Options
G$20 Photos PART DEUX - "Brutal" Redemption?
Prethen
Posts: 3,466 ✭✭✭
I spent a bunch of time tonight taking most of the advice I received recently for my original photos.
So here's what I did differently. I arranged the lights a bit differently; the last 2 sets of photos represent a slightly different positioning of the lighting.
I know that I'll receive some criticism for still having some darkened areas. I'll have to work on that part. Plus, coloration varies a bit because I sort of rushed some of the leveling (which I normally will not do).
I changed my aperture way down (I tested mostly between F/10-F/8 and did some at F/2.8(!), which ended up way too soft). I also tried ISO's of 400 and 100. If it seems evident that I should try ISO 200, I think we can extrapolate that.
The pictures have only been crudely cropped due to time. All have been leveled and unsharped.
Okay, hit me again and let me know what combination you think works best. Or, is there a variation that I should have tried that might improve the pictures even further? But, I have to admit that I think I do see a clarity difference already.
Original Photos (smaller)
Photo#=Aperature/Speed @ ISO
106=10/160 @ 400
108=10/40 @ 100
110=9/200 @ 400
112=9/50 @ 100
114=8/250 @ 400
116=8/60 @ 100
118=2.8/2000 @ 400 - YUCK!
122=8/320 @ 400
124=8/60 @ 100
So here's what I did differently. I arranged the lights a bit differently; the last 2 sets of photos represent a slightly different positioning of the lighting.
I know that I'll receive some criticism for still having some darkened areas. I'll have to work on that part. Plus, coloration varies a bit because I sort of rushed some of the leveling (which I normally will not do).
I changed my aperture way down (I tested mostly between F/10-F/8 and did some at F/2.8(!), which ended up way too soft). I also tried ISO's of 400 and 100. If it seems evident that I should try ISO 200, I think we can extrapolate that.
The pictures have only been crudely cropped due to time. All have been leveled and unsharped.
Okay, hit me again and let me know what combination you think works best. Or, is there a variation that I should have tried that might improve the pictures even further? But, I have to admit that I think I do see a clarity difference already.
Original Photos (smaller)
Photo#=Aperature/Speed @ ISO
106=10/160 @ 400
108=10/40 @ 100
110=9/200 @ 400
112=9/50 @ 100
114=8/250 @ 400
116=8/60 @ 100
118=2.8/2000 @ 400 - YUCK!
122=8/320 @ 400
124=8/60 @ 100
0
Comments
<< <i>I think like photo 116 best. Does it represent the color most accurately? >>
Actually 112 is a bit more accurate (maybe a tad too orange). The surfaces have a nice orangish look to them.
I would
use the lowest iso, 100 or 200
f8
use your esposure compensation to make it look the way you think it should
and the contrast that seems appropriate
Interests:
Pre-Jump Grade Project
Toned Commemoratives
I like 110 at first glance. All but one of the photos are much better. $20 gold Libs can be tough to image well without seeing dark and overly burned-out areas. You're on the right track. I think the F/8 range is working better for you. Work on the focus a bit - maybe that's still a source of a bit of softness on the object definition.
Silly questions - is the lens clean / scratched / new? Is the copy stand setup SOLID? How are you adjusting the focus?
<< <i>Silly questions - is the lens clean / scratched / new? Is the copy stand setup SOLID? How are you adjusting the focus? >>
Yes, the setup is solid. Focus is adjusted automatically. I guess I'm not seeing that it's out of focus and if I tried manually adjusting it I think it would get much more out of focus. The lens is relatively new and should be in perfect shape. I must be really missing something if you think these pictures still are not clear.
For instance, with 112...what exactly is not already crystal clear?
I think that varying ISO for coin photography is not very valuable. All higher ISO does is introduce noise into the otherwise-longer exposure, and if your setup is solid there's no need.
I would simply stick to the lowest ISO setting, and play with other variables -- lighting, aperture, exposure, etc.