I'm having a dilemma that may be unsolvable.

leothelyon · March 2, 2016 7:56AM

I think that I may have brought this up before, however long ago but, with the wide range of lights out there, a coin appearance can change dramatically, again, this depends on what lighting the viewer is in. I took a few pictures of my nickels with my daughters new camera to update their images on my website and I don't like the way a few of them have turned out. Mind you, these new photos show the coins in a very raw and clear state, very lifelike as if they were in your hands. Of course, I can manipulate them with my photo editor but I don't like doing that but will the buyer see the coins in the same lighting I took the pictures with? So now I'm thinking that I need to provide 2-3 sets of photos especially for the toned coins for the viewer/potential buyer. The following is an example but somewhere in between the two sets of pictures lies the most ideal appearance of the coin. And how do I get there? What you say?
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0628a.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0628ab.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0629a.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0629ab.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Leo

cladking · March 2, 2016 8:01AM

Thats a tough coin with any lighting or any sort of picture.

Beautiful!

I prefer the second set of course.

BillJones · March 2, 2016 8:03AM

To me the better picture is the one that makes the coin look more like it does when it is in-hand.

TopographicOceans · March 2, 2016 8:05AM

Originally posted by: BillJones
Tp me the better picture is the one that makes the coin look more like it does when it is in-hand.

That's the art of photography.

TomB · March 2, 2016 8:07AM

Editing an image is not devious or negative; you want the most lifelike image possible and editing allows this. In fact, your camera settings are editing the shots for you before you ever lay your own eyes on them on a monitor. Proper white balance is your friend and will help tremendously.

oih82w8 · March 2, 2016 8:30AM

I am not, but any distance, a pro photographer, but something that comes to mind is your "white balance". (Tom said it before I did.)

Use a flourescent light color of 5000K.

Here is my reference;

http://www.tabletopstudio.com/...s/coin_photography.htm

LindeDad · March 2, 2016 8:33AM

"Proper white balance is your friend and will help tremendously."

I would assume you did not use either blue or dirty brown as your background.

Bochiman · March 2, 2016 8:39AM

Because of your concerns, which are valid, I would give at least 2 types of shots on the toned coins.

Lighting and angle would make the difference.

The most obvious answer is "duh, make it look like it would in-hand" but as you stated in your OP, what if it is viewed under different lighting.....?

So, you can't handle all the scenarios, so just give it a couple shots trying to get to that point and you will likely cover most of the bases.

drwstr123 · March 2, 2016 9:34AM

You could have fun with pics, too.
This is NOT photoshop, but manipulation of lighting and white balance...
Same coin

TwoSides2aCoin · March 2, 2016 9:52AM

Unsolvable problems are us.

braddick · March 2, 2016 9:57AM

What an amazing ASE. Is the obverse as strikingly beautiful?

Jackthecat1 · March 2, 2016 9:57AM

Interesting looking nickel. I was kind of expecting to see a big 'P' on the reverse, based on the looks of the obverse.

mustangmanbob · March 2, 2016 10:22AM

So, I had experience with color, what color, how will it appear to the customer, etc.

I was the manager of a printing operation for Amazon, including clothing, kit bags, cups, etc.

We had art sent in by various artists, and I have a graphics artist who converted original, with a Pantone Color (over 10,000 possibilities), converted them to a Pantone color based on what color the item was (as the ink is so thin, the undercolor "bleeds" through, and the master printer then had to mix inks to match that color.

It was a NIGHTMARE as a Pantone color, say, 1425, was mixed with various colors measured in less than a gram, in a 2 gallon bucket. But the master printer also had to use discretion, because a dark blue shirt printed with the mix, would "radiate" a different color than a pink shirt printed with the same mix. Plus some sizes were not available from all shirt suppliers, so Ladies S M Large came from one supplier and the Ladies XL came from another supplier, and the shirts had minor color variations between them.

Setting up runs was a GOAT ROPE as the graphic artist had to approve each one. So a press was set up (30 minutes, 3 people), a test shirt was run and cured (10 minutes) and then the printer, the master printer and the graphic artist huddled, looked at the computer screen, looked at the Pantone book, and decided if it was right. If not, the instruction might be to lighten color 5 and darken color 9. That meant tossing the ink (about $40), remixing a new batch (10 minutes), cleaning the press of the "wrong color" (concurrent with the mix) and another test shirt run. It could take hours to get it approved. The graphic artist and the master printer were often at each other's throats over how high is up.

The statement from the graphic artist was that the customer had to get the same colors that they saw on their computer screen when they ordered (Fair statement).

After a particularly bad day, I put on my BAD MANAGER hat.

I took my master printer and graphic artist to Best Buy, to the TV area. You know the basic set up, 300 TV's all showing the same movie clips. I asked the Graphic Artist and the Master Printer to examine all the TV's, and tell me WHICH ONE every single customer owned, as there was a massive color variation between brands and price ranges, plus big differences in color resolutions on monitors.

The point was that Joe may be on a $300 Samsung looking at the "color" and Suzie may be using a $70 ACER, so the displayed colors are very different for the same item. I had already pulled 2 years of defect complaints from the customers, and none of them involved colors being off.

