1950 PR 1c and my new Lighting Setup! Special Thanks to lkeigwin and Broadstruck!

keyman64

I feel I have been quite successful using 4 Jansjo LEDs. They have been wonderful. They don't get hot.
They are easy to manipulate making them a real pleasure, except for when it comes to PROOFS or
especially TONED PROOFS! The frustration finally got the best of me and I knew I had to make a change.
The Jansjos are great for circulated coins, business strikes, lusterful silver mint state coins, even a few
silver business strike toners, If you do PROOFS or TONED PROOFS, especially Toned Copper Proofs they
are not the best choice. Through reading these forums for a long time, I had a pretty darn good idea
as to what I needed to do.

I had read where Phil (PCGS) uses very hot lights. Good clue there. They had to be HALOGENS. I searched
the forums for Halogen lights and found reference to Halogen PAR 30 75 watt floods. I then sent PMs to two
members that praised them and picked their brains a bit.

Broadstruck and lkeigwin were wonderful in their assistance. A big thanks goes out to them! Thank you!
After spending less than $20 for my new lighting system (2 bulbs and 2 cheap work lights) I mounted them to two
handy photography light stands I had then went to work figuring them out. The following coin and many other
toned proofs were impossible to image with my 4 LEDs. The new Halogens, once properly positioned,
made easy work of quite a few coins. I still have a few things to figure out but I am confident I can do that
with just a little bit of time. Here is one coin I really like. This coin was a cheap eBay gamble recently.
It is a very nice light olive brown with a little bit of color. I am so happy with the obverse and the fact that the
coin is fairly free of the distracting carbon spots that I detest. When photographing for color, it is difficult to show
luster as well but I can assure you this coin has plenty of that.

rmpsrpms

So, what is it about halogens that is better than LEDs for lighting proofs?

lasvegasteddy

i don't know about all that crazy light's and stuff
give me some vise grips for mounting and i'll tape some white boxers to my window for diffusing

as to this lincoln now
well hey hey hey
one pretty sporty looker here...i likes it
i love the red light on just above the last "T" of trust

congrats on a sweet pick up

keyman64

<< <i>So, what is it about halogens that is better than LEDs for lighting proofs? >>

Super bright, powerful lights. That's all.
The LEDs are weak. I could put the LED light directly over a proof coin and only get a couple of millimeters lit properly.
That was a big clue that I needed hotter, more powerful lights...or in other more technical terms, a lot more lumens!!!

robec

Great looking coin. Love the photo!

I've had pretty good luck with LEDs. I can't see ever going back to Halogens.

keets

JMHO...............I can't speak about all the tech stuff, but halogen bulbs are the best for viewing coins because the light is "harder" and will better allow the viewer to see hairlines and scratches. it penetrates better than other light sources. it makes sense that it would work well for photography with the only question being how to position the light fixtures. for coin viewing I find the best results with a halogen bulb as close to directly overhead, perhaps slightly forward, and 2-3 feet up. sitting in a normal room with an overhead fixture is OK.

rmpsrpms

Really, only thing that matters is size and shape of the light source. All that super bright means is shorter exposure. Now, if you were complaining about the color, I'd understand as LEDs and Halogens have different color temperatures. But you can do exactly the same thing with LEDs as you can with halogens, you just need to figure out what it is you like about how the halogens are lighting the coin and adjust the LEDs so that it matches and you'll get the same result, though with a longer exposure.

keyman64

<< <i>Really, only thing that matters is size and shape of the light source. All that super bright means is shorter exposure. Now, if you were complaining about the color, I'd understand as LEDs and Halogens have different color temperatures. But you can do exactly the same thing with LEDs as you can with halogens, you just need to figure out what it is you like about how the halogens are lighting the coin and adjust the LEDs so that it matches and you'll get the same result, though with a longer exposure. >>

If you know Jansjo LED lights then you know the light source of each one is very small and pump out very few lumens and are not powerful enough to light up the entire surface of a 1 cent coin the same way giant Halogens can. I am well versed in photography and the color of the lights matters little when you shoot with a custom white balance for the lights you are using, quick and simple to shoot a gray card.

Now I will say LED lights will work, just not Jansjos for this task with proof toners. When buying my Halogen flood lights, they also had giant LED lights similar in size and power to Halogens. So yes, LEDs will likely work at a much greater cost, just not the small Jansjos. If you lengthen your exposure with the Jansjo then the coin will be bright in the spot closest to the light causing it to be overexposed and then close to proper further away on the coin. They are not powerful enough to properly and evenly expose the entire surface of the coin, even with 4 of them!

SkyMan

Sweet looking Lincoln proof!

rmpsrpms

<< <i>If you know Jansjo LED lights then you know the light source of each one is very small and pump out very few lumens and are not powerful enough to light up the entire surface of a 1 cent coin the same way giant Halogens can. I am well versed in photography and the color of the lights matters little when you shoot with a custom white balance for the lights you are using, quick and simple to shoot a gray card.

Now I will say LED lights will work, just not Jansjos for this task with proof toners. When buying my Halogen flood lights, they also had giant LED lights similar in size and power to Halogens. So yes, LEDs will likely work at a much greater cost, just not the small Jansjos. If you lengthen your exposure with the Jansjo then the coin will be bright in the spot closest to the light causing it to be overexposed and then close to proper further away on the coin. They are not powerful enough to properly and evenly expose the entire surface of the coin, even with 4 of them! >>



Yes, the Jansjo light source is very small. The Par30 floods you bought are fairly large. If you use a diffuser to make the Jansjos "look" as big as the floods, you will get a similar result. You'll need a longer exposure of course because you're not putting as much light onto the coin, but your camera will compensate. It's all about diffusion. The Halogens are also a very small source, but the Par30 reflectors make it spread out more, appearing larger and more diffuse.

keyman64

I did try diffusing the Jansjos and it helped a little but I clearly wasn't getting the results I needed.
Messing with additional silly things on my table just wasn't worth all the trouble trying to rig up
diffusion.

