<< <i> Ellewood, it's not quite that simple. Even if Phil himself wanted to start doing this on his own he couldn't. All TrueView photos are taken when the coins are RAW. PCGS cracks the coins, photographs them and then slabs them up. Any photographer that wanted to offer a photo service privately would still have to photograph the slabbed coins while they are in the slab. The fact that the coins were raw when photographed was a huge factor in the quality of the images.
>>
I agree... there's nothing I'd rather be able to do than shoot everything raw--no worries about glare, scratches on plastic, etc. Everything can be done exactly as you want. I think TrueView's best advantage was shooting raw--the only thing no other photographer could do.
Correction - yes, you had to pay a $5 reholder fee in addition to the $5 photo fee. But you did NOT have to buy grading services. So PCGS was getting a minimum of $10 per coin, not $5 as I incorrectly stated above. However, that's still CHEAP for the great photo service they were offering, which included three sizes of downloadable images. So I repeat, if it was a matter of economics, either raise the price, or restrict the offering of TrueView to coins that are also submitted for grading. I would gladly pay more to keep the True View service alive.
Those images were great ... especially on certain coins that I found completely IMPOSSIBLE to image at all. We need this service to continue !!
By the way, there is no such thing as an image that is not manipulated. The incoming light from the object being imaged is captured and manipulated by lenses, mirrors, electronics, software, chemicals (in the case of classically developed photos), etc. There is no such thing as an image that is not manipulated. The act of creating an image is essentially a manipulation of the original information carried by photons/light emitted by or reflected off the source, and turning that information into an "image" .... it is all manipulation, no matter the method. In any case, the True View pics were great in my estimation.
<< <i>By the way, there is no such thing as an image that is not manipulated. The incoming light from the source is manipulated by lenses, mirrors, electronics, software, chemicals (in the case of classically developed photos), etc. There is no such thing as an image that is not manipulated. The act of creating an image is essentially a manipulation of the original information carried by photons/light emitted by or reflected off the source, and turning that information into an "image" .... it is all manipulation, no matter the method. In any case, the True View pics were great in my estimation. >>
Was this intended for me? If so:
I agree that manipulation is part of the process for all digital imaging. I just felt that the images were a bit over-manipulated at times. It tends to give them a look that isn't as life-like as I'd like. The only way that I can describe it is that you know you're looking at a picture. I'd rather have you forget you're looking at a picture when possible. i think that's where the whole "cartoonish" statements come from.
The images have great detail that I can't reproduce inside of a slab. When I am trying to improve my images I use that detail benchmark as the standard to try to live up to.
Sunnywood, I can understand your frustration but......
<< <i>We need this service to continue !! >>
Come on man. Does anybody know if the service is merely suspended for a while for reasons unknown to everybody that is jumping up and down, getting depressed, increasing their dose of medication?
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
I find that you can look at a coin (in hand) at one angle and see a toning pattern, then rotate the coin slightly-or move the light source slightly and the coin takes on a different look--this is yet different than looking at the same coin head on with the light at different angles.......let me compare this to the cartwheel effect when rotating a coin. If you could take a pic of a coin's cartwheel showing at say 2 and 8 o'clock and another at say 4 and 10 o'clock they show the coin differently. Now imagine taking 12 different pics of a coins cartwheel - all running around the clock - and combine them into 1 morphed image you are not seeing the coin as it really looks in hand--- you are combining all the images and losing all the individual images at the same time. This is, to me, what TrueView pics did. They showed the toning on a coin as if you morphed all the different images into 1 pic.
Sounds nice, but it is not a true rendition of what the coin looks like in hand-----kinda the best of all worlds yet not a real image of what you really see. Nice effect, but not completely real. That is all I am saying about the TrueView pics.
Imagine if you took a pic of a beautiful sunset from the same camera position over the course of 1 week then combined all the DIFFERENT sunset images into 1 incredible sunset image ---- it would be an awesome sunset image, but not what you saw on any given day. That to me is what TrueView pics did-they showed what the coin would look like from every angle AT THE SAME TIME---nice but not exactly real.
<< <i>Sunnywood, I can understand your frustration but......
<< <i>We need this service to continue !! >>
Come on man. Does anybody know if the service is merely suspended for a while for reasons unknown to everybody that is jumping up and down, getting depressed, increasing their dose of medication? >>
I always thought that TV Pics look more like a well done portrait than a picture.
Or similar to a nice oil painting.
