coin photographers, please chime in on these-need help!

1907Quarter

so, I bought this lovely BRQ from Larry Whitlow and was much impressed by the below photo!! Spoke to the photograher Mike Printz" I use a fairly sophisticated system Eugene and I use a combination of halogen and other lighting. It’s a system I have developed over many years and I think I’ve nailed it as best as anyone can. Here’s a Lincoln in 67 I just shot and the coin looks JUST like this. The lighting is the key but I’m about 12 inches off the coin when I take these shots and that leaves me a great deal of flexibility with the lighting."


so here are my 2 attempts. 1st using airplanenut's advice, I beared down to 1.8", 2-60W soft white incandescents, Nikon Coolpix, 1024pixel setting


not satisfied, I raised to 3", 1600pxl same lighting but more"better light" camera not in the way. Still a little washed out but better.


OK, some questions:
1.How does Mike get what he gets?
2.Are Halogens important?
3.How do you determine best distance/pixel setting?
4.Am I being to hard on myself i.e. is my last shot pretty ok?

Hope you can help!
Eugene

xbob

I think your last photo is fine. Software (in this case Photoshop) can give it the extra jump in quality you are looking for.
I took your last photo, adjusted the levels and contrast, and ran the sharpen filter once.
It has been reduced to be under 50K for the forum, hence the size change, but otherwise looked the same at actual size.

poorguy

OK, some questions:
1.How does Mike get what he gets?
2.Are Halogens important?
3.How do you determine best distance/pixel setting?
4.Am I being to hard on myself i.e. is my last shot pretty ok?

1. Better Camera most likely. Your lighting looks pretty good.

2. I can't stand halogen for imaging. Use something softer and that won't give an orange glow.

3. Max Number of pixels and as close as you can get without losing focus in a macro mode.

4. No, those pictures need work. But, needless to say that some of my images came out looking like that with a coolpix. That's why I went and got another camera and I used the same set-up and got tremendously better results.

1907Quarter

alright, now the age-old question, and a brief thank you to xbob before I continue!,
is photoshopping cheating?!

poorguy

is photoshopping cheating?!

Only if it is abused. bondman22 on eBay comes to mind.

1907Quarter

so xbob's fine effort is certainly in line!?

xbob

<< <i>alright, now the age-old question, is photoshopping cheating?! >>



Heck no. It's just another tool in the process if used properly. Just another step in making the coin look closer to real life.

However, "painting" in photoshop to hide flaws in the coin is certainly cheating and unethical if you are offering it for sale.

(btw, glad to help.)

mgoodm3

Not bad pictures. The distance from the camera to the coin is the key. The SLR that Mike uses allows the camera to be a long way away from the coin. this alows better lighting from a higher angle. I don't think that the lighting type matters that much as long as you get a good white balance. I love halogen lamps. Photoshop is OK, but best used sparingly.

northcoin

I think the key to Mike's photos is using an SLR (single lens reflex camera) rather than the ones most of us use. I assume it is a digitial SLR, but don't know for sure.

1907Quarter

Mike's is digital-thanks to everyone for their offerings! I just tried my irfanview adjustments: -9 brightness, +21 contrast and a sharpen and virtually got xbob's shot! Better camera=better shot in general? What's funny though is better coin=better shot!!

nwcs

Well keep in mind that it is DARN hard to get good pics across people's monitors since everyone's calibrated differently and have different viewing situations (glare, dim, etc.). Ultimately the best coin pics come from several factors:

1. Good lighting
2. MANY attempts
3. High quality lenses
4. As lossless of a capture by the camera as possible
5. Experimentation

When I photograph, I use a travel tripod that is about 4 inches from the coin. I use two lights at slightly different angles to the coin at around 9 and 2 o'clock. I've been experimenting with high definition response images to capture more subtlety but it's a work in progress.

1907Quarter

mgood said The distance from the camera to the coin is the key

is it striking the balance between better light and loss of definition(camera being far away)? should all of my shots be on 2048(Maximum for my camera), if I'm going to shrink them down to 400x400 anyway?

1907Quarter

poorguy says:Max Number of pixels and as close as you can get without losing focus in a macro mode.

but if the camera gets in the way won't the lighting suffer a bit?

nwcs

Yes, shoot with max pixels and then reduce. Reduce in Photoshop for best results.

nwcs

<< <i>poorguy says:Max Number of pixels and as close as you can get without losing focus in a macro mode.

but if the camera gets in the way won't the lighting suffer a bit? >>

If your angles are good then no.

1907Quarter

will be doing plenty of experimenting this weekend with all of your excellent advice!!
I love this forum! great weekend to all!

AlixTCat

This is great stuff guys! Thanks for all the tips.

Jonathan

1907Quarter

oh, and btw, I was still able to duplicates Mike's cameo effect of the reverse in my current shot!

LanLord

I have a short attention span, maybe someone asked, or answered this but...

What do the coins look like in hand? Which picture is closer to reality?

