Please critique my mediocre photo.

ColonialCoinUnion

Concrete suggestions about how to make it better would be most appreciated.

RYK

I think it is a very good photo. I was able to grade the coin from the photo, and I have a good idea how the coin will look in hand. My only criticism is that the photo accentuates the marks and not the luster. As a buyer, I would prefer it that way. As a seller, you might prefer it the other way. I have no idea how to tweak the technique to better demonstrate the luster.

What's with the generic gold?

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>What's with the generic gold? >>



We've bought several smaller collections lately which have included all sorts of things, even (gasp) generic gold.

I figured it was good photo fodder though.

My attempts to capture luster have resulted in very washed out images which lack depth.

DennisH

I'd say your photos are way better than most.

BobaFett72

I think its far from mediocre. not to shabby. very nice detail.

MikeKing

It's a very nice photo. Perhaps more light, or different kind of light would capture more of the luster that you seem to be looking for. Again, very nice photo.

IrishMike

Very nice but to critique it one would have to know how well it actually represents the coin, for example is it really that light in color? I played around with my imaging software and it cranked out a darker gold color than what your photo represents.

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>Very nice but to critique it one would have to know how well it actually represents the coin, for example is it really that light in color? I played around with my imaging software and it cranked out a darker gold color than what your photo represents. >>



Note that I had adjusted the levels in photoshop before I posted and I would say that the color I have shown is really quite accurate compared to the actual coin.

Mine does an inadequate job of showing the actual luster, and lacks the real metallic look and sharpness I have seen on some of the best photos posted in this forum.

MikeKing

what kind of lighting are you using, how many lights, and what is the angle of the light(s) to the coin?

mgoodm3

Not bad. looks like only one light?

airplanenut

I like it, bit I think you need to:

-Use more light
-Move the light higher over the coin, and pointing more downwards.

These will show more lustre, and with a better lit coin, I think the picture will be a little sharper (especially around 12:00 on the obverse).

numisma

Nice lookin' pic. What equipment did you use?

ziggy29

I wish my images were that "mediocre."

ColonialCoinUnion

This was shot using a Nikon D70s on a copy stand.

Light was one RPS Studio 16" Cool Light very close to the coin (sort of tucked up under neath the camera as close as I could get it without disturbing the shot) and angled at about 35 degrees to the coin. This has 3 5000K 26 Watt Flourescent lamps in it which is supposed to be equivalent to 360 watts incandescent.

This light comes with a diffuser, but I found the images were sharper and better without it.

I tried to position the light more above the coin, as Airplanenut suggested, but the only way I could do that is to put the light behind the camera, which doesn't create enought light.

Note my earlier efforts were with 2 of these RPS Studio lights, one on each side, with diffusers, and found it was too washed out. And before that with a ring light, which created a very flat image.

mgoodm3

Personally, I'd turn the coin 180 and get the lighting from above. I'm not a huge fan of lighting from below.

MikeKing

I think mgoodm's suggestion might work. I'm not familiar with the lighting you mentioned, but basically, in my mind, there are two kinds of lights, blue and red (e.g., ott lighting, which seems more blue to me and is flourescent, and reveal bulbs, which are incandescent and towards the red spectrum), either of which have their advantages or disadvantages depending on the metal, the toning and whether or not there is encapsulation to deal with. In either case, one should work, and shining the light from a distance may very well solve the problem.
edited to add, I still think it's a great pic and I love the coin.

mfcobra

Looks a tad "washed out" or over-exposed to me. Try a different f-stop, and also play w/ your light configuration. Moving your lights can enhance the luster. Don't have your light facing straight at the subject, give slight angles & the luster will become more pronounced.

stev32k

If you are happy with the color and sharpness I would try using reflectors to bring out the luster. Sometimes a piece of 8-1/2 X 11 white paper with a crease in the middle so it will stand by itself will work. Place the paper opposite the light and adjust the light angle until you get the reflection. If the white paper does not work try aluminum foil taped to a piece of cardboard (or you can buy a table top reflector kit that have all sorts of little gismos).

Here's one I shot last night using one light and two reflectors:

mgoodm3

Just for completeness, what lens are you using on the D70?

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>Just for completeness, what lens are you using on the D70? >>



AF Micro Nikkor 60mm.

ColonialCoinUnion

I am shooting this in manual mode, and have tried countless settings from F 3.6 to F7.1, at shutter speeds from 1/60 to 1/1600. The one below was 5.6, 1/250.

The various combinations are all slightly different, but none seems to be the difference between where the picture currently is and obtaining measurably more sharpness.

I suspect sharpness will come from different lighting configurations, but I'm not sure which one among the infinite number of alternatives.

mgoodm3

With a 60mm lens you'll be a bit limited on how high of an angle you can get the lights without causing glare (based on the wider angle of view).

Sounds like your lights are a small bank of fluorescents. They will, in general, produce a fairly diffused light. One light will sometime produce very nice results (esp coins with some frost and strong luster). Two lights will commonly look washed out. You might just try a couple of standard lightbulbs in gooseneck desklamps and see if that improves things any. Get them in as close as you can without causing undue glare.

mgoodm3

I'd stick to an aperture in the f 6-10 range. You'll get sharper images. If you shoot in "A" mode you can set the aperture where you want it and let the camera decide on the shutter speed. You may need to bump the exposure compensation up a little (+0.3 to +1.0).