<< <i>Personally I thought the service would have been fairly priced at $20 per coin. And I would not have been offended if PCGS only offered the service in conjunction with grading. After all, that is their primary business. >>
I did not post the question in the Q&A section. Any question that I have EVER posted there has gone unanswered The most responsive person that I've ever dealt with at PCGS was Phil Arnold...so why go anywhere else? Early this a.m. I sent Phil a PM and I thought I'd share it here with everyone since many of you are feeling the exact same way:
Phil -
Let me first start off by saying thank you for how responsive you have been to all of my questions regarding your TrueView service over the past year or so. To this day, I am truly amazed at the quality of pictures that you have been able to capture in my photos (as well as others).
As you can imagine, today I learned that the service may be discontinued. As you probably know by now, I have a TrueView submission in as we speak (received on 11/6) for 5 lincolns but I had 40 more coins waiting in the wings to be handed off to the PCGS folks at the Baltimore show this coming Friday. I guess it is safe to say that I will not be able to submit those 40 for TrueView service.
I am hoping like hell that PCGS reconsiders this decision. In my opinion, most collectors would pay $5 for the reholder...plus an additional $10 for the photography! At least I would. If it was a decision that was made on the lack of profitablity, why wasn't the price raised? Your TrueView service is the only service available today that can remove a PCGS certified coin from the holder, photograph it and then reholder it. I know you probably cannot respond to this as PCGS has not officially announced this decision...but I just wanted to put in my two cents and thank you for all you have done for me up to this point.
I, like many, hope that PCGS will reinstate this service one day so that we can continue to build our sets with the TrueView pics that we have already started to acquire. Some of us already have TrueView photos started...now we have to go elsewhere for photos of the rest of our sets which will not match the photos that we already have.
As expectected, I sat back and read all the praises for TrueView in this thread. Well deserved.
I know people I love and respect who swear by TrueView. My best and most loyal forum friend, Lakesammmon, swears by Trueview as the best images of his coins ever taken.
Poorguy's (Brandon's) post speaks volumes. I've made it clear here many times I admire his photography more than any others.
But, for what it's worth, the one skill I have left in this hobby is judging the realistic nature of coin photographs.
Shylock, I know I'll get flamed. IMO, the photo is a glam shot. IMO, it's had a few adjustments in photoshop. Can I be 100% sure. No. I have never seen the coin in hand. Nothing wrong with making adjustments to give an accurate depiction. Question being is this an accurate depiction or a glam. shot? Unfortunately I can not answer my own question. Please keep in mind no Pic. is perfect, but some do come much closer than others. jws
When making a photo, you can go for the color [which diminishes luster], go for the luster [which diminishes color] or go for somewhere in between [which diminishes both to some extent]. I believe that Sunnywood instructed Phil [as I did for my shots] to get the color exactly accurate.... to not compromise accuracy in that area by going for a mix of luster and color. Different owners probably had different priorities and thus their coins look different.
When I look at my coins, I tilt them to the light so I can see the color. The True Views look exactly like the coins in that respect. I also roll them to see the luster. No image can capture that effect accurately.
TDN - I don't know - I've never seen the coin raw under light.
As we both know that's a lame response
But that's the ace of spades every "Trueview" image has under its sleeve.
None of us supposedly know what it looks like imaged raw.
Give me a break.
Like Poorguy I've imaged many coins raw and there is no mystery to them. In many cases my PCGS images come out better. The smooth plastic, as long as there are no scratches, seems to even out the lighting.
When making a photo, you can go for the color [which diminishes luster], go for the luster [which diminishes color] or go for somewhere in between [which diminishes both to some extent]. I believe that Sunnywood instructed Phil [as I did for my shots] to get the color exactly accurate.... to not compromise accuracy in that area by going for a mix of luster and color. Different owners probably had different priorities and thus their coins look different.
When I look at my coins, I tilt them to the light so I can see the color. The True Views look exactly like the coins in that respect. I also roll them to see the luster. No image can capture that effect accurately.
I know exactly what you mean. Having tilted your coins to see the maximum color, and seeing my photos that didn't capture it, it was a disappointment even more for me than you.
I guess I'm a realist. I look at coins dead on and try my best to capture them as they look, dead on, in their slabs.
One question has never been posed here. Why have no "True View" images been used by auction houses?
The answer is they prefer understated to overstated images. Overstated is bad business. Which is my philosophy about coin photography.
Shylock, sorry but you are way off base. How many of your own coins have you had imaged by PCGS? I have had about (250) done. So I have a much better sample than most folks by which to judge. And I am telling you, the photos are outstanding, and in my view, quite accurate.
Nobody has been more vocally opposed than I to images that overpresent coins. These images do not. Of course, in choosing images to post here, I chose some of the most attractive images - which, not coincidentally, are images of the most attractive coins that I own. My collection includes over (80) mintstate Barber quarters, including well over (20) graded MS67 by PCGS. That 1900-O Barber quarter currently resides in an MS66 holder (a grade that I strenuously disagree with). The coin was previously graded MS67* by NGC. It is among the 2 or 3 most attractive Barber quarters that I have ever seen. And yes, it actually looks like that. Granted, it is only a quarter, so in hand it is smaller. But that is what it looks like.
