Appearance vs Angle of Lighting

rmpsrpms

In another thread I described in words what happens as the incident angle of light goes from "low" to "high". Here is a photo sequence showing the effect in 10 degree increments measured with a protractor. I used only one light to make the effect more prominent. The light is shining directly at the coin in each case, at the same distance from the coin and from approximately 9:00. I only went to 80-degrees because it would take a change of setup to achieve 90-degrees, or "axial".

Which do you prefer? Now, don't ask me "which one best represents the look of the coin in hand?" because they all do, it just depends on the angle you hold the coin to the light.

10-degrees


20-degrees


30-degrees


40-degrees


50-degrees


60-degrees


70-degrees


80-degrees

CoinZip

I don't use any special lighting......

I also use a piece of white paper for my background, the writing in your background makes it impossible for me to focus on the coin.

mgoodm3

This shows a basic advantage of a dSLR. The working distance provided by a longer focal length lens allows lighting like you see in the 80 degree image. Most compact cameras will be lucky to get to 50 degrees without the lights hitting the camera.

Baley

60 degrees, and even better, 2 x 60 degrees at k10 and k2

CoinJunkie

Interesting, but hard to judge a "favorite" as there are tradeoffs in each between glare and shadowing.

I'd be very interested to see the sequence repeated with TWO lights (at 9:00 and 3:00 perhaps), and
again advancing them (together) in 10 degree increments.

rmpsrpms

<< <i>Interesting, but hard to judge a "favorite" as there are tradeoffs in each between glare and shadowing.

I'd be very interested to see the sequence repeated with TWO lights (at 9:00 and 3:00 perhaps), and
again advancing them (together) in 10 degree increments. >>



One thing I did not mention is that these are un-processed images (other than RAW to jpg conversion) so don't really show each photo in it's "best light". I will repeat this sequence with two lights, at 10:30 and 1:30, and do a bit of levels adjustment on each one to make the photo look more "presentable". Honestly I am not sure how the comparison will come out when each photo is optimized so it will be interesting to see.

rmpsrpms

<< <i>Fascinating study going on here.
I prefer 10% since you see more of the coin's services ie coarseness less reflective, where as 70% hides the most with the shininess/reflectiveness. Sure 70% looks visually better but is less accurate imho ie it hides the coins imprefections, I want to see it all not just reflectiveness. >>



I like the 10-deg one as well because it shows surface characteristics that you don't normally see. I don't feel it is a replacement for a more "normal" presentation (mathematical pun intended) but as a supplementary shot it adds more information about the coin.

messydesk

The 10° picture shows that you need to get a Giotto's Rocket and blow the dust off the coin.

rmpsrpms

<< <i>The 10° picture shows that you need to get a Giotto's Rocket and blow the dust off the coin. >>



Well, I have one and did use it before taking the shots, but the coin was sitting on my desk for a while and I'm doing some construction on my bathrooms so it's tough to keep the dust down. Once construction is done I'm hoping for a good redux in dust but it may take a while. Anyway, that dust did not go away with blowing with the Rocket. I expect a little would come off with compressed air can but I hate using those on raw coins as I've had too many mishaps. I could brush with a lens brush but my experience is they tend to deposit more microparticles than they remove. Bottom line is that I'd bet if I took a 10-deg shot of most any coin out there, including ones in slabs, I'd see perhaps not as much as is on this coin but a good number of micro dust particles that you don't even know are there.

rmpsrpms

<< <i>Interesting, but hard to judge a "favorite" as there are tradeoffs in each between glare and shadowing.

I'd be very interested to see the sequence repeated with TWO lights (at 9:00 and 3:00 perhaps), and
again advancing them (together) in 10 degree increments. >>



OK, I took another sequence with two lights at 10 and 2, and adjusted levels to match the photos a bit better to each other. Here are the results:

10-deg


20-deg


30-deg


40-deg


50-deg


60-deg


70-deg


80-deg

rainbowroosie

I choose 55 degrees.

CoinJunkie

Thanks for repeating the sequence! Overall, I find those shots much better. Seems like detail
keeps increasing as one scrolls down the page. I like detail, so would vote 80 degrees.

SeattleSlammer

80 is certainly the most flattering.

blu62vette

<< <i>80 is certainly the most flattering. >>



I agree

coinbuf

<< <i>80 is certainly the most flattering. >>



+2

rmpsrpms

80-deg is far enough off of axial that it picks up some luster, but close enough to axial that it brings out the toning. It's also about as close as you can get with a Cent before you get direct reflections (semi-axial). This doesn't cause problems for raw coins but gives a reflection from slabbed coins that's better to avoid. If you think about it, how do you hold a coin for in-hand viewing? I hold it so that the light is just off the coin, which is exactly what 80-deg gives you. Of course I then move it around to different angles and such to examine the luster, which you can't really show with a single coin image.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
ttt

old thread
.

Shamika

I don't like any of them. Abe's face is too dark.

metalmeister

I like the 80 deg the most