Opinions wanted on coin images

stev32k

Here are three shots of the same coin. It is in a PCGS MS66 holder and is a super looking coin in hand. I'm trying to get a photograph that looks just as good as the coin. Part of the problem has to do with reflections, and whether to keep them in the photograph or filter them out. The first shot shows the reflective surface and pretty good detail, but some of the reflections show up as black spots. The next shot has some of the reflections cut out, shows a little better detail, but still has some black reflections. The last shot has the reflections filtered out, shows very good detail, but makes the surface look dull. Couple of notes. The coin has a dig at the 2 o'clock position that does not show up in the first image, but is present in the next two. This was an error on my part. The last image has bluish-purple cast at about the 4 o'clock position that is not present on the coin. I'm not concerned about this as I know what caused it and will correct the next go around.

Shamika

They all look great, but I prefer the first one. The second one does give the appearance of carbon spots all over it.

mgoodm3

I like the second picture the most of the bunch, but there is a little glare at the top. I hate glare. Not sure what you mean by reflections and blackspots?

stev32k

<<Not sure what you mean by reflections and blackspots?>>

Glare and reflections are different degrees of the same thing. A mild or normal reflection makes the surface look shiny. If the reflection is too strong it becomes glare. Proof coin surfaces show up black in photographs because of the extreme shine. Black spots on non-proof coins can be any of several things like reflections from surface scratches, rubs, areas that have been polished, or they could be carbon spots. I was trying to remove the black spots because they are not there when you have the coin in hand.

RotatedRainbows

I like the second one best, it has much better depth of field and show the devices in full relief.

nwcs

I like the second one.

K6AZ

The second one is the best in my opinion. This is in a 66 holder?

robertpr

I also prefer image 2.

stev32k

Damn - Seems like half like the first, half like the second, and I thought the third was best. Shows what I know. I was hoping for a unanimous opinion. Yes, it is in a MS66 holder.

K6AZ

The third image doesn't show any luster, almost looks like it was taken with some heavy diffusion.

stev32k

<< The third image doesn't show any luster, almost looks like it was taken with some heavy diffusion.>>

Yeah, you're right the luster is filtered out. I did that to show the maximum amount of detail. If you look at the two images closely you will see what I mean. The third really shows more detail, but the first two are prettier. I'm beginning to think that a merger may be in order here...Hmm. Will look at that.

K6AZ

What is your camera and lightling setup?

carl

All three are better than anything I've been able to do so far. As someone already said what kind of camera are you using. It's apparently great for closeups. I just tried my Fuji S7000 with 3 Vivitar closeup filters and got really super close but the glare wiped me out. Great pictures. The second one is probably the better one.

Coinhusker1

I like the second one the best. Most of my images turn out like the first one. What adjustments do you make to get from the first to the second one?

OnlyBuffalos

Me too, two.

stev32k

I have the Nikon D70 and Nikkor 60mm, f2.8 Micro lens. The lighting, reflectors, and optical glass filter set-up is mostly custom made. I will next try to merge the luster of the first with the increased detail of the third and see if that works.

K6AZ

Steve, is that 60mm a micro or macro lens? How is your camera mounted (tripod, stand or ?).

stev32k

In Nikonise it's a micro. For the rest of the world it's a macro. Don't know why Nikon choose this terminology, but that's what they call it. I have several copy stands and tripods. Lately I have started using a Giottos tripod more than a copy stand. It is stable, takes up less room, and has a lateral arm that can be extended and counter-balanced making a more solid camera platform. The main reason is that it takes up less room than a copy stand.

K6AZ

I was having trouble with the 105mm macro lense because the camera had to be so far up the pole I was getting just a bit of vibration when the mirror flashed, and that was enough with that lens to cause a bit of blurring.

What aperature and shutter speed are you using?

stev32k

I shoot in manual at between f16 & f40. I vary the shutter speed from 1/125 to 1/1000. I am able to do this because I have three SB-800 flash units and a total of 3,000 watts of incandescent lighting. The D70 does not have mirror lock-up so I must use fast shutter speeds to avoid camera shake. The real key is the lighting, flash box, and optical reflectors.

K6AZ

Interesting. At least with the 250w of lights I was using, I was running the aperature at F7.1 and the shutter speed between 400 and 640. The reason I was asking is because the images appear not as sharp as I would expect with a D70. Right now, I'm on a hiatus until I get the new more sturdy stand I ordered.

Rollerman

As old Art Baker used to say, "You Asked for It". That goes way back in the early days of television. Anyway, I think the 2nd photo shows detail the best, but seems to over accentuate the contact marks and doesn't look as natural as the first photo with respect to color and the lustre. The 3rd looks very unnatural and gives the appearence, to me anyway, as having been messed with (the photo, not the coin). Just MHO. Pete

stev32k

That's all good feedback and I appreciate the responses. It tells me I've got some re-thinking to do. The luster and shine seems to be more important than the overall detail. Maybe the answer is both - one shot for the luster and one for the detail - I can do that.

Mrpawn

#2 is nice - might tone down the contrast a tad
#3 is way too soft of a focus/filter - makes the coin look AUish
#1 -

K6AZ

I just thought of something in your previous response, three SB800s? Are you saying you are using speedlight flashes to take these images?

stev32k

Yes, number one was taken in a flash box with hard reflectors. Number two was with the flash box with optical reflectors. The third was taken in a soft box. I think I will try to merge number one and three in photoshop and see what happens.

K6AZ

Why don't you try a steady light source and forget the diffusion? What I'm seeing is very soft details, and light boxes and flashes are well known for it. While I see on the various photo forums people recommending this approach, it doesn't work with coins.

K6AZ

stev32k

<<While I see on the various photo forums people recommending this approach, it doesn't work with coins. >>

But I disagree strongly. It does work with coins and other bright reflective surfaces. That does not mean that other methods do not work - I'm sure you take excellent coin photos - but, it is the method that works best for me.

K6AZ

I just posted a comparison. Your 81- (mint mark?) and my 81-S PCGS MS66. Notice how much sharper the date and legend are. The softness you are getting is most likely from the speedlights and/or lightbox. It's up to you how you want to do your photos, but in all three of your images the legend and the date is mushy.