PCGS PHOTOS compared to MINE...interesting observations and room for improvement for both?..

keyman64 · November 5, 2013 3:34PM

I recently submitted a few coins to PCGS for grading and attribution. Like most of my stuff, they are fairly rare and I tend to have Top Pops or as close as I can. Unlike previous submissions of mine, PCGS took this opportunity to photograph three of my varieties for PCGS Coin Facts. I photographed my coins just prior to submission and now have the fine opportunity to compare my photography skills with those of the ALL POWERFUL PCGS. I believe PCGS has a total of 3 photographers now...I wonder how work is divided up to be most efficient...Anyway.....

As we know, a lot of photography comes down to personal preferences after a few basics are covered. Those basics might be correct white balance, sharp and in focus across the entire image, proper levels to prevent over exposure and under exposure, shooting at a low enough ISO to prevent a grainy image...stuff like that.

So, here I provide my images with a black background and the PCGS images simply re-sized to about the same size with their white background. And of course I provide my own special comments.

Have any other photography folk out there done a comparison of your own work with that of PCGS?...what did you learn from the experience?

EXAMPLE #1
POP 2/2. Bought this RAW. Looking for better...
In August 2013 this would have tied Top Pop but two were just recently graded in MS64 and MS65 and I have no idea who has them.
Will be interested to see if they surface somewhere. I'm looking for a Top Pop upgrade.

EXAMPLE #1 Observations: For the obverse between 9-10PM, my image is less BLACK and I therefore like my obverse a bit better but it really just comes down to personal preference. I may have ever so slightly over exposed a couple of spots on the obverse which is just something I should be careful about in the future. This coin is a variety, I am not sure if the PCGS Photographers are aware of this fact when they are doing the photography...so when it comes to the reverse I like mine much much better because even without the enlargement of the mint mark area, you can clearly see the RPM Variety in my shot where you cannot see this in the PCGS Photo or even in their LARGEST image you still cannot see it. For that reason I like my reverse better.

EXAMPLE #2
Pop 2/0...former SEGS MS64FB.
I'm always looking for upgrades.

EXAMPLE #2 Observations: Overall PCGS did a better job than I did, primarily due to my over-exposure of areas on the obverse but again they end up with two large black areas on the obverse whereas I did not for the most part. It comes down to preferences once again....they had under-exposed areas and I had over-exposed areas. Then their reverse seems to show the luster a little better than mine and I like it better. When it comes to the RPM Variety though, my image seems to show the RPM a bit better which I like.

EXAMPLE #3
Pop 1/0. Former ANACS MS66.
Always looking for better.

EXAMPLE #3 Observations: Overall PCGS did a better job than I did. However in this example we both over-exposed different areas of the coin. This coin was terribly complicated for me to image back when I did this. I need to try again as I know what I would do differently. I feel confident that PCGS probably used three lights, at least on the reverse, where I only used two. The splotchy toning makes this a tough one. PCGS also did better in capturing the primary variety PUP (date) when viewing the full obverse of the coin but thankfully I took a dedicated shot of just the date.

Closing thoughts - I think I was fairly close in all of this and just really need a few tweaks to improve. This was a good exercise for me. As for the variety realm, I wonder if the PCGS Photographers are aware of the varieties when they come across the desk because I think they should be so as to ensure they capture it. I think they missed the mark with the 1935-S/S, kinda defeats the purpose of photographing a rare variety for CoinFacts when you miss the variety. I have seen a couple of times where PCGS Coin Facts will show a close-up for a variety but it seems to be few and far between. I wonder how often this is actually done. I need to get a copy stand. I need to implement a third light for the difficult toners. I want to try a little diffusion of the lights to avoid over exposure in spots that have potential to be problematic on Mercs...this might allow me to find the proper balance between over/under exposure with some coins...I think there might be a good in between for the last coin shown. I never have bought Mark Goodman's book but maybe I will one day when I finish experimenting on my own. It's interesting what you can learn on your own with trial and error.

messydesk · November 5, 2013 10:58PM

One consistent difference between yours and that TVs is that yours have the same over-saturated areas on the obverse while the TVs do not. On very contrasty coins, like BU Mercury dimes, you need to have flatter light to knock down the contrast. You could also reduce the contrast in post-processing to recover some of the detail in the oversaturated parts. The TV of the 35-S looks like the coin has been overdipped, however. Can't tell if this is accurate without the coin, of course.

