Today I played with the latest effort to find lighting that will work reasonably well with more coins rather than having to customize what I do for every individual coin. I would appreciate opinions on not only which photos are better but WHY you prefer that one. Don't ask which image looks more like the coin because each looks like the coin when lighted that way. Coins held three inches under a high intensity lamp don't look like the same coins in a dimly lit coin show venue or outside in blazing sun. Each pair shows the same coin with my previous photo on top and today's experiment below. The top photos were not all taken together but coins were tilted and rotated as I saw fit at that moment. The lighting for the bottom set was all the same. Are any (all? which?) of the bottom images an improvement on the top set? Why? Thanks! Coins for this test were all recent additions that I have shown here before in separate threads so I won't talk about the coins here. This is a thread about the photos.
Holy smokes => I can't believe that you smoothed and tooled all of your coins!!! ... jokes The new photos look hot, my friend
I was expecting someone to dislike the Gratian as much as I did so I made a minor adjustment in the lighting and tried again. Yes, Steve, tooling might be easier. Those who do not take photos might find interest here in how different the same coins can look with little differences in photos. That is why I prefer to buy coins at shows.
Actually both images of each coin look good to me. Some variations, but for the most part, I think your picture taking ability is quite good. I do not have an elaborate setup like yours, but I do strive to get the best image in the most likeness of the actual coin.
coin three looks the most different to me, the silvering really "pops" on the first image...but so do the "dark spots", the second image is more homogenous. don't know which is better or worse, but to me those show the greatest difference.
I find it about 50/50 for me Doug, meaning half I preferred the upper photo, half the lower. The Gratian is the worst of the lower photos, and the billon antinonous the best.
In my opinion, coin #4, with the image of the lady is the biggest improvement from the original. It seems like the contrast is better on the second image as compared to the first. IN the first set of photos, which I believe is Gratian, I actually like the first image better. I say this because I like the green patina, which I don't believe shows up as well in the second photo.
Ok Doug, Note a few things my photography skills are years behind yours, so with that being said I will try and give you the best answer I can. In a nutshell I like your photos but I favor your original photos across the board. Coin #1 The original photo has a nice rich colors and gives the viewer a better idea of the different colors/surfaces present in the patina. The second photo seems to mute the flecks of red, light green and yellow, giving the coin an overall more even looking patina, for something might be the goal but I think the coin probably looks more like the original photo. Coin #2 Again the original photo shows great contrast between the red high points and the dark fields. The second photo casts a light spot on the cheek and the blank area under the reverse figures out stretched arm. I think these take away from the height of the relief of the bust and the evenness of reverse fields. Coin #3 This was a toss up. I like the second photo better because it downplays the dark blotches, while preserving a nice 3d effect on the folds of the reverse figure's robes and the whiskers of the obverse bust. Coin #4 The first photo I think is better. It shows the small scratches in the obverse field around the "O's". Many people might not like this, but for me it is visual information I would want about the coin before purchase. I think it would be a more accurate representation of the coins actual condition. Coin # 5 Again, I favor picture one, because I like the contrast of the dark recesses and light high points, it gives a good idea about the dept of the strike, and has a positive effect when looking for flow lines around the text. The second photo, seems brighter overall and down plays the dept of the strike, and SS's neck looks less muscular. I hope this helps. BTW- I selected the second option in the poll, but I don't think, it would really be accurate as I don't think your reshoots make the coins look, "odd."
Thanks for the reviews. Since I started this, I changed my set up to be somewhere between these two. It gets depressing that all coins look better 'in hand' no matter what I do. Few coins benefit from being blown up to large size and seen under strong light. There is also the problem of our ability to wiggle a coin in hand and see what we want to see more clearly while a photo has to be made in the same light for the whole surface all at once. Of the group the only one I felt was a 100% improvement was #4 so it was obvious that I went too far with the non directional lighting added. I need to figure a way to adjust the relative brightness of the two light sources used (directional and ring) but neither will allow a rheostat. There are two problems in photography that trip me up. One is being able to adjust things to get it the way I like it but the worst is deciding what it is I like. Hole? Obviously both photos are failures if you see a hole. Perhaps you see the O's in Roma and Aemelio as holes?
I ment "o's" this was a spelling auto correct error. Sometimes it can be quite funky typing on a phone. Sorry.
