Home U.S. Coin Forum
Options

Scanned images versus photos

When taking pics of coins, which do you prefer? Earlier I showed some BU franklins I "scanned" in, and everyone thought they looked like dipped, polished, rubbed, browned, nasty coins. The photos of those same coins tell a different story. Which is better? Which is more honest?

Comments

  • Options
    LucyBopLucyBop Posts: 14,001 ✭✭✭
    Photos can capture luster, where a scan always tends to make a coin dull, no luster and lifeless.
    imageBe Bop A Lula!!
    "Senorita HepKitty"
    "I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
  • Options

    a scan always tends to make a coin dull, no luster and lifeless.

    image


    I'm now waiting on a new digital camera with zoom so I can improve my coin images. I gave up on my scanner.
    Spare your best friend's life!! Adopt an adult dog at your local "kill" animal shelter. You will be changed.
  • Options
    speetyspeety Posts: 5,424
    I agree with LucyBop, I hate being stuck with my scanner! image
    Want to buy an auction catalog for the William Hesslein Sale (December 2, 1926). Thanks to all those who have helped us obtain the others!!!

  • Options
    RickMilauskasRickMilauskas Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭
    What Lucybob says.

    I prefer pics much more than scans.
  • Options
    pics by a long shot
  • Options
    CoxeCoxe Posts: 11,139
    There is no question about it. Unless an orangutan is imaging a coin, better results are possible with a camera than a scanner. I scan all of mine, though I am a more advanced primate, out of convenience still. One of these days I need to get a good copystand set up going.
    Select Rarities -- DMPLs and VAMs
    NSDR - Life Member
    SSDC - Life Member
    ANA - Pay As I Go Member

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file