After they both pitched their fits, the outcome was that my master printer built a library of about 200 colors. The graphic artist could only call out recipes using those 200, unless it was a REALLY rare event, like Glow in the Dark inks, etc. The artists were given the numbers of what colors they could choose from. The master printer also was given sole authority to approve test runs for any print run less than 250 items, as the lost time and ink replacements was killing any profit from those runs. I also had the lights removed from the Graphic Artists cubicle and replaced with the same lights being used on the printing floor, due to color shift. Productivity and morale soared, as, most times, it was first print approval, rock and roll.

Long story to say,

No Matter what your lighting, no matter what you do:

The customers all have different monitors, so they will see it in a different color than others. On some monitors, it may look good, and on others, look really bad.

Also, when it is in hand, some people use incandescent, some use florescent, some are using CFL's, other are using various LED's, so even if 5 people using the same monitor "like" the coin, each of them, using different lights at home, will see a possibly different color when it is in hand.

Try to be accurate as possible, but bottom line, you are trying to push a wet rope up a sand dune.

BStrauss3 · March 2, 2016 10:40AM

That is really good information, thanks for posting it.

drwstr123 · March 2, 2016 10:54AM

Originally posted by: braddick
What an amazing ASE. Is the obverse as strikingly beautiful?

Thanks, glad you like it.

leothelyon · March 2, 2016 11:59AM

Great photography on that ASE. I use low lighting to reduce glare than use the auto-level in my photo editor. But I agree, I need more lighting everyone. And you're right mustangmanbob, not everyone will be in my light setting. Here's another coin taken with the same lighting setup. I'm happy with these results.
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0702a.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0702ab.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0703a.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0703ab.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Leo

joeykoins · March 2, 2016 12:18PM

Ma-a-a-n! You guy's are GOOD! All those photos are magnificent. What beautiful eye candy on all those pics.

leothelyon · March 2, 2016 12:45PM

Originally posted by: joeykoins
Ma-a-a-n! You guy's are GOOD! All those photos are magnificent. What beautiful eye candy on all those pics.

It doesn't happen overnight, has taken years. I'm still trying to figure it out and with the help of others here. But with the 1942-P I posted, my initial thought after seeing the new pictures, it just might grade MS67 someday. I've found new interest with other coins I've had.

Leo

lkeigwin · March 2, 2016 1:38PM

Originally posted by: TomB

Editing an image is not devious or negative; you want the most lifelike image possible and editing allows this. In fact, your camera settings are editing the shots for you before you ever lay your own eyes on them on a monitor. Proper white balance is your friend and will help tremendously.

Precisely!

Shoot in the raw mode so the camera doesn't make its programmed adjustments. And then use your editor to make it correct. That's the bottom line.

Lance.

ricko · March 2, 2016 10:23PM

You do the best you can to show the image that best reflects reality... and if it takes two

or even three images, then you will have made every effort to represent the coin faithfully.

Accompanying verbiage would help as well. Cheers, RickO

davewesen · March 3, 2016 11:08AM

I suspect they look like the second one and how can you be sure there is not something wrong with your eyes but the camera gets it right?

leothelyon · March 7, 2016 1:20PM

Originally posted by: davewesen
I suspect they look like the second one and how can you be sure there is not something wrong with your eyes but the camera gets it right?

My eyesite is not all that bad. A bit hazy upclose in the left eye but the distance between me and the monitor is ok. Here's a virtually markfree, well struck example and some interesting toning but.....graded only MS65 by PCGS. (enter head scratching emoticon) The luster is dead (almost) on this one so the first shots do this coin more justice than the 2nd set. Even the holder is a bit too bright in the 2nd set.
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0682a_1.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0682ab.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0683a_1.jpg.html]

[/URL]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0683ab.jpg.html]

[/URL]
But coins with weak strikes, marky, no toning but lustrous, oh yeah, plenty of those in MS66 and MS67 holders. hmmm

Leo

davewesen · March 8, 2016 1:27PM

Leo, at PCGS that coin is a 65 (you might get 66 or 67 at NGC), that is just how they grade with their grading standards

first an obverse / reverse overlay

[URL=http://s918.photobucket.com/user/e1cnr/media/e1cnr007/overlay_zpseydpij7o.jpg.html]

[/URL]

To get above a MS65 at PCGS you need blazing luster and eye appeal caused by a push through ( I am not sure what you want to call it ) of the other side devices causing a wave in the fields in the areas with the yellow circles shown below - giving blazing luster that PCGS likes.

[URL=http://s918.photobucket.com/user/e1cnr/media/e1cnr007/overlay -circles_zpshjeizg6x.jpg.html]

[/URL]

You can go to coinfacts and look at the 67's and see what I am trying to show.

leothelyon · March 9, 2016 7:14AM

Interesting overlays which I have done but it's moreso when you think about all what went into creating the design so that it would transfer perfectly onto a coin blank. I won't go into too much but a great deal of metal from the peripherals of the coin blank has to be pushed into those high points of the design or the low points in the dies. And to locate a coin with the intended full design whether lustrous or not is far superior to coins that are missing details. ...........It's like an ounce of gold, how it's smaller than an ounce of silver but yet gold has more weight in it's mass....same thing about a fully struck Jefferson nickel, it's much more of a chunk of metal than a coin that has flaws, missing details in it's design. It's simply not all there.

Leo

I'm having a dilemma that may be unsolvable.

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Comments

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!

My Jefferson Nickel Collection

Leave a Comment