Oh the joy of photography 1838 Half Eagle
BECOKA
Posts: 16,961 ✭✭✭
I had not taken photos for a few weeks so I got the itch to play with some lighting.
Both of these examples use the same lights and are of the same coin. The first is a straight on shot and the second I tilted the slab slightly and nudged the light so it reflected off the edge of the coin.
Which do you prefer?
Sorry these were quick shots so there is some glare from the slab.
Some interesting comments so far.
Some like the first some like the second some say the first may better represent the coin in hand some say the second.
In reality don't both represent the coin in hand. When you look at a coin do you rotate it around a bit looking at all parts of the coin. Rotating in hand would change the way the light looks and how you see the coin. Because it is moving you don't realize that you saw either of the image above but you saw both plus hundreds more at about 32 frames per second in your eye.
Both of these examples use the same lights and are of the same coin. The first is a straight on shot and the second I tilted the slab slightly and nudged the light so it reflected off the edge of the coin.
Which do you prefer?
Sorry these were quick shots so there is some glare from the slab.
Some interesting comments so far.
Some like the first some like the second some say the first may better represent the coin in hand some say the second.
In reality don't both represent the coin in hand. When you look at a coin do you rotate it around a bit looking at all parts of the coin. Rotating in hand would change the way the light looks and how you see the coin. Because it is moving you don't realize that you saw either of the image above but you saw both plus hundreds more at about 32 frames per second in your eye.
0
Comments
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
- Jim
Those a great images. The second really shows the piece in its best light (glare notwithstanding).
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
But they are both nice images.
Jonathan
Some like the first some like the second some say the first may better represent the coin in hand some say the second.
In reality don't both represent the coin in hand. When you look at a coin do you rotate it around a bit looking at all parts of the coin. Rotating in hand would change the way the light looks and how you see the coin. Because it is moving you don't realize that you saw either of the image above but you saw both plus hundreds more at about 32 frames per second in your eye.
I agree with your comment about both pics being useful to determine in hand looks.
I’ve often wanted some way to capture a series of images as a coin is rotated in light,
and have them generate an animated gif. I’ve attempted to do this manually…
Nice results, but way too time intensive.
...
First pic. I love the luster that the camera picks up as an orange fire around the stars. This luster is captured with a certain angle between the camera, light and coin. Is there a way to capture more of this lustre?
Second pic. The contrast is better, showing the details of the coin. But perhaps a little much, as I can also see all of the flat worn spots rather clearly. The glare from the slab distracts me; i'd rather see nothing but coin. The image is brighter, yielding a nicer color.
Gold is one of the most interesting and difficult of colors for photography...yellow. Most other colors simply have lighter and darker versions of that color. Yellow, however, looks rather different when you have different exposure levels, and I believe it has to do with psychology and how we see colors as humans. It ranges from an unreal lemon color to a dingy brown color. The 'real' color we are looking for is actually at a very specific exposure level. Your coins look a little on the 'brown' side to me. They may or may not be like that in person. Try lightening up these photos 1/2 or 1/3rd of a stop and see if the color looks 'yummier'. The bottom picture is brighter and nicer in my opinion.
Another thing i've found about Shiny Gold Coins is that 'ambient' and 'point source' light reveal two completely different aspects of a coin. Ambient light is really good at picking up the patina. Point source light is really good at picking up reflections, shine and luster. You need a good blend of both to make a coin look 'real'.
Avoid that glare. It adds unwanted white to your photo. Plastic in 1838?!?!?
So...if one could blend the lighting from both photos...try to capture more of the orange glow in the 1st photo...add a little bit of what you did in the second photo to improve contrast but not enough to wash it out. Then see if lightening it up helps. All just suggestions...they may not be good suggestions.
This is a good exercise...to examine two photos critically and see if you could come up with a plan for taking an even better third photo. It hardly ever works out that way. Often, it seems that the sweetest photo is the one that was total serendipity and happened with no planning.
The variability of a gold coin can be somewhat captured in an animated GIF, but it's not very publishable on paper...
(poor color...I did not do a proper job of color balancing this one)
Click to play
Another animation...a Saint. Note how every little scratch is visible...might not be visible in one frame but there it is in another...note the use of both room lighting and electronic lighting; there are two different colors of highlights...again, poor technique but gold helps to hide it.
Click to play
Ramble off.
I get the point though and you brought up some interesting comments.
I hope you don't take my criticisms as disapproval! Far from it.
I've got to hack out those animations. They make my head hurt too.
Here's one of my attempts.
The coin has decent luster remaining but is weakly struck and shows up as mostly flat in every picture I've
taken of it. In hand the luster is quite obvious...
PS: The $20.00 Saint animation is quite effective.
...
I think both of those shots will represent the coin in-hand. The difference between them is photophile stuff, and that is, of course, a matter of person preference. I think that with a little effort you could go a long way to eliminate the glare in the second set of photos while keeping the + attributes of that set. I frequently get to looking at my shots and think - dang, I missed this or that in the set-up. So, it takes us mortals a few extra shots to get it as close to what we wanted it to be in the first place. Good job, you did well on both sets! Nice coin, and good photos. I prefer the look of set #2.
–John Adams, 1826
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>I prefer the first image as I imagine that is what the coin looks like in hand. Both are great photos and demonstrate how a coin is not a one dimensional object. In other words, a coin will look different as you rotate it under a light. >>
i agree. the 2nd looks like DW took it.
i totally think the coin probably looks like more like the first in hand.
if you have to rotate a coin to get just the right pic, i think you are
fudging the photo.