I don't have the coin with me here in Baltimore, but if you are at FUN, let me know and I will bring it for you to see. Bottom line, that image of the 1900-O quarter is not overly "optimistic" ... and you have no basis for saying that without having seen the coin !!!
Further comments: I never asked Phil to emphasize any particular characteristic of the coins. I left that to him. The first groups of images came out very uniformly lit, with all colors presented, but lacking in luster. Luster is tough to get in photos. Sometime later, Phil adjusted his method to show a little more luster. So actually, my images don't all quite match, if one really looks carefully at the luster/lighting characteristics. But they're all good regardless. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, I want to mention that my sigline image is not a PCGS image. I shot those images myself, using six fiber optic light sources on each side to maximize the appearance of luster on the coin. That one is an 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS68, and I didn't want it cracked out & handled.
To all the critics: (a) nobody is forcing you to buy the True View service for your own coins; and (b) don't diss the images unless you have seen the coins, AND unless you have spent countless hours trying to image coins yourselves (as I have). If you like your own imaging methods better, fine ... but Phil at PCGS did a better job imaging my coins than I was able to do myself ... and I threw a lot of time and money at the task !!
<< <i>I find that you can look at a coin (in hand) at one angle and see a toning pattern, then rotate the coin slightly-or move the light source slightly and the coin takes on a different look--this is yet different than looking at the same coin head on with the light at different angles.......let me compare this to the cartwheel effect when rotating a coin. If you could take a pic of a coin's cartwheel showing at say 2 and 8 o'clock and another at say 4 and 10 o'clock they show the coin differently. Now imagine taking 12 different pics of a coins cartwheel - all running around the clock - and combine them into 1 morphed image you are not seeing the coin as it really looks in hand--- you are combining all the images and losing all the individual images at the same time. This is, to me, what TrueView pics did. They showed the toning on a coin as if you morphed all the different images into 1 pic.
Sounds nice, but it is not a true rendition of what the coin looks like in hand-----kinda the best of all worlds yet not a real image of what you really see. Nice effect, but not completely real. That is all I am saying about the TrueView pics.
Imagine if you took a pic of a beautiful sunset from the same camera position over the course of 1 week then combined all the DIFFERENT sunset images into 1 incredible sunset image ---- it would be an awesome sunset image, but not what you saw on any given day. That to me is what TrueView pics did-they showed what the coin would look like from every angle AT THE SAME TIME---nice but not exactly real. >>
I never quoted myself before--but HELL, I am going to now.......
Not oversharpened IMO ... the slightly granular look of the surfaces is due to the "orange peel" texture of the extremely pristine mint frost. But, if you had a good look at this coin in hand, you might think the coin was "oversharpened" by the Mint, because it is so much nicer than a run-of-the-mill MS Barber quarter !! Perhaps I should post pics of one of my less atractive, more ordinary Barber quarters. The I don't think anyone would be saying it is a glam shot, or oversharpened. Most of the images (and most of the coins) do not look like this ... I must apologize, next time I won't choose an attractive superb gem to post.
Remember too that most digital cameras have many inernal settings that are addressable from menus, such as sharpness, brightness, contrast, color balance, etc ... as I noted bove, any image is a manipulation of the raw visual data. It doesn't necessarly follow that every image is Photoshopped. The "look" of the image can be the result of the imaging technique. It is also true that the same image appears different on two different monitors (especially flat panel vs. CRT), and the same image appears different to two observers. I have seen two collectors look at the same coin and the same image, and disagree on whether it is representative.
Sunnywood - Shylock, sorry but you are way off base.
To all the critics: (a) nobody is forcing you to buy the True View service for your own coins; and (b) don't diss the images unless you have seen the coins, AND unless you have spent countless hours trying to image coins yourselves (as I have). If you like your own imaging methods better, fine ... but Phil at PCGS did a better job imaging my coins than I was able to do myself ... and I threw a lot of time and money at the task !!
This is the most common theme of this thread. PCGS did a better job of imaging your coins than you did. I can't argue with that. That was the bread and butter of "TrueView".
But I'm not off base in saying the way you imaged your coins must have been unsatisfactory if you embraced the TrueView alternative.