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>You may need to bump the exposure compensation up a little (+0.3 to +1.0). >>



Thanks for the tips - but I'm not sure what this last part means.

mgoodm3

Macro imaging will most commonly result in an underexposed image when you let the camera decide on the exposure. So it commonly necessary to tell the camera to overexpose the image a little to compensate. There's a +/- button near the shutter release button. Hold it in and turn the dial (i think the rear one) and in the view-finder you'll see a chart and a number showing how much + or minus you are on the exposure. +1.0 is measured in F stops or equivalent to opening the aperture up a certain amount to let more light in.

Common I will use +0.3 or +0.7.

pendragon1998

<< <i>

<< <i>You may need to bump the exposure compensation up a little (+0.3 to +1.0). >>



Thanks for the tips - but I'm not sure what this last part means. >>



He's saying to slightly over-expose the image by 0.3 to 1.0 stops. I don't know that I'd suggest that, but play with it some. I shoot my photos with a Nikon D70, the immediate predecessor to your D70s. I am using a Nikkor 18-70mm zoom lens, but I would like to upgrade at some point to a dedicated macro lens. I have also had trouble with getting my images sharp. The autofocus on my D70 is a joke for this task, and that leaves me making microadjustments to the focus ring with focus set to manual. It's a huge pain, but I've been able to achieve about 95% of what I want with it. A dedicated macro lens would probably give me the extra magnification and focus I've wanted to achieve. See my example photo at the bottom of the post - it's about the best I've been able to get with my current setup. The photo is not resized - it is exactly as taken, other than for the cropping. Feel free to hunt me down on the NGC forum, which I more frequently ...er...frequent. My only other suggestion would be to play around with multiple lights and lighting angles.

I would suggest you also ask this question over at the NGC forums, as there is at least 1 other D70 user over there - TomB if I recall correctly.

pendragon1998

<< <i>Macro imaging will most commonly result in an underexposed image when you let the camera decide on the exposure. So it commonly necessary to tell the camera to overexpose the image a little to compensate. There's a +/- button near the shutter release button. Hold it in and turn the dial (i think the rear one) and in the view-finder you'll see a chart and a number showing how much + or minus you are on the exposure. +1.0 is measured in F stops or equivalent to opening the aperture up a certain amount to let more light in.

Common I will use +0.3 or +0.7. >>



I guess I should add that in my previous post, I was assuming that you were using manual control of shutter speed and aperature. When doing it that way, you're in total control of the imaging, so exposure compensation is unnecessary. If using auto (camera controlled) ss or ap, then it may be useful. Manual is the superior way to go for coin photography, imho.

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>I guess I should add that in my previous post, I was assuming that you were using manual control of shutter speed and aperature. >>



I have been using manual control setting the aperture and shutter speed. I am loathe to start adding additional variables like exposure compensation into the mix, though perhaps thats exactly what I need.

pendragon1998

Well, with manual photography, you really don't need to do any exposure compensation. All you need to do is expose for the coin surface you're photographing. Most people crop out the background and paste the coins on a neutral background anyway, so it doesn't matter if your exposure leaves the background of the original image under or over exposed.

BigBuffaloGuy

When I first saw those pictures I thought, "wow, that looks a lot like one of my pictures." Then I read you were using basically the same equiptment as I. The same light type, 5000k with the diffusers removed, and nearly the same camera (I use a d100). I'm curious, do you also use the Nikon Capture software? If not, buy it as it will save you from having to manually edit the camea settings and from having to use the memory card. It also allows you to immediately view the picture on a computer monitor.

If you want to know the settings of the camera that I found gave the best results (at least in my opinion), continue reading.

Set the camea to "Aperture Priority"
Set the Apature to F10
Set the Exposure to +2
Have the light at about 2/7 of full power
Hold a light reflector disc with a translucent surface to soften the light at a 45% angle under the light so that it shadows the coin.

Oh, and most important of all, buy a gray card and place it under the camera lense, then measure the white balance. You must do this before taking pictures every time you change the light or turn on your camera!

The result?

shylock

Better than most gold auction photos. Evenly lit, accurate gold color, and shows all the hits in great detail. Very nice photo!

Mine does an inadequate job of showing the actual luster, and lacks the real metallic look and sharpness I have seen on some of the best photos posted in this forum.

Imaging coins is always a tradeoff. A different light source would compliment the luster but would deteriorate the detail of this coin.

I think you nailed it.

Bruceswar

I think adding a 2nd light will help this photo out alot. Not too bad of a photo, but your right... It just lacks that "pop" a good photo has. A bit more trying with it and you will have it.

MikeInFL

That's a pretty darn good photo. The exposure is just about perfect (perhaps 1/3 stop overexposed or application of over-agressive levels).

Some suggestions (some already posted above):

1) Light the coin from above rather than below -- lighing from below gives the coin an unnatural look to me.
2) Apply light sharpening before resizing, then resize, but beware of sharpening artifacts and dial back USM if they start to show. Also play around with resizing algorithms to see which works best for your pics. Avoid MS Paint resizing like the plague.
3) Move the light farther away and "higher" (closer to the viewing angle) -- this will add some contrast to your shot and make the luster stand out more.
4) Strongly consider getting a longer macro lens -- with the 60mm you are too close to effectively shoot many coins (and #3 may be partially caused by this).
5) Go to manual focus, manual exposure, and be sure you use a custom white balance. Forget about exposure compensation and learn to use the histogram.
6) Get the exposure correct in-camera and don't rely on post-processing to correct it.
7) Shoot in RAW (.nef) and use Capture or Photoshop to make any necessary changes (other than resizing, cropping, and sharpening) to the RAW file rather than the TIFF or JPG -- this will produce better results.
8) Continue to experiment with lighting -- don't be afraid to try one light close for primary lighting and others farther away to bring up the level of the darker areas or help to show the luster.

Hope this helps...Mike

michael

I'd say your photos are way better than most.