New Morgan images (BIG PICS)

Leiana · September 5, 2006 9:14AM

Feel free to grade, cry "AT" or whatnot.

I have posted these coins before, but I just reimaged them.

-Amanda

MrSpud · September 5, 2006 9:18AM

Nice pics! 58NT, 62PL, 63

MrKelso · September 5, 2006 9:19AM

Feel free to grade, cry "AT" or whatnot.

I have posted these coins before, but I just reimaged them.

-Amanda >>

Is it my old eye's or is there a bit of doubling on the eights?

robertpr · September 5, 2006 9:21AM

Getting better with the camera. Amandaview™

SilverEagles92 · September 5, 2006 9:22AM

<< Nice pics! 58NT, 62PL, 63 >>

robertpr · September 5, 2006 9:22AM

Is it my old eye's or is there a bit of doubling on the eights?

It's your old eyes. That's a lighting effect.

Leiana · September 5, 2006 9:23AM

<< Getting better with the camera. Amandaview™

>>

Thanks, Robert.

Is it not too soon to ™ myself?

-Amanda

Leiana · September 5, 2006 9:25AM

<< 
Is it my old eye's or is there a bit of doubling on the eights?

It's your old eyes. That's a lighting effect. >>

Actually, the first 8 does exhibit some doubling. But yes, the lighting is creating an illusion.

-Amanda

mgoodm3 · September 5, 2006 9:26AM

Nice pics.

MrKelso · September 5, 2006 9:26AM

I need new eye's

ER · September 5, 2006 9:29AM

Excellent job!

Coxe · September 5, 2006 9:30AM

Those 1887-P ones with near dates always get my attention to look close, mainly for VAM-1B and VAM-2. Nice pics.

mgoodm3 · September 5, 2006 9:30AM

PIcs a little bright. YOu got exposure compensation on that contraption?

Whizzard · September 5, 2006 9:31AM

Very nice Amanda!

I love both those 87s.

What camera are you using again?

Mark

Leiana · September 5, 2006 9:36AM

<< Very nice Amanda!

I love both those 87s.

What camera are you using again?

Mark >>

Thanks.

I use a Sony Cybershot DSC-S90.

-Amanda

sweetwilliet · September 5, 2006 9:46AM

53, 62, 62

Aethelred · September 5, 2006 9:52AM

Pretty good photos Amanda. If I may be so bold as to be critical in what I hope will prove a helpful way, you need a little more depth of field and just a little less light.

How far away is your camera to the coin and how far away is the light source? What type of light(s) are you using.

JJM · September 5, 2006 9:54AM

That toned 87 looks familar .........

Leiana · September 5, 2006 9:58AM

<< That toned 87 looks familar .........

>>

It should.

-Amanda

richardshipp · September 5, 2006 9:59AM

Amanda,
I love the pics and only wish I could do so well. I can't grade morgans, so I won't.

I do have a question / observation though.... am I the only one who sees what almost appears to be a misplaced "s" in between the D and O of Dollar on the first coin shown?

Leiana · September 5, 2006 10:02AM

<< Pretty good photos Amanda. If I may be so bold as to be critical in what I hope will prove a helpful way, you need a little more depth of field and just a little less light.

How far away is your camera to the coin and how far away is the light source? What type of light(s) are you using.

>>

Thanks.

My camera is about 6 or so inches from the coin and my lighting is above that.

I am at as much DOF as I can get, I only have two settings- 5.6 and 2.8.

Oh wait, I was using 5.6.

So I'll use 2.8 next time and maybe the slightly washed out look will diminish, too.

I wish I had a DSLR.

Someday!

Thanks!

-Amanda

JJM · September 5, 2006 10:04AM

real nice job re-imaging it

Leiana · September 5, 2006 10:05AM

<< real nice job re-imaging it

>>

Thanks! The first time I tried it looked really yellow. And then WB correction in the computer made it even worse!

-Amanda

JJM · September 5, 2006 10:09AM

heres the pics I had of that coin..........

Leiana · September 5, 2006 10:12AM

Here is my first attempt.

-Amanda

richardshipp · September 5, 2006 10:15AM

Sorry, inquiring mind wants to know.

On the first coin pictured. To me anyway, in between the D and O of dollar, it appears that there is a misplaced "s" mintmark. Is it just the picture, or does the coin in hand look the same?

JJM · September 5, 2006 10:18AM

<< Sorry, inquiring mind wants to know.

On the first coin pictured. To me anyway, in between the D and O of dollar, it appears that there is a misplaced "s" mintmark. Is it just the picture, or does the coin in hand look the same? >>

huh, I see it in the first pic , but not the one I posted,(and never noticed it when I had it in hand).....Amanda , whats up there?

Leiana · September 5, 2006 10:20AM

<< 

<< Sorry, inquiring mind wants to know.

On the first coin pictured. To me anyway, in between the D and O of dollar, it appears that there is a misplaced "s" mintmark. Is it just the picture, or does the coin in hand look the same? >>

huh, I see it in the first pic , but not the one I posted,(and never noticed it when I had it in hand).....Amanda , whats up there? >>

I don't see it on the pic or the coin.

What are you looking at?

-Amanda

JJM · September 5, 2006 10:21AM

looks like there may be a misplace S mintmark somewhat attached to the bottom of the D on the rev?

JJM · September 5, 2006 10:23AM

I think its just a toning "flake" for lack of a better term, theres alot of Mottled tone on that coin

richardshipp · September 5, 2006 10:26AM

Circled what appears like an "s" mintmark.

Leiana · September 5, 2006 10:26AM

Hmm, okay I see something there, but I don't know what it is.

Probably a toning characteristic because it dissapears when you turn it a certain way.

-Amanda

PS- My eyes are really bad for close up stuff.

obversity · September 5, 2006 10:40AM

<< So I'll use 2.8 next time and maybe the slightly washed out look will diminish, too. >>

Actually, Amanda, for more depth of field you want a smaller aperture which means a bigger number. So, 5.6 in this case. Screwy, I know.

I agree with the others who said they were a bit over exposed. Another question, if I might, are you shooting with the camera set to full resolution (e.g. 4 megapixels/2304 x 1728)?

Leiana · September 5, 2006 10:45AM

<< 

<< So I'll use 2.8 next time and maybe the slightly washed out look will diminish, too. >>

Actually, Amanda, for more depth of field you want a smaller aperture which means a bigger number. So, 5.6 in this case. Screwy, I know.

I agree with the others who said they were a bit over exposed. Another question, if I might, are you shooting with the camera set to full resolution (e.g. 4 megapixels/2304 x 1728)? >>

Yeah, the smaller aperture is 5.6. I learned on a real camera where you rotate the lens.

I have it set on 4 mpxls, as high as it will go.

-Amanda

Bruceswar · September 5, 2006 4:51PM

Keep working on your images you will get them to where you want them to be. These coins would not be for me, but enjoy them!!

New Morgan images (BIG PICS)

Comments

Leave a Comment