<< <i>Not oversharpened IMO ... the slightly granular look of the surfaces is due to the "orange peel" texture of the extremely pristine mint frost. But, if you had a good look at this coin in hand, you might think the coin was "oversharpened" by the Mint, because it is so much nicer than a run-of-the-mill MS Barber quarter !! Perhaps I should post pics of one of my less atractive, more ordinary Barber quarters. The I don't think anyone would be saying it is a glam shot, or oversharpened. Most of the images (and most of the coins) do not look like this ... I must apologize, next time I won't choose an attractive superb gem to post.
Remember too that most digital cameras have many inernal settings that are addressable from menus, such as sharpness, brightness, contrast, color balance, etc ... as I noted bove, any image is a manipulation of the raw visual data. It doesn't necessarly follow that every image is Photoshopped. The "look" of the image can be the result of the imaging technique. It is also true that the same image appears different on two different monitors (especially flat panel vs. CRT), and the same image appears different to two observers. I have seen two collectors look at the same coin and the same image, and disagree on whether it is representative. >>
Sunnywood,
With all due respect, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this, and I am more than familiar with all of the variables associated with digital images and post processing and I've seen and photographed my share of lustrous silver. That photo is oversharpened or the reduction algorithm that was used to resize imparted the oversharpened look (if you would like I could make a few example photographs that show how this is done). Incidentally, it is the same reason why I don't care for Mike Prinz's photos. It is just personal preference. To wit...
In the end the quality of a photograph is just as subjective as the grade of a coin -- it entirely dependant on the tastes of the viewer/grader. Some like their photographs "evenly lit showing color" like TrueView, others prefer a more natural portrayal of the coin under indirect lighting. Just as some like a nice sharp digital photo, others like the smoothness of an unsharpened photo.
Please don't take someone's subjective opinion of a photograph as a slander on your tastes -- I know in my case it could not be further from the truth...Mike
p.s. TDN said it well: When making a photo, you can go for the color [which diminishes luster], go for the luster [which diminishes color] or go for somewhere in between [which diminishes both to some extent]. ... Different owners probably had different priorities (and tastes!) and thus their coins look different.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Shylock, I prefer the the "1868 $ coin" shown in your photo to the identical but different appearing $ in the true view. You captured the frostiness and originality of the coin which showed its character. The Trueview image by stripping off the frost on the Liberty provides more detail but washes out the coin thus diminishes the two toning spots in the right field. BTW: a terrific coin. The properties shows the coin as a "tradedollernut" specimen. What was the PCGS grade of this beauty
Shylock, I prefer the the "1868 $ coin" shown in your photo to the identical but different appearing $ in the true view. You captured the frostiness and originality of the coin which showed its character. The Trueview image by stripping off the frost on the Liberty provides more detail but washes out the coin thus diminishes the two toning spots in the right field. BTW: a terrific coin. The properties shows the coin as a "tradedollernut" specimen. What was the PCGS grade of this beauty?
PCGS MS66. An awesome coin, like most of the TDN Seated Dollars.
"The Rudolf specimen - the finest known. Utterly dripping with luster and eye appeal. Amazing velvety mint frost is practically painted on the devices. Superb!"
Heh I have a lot of thoughts swirling through my mind on this subject. First someone please define proper lighting for me and don't argue that its the lighting that brings out the coin the best. You take a raw coin out at noon, then at one, two etc in the sunshine and I guarantee you the coin will look differently. The type of bulb, wattage, and room ambience will all have an affect not only on the coin, but how it photographs.
I have enjoyed looking at Trueview photos but like someone else said they look more like portraits or glamor shots, nice to look at but not necessarily very realistic. If the user is happy so be it, but inside I smile every time I see them and not just because they are "purty". They often times don't look any coin I have ever seen in 50 years of collecting. How could I miss all of them at all the hundreds of shows I've been to. Dang always looking in the wrong places.
If the service went bye bye then there is only one reason, what it contributed to the bottom line. If you haven't noticed a new CEO and President have appeared on the scene. This might be a good time for those who want the service to get organized and be heard. A few folks complaining won't change their mind.
Good point about the lighting, Mike. If a person looks at their coins under fluorescent bulbs, it's gonna look wrong if it was imaged under incandescents. I look at mine under a couple 50w reveal bulbs, so I image them the same way, usually raw, which brings out the colors better than in a slab, as poorguy showed the other day. But once it's slabbed, the buyer sees a different coin depending on the light he uses. Why isn't lighting ever mentioned? It's everything, after all.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
Trueview seems to equal a glam shot that's not the real coin - similar to how a woman can be made up under the right lighting in the studio with a skilled photographer. That's not a true represenation of her - she never looks that good in person and you can only get her image to be what it is after the lighting and make up specialists have their way.
It's not real, it's just prettier.
24HourForums.com - load images, create albums, place ads, talk coins, enjoy the community.
