Taking Pictures of Coins

I don't know why not - if you get something to lighten them up. Is there a setting on your Iphone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'll check it out. Thanks for the input.

 

I tried this with an Ike. My Nikon coolpix S510 on a tripod about 8" from coin. 3 second delay with a clip light (60w incandescent bulb) and an LED flashlight. The first pic is straight from the camera. The second I took most of the color out and cropped it. I use my Mac with the Photos program to make adjustments. I am looking for "grade type" photos. How do they look? Yes...I see the finger prints! Shame, shame! Anyway, should I bother to take the color out (If it is not a toned coin) and crop, or leave it alone. Thanks.

 

I just noticed the bottom rim...is this a double die?

 

Using two different color temperatures for lighting freaked out your camera's White Balance setting and caused the color problem. Stick to one type of lighting and the camera should cope better. And make that the *only* light present when you're shooting; keep blinds closed and overhead lighting off. Yes, you can adjust this in postprocessing, but that makes toned coins really problematic. You definitely want the color as accurate as possible, because it speaks directly to the evaluation of surface originality and eye appeal.

From a sharpness standpoint, this ain't a bad image at all - especially for an inexpensive point-and-shoot - and I would feel comfortable expressing opinions about grade from it. I've always held that older, lower megapixel P&S cameras are generally better for coins than more modern ones with huge numbers of pixels crammed into a small sensor along with long zooms (zoom lenses are optical compromises) and yours is a good example.

I don't think you're *quite* square to the coin; it seems like the upper part is a bit less focused than the lower. Place a small mirror where the coin will sit when you shoot it, and arrange the camera so it "sees" the center of the lens in the center of the frame. This will make the lens plane exactly square to the coin and eliminate the focus difference. You're using the standard technique of firm camera mount and remote/delayed shutter (so your finger triggering it doesn't introduce vibration), right?

Your Nikon has a fairly long minimum focusing distance in Macro mode - 5.9" - so ensure you're no less than that distance from the coin, and zoomed all the way out. If you're already that distance or more, don't mess with it. This is a pretty good image.

As regards the rim, take the corrected pic and post a thread in the Error section entitled something like "What causes this on the rim?" or similar. That will bring attention from people qualified to give expert answers who might not be reading this thread.

 

Great answer SuperDave. Thanks for the advice.

 

The best lighting for almost all coins is a macro ringflash, and we would recommend the Canon versions, although these are made to work with Canon EOS system cameras and lenses.
Nikon, and "other" afficionados will probably want to disagree, but about 10 years ago we junked our Nikon / Fuji equipment and replaced it with Canon because some of the Nikon stuff was incompatible with other Nikon stuff. Some online research found that the only major digital camera brand with a compatible macro system was Canon.
We have taken about 20,000 numismatic photos, many of which will be familiar as, despite being copyright, they get "stolen" and copied by many other dealers.
The Canon "Rebels" are more than good enough.
Most of our work-related photos are macro shots of coins, medallions and jewellery. All highly reflective, mainly small, and difficult to light.
We use a number of Canon DSLRs, with EFS 60mm Macro, EF100mm Macro, MP-E 65mm lenses, both Canon ringflashes, Adobe Photoshop, for Mac and PC.
We also have a Canon EF 180mm Macro, and EF 100mm L Macro.
Additional equipment includes several tripods, Hama copystand, spirit levels, light box, light tent, wall-mounted roll of white card, monitor calibrator, Herman Miller Aeron chairs.

 

I vehemently disagree with both the concept of a ring, and the concept of a flash, being "most appropriate." You're forcing yourself into a more exacting procedure to leverage those, and missing out on the advantages of other lighting techniques - there is no "one size fits all" solution. I use ringlighting only for Proofs and DMPLs, and have never used a flash. Not once.

Canon enjoys its' advantage in coin shooting purely because of EFSC and the easy availability of tethering software.

20k images is a couple years' work for me. I have 50k of my own images on my harddrive right now, not including my offline archives from pre-2010. And my whole rig cost less than an EF 100mm Macro. This - shot with a cheap film duplicating lens on my bellows rig, with zero postprocessing aside cropping and downsizing as the original was 18MP - doesn't suck that badly, does it?




Edit: I have to correct myself; I didn't consider that I bought the T2i used to shoot these new, and therefore the rig cost more than a 100MM macro (unless we're talking the L model). The point stands; I can duplicate that quality with a used $150 10MP Rebel XS.

 

I also disagree with the ring flash as a method of choice. To my eye, it produces an image closer to what one would get from a scanner, flattening out the relief. I much prefer the images produced with two lights at 10 and 2, for example.

 

Amazon sellsseveral different tripods that come with adjustable phone holders.

 

There are two problems with "ring" lighting:
1) For short working distances, the light comes in at too low an angle
2) The light hits the coin equally from all angles

I often use ring lights for various shots, but with longer working distance lenses and small diameter ringlights. This brings the light to a higher angle and creates more "in-hand look" lighting. To keep the light from hitting equally all over, I mask off portions of the ring light I don't want to use, generally anything below 3:00-9:00. Having light hit from the lower half of the coin looks very un-natural. I also usually mask the region from 11:00-1:00 so that light doesn't hit from directly "overhead", which often creates unnecessary hotspotting. By shaping the light coming from the ring light I can create something similar to my "smile director" concept published here and elsewhere.

 

I saw a post on here from, I don't remember who, but they suggested trying a printer scanner to take pictures of your coins. I tried it and it works pretty good! If you have a printer give it a try!

 

I am also experimenting and have my first images with this new set up .. I really like @SuperDave Lincoln an only wish i could duplicate that setup ... nicely done
This is just a junk Buffalo laying around... Not even sure how to post photos on this site

 

I use a dSLR/bellows/duplicating lens setup on a stand built for me by rmpsrpms, who posted above. Aside the custom stand, you can duplicate the optical end of things and the quality for $400 or a little less. What are you shooting with right now? Maybe we can improve what you got via tweaking technique.

Scanners are good at illustrating technical detail but incapable of correctly depicting color or surface preservation so you can't grade from their results. As an accompaniment to images good enough to show the surfaces accurately, they're an excellent accompaniment.

Here's a random, nearly-BU and very lustrous Zlincoln I just pulled from my pocket and scanned at 600dpi:



Scanners show luster as dark areas; the brightest luster on this coin is the darkest areas of the image.

 

The image of the 1939 D Lincoln is something I have attempted to duplicate for weeks. I have a Nikon D7200 with a 105mm Close up Nikon lense with a copystand with remote triggering. Have been attempting for weeks to get rid of glare and used multiple type lights from two standalones to a Nikon Attached Ring lamp. I have not seen any photos with the quality you displayed without Focus Stacking and Photoshop or some equivilant.

 

The best done has been of this 1960 D Lincoln Variety.

 

How do you post photos to this forum directly?

 

OK, we have some work to do then. Your equipment is as good as or better than anything I've ever owned, and with it you should be one of the better photographers on the forum. Duplicating the quality of my image above should be trivial for equipment of that stature; you should be doing better than that. I had to downsize those images to a third of original size to post them here....

The cost of this quality is, you need to have complete command of the photographic process. ISO, Aperture, Exposure, Exposure Compensation, in-camera quality settings, and postprocessing so you can make the huge images you should be getting small enough to post online. You are using the very_farthest_thing from a point-and-shoot, and the level of knowledge required is not for the faint of heart.

Where do you stand in this regard?