I don't give a rats arse if you CAN make a coin pic look good, does the pic look like the coin? That's what is important.

carl

Don't know what all the fuss is about. I think all the photos look pretty darn good. The second set appears a little to dark but just can't see enough difference to worry about. Great clarity.

shylock

Michael does this for a living and his image shows it. Evenly lit, crisp detail, and it shows the original mint luster. My honest opinon: He nailed this image. Your second image is the best but it's not in the same class as Michael's inventory pic.

cosmicdebris

<< <i>Not bad pictures. The distance from the camera to the coin is the key. The SLR that Mike uses allows the camera to be a long way away from the coin. this alows better lighting from a higher angle. I don't think that the lighting type matters that much as long as you get a good white balance. I love halogen lamps. Photoshop is OK, but best used sparingly. >>



Exactly why I switched to a Digital SLR (Canon Rebel) and I am much happier with the results.

mrearlygold

MikeInFL

<< <i>alright, now the age-old question, and a brief thank you to xbob before I continue!,
is photoshopping cheating?! >>



It depends on what you consider "photoshopping"...

I do use photoshop, but I don't "cheat"... My goal is not to make the "prettiest" pictures, but rather the most accurate.

I do NOTHING to my photos except perhaps rotating a few degrees then downsampling and adding a border sometimes. As those operations don't actually transform the image itself, I don't consider that "cheating".

No sharpening, no contrast adjustments, no brightness or color changes. To do so, in my eyes, is cheating.

That being said, there are many coins that just can't be imaged without adjustment to show what they look like in hand -- this is particularly so with slabbed coins as the slab itself robs the photo of contrast due to light scatter of the plastic. If used by someone well versed in photoshop, you can make the coin look as it does in hand, but there is a fine line between making it look accurate and overdoing it and it takes skill not easily mastered, IMHO.

To my eyes, Mike's overdone the contrast adjustment and is "cheating", but then again, I don't have the coin in hand to say for sure.

FWIW, I use a Nikon D100 DSLR with, in this case, a 70-200 VR with Canon 500D closeup lens. For this photo I used a Reveal 75W bulb and a cheap clip on reflector. I also use a tripod, remote shutter release, and custom white balance.

Here's one of my recent purchases and images, and it looks EXACTLY as it does in hand.



The single biggest improvement in your photos you will be able to make is to get a DSLR. Even the cheapest Canon or Nikon will take pictures remarkably better than yours with a good dedicated macro lens. A 50-60MM will work, but using one of 100mm or even 200mm will give you more working distance and more lighting options. Tamron makes a superb 90mm 2.8 Macro lens for both the Canon and Nikon, and it's relatively inexpensive.

Have fun...Mike

p.s. Poorguy, the orange cast which you refer to, while caused by halogens, is really a case of the photographer not having the correct white balance, as I'm sure you're aware.

ccex

<< <i>alright, now the age-old question, and a brief thank you to xbob before I continue!,
is photoshopping cheating?! >>



How about the "poor man's Photoshop". Irfanview?

shylock

To my eyes, Mike's overdone the contrast adjustment and is "cheating", but then again, I don't have the coin in hand to say for sure.

Interesting post but I don't agree with you from a photographer's and experienced Photoshop users standpoint. I've tried every which way to tweat a coin photo using Photoshop and have learned many lessons. Image detail and luster can only be devalued by Photoshop, never enhanced. Mike's photo shows very crisp detail and subtle luster.

You can make a case that Mike imaged this coin under unusually nice lighting that made it look a bit nicer than it does in person -- purely conjecture on my part. But don't tell me he did it with Photoshop, that's BS.

MikeInFL

<< <i>Interesting post but I don't agree with you from a photographer's and experienced Photoshop users standpoint. I've tried every which way to tweat a coin photo using Photoshop and have learned many lessons. Image detail and luster can only be devalued by Photoshop, never enhanced. Mike's photo shows very crisp detail and subtle luster.

You can make a case that Mike imaged this coin under unusually nice lighting that made it look a bit nicer than it does in person -- purely conjecture on my part. But don't tell me he did it with Photoshop, that's BS. >>



I could not agree with you more; you can only half-way make up for mistakes with photoshop and they'll never be as good if taken correctly out of the camera.

However, Mike's shots just look "too" sharp and contrasty to my eyes. Like maybe it was oversharpened before downsampling???

Don't get me wrong, it's a great photograph. It just doesn't look "real" to me. As I said before, I don't have the coin in my hand to say one way or the other -- so it is admittedly conjecture on my part.

Is Mr. Printz a member here? Perhaps he could enlighten all of us on his equipment and post processing techniques...Mike

nwcs

Michael is a member here. I've wondered at his techniques as well but I can see that he may consider it a trade secret of sorts and I wouldn't blame him if he chose not to share them. I do have to say that of the coins I have bought from him I haven't found any photographically misrepresented.

And I also fully concur that if the photo doesn't have it to begin with then Photoshop won't add it. But then again Photoshop can be like toning: adds a little and forgives a lot.