No such thing as "proper" lighting. My criteria for image accuracy is that a good image looks like a coin and not an image of a coin. If you forget you're looking at an image, I've done my job properly. Not always easy to acheive in a slab or raw.
mgoodm3, no image of a coin looks like a coin, including any image of yours that I have seen on these Boards, excellent though they may be. How could any image possibly look exactly like a coin? One is 2D, one is 3D, one has contoured metal surfaces, one does not. All images look like images, and in our respective subjective opinions, we might or agree or disagree as to whether one image is more accurately representative than another. No representation is the same as the real thing.
As for the "glam shot" critique, I have posted images of the dozen or so most glamorous coins in my 300+ coin collection. I have many True View images of more ordinary coins, and nobody would call those glam shots. Some of those images look glamorous because some of those coins are glamorous. Perhaps you have not seen coins like that in hand. I hope someday you will all have a chance to see my 1892 or 1900-O quarters. Until then, you might moderate your critiques of images of coins that you have never seen. The images are flattering but accurate. If that's a "glam shot" then I want glam shots for all my coins. Why would I want a shot that does not show the colors on my color coins? or a shot that does not show every miniscule detail with clarity? (I am referring to the large TV images.) Why would I want a shot that chooses an average or below average angle or perspective, or inadequate and incomplete lighting?
I'm sure there are other skilled practitioners of photography on these boards. In fact, I'm not so bad myself. But I prefer Phil's images of my coins.
<< <i>If you forget you're looking at an image, I've done my job properly. Not always easy to acheive in a slab or raw. >>
And you do your job very well IMO. Although it's not your real "job." Of course once in a while someone might push you a bit to perform just a tad better, but I'm confident it makes a better man outta ya. Was this a positive post or negative? Ah, I don't care!
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
Comments
<< <i>
Ellewood, it's not quite that simple. Even if Phil himself wanted to start doing this on his own he couldn't. All TrueView photos are taken when the coins are RAW. PCGS cracks the coins, photographs them and then slabs them up. Any photographer that wanted to offer a photo service privately would still have to photograph the slabbed coins while they are in the slab. The fact that the coins were raw when photographed was a huge factor in the quality of the images.
>>
I agree... there's nothing I'd rather be able to do than shoot everything raw--no worries about glare, scratches on plastic, etc. Everything can be done exactly as you want. I think TrueView's best advantage was shooting raw--the only thing no other photographer could do.
Those images were great ... especially on certain coins that I found completely IMPOSSIBLE to image at all. We need this service to continue !!
By the way, there is no such thing as an image that is not manipulated. The incoming light from the object being imaged is captured and manipulated by lenses, mirrors, electronics, software, chemicals (in the case of classically developed photos), etc. There is no such thing as an image that is not manipulated. The act of creating an image is essentially a manipulation of the original information carried by photons/light emitted by or reflected off the source, and turning that information into an "image" .... it is all manipulation, no matter the method. In any case, the True View pics were great in my estimation.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>By the way, there is no such thing as an image that is not manipulated. The incoming light from the source is manipulated by lenses, mirrors, electronics, software, chemicals (in the case of classically developed photos), etc. There is no such thing as an image that is not manipulated. The act of creating an image is essentially a manipulation of the original information carried by photons/light emitted by or reflected off the source, and turning that information into an "image" .... it is all manipulation, no matter the method. In any case, the True View pics were great in my estimation. >>
Was this intended for me? If so:
I agree that manipulation is part of the process for all digital imaging. I just felt that the images were a bit over-manipulated at times. It tends to give them a look that isn't as life-like as I'd like. The only way that I can describe it is that you know you're looking at a picture. I'd rather have you forget you're looking at a picture when possible. i think that's where the whole "cartoonish" statements come from.
The images have great detail that I can't reproduce inside of a slab. When I am trying to improve my images I use that detail benchmark as the standard to try to live up to.
<< <i>We need this service to continue !! >>
Come on man
If you could take a pic of a coin's cartwheel showing at say 2 and 8 o'clock and another at say 4 and 10 o'clock they show the coin differently. Now imagine taking 12 different pics of a coins cartwheel - all running around the clock - and combine them into 1 morphed image you are not seeing the coin as it really looks in hand--- you are combining all the images and losing all the individual images at the same time. This is, to me, what TrueView pics did. They showed the toning on a coin as if you morphed all the different images into 1 pic.
Sounds nice, but it is not a true rendition of what the coin looks like in hand-----kinda the best of all worlds yet not a real image of what you really see. Nice effect, but not completely real. That is all I am saying about the TrueView pics.
