A good example of the difference between diffused and regular lighting

K6AZ · May 25, 2005 3:30AM

We've been discussing this in a thread regarding gold coins, but I didn't want to hijack the thread. Here are two similar PCGS MS65 Morgan Dollars. The first image is from Superior using diffused light. While some might consider this a great image, it's taken in a way that hides the marks you would expect on a 65 Morgan. The image looks like a 68:

Here is a MS65 taken under regular lighting, showing the marks you would expect on a 65:

Longacre · May 25, 2005 3:34AM

That is amazing. THanks for sharing. The first coin does not show hardly any marks, while you can see them on the 2nd. The colors look completely different as well. The fields in the first look completely clean, but in the second you can see some chatter.

DJC · May 25, 2005 3:48AM

Not knowing much about photography, I didn't realize just how much of a difference the types of lighting made. Obviously, I would expect some difference, but that first photo...it looks like an extremely strong-for-the-grade piece, tempting a very aggressive bid. I'm not much on Morgan's when it comes to grading, especially via photo, but the difference between those two photos could be a huge mistake for an aggressive bid.

mgoodm3 · May 25, 2005 3:48AM

Another. but proof.

AlaBill · May 25, 2005 4:01AM

mgoodm3...

Is this really the same coin?

Hard to believe... Now I know why I don't feel comfortable buying from a photograph on a web page!

K6AZ · May 25, 2005 4:02AM

<< Not knowing much about photography, I didn't realize just how much of a difference the types of lighting made. Obviously, I would expect some difference, but that first photo...it looks like an extremely strong-for-the-grade piece, tempting a very aggressive bid. I'm not much on Morgan's when it comes to grading, especially via photo, but the difference between those two photos could be a huge mistake for an aggressive bid. >>

You hit the nail on the head. I've posted a lot of images here, and I've had clearly MS65 coins called 63. I believe this is due to the widespread use of diffused lighting, to the point where some people expect a MS65 Morgan to look like the first image.

photoman · May 25, 2005 4:07AM

Actually, you have two different lighting techniques shown. The first one is with the light source reflecting off of the morgan as if its a mirror and the second is with the "area" of the coin lit up. You can get the first result using a light bulb with no diffusion.

K6AZ · May 25, 2005 4:13AM

The first image is from Superior, who does indeed use diffused light. The second image is my image, the way I take all my images so they accurately show the marks and are as close as possible to what they look like in hand.

xbob · May 25, 2005 4:29AM

The diffused on looks dull, but sharp and nicer color. The regular has nice luster and looks more genuine.

It might be interesting to take a fixed position shot of diffused, then regular and overlay (50% opacity) one over the other in Photoshop. The best of both worlds perhaps?

K6AZ · May 25, 2005 4:32AM

When I go out tomorrow I'll get a lampshade and shoot my coin with diffused light.

DJC · May 25, 2005 4:32AM

<< The first image is from Superior, who does indeed use diffused light. The second image is my image, the way I take all my images so they accurately show the marks and are as close as possible to what they look like in hand. >>

...and that's what's startling about this thread, especially to those who don't know the difference in photographic technique's (like me), as I said before. That first photo (diffused lighting) looks incredibly different than the second. And, since the difference makes the coin look infinitely "better", it would seem to be a deliberate usage of technique, perhaps to mislead about quality?

messydesk · May 25, 2005 4:37AM

Thanks for illustrating these, Eric, showing what is lost with the diffuse lighting. One thing I tried to do last night with my experimentation was use a white LED to bring a little bit of specular highlighting (i.e., flash) back into the picture (my light was a daylight-balanced fluorescent light). I ran out of hands and time. While the Superior picture hides imperfections, it shows the colors on the coin well, and I'd say that for photographing toning, diffuse light is better, since it hides the luster. Your picture makes the coin look darker than it really is.

The problem, as we all know, is conveying both the luster and overall color in a single static picture. Somewhere, there's a happy medium that will give the viewer the same impression they'd get viewing the coin in person.