Another difference I see on the reverse is that yours have better definition of the vertical sticks in the fasces, especially on the 39-D. I don't know whether this was accidental or not, but it's an observation. Groups of stripes, like these and the ones you see on shields, will disappear if the lighting is symmetric across them. The typical 10 and 2 positions with a Mercury dime reverse will result in each light filling in the shadow created by the other on the fasces. Change to 11 and 3 and you reduce the problem. Change to 1 and 5 and you eliminate it, but now have to be careful of the definition of the center band, especially if you're trying to show a FB coin.

robec · November 5, 2013 11:25PM

I will bet that you are like most of us in respect to the amount of time it takes to take a decent photo. I am amazed at the quality of Phil's work, especially considering he is doing 100-300 coins per day.

lkeigwin · November 6, 2013 1:04AM

<< I will bet that you are like most of us in respect to the amount of time it takes to take a decent photo. I am amazed at the quality of Phil's work, especially considering he is doing 100-300 coins per day. >>

Exactly.

A customer recently asked if I could shoot 20 coins and and deliver them, publication-ready, in four hours. It's more work than it sounds. You don't just shoot images and stick them on a CD. But still, 20 coins in four hours? I made it with only minutes to spare.

Phil would lose his job at that pace. I don't know how he manages. Clearly he goes a lot faster than we do. Kudos to him!

True View images are enormous in size, aren't they? They're usually resized for forum posts. Quality sometimes suffers.
Lance.

keyman64 · November 6, 2013 1:04AM

<< One consistent difference between yours and that TVs is that yours have the same over-saturated areas on the obverse while the TVs do not. On very contrasty coins, like BU Mercury dimes, you need to have flatter light to knock down the contrast. You could also reduce the contrast in post-processing to recover some of the detail in the oversaturated parts. The TV of the 35-S looks like the coin has been overdipped, however. Can't tell if this is accurate without the coin, of course.

Another difference I see on the reverse is that yours have better definition of the vertical sticks in the fasces, especially on the 39-D. I don't know whether this was accidental or not, but it's an observation. Groups of stripes, like these and the ones you see on shields, will disappear if the lighting is symmetric across them. The typical 10 and 2 positions with a Mercury dime reverse will result in each light filling in the shadow created by the other on the fasces. Change to 11 and 3 and you reduce the problem. Change to 1 and 5 and you eliminate it, but now have to be careful of the definition of the center band, especially if you're trying to show a FB coin. >>

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, John. In regards to my reverse shots, my left light is typically around 10-11 o'clock for just about every Merc I shoot then I will frequently hand hold or adjust where the right one is moving it between 2 and 5:30...but then you also have the angle and relation to the lens that can be different. I try to have as many of my Mercs in FB as possible so especially when I do have FB I pay very close to that detail with the images. That is not by accident. Another thing that I pay very close attention to is the VARIETY since that is primarily what I collect. It would be my guess that PCGS pays little to no attention to this due to their reverse images of the 35-S and 39-D. I am going to experiment with light diffusion the next time I shoot some dimes to see where that gets me. Hopefully I can avoid the over exposed obverse areas I tend to get while avoiding the large black areas that PCGS got on the 35-S and 39-D.

keyman64 · November 6, 2013 1:15AM

<< I will bet that you are like most of us in respect to the amount of time it takes to take a decent photo. I am amazed at the quality of Phil's work, especially considering he is doing 100-300 coins per day. >>