Imagine if you took a pic of a beautiful sunset from the same camera position over the course of 1 week then combined all the DIFFERENT sunset images into 1 incredible sunset image ---- it would be an awesome sunset image, but not what you saw on any given day. That to me is what TrueView pics did-they showed what the coin would look like from every angle AT THE SAME TIME---nice but not exactly real.
<< <i>Sunnywood, I can understand your frustration but......
<< <i>We need this service to continue !! >>
Come on man
how did you know I had to increase my meds???
stman, I admit it, I'm a coin junkie ... no argument on that point !!!
and those images only enhanced my coin-induced addiction ....
here's why:
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
I always thought that TV Pics look more like a well done portrait than a picture.
Or similar to a nice oil painting.
<< <i>Personally I thought the service would have been fairly priced at $20 per coin. And I would not have been offended if PCGS only offered the service in conjunction with grading. After all, that is their primary business. >>
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>Has anybody sent this question (Why no more true view?) to CoinKing (aka, Ron Guth)? >>
Yes. I sent it in yesterday. Early enough for it to be answered in the Q&A session held last night. No answer posted, no response given.
Phil -
Let me first start off by saying thank you for how responsive you have been to all of my questions regarding your TrueView service over the past year or so. To this day, I am truly amazed at the quality of pictures that you have been able to capture in my photos (as well as others).
As you can imagine, today I learned that the service may be discontinued. As you probably know by now, I have a TrueView submission in as we speak (received on 11/6) for 5 lincolns but I had 40 more coins waiting in the wings to be handed off to the PCGS folks at the Baltimore show this coming Friday. I guess it is safe to say that I will not be able to submit those 40 for TrueView service.
I am hoping like hell that PCGS reconsiders this decision. In my opinion, most collectors would pay $5 for the reholder...plus an additional $10 for the photography! At least I would. If it was a decision that was made on the lack of profitablity, why wasn't the price raised? Your TrueView service is the only service available today that can remove a PCGS certified coin from the holder, photograph it and then reholder it. I know you probably cannot respond to this as PCGS has not officially announced this decision...but I just wanted to put in my two cents and thank you for all you have done for me up to this point.
I, like many, hope that PCGS will reinstate this service one day so that we can continue to build our sets with the TrueView pics that we have already started to acquire. Some of us already have TrueView photos started...now we have to go elsewhere for photos of the rest of our sets which will not match the photos that we already have.
Thanks again Phil -
Toby Leach
I know people I love and respect who swear by TrueView. My best and most loyal forum friend, Lakesammmon,
swears by Trueview as the best images of his coins ever taken.
Poorguy's (Brandon's) post speaks volumes. I've made it clear here many times I admire his photography more
than any others.
But, for what it's worth, the one skill I have left in this hobby is judging the realistic nature of coin photographs.
Is this a realistic image?
I don't know - I've never seen the coin raw under light.
Can I be 100% sure. No. I have never seen the coin in hand.
Nothing wrong with making adjustments to give an accurate depiction. Question being is this an accurate depiction or a glam. shot?
Unfortunately I can not answer my own question.
Please keep in mind no Pic. is perfect, but some do come much closer than others. jws
When I look at my coins, I tilt them to the light so I can see the color. The True Views look exactly like the coins in that respect. I also roll them to see the luster. No image can capture that effect accurately.
As we both know that's a lame response
But that's the ace of spades every "Trueview" image has under its sleeve.
None of us supposedly know what it looks like imaged raw.
Give me a break.
Like Poorguy I've imaged many coins raw and there is no mystery to them.
In many cases my PCGS images come out better. The smooth plastic, as long
as there are no scratches, seems to even out the lighting.
Now NGC plastic is another issue....
When I look at my coins, I tilt them to the light so I can see the color. The True Views look exactly like the coins in that respect. I also roll them to see the luster. No image can capture that effect accurately.
I know exactly what you mean. Having tilted your coins to see the maximum color, and seeing my photos that didn't capture it,
it was a disappointment even more for me than you.
I guess I'm a realist. I look at coins dead on and try my best to capture them as they look, dead on, in their slabs.
One question has never been posed here. Why have no "True View" images been used by auction houses?
The answer is they prefer understated to overstated images. Overstated is bad business. Which is my philosophy about coin photography.
Nobody has been more vocally opposed than I to images that overpresent coins. These images do not. Of course, in choosing images to post here, I chose some of the most attractive images - which, not coincidentally, are images of the most attractive coins that I own. My collection includes over (80) mintstate Barber quarters, including well over (20) graded MS67 by PCGS. That 1900-O Barber quarter currently resides in an MS66 holder (a grade that I strenuously disagree with). The coin was previously graded MS67* by NGC. It is among the 2 or 3 most attractive Barber quarters that I have ever seen. And yes, it actually looks like that. Granted, it is only a quarter, so in hand it is smaller. But that is what it looks like.
