pictures are frustrating me

My husband was debating around Christmastime on whether or not to invest in a light box. On a whim, he decided to create a makeshift light box by draping a sheet over a chair and then putting a lamp on each side without its shade. He took test photos with just the camera first and then with the make shift light box. The difference was tremendous. We are definitely going to purchase a light box and are now just shopping around for one. I really think this is one of the key ways to get a good photo.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Don't forget to practice some more....

 

In my experience, light boxes create very flat "dead" images of coins. The light is simply diffused too much. I tried everything imaginable with a light box, and it never gave me results I would consider good. Semi-diffused point light sources (LED, halogen, CFL) all give good results. But, diffusing those light sources too much isn't doing your pics any justice, IMO.

 

I never diffuse light. I don't think it gives a good accurate image and also tends to over emphasize frost and hide flaws.

 

Todd, I agree 100%!

 

It's always a compromise. Directional light can over-emphasize flaws. There's a time to use each technique.

 

I'll post an example picture. You would never get this kind of luster and toning to shine through if you diffuse your lights with a sheet. This is shot with three LED lights, positioned high and near to the lens. A light box version of this coin would be lifeless, flat, and "dead".

 

Doug, I'll believe you when I see you post a "good" pic. I have yet to see that. And, I'm glad you could "care less"...that makes me happy to know that you care that much.

 

Obviously you guys know best about the light source issue. We are only amateurs and felt that it helped our pics not to have the glare/focus issues that we were having before trying it. Our pics were only used for Ebay and none come out as nice as the photos that you guys usually post!

 

Simple point and shoot Cannon Sure Shot employed. Not perfect like Todd but it does get my point across........

 

I'm not saying those pictures look bad, I'm just saying you'd be better served with a higher megapixel photo... you can't grade a coin from a 4mp photo, I'd be hesitant to grade from anything less than 8.

Here's a freehand, no tripod, two lights, diffused.





Not enough light on the bottom, around the date, but still, easy enough to grade the coin from those photos.

 

Do you mind if I photoshop that image for fun?

 

Have at it. Here's the reverse.

 

I sharpened and brightened the dark areas. I am new to photoshop so don't criticize it haha.

 

4 MP is more than enough to take a good coin photo, IMO, and generally speaking more MP is better. Here are two 6.1MP shots I took from from a circa-2002 Nikon D100:





Will my D300 take a better pic of those coins? Yes. Are the D100 photos "good"? I sure think so.

Also, remember you are downsampling any photo on the web to a large extent -- the above photo is 800x800 pixels and plenty large to grade from -- so those extra MP aren't doing much anyway.

If I might be so bold, the real difference between circa 2000 and circa 2010 cameras when it comes to coin photos are their dynamic range and noise characteristics. Megapixels have little to nothing to do with it.

Getting past that little argument, and back to the OP's question....

Chances are the OP is struggling with keeping the camera still and focusing correctly and exposure and white balance and lighting -- I would be EXTREMELY surprised if it was his camera holding him back. Rather, it is almost certainly a matter of technique/skill/experience.

But posting some photos might help focus the tips from other readers.

Respectfully...Mike

 

It's More Than A Camera!!

Every time I read one of these posts, I grimace and think about the thousands of pictures I've taken over the years, and the collection of cameras/lenses I've accumulated while reading/listening to advice from others.

I've spent a small fortune trying to produce images similar to some of the beauties I've seen here. It isn't going to happen!! I've found there's more to life than spending numerous hours trying to "properly" photograph a lusterous coin in a slab, adjusting lighting, filters, angle. distance, lenses, which can't be done with a simple "set-up".

I finally realize that I should keep copies of the original images from which my coins were purchased, if acquired on the internet. Otherwise, a simple camera, such as one of my Sony Mavicas with a good Macro lens mounted on a X/Y/Z theta stand, photographing with multiple lights, a target positioned on a tilt screw adjustment base.

Perfection really can't be a goal if one images a diversity of coins having "filthy" to exquisite detail, luster, various materials and sizes, raw/slabbed. I found it virtually impossible to convey all facets of a coin, and must decide which are most important to a general audience.

Buyers will occasionally comment that a feature didn't appear proper in the posted images, as seen in hand. I'll just apologetically remind them of my inability to foresee all needs, but ability to return all funds spent for a return of my imperfect object. I've had very few returns of a coin, but many of a customer.

JMHO :thumb:

 

I also am not a fan of sharpening, what do you mean brightened dark areas? When you start to mess with only certain areas that is a slippery slope to a juiced or messed with pic.

Bottom line is practice to a point where you need a few seconds in photoshop, if that.

In regards to Megapixels they are very overrated and have more to do with the size of your images than anything else. For a web version of a image do you think a 10 mp vs a 32mp would be a big difference? Not really. But on a printed poster it sure would. I have done huge posters with 10.2 and 14.2 MP cameras.

 

I agree about the megapixels point Todd. What I think gets lost in this discussion is that most of the 4MP point and shoot (cheap) cameras from the early 2000's can't fill the entire sensor with the coin. So, in that case where your camera can't focus close enough to the coin, the megapixels or resolution of the sensor will make a difference to the final size and quality of the image.

I shot with a 14 MP Canon Point and Shoot for over a year before I set up my bellows/DSLR rig. Even with a 2010 model camera, with a macro (tulip button) function, you could not fill the entire viewfinder with the smaller coins (i.e., anything less than a Morgan). Thus, by the time you cut away all of that dead space, what you're left with is fine for a 700 x 700 web displayed image, but you could never create posters from these trimmed images. I assume your 10 and 14MP cameras with which you have created posters were DSLRs with a dedicated macro lens that allowed you to fill the entire frame with the coin.