Which photo do you prefer Diffused or Normal

CoinZip

Diffused




Normal

Unknown

This content has been removed.

blu62vette

Without looking at the images I say normal. I never diffuse as it rarely shows the true look of what you are imaging for both color and clarity.

keyman64

I would prefer the one that looks most closely like the coin in hand through a loupe. My guess is that the "Normal" would meet that standard as that image shows toning more accurately I am guessing whereas the diffused largely hides that feature of the coin. Whichever one most closely resembles the coin in hand.

MidLifeCrisis

Depends on what I'm looking for.

The diffused shows the extent of the doubling better.

Normal shows (I assume) an image that more closely resembles how it actually looks in hand.

messydesk

I assume the close-up is so that I can see the doubled date. The diffused picture shows this much better.

Bochiman

<< <i>Depends on what I'm looking for.

The diffused shows the extent of the doubling better.

Normal shows (I assume) an image that more closely resembles how it actually looks in hand. >>



Bingo...I share the above thoughts.

keyman64

I disagree with some folks here. The doubling is shown very well without HIDING/OBSCURING what the coin truly looks like. To be less deceptive would be the goal...while still showing the doubling. That is easily done without diffusion.

messydesk

Neither picture shown shows what the coin looks like. They only show what the date looks like. The diffused lighting is much more useful for this.

mgoodm3

The diffused shows things better although the image is a little dark. I would like a picture somewhere between the two, a little less diffused.

lcoopie

why not show both?

sparky64

<< <i>The diffused shows things better although the image is a little dark. I would like a picture somewhere between the two, a little less diffused. >>

thisnamztaken

<< <i>I would prefer the one that looks most closely like the coin in hand through a loupe. My guess is that the "Normal" would meet that standard as that image shows toning more accurately I am guessing whereas the diffused largely hides that feature of the coin. Whichever one most closely resembles the coin in hand. >>

MICHAELDIXON

In order for old eyes like mine to see the doubling, I prefer the diffused picture. Young, whipper snappers would prefer normal.

MsMorrisine

The character of the date is better shown in diffuse.

But the diffuse lighting looks abnormal.


Hmmmm.

Normal.

Kudbegud

Diffused for the better photo...the Normal has blown out whites around the date and looks over sharpened. Didffused may not show the doubling but is much better lighted. A little more angle may reveal the doubling.

keets

diffused lighting is very deceptive in the way it shows contrast and surface condition, it can be used to make an ordinary coin look very, very special. there are masters of its use on eBay, one of the worst being(regrettably) R&I Coins. as others have stated, it always makes sense to me to picture a coin as it really looks in-hand and my hunch is that the OP coin more closely resembles picture #2. at that I have no trouble at all seeing the underdate.

illini420

if it were a coin that I was selling, I would show the potential buyer both photos. if for some reason only one photo was possible, and your goal was to show the coin's variety, then I would use the diffused photo.

ricko

My preference would be to see both... however, if a choice must be made, reality wins. That being said, I am never sure how 'real' most photographs are... rarely the same as 'in hand'.... Cheers, RickO

rmpsrpms

All light is diffused to some extent, so it's odd that folks are against it. Only way to get non-diffused light is to use lasers for illumination, and I don't think anyone would approve of that. So, diffusion is good. The key is using the right amount of diffusion to give the desired result. The best way to think of diffusion is that it modifies the "apparent size" of the light source. Any light will be more diffuse the closer you get it to the coin (except a laser...), and conversely will look smaller as you move it away from the coin. The smaller the light is, the more luster, contrast, and shadows it produces. The bigger the light is, the more it appears to come from many angles, thus reducing shadows, contrast, and luster. CFL's are more diffused than incandescents and halogens. The least diffuse is the single LED, since it comes from a very small emitter. LEDs will produce the most contrast and luster, often to the point of overwhelming the camera sensor, and thus always benefit from a bit of diffusion. Halogens are a bit more diffuse by nature since they usually have a rear reflector that makes them look bigger. The frosted globes of incandescents are diffusers, as are any reflectors behind them, CFL's, etc...

magikbilly

Both.


Eric

nwcoast

Both forms of lighting have their place...
As others have mentioned, the diffusion lighting shows the doubling very well.
Both images compliment each other nicely.
Thanks for posting the comparison..

Diffusion lighting is very useful in commercial and portrait photography.
I used to occasionally use "tent" lighting to throw a continuous highlight entirely over brilliant metal subjects for effect...
Came in very handly for lighting tiny surgical instruments back in my photography days.