Options
Imaging practice
Raybo
Posts: 5,337 ✭✭✭✭✭
I don't think my imaging is terrible, but when I see some of the "masters" that post on the forum I know my technique could use some (a LOT of) improvement.
Just recieved a new widget and thought I would give it another go.
I always use jpegs because raw just seems to be cheating, not that it is cheating but it seems like it would be time consuming.
For some reason my images just don't seem to have that "pop" that a lot of the better imagers obtain.
I guess part of my problem is due to the lighting (i'm currently using OTT bulbs), I have used halogen bulbs in the past but the heat they produce is pretty overwhelming.
Here is my new widget, there is some nice rose toning that I did not capture, it's really obvious on the reverse.
Give me your C&C on my imaging and the coin if you like.
Thanks as always,
Ray
PS Sorry for the large size, I KNOW for a fact that I reduced the size in PB
Just recieved a new widget and thought I would give it another go.
I always use jpegs because raw just seems to be cheating, not that it is cheating but it seems like it would be time consuming.
For some reason my images just don't seem to have that "pop" that a lot of the better imagers obtain.
I guess part of my problem is due to the lighting (i'm currently using OTT bulbs), I have used halogen bulbs in the past but the heat they produce is pretty overwhelming.
Here is my new widget, there is some nice rose toning that I did not capture, it's really obvious on the reverse.
Give me your C&C on my imaging and the coin if you like.
Thanks as always,
Ray
PS Sorry for the large size, I KNOW for a fact that I reduced the size in PB
0
Comments
after all
all the camera does is collect the reflected light, and it's hard to get
the lighting right.
What is your lighting setup?
<< <i>Stunning pics indeed, and very comparable to the veterans. What type of camera? >>
Pentax K100D Super, it only has a 6MP sensor, and now that i'm looking at these large images I don't think I nailed my focusing.
Thanks again,
Ray
The problem I see is one of lighting being at too low of an angle. The big symptom of this is that the edges of the design are bright and the rest is dark. What is the distance between the front of the lens and the coin? The larger this is, the easier the lighting.
Regarding Ott lights, I really don't care for them. To me, they're overpriced compact fluorescents. But since you have them, you may as well use them, because they are decent lights. The bar shape might be working against you in getting the lighting you want. I would use a business card and scotch tape to mask off the part of the light closest to the hinge then use only the tip of the lamp to do your lighting. This will be more versatile, and you may find yourself able to encroach on the coin a little more this way. With smaller light sources, your picture will also be less flat, which means more lustrous.
The pictures are nice and sharp, by the way.
Good luck.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
<< <i>I think that the lighting turns out to be more important than the camera,
after all
all the camera does is collect the reflected light, and it's hard to get
the lighting right.
What is your lighting setup? >>
Three OTT bulbs (IIRC, they are 100 watt equivalent)
Thanks as always,
Ray
<< <i>First of all, while it can be more time consuming to processes raw images, using them instead of JPEG is not "cheating." That said, there are things you can do to improve your picture regardless of that.
The problem I see is one of lighting being at too low of an angle. The big symptom of this is that the edges of the design are bright and the rest is dark. What is the distance between the front of the lens and the coin? The larger this is, the easier the lighting.
Regarding Ott lights, I really don't care for them. To me, they're overpriced compact fluorescents. But since you have them, you may as well use them, because they are decent lights. The bar shape might be working against you in getting the lighting you want. I would use a business card and scotch tape to mask off the part of the light closest to the hinge then use only the tip of the lamp to do your lighting. This will be more versatile, and you may find yourself able to encroach on the coin a little more this way. With smaller light sources, your picture will also be less flat, which means more lustrous.
The pictures are nice and sharp, by the way.
Good luck. >>
Low angle is exactly the way I use my lighting, so I need to use a "higher" approach?
Thanks,
Ray
<< <i>Low angle is exactly the way I use my lighting, so I need to use a "higher" approach? >>
In this case, yes. Low angle works best with cameo proofs when you want to show black fields. A higher angle will darken the outlines and lighten the fields, and is usually what you want with most other stuff. A very high angle is what you'd want for showing color, although the presense of the plastic starts to make this tricky.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Your images are not bad at all.
I'm not a big fan of those OTT lights, either.
<< <i>
<< <i>Low angle is exactly the way I use my lighting, so I need to use a "higher" approach? >>
In this case, yes. Low angle works best with cameo proofs when you want to show black fields. A higher angle will darken the outlines and lighten the fields, and is usually what you want with most other stuff. A very high angle is what you'd want for showing color, although the presense of the plastic starts to make this tricky. >>
Thanks MD,
I'll give it another go.
Ray
<< <i>I don't understand the RAW and cheating comment.
Your images are not bad at all.
I'm not a big fan of those OTT lights, either. >>
I know, I know.
I just want to take them from the camera and...........Voila!
Ray
is the lighter one more like the actual coin?
<< <i>I just want to take them from the camera and...........Voila! >>
Aside from converting them to .jpg from RAW you can take them and Voila....and then you'll also have the flexibility of the RAW image too but as suggested above you might improve on the images by starting simply with lighting angles and distances. It looks like the focus was ever so slightly out.
<< <i>I lightened, with software, your pic( left) after (right)
is the lighter one more like the actual coin?
Not really.
There is some nice "rose colored" toning that is missing, i'm the one that missed it.
I think i'll get out my halogen bulbs and try a high angle attack.
Thanks,
Ray
<< <i>
<< <i>I just want to take them from the camera and...........Voila! >>
Aside from converting them to .jpg from RAW you can take them and Voila....and then you'll also have the flexibility of the RAW image too but as suggested above you might improve on the images by starting simply with lighting angles and distances. It looks like the focus was ever so slightly out. >>
I know.
After looking at the rather large images I can see that I didn't nail it.
Ray
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
The name is LEE!
<< <i>I personally love the OTT lights... even the bar type. It will pick up rose colors as well as most others. Just have to play with it a bit.
Probably nicer coins than mine, but that's what i'm talking about.
Nice images robec!
Ray
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>Pentax is a great platform. This is with a pentax ist DS (6mp) and Otts:
Your images have "pop", mine don't.
My images look lifeless for some reason.
Ray