K6AZ · May 25, 2005 4:52AM

<< 

<< The first image is from Superior, who does indeed use diffused light. The second image is my image, the way I take all my images so they accurately show the marks and are as close as possible to what they look like in hand. >>

...and that's what's startling about this thread, especially to those who don't know the difference in photographic technique's (like me), as I said before. That first photo (diffused lighting) looks incredibly different than the second. And, since the difference makes the coin look infinitely "better", it would seem to be a deliberate usage of technique, perhaps to mislead about quality? >>

I don't think it's so much about trying to mislead as it is trying to present the coin in the best possible way. After all, most of us with a lot of experience in grading the series we collect pretty much know what a MS65 looks like. The problem I have using the technique is now you have a new breed of collector who thinks that is what a picture of a 65 should look like.

K6AZ · May 25, 2005 4:55AM

<< Thanks for illustrating these, Eric, showing what is lost with the diffuse lighting. One thing I tried to do last night with my experimentation was use a white LED to bring a little bit of specular highlighting (i.e., flash) back into the picture (my light was a daylight-balanced fluorescent light). I ran out of hands and time. While the Superior picture hides imperfections, it shows the colors on the coin well, and I'd say that for photographing toning, diffuse light is better, since it hides the luster. Your picture makes the coin look darker than it really is.

The problem, as we all know, is conveying both the luster and overall color in a single static picture. Somewhere, there's a happy medium that will give the viewer the same impression they'd get viewing the coin in person. >>

Thanks John. Another striking difference between the two is that the diffused image shows no relief, it looks flat. On my image, you can clearly see the relief on the coin.

As far as my coin, it's looks dark because it is dark, these are not the same coins.

BigAl · May 25, 2005 6:03AM

I don't particularly care for the "diffused" look, especially w/ dmpls. The first pic looks more like a painting than a photograph.

ibzman350 · May 25, 2005 6:52AM

<< When I go out tomorrow I'll get a lampshade and shoot my coin with diffused light. >>

Come on now Eric, Sally won't get off of one of her shades

Eric, is the Superior coin and the coin you shot the same coin ??

Herb

Never mind......duh, I just read the complete thread.

Longacre · May 25, 2005 7:08AM

<< When I go out tomorrow I'll get a lampshade and shoot my coin with diffused light. >>

Great! It will be interesting to see the comparison. Looking forward to it.

airplanenut · May 25, 2005 7:23AM

Here's the same coin with both techniques...

MajorDuty · May 25, 2005 7:25AM

<< I don't particularly care for the "diffused" look, especially w/ dmpls. The first pic looks more like a painting than a photograph. >>

I'm with you, BigAl. I actually prefer pictures of coins taken without diffused lighting, all other things being equal. Diffused lighting makes coins look dull to me, while non-defused lighting makes the coins look brighter and clearer. I suppose you could really crank up the lighting on the defused technique in order to brighten it up, but the look is still dullish, imo. I've got two similar examples of a recent proof SAE I took with and without a lampshade. I'll dig up those pics if I can and share too.

Edit: Yeah, see airplanenut's pics. The top picture looks like you're looking through a faint fog. I much more like the second picture, AND it's more accurate.

K6AZ · May 25, 2005 7:40AM

<< Eric

what do you mean diffused lighting? >>

Diffused lighting is when an object such as a thin piece of paper or fabric is placed between the light source and the object of the photograph. Usually it makes the colors look nice, but it hides all but the most serious marks on a coin.

D · May 25, 2005 7:51AM

I always liked the regular lighting pics far more, the luster generally looks much better. Nice examples.

-Daniel

messydesk · May 25, 2005 7:55AM

<< Edit: Yeah, see airplanenut's pics. The top picture looks like you're looking through a faint fog. I much more like the second picture, AND it's more accurate. >>

If you're shooting through a slab with diffused lighting coming right at the coin, you will get a low contrast picture because of a diffuse glare off the slab. You can liven the picture up in post-processing, which is what I did on the gold I shot in the other thread.

pursuitofliberty · May 25, 2005 12:29PM

Good thread topic Eric ... and certainly one that turned a few heads.

I hate diffussed lighting ... it shows the color of the coin in an unnatural way ... and the worst it seems to me, as pointed out, is the way it hides surface marks and luster imparments.

Getting both the color and surface quality right without image processing is tough, but with a good macro enabled camera, slight adjustments in the tilt of the coin surfaces and a few good (but not overpowering) lights, it is possible.

A good example of the difference between diffused and regular lighting

Comments

Leave a Comment