way I'll take the lustre shots.

Elcontador

Russ, thank you. Your images provide an excellent example why I never buy a coin based on its image. If possible, can you can further educate people by showing how an image can not pick up flecks on Unc. copper, or hairlines on Proof coinage?

Russ

<< <i>If possible, can you can further educate people by showing how an image can not pick up flecks on Unc. copper, or hairlines on Proof coinage? >>



Elcontador,

Already did that for proof coins.

Copper, I'll have to work on. I don't currently have any suitable examples.

Russ, NCNE

Elcontador

Thanks Russ. I probably didn't see your thread on proofs because I don't have the gene to collect moderns. Based on your excellent imaging, I'm glad that you do!