How do you present your photos.

You did ask about proofs, and also showed a Franklin half, and mentioned GIFs.

Here is a Franklin proof. I will discuss technique a little bit below.



Proofs and business strikes pose their own sets of problems. The mirror-like surfaces of proofs can reflect light back at the camera, making them uniformly bright, or away from it, making them dark. Most photographers choose one or the other as a preferred style. Using multiple images can show the transition of the light across the surface, and animating them can show how the mirror surface actually has subtle contours. (Aside: This is one of my older photos and I would like to retake it now that I have more experience.)

As @GDJMSP says, a small difference in the light position can have a profound difference on the resulting image. This can be used to advantage. As I have shown elsewhere, I use a setup with the camera mounted on a microscope stand, with axial lighting at the 10:00 and 2:00 positions above the coin. I use a third light, much lower, to cast some light horizontally across the coin to reduce shadows.

The entire camera setup sits on a small turntable, while the lights are stationary on the desktop. My current technique is to rotate the turntable about 10 degrees between each shot, taking 9 photos. Since the coin and camera rotate as a unit, these are all perfectly aligned with each other. I straighten, crop, and merge into a .GIF file with .15 second between each frame.

This can show some things well, but there are tradeoffs. A .GIF file is big and has compromises. To put together 9 frames, a size of 800x1600 pixels is about as big as you can go and still stay under CoinTalk’s file size limit of 10MB. Each frame can only have 256 colors. As a result you may get adjacent pixels resolving to the same color, losing some accuracy in the color fidelity. So, given the size and color limitations these are not the best for detailed surface examination. If I want to show that, I generate a single still image of 1920x1920, which is again CoinTalk’s maximum image.

Business strikes are another matter altogether. They don’t have mirrored surfaces (except rarely) but have luster and color. To show that, I move the lights further off-axis and adjust the exposure to compensate for the reduced light intensity.



Here you can see that the light is not kicked directly back up into the lens, but that the camera captures the light illuminating the surface (a subtle distinction when I put it into words, but you can see the difference quite readily in the images).

Again there are tradeoffs. The images, I personally feel, try to bring in that dynamic play of light that still photos have trouble with. Sometimes they really help when trying to see small shapes, such as whether a Standing Liberty Quarter has enough features to merit a Full Head designation. And sometimes you have to fall back to a well-lighted still photo to get the higher resolution and better color fidelity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'll have to try that. Thanks for the tip.

 

I would say the most obvious reason is the coin is mono tone across the fields and devices.

 

I assumed it was a proof from the somewhat good strike, lack of bag marks and the kind of noticible square rims. But you are right Doug, it is an educated guess that it not a super clean business stike.

 

[)

As @GDJMSP says, a small difference in the light position can have a profound difference on the resulting image. This can be used to advantage. As I have shown elsewhere, I use a setup with the camera mounted on a microscope stand, with axial lighting at the 10:00 and 2:00 positions above the coin. I use a third light, much lower, to cast some light horizontally across the coin to reduce shadows.

The entire camera setup sits on a small turntable, while the lights are stationary on the desktop. My current technique is to rotate the turntable about 10 degrees between each shot, taking 9 photos. Since the coin and camera rotate as a unit, these are all perfectly aligned with each other. I straighten, crop, and merge into a .GIF file with .15 second between each frame.

This can show some things well, but there are tradeoffs. A .GIF file is big and has compromises. To put together 9 frames, a size of 800x1600 pixels is about as big as you can go and still stay under CoinTalk’s file size limit of 10MB. Each frame can only have 256 colors. As a result you may get adjacent pixels resolving to the same color, losing some accuracy in the color fidelity. So, given the size and color limitations these are not the best for detailed surface examination. If I want to show that, I generate a single still image of 1920x1920, which is again CoinTalk’s maximum image.



View attachment 1040638

Here you can see that the light is not kicked directly back up into the lens, but that the camera captures the light illuminating the surface (a subtle distinction when I put it into words, but you can see the difference quite readily in the images).