I don't have the coin with me here in Baltimore, but if you are at FUN, let me know and I will bring it for you to see. Bottom line, that image of the 1900-O quarter is not overly "optimistic" ... and you have no basis for saying that without having seen the coin !!!
Further comments: I never asked Phil to emphasize any particular characteristic of the coins. I left that to him. The first groups of images came out very uniformly lit, with all colors presented, but lacking in luster. Luster is tough to get in photos. Sometime later, Phil adjusted his method to show a little more luster. So actually, my images don't all quite match, if one really looks carefully at the luster/lighting characteristics. But they're all good regardless. Also, just for the sake of accuracy, I want to mention that my sigline image is not a PCGS image. I shot those images myself, using six fiber optic light sources on each side to maximize the appearance of luster on the coin. That one is an 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS68, and I didn't want it cracked out & handled.
To all the critics: (a) nobody is forcing you to buy the True View service for your own coins; and (b) don't diss the images unless you have seen the coins, AND unless you have spent countless hours trying to image coins yourselves (as I have). If you like your own imaging methods better, fine ... but Phil at PCGS did a better job imaging my coins than I was able to do myself ... and I threw a lot of time and money at the task !!
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>I find that you can look at a coin (in hand) at one angle and see a toning pattern, then rotate the coin slightly-or move the light source slightly and the coin takes on a different look--this is yet different than looking at the same coin head on with the light at different angles.......let me compare this to the cartwheel effect when rotating a coin.
If you could take a pic of a coin's cartwheel showing at say 2 and 8 o'clock and another at say 4 and 10 o'clock they show the coin differently. Now imagine taking 12 different pics of a coins cartwheel - all running around the clock - and combine them into 1 morphed image you are not seeing the coin as it really looks in hand--- you are combining all the images and losing all the individual images at the same time. This is, to me, what TrueView pics did. They showed the toning on a coin as if you morphed all the different images into 1 pic.
Sounds nice, but it is not a true rendition of what the coin looks like in hand-----kinda the best of all worlds yet not a real image of what you really see. Nice effect, but not completely real. That is all I am saying about the TrueView pics.
Imagine if you took a pic of a beautiful sunset from the same camera position over the course of 1 week then combined all the DIFFERENT sunset images into 1 incredible sunset image ---- it would be an awesome sunset image, but not what you saw on any given day. That to me is what TrueView pics did-they showed what the coin would look like from every angle AT THE SAME TIME---nice but not exactly real. >>
I never quoted myself before--but HELL, I am going to now.......
siliconvalleycoins.com
"Not to be outdone by the recent blunders at ANACS, PCGS has announced that it is discontinuing it's popular TrueView service."
I for one will miss it and wish Phil the best of luck in his future endeavors.
I agree with you shylock about them being Glam shots but hey I think they were pretty convenient for most people and looked
A week ago I sent a really nice half dime in for express grading and a Trueview pic but I guess I'm not getting one, though.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Is this a realistic image?
I don't think it is.
Looks oversharpened to me...Mike
Remember too that most digital cameras have many inernal settings that are addressable from menus, such as sharpness, brightness, contrast, color balance, etc ... as I noted bove, any image is a manipulation of the raw visual data. It doesn't necessarly follow that every image is Photoshopped. The "look" of the image can be the result of the imaging technique. It is also true that the same image appears different on two different monitors (especially flat panel vs. CRT), and the same image appears different to two observers. I have seen two collectors look at the same coin and the same image, and disagree on whether it is representative.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>I can see the press release now:
"Not to be outdone by the recent blunders at ANACS, PCGS has announced that it is discontinuing it's popular TrueView service." >>
My OmniCoin Collection
My BankNoteBank Collection
Tom, formerly in Albuquerque, NM.
Is the rumour true?
To all the critics: (a) nobody is forcing you to buy the True View service for your own coins; and (b) don't diss the images unless you have seen the coins, AND unless you have spent countless hours trying to image coins yourselves (as I have). If you like your own imaging methods better, fine ... but Phil at PCGS did a better job imaging my coins than I was able to do myself ... and I threw a lot of time and money at the task !!
This is the most common theme of this thread. PCGS did a better job of imaging your coins than you did. I can't argue with that.
That was the bread and butter of "TrueView".
But I'm not off base in saying the way you imaged your coins must have been unsatisfactory if you embraced the TrueView alternative.