Broadstruck

keyman64, Your welcome and I look forward to seeing more of your images

I also have Kaiser RB300's 300w, RB-1's 650w, and their daylight florescent and have gone back to using the 75w PAR-30's.

keyman64

<< <i>keyman64, Your welcome and I look forward to seeing more of your images

I also have Kaiser RB300's 300w, RB-1's 650w, and their daylight florescent and have gone back to using the 75w PAR-30's. >>

650 WATTS!!! OMG!

Broadstruck

<< <i>650 WATTS!!! OMG! >>



They have a built in cooling fan and a fuse that blows if they overheat...

So you wanna talk Hot Lights the 300's are bearable the 650's are like imaging on the surface of the sun

keyman64

I have studio lights (strobes) that are 320 watt seconds. I used to have 640 watt second lights. Those things
are pretty crazy. I could not imagine using something like that to photograph an itsy bitsy tiny coin.

blu62vette

Nice pic.

I have never used Jansjo lights but the idea of being such cheap lights for imaging makes me never want to try them.

brg5658

<< <i>Nice pic.

I have never used Jansjo lights but the idea of being such cheap lights for imaging makes me never want to try them. >>



Todd, what does the price have to do with anything? Is it a "prestige" thing like saying you drive a BMW instead of a Buick?

As for the OP, that is a very nice picture -- better than a lot of the red-shifted over-lit stuff I see come out of the PCGS shop. But, don't confuse a light that gets hot with one that produces more lumens. If you had a panel of LEDs they would put off just as much lumens as your halogen, and a minuscule fraction of the heat. The heat has nothing to do with your final image quality.

Also, as rmpsrpms pointed out, when your camera is mounted solidly for coin photography, less lumens only means that you need to increase the exposure. A 3 second exposure for a coin photo is no problem at all for a solid set-up. The "perceived" size of the light source to the coin is what fully lights the surface of a coin. That can be solved by either getting a bigger light, or placing it higher above the coin, or both.

rmpsrpms

Yeah, all talk of lighting aside, the 1950 Proof Cent is a beauty. My rant about halogens can't detract from the nice coin and nice image.

One question for the OP...is the coin an early strike "satin" ? It appears more satin than brilliant.

Kyle

<< <i>They seem to be slightly different colors, my older ones have a slight yellow tint and the newer ones are whiter. >>


This is something I have noticed as well.

rmpsrpms

"White" LEDs are actually Near-UV LEDs that are coated with a fluorescent phosphor to emit a broad light spectrum, sort of like regular fluorescent lights. Unlike most fluorescents the phosphor is designed to have a wideband response, though it is still more peaky than what is emitted by a tungsten filament in a vacuum (incandescent) or noble gas (halogen). Because differences in manufacturing of the phosphors can cause color differences in the LED output, when using multiple LEDs for lighting, it's best if they are from the same manufacturing lot. You can check to see how far off they are by taking a picture of white paper lit with each one. If you see more than a 5% shift in R,G, or B they are probably not well enough matched to get a clean white balance.

keyman64

<< <i>Yeah, all talk of lighting aside, the 1950 Proof Cent is a beauty. My rant about halogens can't detract from the nice coin and nice image.

One question for the OP...is the coin an early strike "satin" ? It appears more satin than brilliant. >>


I honestly wouldn't know where to begin. I have my areas of expertise but this is not one of them.
Since this image was taken to emphasize color as opposed to anything else, not sure how I would tell.
Granted, I could look at the coin and take other photos if it is worth the trouble.
Wasn't 1936 the only year that had a noticeable difference of Satin/Brilliant?

rmpsrpms

Early 1950 proofs had a satin finish. It was not intentional, but either the planchets were not polished, or the dies were not fully polished, or both. I've seen examples of Cents, Nickels, and Halves with satin finish and have heard of Dimes and Quarters. I have a satin finish Cent, which is why I ask if this one is also satin. It looks like it might be.

keyman64

<< <i>Early 1950 proofs had a satin finish. It was not intentional, but either the planchets were not polished, or the dies were not fully polished, or both. I've seen examples of Cents, Nickels, and Halves with satin finish and have heard of Dimes and Quarters. I have a satin finish Cent, which is why I ask if this one is also satin. It looks like it might be. >>

Do you have a good photo of yours that you can share and I will be happy to compare mine in hand with your image to see if I can see similarities.
Feel free to post it here if you like.

rmpsrpms

Here it is. Pics are through a scuffed Kointain. The satin proofs have significant luster, unlike most brilliants.

keyman64

Hard to say but I am going to say they are different. I compared my 1950 to my 1951
and they seem to both have the same type of glassy/liquid fields.

lasvegasteddy

<< <i>Early 1950 proofs had a satin finish. It was not intentional, but either the planchets were not polished, or the dies were not fully polished, or both. I've seen examples of Cents, Nickels, and Halves with satin finish and have heard of Dimes and Quarters. I have a satin finish Cent, which is why I ask if this one is also satin. It looks like it might be. >>


how cool
has this ever been presented to tpg company's for possible acceptance and rightfully so designation ?

rmpsrpms

ATS they just give them designation as Proof, not any special status. I don't know what our hosts would call them. I've only seen a couple in TPG holders. I suspect many are sold as business strikes. I bought mine back in the early 90's as an "MS65". It's been in the Kointain for over 20 years...

lasvegasteddy

thanks
now i will add such as a quest of mine
to find a 1950 satin type of a proof...i like it