I've known for quite a while that getting good images of proof coins is a problem. The very shiny surfaces cause havoc with getting a representative image. Now I've got some added problems: 1. The coins are in slabs 2. They are older proofs and the surfaces seem less even. Here's what I've got so far: Frankly I couldn't tell at a glance that this is a proof coin if I didn't already know. And is the graininess normal for a proof from this time period? My eye doesn't see it, but it shows under low power (3x). I haven't tried any recent proofs so I don't know how they look as images. Is this a reasonable image of a proof from that year? If not, I'll take suggestions as how to do it better.
That doesn't look like a bad image to me. One option that might allow you to capture the reflective proof surfaces better would be to angle the coin when you shoot the image. For example you could lean the slabbed coin against another slab at a slight angle and adjust it so that you see the reflectivity but not too much reflection/glare. It takes a bit of work but often does the job.
The problem (for me) with tipping the coin is that I'm in a macro setting with my camera, and even slight changes in object distance causes focusing problems. Part of the coin would look nice and parts would be fuzzy.
I now use 2 lights ((Philips natural) directly opposite each other. 1 is ~45 degrees and the other is ~60 degrees from the vertical with the camera directly over the coin. I do not know if this is acceptable to you, but I think they look nice. I am also convince that most of it is the camera. The newer cameras are much better than the older. Mine is a Canon A560.
Pun intended ? I've found that using no flash and having a diffused light source, 4-6 feet away, works well.
Make yourself something like this: It works very well to get rid of unwanted reflections and it brings out the cameo/frost on proof and prooflike coins. I made this over a year ago now and I would be hurting without it. Example:
I LOVE the image of the cent! very nice! Not matter what i try, i cant take pics of coins! i will end up relying on my scanner when i need it . Not as good, but shoudl get the job done.
It's a PF-66 in an NGC multi-coin holder. I submitted both my '52 and '53 proof sets as much to see what multi-coin holder were like as to get the coins graded. They surprised me with how large they are (7.5" x 4".) I didn't really think about it; I just went for it. Take that into consideration if you go for the 5-coin holders. I expected to overpay for the grading (I didn't think the coins were that good.) The two half dollars saved me. The '52 came out PF-66 and the '53 came out PF-65 Cameo. What no one has answered yet is my question about the basic nature of older modern proofs. Are they inherently less "awesome" than the newer ones like the cent above?
I've taken some picks buy just putting them on the table. This is an example http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/ikes/ike_1976_s.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/ikes/ike_reserve_1976_s_clad_02193.png http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/asa_2007_proof_obverse.png http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/asa_2007_proof_rev.2.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/ase_2005_obv_proof_color_fixed_sm.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/ase_2006_proof_rev_lg.1.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/coins/ase_2006_proof_obv_lg.3.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/1982_proof_obv.png http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/1982_proof_rev.png http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_2_1963_obverse_quarter_1.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_2_1963_obverse_3.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_3_1963_cent_reverse_1.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_3_1963_quarter_obverse_1.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_1979_cent_obverse_1.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_1979_cent_reverse_1.jpg http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_1979_half_obverse_1_sm.png etc http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_1982_dime_obverse_1_sm.png http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/images/proofsets/proof_set_1982_dime_obverse_1.jpg
There is one primary difference kanga. With the older Proofs, typically prior to '73, the chances of getting cameo coins was slim. Only new dies or refinished dies would produce the cameos, but the mint just kept on using the dies long after the sand blasted finish which produced the cameo was worn out. That produced what we call brilliant Proofs. Starting in '73 the mint changed this practice and would produce only Proof coins with the cameo effect. As the years progressed from there the quality and cameo effect of the coins gradually increased.
I lucked out. Between the two proof sets only one coin got labeled "cameo". Fortunately it was the '53 half. If there was one coin that would really benefit me by being cameo, it would have to be one of the halves.
