Scanned images versus photos

basestealer · January 27, 2007 6:04PM

When taking pics of coins, which do you prefer? Earlier I showed some BU franklins I "scanned" in, and everyone thought they looked like dipped, polished, rubbed, browned, nasty coins. The photos of those same coins tell a different story. Which is better? Which is more honest?

LucyBop · January 27, 2007 7:30PM

Photos can capture luster, where a scan always tends to make a coin dull, no luster and lifeless.

Animalkeeper · January 27, 2007 10:20PM

a scan always tends to make a coin dull, no luster and lifeless.

I'm now waiting on a new digital camera with zoom so I can improve my coin images. I gave up on my scanner.

speety · January 28, 2007 12:04AM

I agree with LucyBop, I hate being stuck with my scanner!

RickMilauskas · January 28, 2007 12:22AM

What Lucybob says.

I prefer pics much more than scans.

oldcameoproofsguy · January 28, 2007 12:52AM

pics by a long shot

Coxe · January 28, 2007 12:57AM

There is no question about it. Unless an orangutan is imaging a coin, better results are possible with a camera than a scanner. I scan all of mine, though I am a more advanced primate, out of convenience still. One of these days I need to get a good copystand set up going.

Scanned images versus photos

Comments

Leave a Comment