Once I am set up, the photography of Mercury Dimes only takes a minute or two. I have a vary narrow focus in my collection so I can do that. When I go to shoot a non-Mercury Dime it can take me much much longer. The 40-S in this thread took me several attempts and probably close to 40 minutes due to the toning that I was not prepared to handle. I need to add a third light and employ some diffusion maybe. So, most Mercs are very quick...when you throw something else into the mix though it can really mess me up. The quality of PCGS's efforts while handling the volume that they do is really good...but practice makes perfect as well. I only drag my stuff out every few weeks or months. PCGS is also working with better equipment than I am so I would expect their results to be better and more consistent than mine. To handle the volume they do is still pretty darn amazing.

keyman64 · November 6, 2013 1:20AM

<< 

<< I will bet that you are like most of us in respect to the amount of time it takes to take a decent photo. I am amazed at the quality of Phil's work, especially considering he is doing 100-300 coins per day. >>

Exactly.

A customer recently asked if I could shoot 20 coins and and deliver them, publication-ready, in four hours. It's more work than it sounds. You don't just shoot images and stick them on a CD. But still, 20 coins in four hours? I made it with only minutes to spare.

Phil would lose his job at that pace. I don't know how he manages. Clearly he goes a lot faster than we do. Kudos to him!

True View images are enormous in size, aren't they? They're usually resized for forum posts. Quality sometimes suffers.
Lance. >>

Well done! The photography has the potential to be pretty quick...less than an hour in that situation. It is the post production that would have me nervous on that deliverable. Yikes. Glad you got it done, I'm not sure I could have. If you had to polish a couple of slabs or deal in height changes such as slab vs 2x2 or raw that would mess with the time as well. That's pretty good work.

BryceM · November 6, 2013 4:37AM

Interesting thread.

I only have a handful of coins that have been TrueViewed so I can't comment beyond that. The differences in the look of my coins is interesting. Take this 1925 Peace dollar:

I would say that the PCGS photo makes the coin look a little better (almost flawless) than mine does, but I'm not sure if that's entirely desirable. The coin has a small area of die polish or perhaps feed-finger rub around "IN GOD" that is not evident in the TV. In-hand, there are no visible frost breaks on the cheek or on the forehead. The one on the neck is slightly visible. Mine shows some noise that isn't really there. The slight reed mark in Liberty's hair is accentuated in my photo and barely discernable in theirs. In hand it's probably somewhere between the two in terms of visiblity. They seem to do a better job handling contrast than I did. I'd actually prefer a little less than on mine, but a little more than on theirs. I don't mind a couple of small hot spots, provided they aren't more than 1% or so of the entire image. I feel my photo brings out the depth of the hair and facial detail a little better. Both depict the coin accurately, but perhaps due to familiarity with my own technique, I tend to prefer mine. Obviously I'd still like to improve on it.

I'm just guessing, but they're probably using at least three lights with high-angle orientation and diffusion. My setup is two lights at roughly 10:30 & 1:30 o'clock with minimal diffusion. My photos suffer from some dark areas around the date as a result of only using two lights.

Now, this comparison is intersting:

Here, the TV shows a little color which is visible in-hand, but devilishly hard to photograph in a slab without getting glare. The sharpness of my photo I think is superior, but I guarantee the coin would be more marketable from the TV photos. Photography is always a compromise of tradeoffs and I'm still a touch wet-behind-the-ears in this game. I stew and fret over each of my images, especially on coins like the Peace Dollar. That the PCGS guys can crank through as many as they do is pretty impressive. They must leverage their experience and equipment pretty heavily to get the kind of production they do.

MFH · November 6, 2013 8:24AM

I don't have too many images imaged by a Professional and the PCGS Tru View Option:

keyman64 · November 6, 2013 8:26AM

Thanks for showing your stuff Bryce. That MS67 Peace is great!

PCGS PHOTOS compared to MINE...interesting observations and room for improvement for both?..

Comments

Leave a Comment