Options
Another Image With the Jansjo Lamps
lsica
Posts: 1,621 ✭✭✭✭
Subject Distance: 18.5 cm
Lights: 4 Jansjo 3 watt LED Gooseneck lamps
Camera: FujiFilm FinePix HS50EXR
Macro Converter: Raynox M150 (+5 Diopters)
Focal Length: 27 mm (146 mm 35mm equivalent)
Aperture: f/11
Shutter Speed: 1/100 second
ISO: 100
White Balance: Manual
Using 4 lamps this time. This coin was a BEAR to image to get the color as close as possible.
Philately will get you nowhere....
0
Comments
i won't use anything other than these
Very nice coin and date, whatever that doubling bit is, and nice colors from what I can see. The image is speckly (I know the toning likely is mint set speckle), but the lighting (?) gives the impression this coin will have the texture of 70 grit sandpaper. The colored toning speckle texture is overtaking the coin IMHO, or maybe it is just a touch dark. Others will have more insight.
Eric
Edit to add: Something to do with depth of focus as well - the slab seems much closer than the coin. On the other hand, if you shot this to highlight the "'55" as the first objective - well done.
The subject is a beaut!
<< <i>.
i won't use anything other than these
Are these even legal to manufacture anymore?
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>.
i won't use anything other than these
Are these even legal to manufacture anymore? >>
China
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>.
i won't use anything other than these
I like the Reveal incadescents too. They are so much better at getting things like luster and irridescence than more diffused sources like CFL's. Problem with them is that if you're trying to position them just right and have to position them very close to the coin they can get quite hot. Espcially if you have to leave them on for any length of time. Jansjo LEDs have a pretty undiffused light and don't get hot so they're easy to handle, and if you do need a diffuser you can wrap some tissue paper around them.
<< <i> Something to do with depth of focus as well - the slab seems much closer than the coin. >>
I'm suspecting my depth of focus issues has to do with lack of that you just get from a non SLR camera at higher zooms and closer distances with add on macro lenses, aggrivated by the coin not lying quite as flat in the slab as I thought. But I also think the problem is visually exagerrated by the glare at the bottom image off the slab. I did get a good deal of the scratches off the plastic with a little toothpaste, but in order to get the colors I had to get the lights to shine very close to the coin itself. I decided I'd tolerate a bit of glare in order to improve the imaging of the toning.
(snipped here)
<< <i> The image is speckly (I know the toning likely is mint set speckle), but the lighting (?) gives the impression this coin will have the texture of 70 grit sandpaper. The colored toning speckle texture is overtaking the coin IMHO, or maybe it is just a touch dark. Others will have more insight. >>
I actually like the speckle :-) And honestly I dont think it gives the impression of sandpaper. But maybe Im just letting my preconception guide my perception - I know its a silver coin and not a stone sculpture, so any I just see any speckling as a varying of color on the surface and not the surface itself.
<< <i>Where are the lights positioned in this shot? Doesn't look like a typical 10-2 shot? >>
About at 7, 9, 10, and about 2:30 ;-) But with the goosenecks you get to really play with lighting angles too, which is nice :-)
http://macrocoins.com
http://macrocoins.com
I really don't get these "Look at my images since I started using XXX illumination devices", it's all hogwash AFAIC.
<< <i>Does the coin fill the sensor or are you doing a lot of cropping? And are you using manual focus, or auto? And finally, if manual focus, where is your critical focus point? >>
Fits the sensor, manual focus, center of the image.
<< <i>Doesn't matter what kind of lighting as long as your WB is dialed in. >>
That only adjusts the color temperature of your lights. It does not make a difference to the effect of things like lighting diffusion, intensity, height, angle, direction, etc.
<< <i>This was taken with two Jansjos >>
Nice
<< <i>
<< <i>Does the coin fill the sensor or are you doing a lot of cropping? And are you using manual focus, or auto? And finally, if manual focus, where is your critical focus point? >>
Fits the sensor, manual focus, center of the image. >>
If that's the case I don't understand the center unsharpness. If you're critically-focusing in the center, the center should be sharper than the fields near the rim, not vice versa. The rims are about the same sharpness all around, so it doesn't look like the coin is overly tilted.
It could actually be that the edges look sharper because of the brighter lighting. You are deep into diffraction territory with this camera at f/11. Have you tried taking a similar shot at f5.6 or even f4? That is still diffraction-limited with the 1.4um pixel pitch on this camera but might give a much sharper image, though you'll have to either make sure the coin is very flat or take a few images and stack them...
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>Hey RPMS, can you offer any possible adjustments to this image? >>
First photographic principle is composition, and this coin is rotated, so my first adjustment would be to re-image with IGWT horizontal :-)
Now, for other aspects, I can give some opinions, though others may disagree. But you asked...
Your lighting angles look good. The image has nice shadow highlights around all the devices, so you have your lights high enough.
It looks like the image is over-sharpened. If I am shooting jpgs (which I do most of the time) instead of RAW, I turn all camera "enhancements" off. Saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc are applied to the image before it leaves the camera, and often these are set pretty aggressively. If your camera has direct access to these parameters, turn them all to 0 or off or whatever. Some folks think that what comes out of the camera is unprocessed, but there is a lot of processing that goes into the jpg before it leaves the camera. Some cameras have a "neutral" or "faithful" setting, and if that's all you have to work with that's fine.
The only time I add any sharpening is a very small amount after downsizing, since most jpg conversions don't result in good sharpness after downsizing. This is especially true if you downsize by a non-integer value. Always downsize by integers if you can, so that the algorithms don't have to interpolate as much.
The image also seems to have too much contrast and is too bright, or at least the highlights are too prominent. I'd suggest reducing contrast a little, dropping the highlights a bit, and reducing brightness.
Finally, the published image is too big to see on my monitor, so I suggest downsizing. It's not quite square, at 2197x2195. A good size to publish on the web is between 600 and 800 pixels square. There is very little room to crop, so you will have an odd size after downsizing. 727x727 scales 3x to 2181, so just a few pixels off and a 3x dowsize will make the image a good size to publish.
Here is the result of the above adjustments, except rotation:
http://macrocoins.com