Scanner vs. digital camera

ccex

I've learned quite a bit about guessing what the coin might look like in person by looking at some eBay sellers' images. Often, I've won coins I want on eBay when I know the seller uses a scanner. If the detail shows up in the scan, luster is often much better in person.

I have a decent scanner, but it does not do justice to many mint state coins. I thought a digital camera might portray them better. I am still tinkering with my digicam setup and lighting, and don't have an expensive camera either (Olympus D-580). I am very pleased with my scanner (Epson Perfection 1200S).

Tonight I took a couple of old buddies out of my type set album to see how they would look under the camera vs. on the scanner.

First, the best Bust Half I own. Here the camera shows the color better, but doesn't do full justice to the luster:


(Camera)


(Scanner)

A common date Morgan had just the opposite effect: more realistic color from the scanner than from my single-light copystand:



(Camera)


(Scanner)

mrearlygold

What's the difference timewise in taking pics and scans?

Tom

ccex

<< <i>What's the difference timewise in taking pics and scans?

Tom >>



The scans were made 11/28 and the pictures 1/22. My SCSI scanner is quicker, but mostly because I don't have to mess with cables from the back of my computer.

thebeav

Hi,
I think Tom meant, "How long does it take to scan a coin as opposed to how long does it take to photograph one"?
I know my scanner probably takes a minute or so to scan......In that time, I can photograph 11 coins......
Is that the question Tom?

Paul

mrearlygold

Hey Paul,

Yes that's the question I was asking. Wow so it's MUCH faster using a camera? But then you scan the photos?

For example, how would I use a camera to add inventory to my website?
Sorry ccex, I'm not trying to hijack your thread. Really.

Tom

pmh1nic

ccex

Both the scans and the pictures look pretty good (BTW, really like the coins ). The newer scanners seem to come pretty close to getting the quality of image you can get with a camera.

I've found that the most difficult part of getting good photographs is the lighting set-up and one set-up doesn't work best with every coin (toned versus white).

ccex

Thanks for your comments.

I agree that a camera is faster than a scanner, if you measure only the time it takes to grab an image of each coin. Since I was trying different lighting and still learning my camera's menu structure just before I posted this, I looked forward to the day when photographing a coin is as easy for me as scanning one has been for some time now.

If I had to take images of large batches of coins, I would favor the camera. Since I am not a dealer, just a collector of mostly circulated coins, the 5-year-old scanner has been fine for me until I started taking a much closer look at images of uncirculated coins posted here.

thebeav

<< <i>

Wow so it's MUCH faster using a camera?
But then you scan the photos?

For example, how would I use a camera to add inventory to my website?
Tom >>




Hi Tom,
Yes, much faster.....No, I don't scan the photos. My camera, a Sony Mavica, puts the pix on a floppy. Otherwise, cameras use a medium that will also easily get the pic into your computer. A cable to your USB port or such......

Paul

JrGMan2004

A scan is faster and easier... and gives pretty good details... but otherwise, is inferior to someone who knows what they are doing with a digital camera...

A scan might make a coin look flat, when it really has booming luster...