Again there are tradeoffs. The images, I personally feel, try to bring in that dynamic play of light that still photos have trouble with. Sometimes they really help when trying to see small shapes, such as whether a Standing Liberty Quarter has enough features to merit a Full Head designation. And sometimes you have to fall back to a well-lighted still photo to get the higher resolution and better color fidelity.[/QUOTE]
...Great information here. Thank you. Can you share your preferred light source.. 60 Watt incandescent? Halogen? Here is an honest representation of the same Franklin. Remember this is only different type of light source... The first Franklin was taken with a light diffuser. Basically any opaque material between the source of light and the coin.

I actually had not thought of that, I can absolutely get the same effect with either class of coin and I am seeing sellers take advantage of this type of image. Unfortunately I have already posted an honest picture of this coin in this thread somewhere. Edit.. well I thought I did.

 

A number of members have recommended Jansjo lights that you can get from Ikea. They are only about $10 each, so having two or three for the main lighting is really cheap. I can’t find the specific model at the moment - this is similar but make sure the neck is adjustable so you can bend it to match the camera height and position over the coin.

https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/naevlinge-led-work-lamp-black-40404914/

 

I'm actually having problems with LEDs. Although they make very good light and you can get them in different temperatures. I think some LEDs operate on a frequency that tend to sync with the refresh rate on digital devices and you can get all kinds of lines. Most of my pictures are taken under an LED shop light. I notice the horizontal lines, their subtle but I notice them. PCGS recommends using incandescent bulbs between 60 and 80 Watts I think with two light sources. They say halogen is also good sometimes for picking up details. They do not mention led's. If you are able to take a slow motion video of your lights you can see the effect. There may not be a noticeable difference between incandescent and led but the LED seems to have a refresh rate or rather a frequency that interferes. IMO. Below the .GIF is an LED shop light in slow motion.

 

LOL @ the votes. I would like to know who voted no and I'd like to know where they buy their coins.

 

To answer the original question, I present coins so they get sold and not returned. You want the coin in hand to just barely beat the expectation from the picture. If the coin is too much better, you leave money on the table. If it's not as good, you're getting it back.

 

I've also done GIFs for certain coins. Mostly if it's a coin that you can't stop looking at while tilting it around in the light. 6 shots, loop forward and backward, 600x600 each side, comes out to about 3 MB per file. Not too data plan-hostile.

 

I think a 8 -10 MB .GIF IS OK for luster. It is maybe all it's good for but certainly better than a single image.

 

This is 3.2 MB

 

Thats great 5-6 frames? gets the job done nicely. Good balance of resolution and animation. I can see things I would not be able to otherwise. Nice morgan.

 

6 frames. The way a GIF works, I have to embed each frame in the order it's shown, so it's put together as 1-2-3-4-5-6-5-4-3-2. Frame 1 and 6 are shown for longer than 2-5.

 

Is this a convenient method, or is this time consuming. Which software? OS?

 

Like anything, it can be time consuming until you figure out your workflow, starting with taking and post-processing the 6 photos. Software used includes ControlMyNikon, Adobe Camera Raw, Photoshop, and some custom ImageMagick scripts, all running under Windows.

 

Thanks. !

 

Proof

 

I've compiled some key feedback given in this thread "presenting a photo"...

"Most of us aren't professional photographers."
-I'll keep the photos simple.

"I only have my cell phone camera."
-I'll use low resolution.

"I'll definitely angle the light and object itself to get the most desired image."
- I will show the difference with only two simple images.

"being able to evaluate a coin is best with a perpendicular shot."
- Image will be captured straight down.

"Different angles, and the light at different angles as well as the right kind of
light, but with only 1 light source. (Not meaning only 1 light, 2 or 3 lights is
ideal, but there should be no other light in the room from any source."
- I will use two light sources, with one source unchanged and the other in a
different position in each photo.

"The mirror-like surfaces of proofs can reflect light back at the camera,"
-This is how I will demonstrate the reflectiveness with the angle of light.

"...you can see that the light is not kicked directly back up into the lens, but that the camera captures the light illuminating the surface"
-This is how I will demonstrate the true surface of the coin.

"it is an educated guess that it not a super clean business stike."
- After reviewing these two simple images there should be no question of Strike type.

"small difference in the light position can have a profound difference on the resulting image."
-The two images are presented at the extreme ends of light manipulation.

And here is the franklin in question...