New coin photo

My new coin today is not ancient but gets posted here because it would make more sense to someone who had read some of my earlier posts here. I bought this partly because I thought this might be a coin that would photograph well using my recently described ring light alone rather than in conjunction with a directional light as I have been doing with most coins I have received since I got the ringlight.

The coin is a billon (poor silver) half groat of Henry VIII of England. The portrait is quite faint as are many of this type showing the fat king 3/4 facing as was his style toward the end of the reign. As usual the legends are uneven but this one has a quite bold hENRIC 8. I always wanted one of these but might have preferred one with a stronger portrait. It is not the worst out there and the ring came through capturing the weak detail as well as it can be seen on the coin in hand.

I guess I need to play more with the ring and weak coins. I originally thought it might be better for high relief coins but I won't know until I try. I suppose that report should go in the Chat section but who knows?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Once again this coin is way past the years of my collection, but it is an interesting coin. And being Henry VIII makes it even more interesting. I can make out the portrait due, I believe, to the camera work/lighting, but I wonder if I would be able to with directional lighting. Perhaps you should show side by side images. One with the light ring an the other with the directional lighting.

Bottom line: I like this coin better than most of this era.

 

Soon I will experimenting with photography---in every sense of the word---since I know so little about it except 'point and shoot' LOL

Since I love history, I love all coins that speak of the times I have always read about....and 'Henric' is certainly one of them----Did they refer to him as King Henric, or is that simply an old anglicized version of Henry?

 

may I ask what was color of the original background you used?
was it white?
I've noticed photos taken with white backgrounds can be less contrasty, might has to do with exposure compensation calculations with those auto focus points.

 

I shoot on black. White backgrounds lower contrast by adding flare which is not a good way to lower contrast. Exposure compensation means nothing if you shoot in manual mode and expose the way you want rather than the way some program calculates. This shot may be a bit darker than I would do if I did it again so I may tweak it. I get black backgrounds by placing the coin far above a background with shade on the black background. The first photo shows the rig that shot this but I only turned on the ring for this one. The second shows the support without the shadow making circle of foam that makes it hard to see in the other shot. Since that photo I replaced the four corner uprights with a larger handle which provided a place to set my wireless trigger when not in use.


Latin would be HENRICVS and there is a squiggle after the C the meaning of which I know not. There is also a trail on the 8. Who knows their Tudor lettering rules? I find it interesting that we always call him VIII but the coin calls him 8.

 

I think the ring light does a tremendous job of highlighting the details on that coin, particularly the weak ones. It's a great shot.

 

top = directional
bottom = ring
The difference is not what I expected. Perhaps the answer will be a mix even on this coin. It will not be tonight - I'm tired.

 

The ring light seems to be the better, but not enough to make a big difference.

 

Both photos have appealing aspects. Cool addition Doug.

 

Here is AN making a case for the directional lighting....

Doug I believe the first photo (directional) is the better of the two. In the first photo there is color information that is not in the second photo (ring light). In the first photo you captured the full range of colors in the reverse encrustation/ corrosion. The second photo this area appears as a black spot. The second photo makes the coins details seem flat while the first photo allows the viewer to better judge the debt of each of the design element.

Great photos I continue to learn from you!

 

agreed to above, directional lights seemed to gave more micro contrast, made the coin looked more 3 dimensional.
the ringlight photo has more contrast but not clinically sharp like the first.

Have you tried shooting in AV (aperture priority) doug?
I'm not entirely sold that cameras don't EV in manual, at least not on my 5DII. The EV setting in menu isn't accessible, but I felt it still measures light intensity at different focal points and pull the level of exposure of entire picture together.

Did you tone the black background in photoshop? or were you able to shoot pitch black like that straight out of camera? If the later, maybe an advantage of ringlight?

 

also if the pictures weren't toned in post then directional lights seemed to produce more purple fringing (again, microscopically) since the 1st set of photos looked warmer.
I definitely like color of the ringlight shots more.

 

It seems both 'methods' have both positive and negative aspects when in comparison....but so slight as to barely make a difference. I can scarcely imagine all the hours and days I will be spending reading up on the skills and techniques of photography. Good thing I'm retired now!

 

This next version is with both the directional light and the ring used together as I would for most ancients. This is a coin that changes greatly 'in hand' with the slightest wiggle so it is hard to tell if the things you like and don't like are as much a feature of the type of light or the exact angle of the coin on the support.

 

This last one is the best, in my opinion. Fat old Hank's facial features are nicely contrasted.

 

Once again, I agree with JA. The last images make it easy to see the features of Henry's portrait. You are a professional photographer when compared to me. I point and shoot and hope for the best. But I know I have coins that just do not photograph well in one position, but turned ever so slightly makes a world of difference. I do not have the patience for these. It's not one of my strong suits.

 

There are two skill that serve well in photography. One is being able to see good photos before they are taken; the other is to recognize them afterward. Most of us shoot a thousand images, pick one and throw out the other 999 so everyone thinks we know what we are doing. The first is rare. Ansel Adams did it but photojournalists with motor drives do not. My rep here would be better if I did not post anything until I had owned it a week and gone through all the mistakes before the rest of you knew I had the coin.

 

Last pic is best. Though it is darker than the second one, it gives off more detail on the coin.

 

Ansel Adams used very large, expensive film plates. He couldn't afford to throw away 999 mistakes.

I'm getting better myself. I'm down to throwing away 998.

 

Today, a box of film costs more than I paid for my 8x10 view camera. Digital has been a boon to impoverished photographers. The quality of the highest end digitals is high enough now that I would really like to see what AA would do with them. He was usually into new technology but died while digital was still a bit of a dream for the future.