Ike Details

Coin Closeups give one a new appreciation

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

NICE! What are using to get these images?

 

thats what id like to know!! nice pics mrbrklyn!!!

cody

 

That was my old Sony Cybershot. I got a new one.

 

You got a new Cybershot or a new camera?

 

A new Cybershot. I literal wore the other one out taking so many coin photographs.

 

BTW - when they say a coin is 13.1 Megapixils, that is absolute nonsense. The photgraphs can reach that size, but the light collector can't imprint that much data so you juust end up with dithers large photos. I have to cut it down to about 5meg photographs to get clarity. Since the 6 year old camers was making crystal clear coin phots in the 3meg range, there is not nearly the great leap in technology with cameras that they claim.

Ruben

 

Depends on what you are photographing. For coins, not that much difference for sure. For landscapes and nature photography--a ton of difference.

 

I have a DSC-F717 Cybershot that has served me well. One fried circuit board which Sony fixed at no charge.

I think my biggest limitation is lighting since Macro-Mode does some great close ups but the shadown of the Camera body gets in the way.

I'm sure the camera has more capabilities than my "experience" can see since I'm just a "point and click" photographer.

My next move will be to a DSLR that has Macro Lens availability. At that point, my copy stand will then actually be useable!

P.S. Why is this thread so friggin wide?

 

It's the way the images are posted and the file size of the images. They are 3 to 4 meg each for some reason. About 10 times larger than they need to be. I had to switch to compatibility view to read the thread.

 

Honestly, guys, I have pro level cameras, as I am a pro/am photographer as a hobby (mostly nature stuff). Most of the point and shoot cameras (especially the more advanced ones with good manual control, and a good macro option) would do most far better than a DSLR for coin photography. I have the Sony Cybershot HX200V for my "easy use" camera, and find that it is more expedient to use that than a DSLR for most things.

 

No Kidding!

However, using photo's that are 3,648h x 2,736w reserves a lot of display space which is why the thread is so wide.
Reducing the size produces that same effect.





Here's a close up I really like.



Showing that "close Up" and "huge" are two different things unless, of course, your intent is in displaying a wall sized photograph.

 

Since I have a MicroSoft Machine, I use MicroSoft Picture Manager to reduce the size of my big shots at a straight percentage.
I then save them with that percentage number in the file name thereby preserving the original.

 

Oh nonsense. But if you want to photoedit the 67354 coin photographs I have - your welcome to.

This is a sample of the details of the original

 

BTW - Microsoft is total garbage. You can still photedit them, but you have to use Free Software

 

We can change the light direction though

 

Of corse wit such a close up it helps to clean it up a bit

 

Giant images really mess with folks with older machines and slow connections. Not really nonsense.

My images come off the camera at 3 to 4 meg and I never edit the original except a quick crop. When I upload that same original file to Photobucket, I choose the actual size the image will show. Photobucket automatically adjusts the file size to a reasonable size for the web. Little to no detail is lost.

Lots of software has a batch edit feature that works really well for adjusting file sizes to a reasonable level. You can do hundreds of images in one batch. This is great if you need to email a large group of images. Just some thoughts.