<< <i>Not oversharpened IMO ... the slightly granular look of the surfaces is due to the "orange peel" texture of the extremely pristine mint frost. But, if you had a good look at this coin in hand, you might think the coin was "oversharpened" by the Mint, because it is so much nicer than a run-of-the-mill MS Barber quarter !! Perhaps I should post pics of one of my less atractive, more ordinary Barber quarters. The I don't think anyone would be saying it is a glam shot, or oversharpened. Most of the images (and most of the coins) do not look like this ... I must apologize, next time I won't choose an attractive superb gem to post.
Remember too that most digital cameras have many inernal settings that are addressable from menus, such as sharpness, brightness, contrast, color balance, etc ... as I noted bove, any image is a manipulation of the raw visual data. It doesn't necessarly follow that every image is Photoshopped. The "look" of the image can be the result of the imaging technique. It is also true that the same image appears different on two different monitors (especially flat panel vs. CRT), and the same image appears different to two observers. I have seen two collectors look at the same coin and the same image, and disagree on whether it is representative. >>
Sunnywood,
With all due respect, we will simply have to agree to disagree on this, and I am more than familiar with all of the variables associated with digital images and post processing and I've seen and photographed my share of lustrous silver. That photo is oversharpened or the reduction algorithm that was used to resize imparted the oversharpened look (if you would like I could make a few example photographs that show how this is done). Incidentally, it is the same reason why I don't care for Mike Prinz's photos. It is just personal preference. To wit...
In the end the quality of a photograph is just as subjective as the grade of a coin -- it entirely dependant on the tastes of the viewer/grader. Some like their photographs "evenly lit showing color" like TrueView, others prefer a more natural portrayal of the coin under indirect lighting. Just as some like a nice sharp digital photo, others like the smoothness of an unsharpened photo.
Please don't take someone's subjective opinion of a photograph as a slander on your tastes -- I know in my case it could not be further from the truth...Mike
p.s. TDN said it well: When making a photo, you can go for the color [which diminishes luster], go for the luster [which diminishes color] or go for somewhere in between [which diminishes both to some extent]. ... Different owners probably had different priorities (and tastes!) and thus their coins look different.
I prefer the the "1868 $ coin" shown in your photo to the identical but different appearing $ in the true view. You captured the frostiness and originality of the coin which showed its character. The Trueview image by stripping off the frost on the Liberty provides more detail but washes out the coin thus diminishes the two toning spots in the right field.
BTW: a terrific coin. The properties shows the coin as a "tradedollernut" specimen. What was the PCGS grade of this beauty
I prefer the the "1868 $ coin" shown in your photo to the identical but different appearing $ in the true view. You captured the frostiness and originality of the coin which showed its character. The Trueview image by stripping off the frost on the Liberty provides more detail but washes out the coin thus diminishes the two toning spots in the right field.
BTW: a terrific coin. The properties shows the coin as a "tradedollernut" specimen. What was the PCGS grade of this beauty?
PCGS MS66. An awesome coin, like most of the TDN Seated Dollars.
"The Rudolf specimen - the finest known. Utterly dripping with luster and eye appeal. Amazing velvety mint frost is practically painted on the devices. Superb!"
I have enjoyed looking at Trueview photos but like someone else said they look more like portraits or glamor shots, nice to look at but not necessarily very realistic. If the user is happy so be it, but inside I smile every time I see them and not just because they are "purty". They often times don't look any coin I have ever seen in 50 years of collecting. How could I miss all of them at all the hundreds of shows I've been to. Dang always looking in the wrong places.
If the service went bye bye then there is only one reason, what it contributed to the bottom line. If you haven't noticed a new CEO and President have appeared on the scene. This might be a good time for those who want the service to get organized and be heard. A few folks complaining won't change their mind.
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
It's not real, it's just prettier.
As for the "glam shot" critique, I have posted images of the dozen or so most glamorous coins in my 300+ coin collection. I have many True View images of more ordinary coins, and nobody would call those glam shots. Some of those images look glamorous because some of those coins are glamorous. Perhaps you have not seen coins like that in hand. I hope someday you will all have a chance to see my 1892 or 1900-O quarters. Until then, you might moderate your critiques of images of coins that you have never seen. The images are flattering but accurate. If that's a "glam shot" then I want glam shots for all my coins. Why would I want a shot that does not show the colors on my color coins? or a shot that does not show every miniscule detail with clarity? (I am referring to the large TV images.) Why would I want a shot that chooses an average or below average angle or perspective, or inadequate and incomplete lighting?
I'm sure there are other skilled practitioners of photography on these boards. In fact, I'm not so bad myself. But I prefer Phil's images of my coins.
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>If you forget you're looking at an image, I've done my job properly. Not always easy to acheive in a slab or raw. >>
And you do your job very well IMO. Although it's not your real "job." Of course once in a while someone might push you a bit to perform just a tad better, but I'm confident it makes a better man outta ya.