PCGS "Tru-Views" I'm very unimpressed

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I think this is a subjective and objective matter. Neither picture is perfect and both contain strong attibutes. Take a look at the reverse of the 64 Washington PCGS. You'll notice the PCGS picture provides additional feather details your picture lacks. Plus, it appears you've added a bit more black level to your pictures which tend to crush some of the details and make some of the lettering a bit more crude. But I wouldn't know which picture is more accurate unless the coin is in hand.

Nevertheless, you snap some nexus level photos with a minimal setup. :thumb:

 

gbroke those coins are so sweet. that Flying Eagle is so great. what grade is it ?

 

Thanks for showing that photo set up.

 

That was my thought too. Greg, as always, it's a pleasure to view your work........

 

Gbroke, forget about the TVs, yours are fantastic, I can eat those! For all you wise guys, "in a manner of speaking." How do you "crop" those so nice and circular? I need your tip on that.

 

"Photoscape" (freeware) allows you to crop in the round and I imagine quite a few other programs allow you to do so too, Eddie.

 

Not mine, Ken. I'm really so 20th Century, I must get with it!

 

The try downloading Photoscape and give it whirl.

 

I thought that just works with Macs. I'll do that!

 

PM sent Eddie........

 

I think both set of images portray different aspects of the coins. I guess it comes down to preference. My opinion, i like em' both.

To Eddie's question I agree to what Green said. I find Photoscape is the best for quick and easy photo cropping.

 

Thanks for all the responses and compliments. Everyone made some great points.

Doug, if it's a coin type I have imaged many times in the past, like Jefferson's, it's one and done.
One thing experience has taught me is the proper lighting positions for the various coin types. I know exactly where to move the lights for each series.

In cases of major toners, proofs, or unfamiliar coins, I usually take 3 or 4 images per side. However, I always felt that with certain coins, especially toned proofs, more than one image is necessary to properly portray the coin. One with more direct light to show color, and one with less direct light to show cameos and luster. I take note of the lighting positions for each shot so the next time, multiple images will not be necessary.

I don't feel PCGS needs to take multiple images of each coin and choose one. However, I would certainly think they would do a one second adjustment on lights to properly highlight the coin type.
The 1916 cent is the perfect example... The hair detail is hardly shown in their image, compared to mine. All they need to do is move the lights.
I don't think that's expecting too much from a professional paid imaging service. If it's a matter of too much volume, then maybe they should hire more photographers...


Contrast and luster:
To me, the eye appeal is what makes a coin a desirable one. We all know that luster plays a very important role in high grades / eye appeal.
Although I may slightly over-contrast some of my images, it certainly brings out the luster. The images of my coins posted in this thread are a much better representation of the coins in hand. You'll have to take my word on that obviously. That's really my goal in imaging and should be the goal of all coin photographers.

The grades of the coins.
I will post a contest soon for grade guesses. I am trying to decide on the prizes.

Imaging resources:
I have been working on the tutorial on and off for some time. I am trying to make it as easy to understand as possible and to share the lessons and tricks I have learned over the last few years. I will post it when it's ready.

In the meantime, I implore any budding coin photographers to buy and actually read Mark Goodman's book.
If you aren't interested in the book at this time, or are low on cash, then read his very in depth article on his website.

The book is available on Amazon.
The article is on Mark's website.

Photo editing:
I use Google Picassa to do my adjustments. It's free, does a great job and very easy to use.
This does everything you will need except for circle cropping and doing side by sides.

Cropping and presentation:
Ken's thread on using Photoscape to circle crop and what not.
I use adobe fireworks for my cropping, shadows and other presentation stuff.

Final thoughts:
I really should have started this thread a different way. Instead of being negative in regards to the tru-views, I should have put the emphasis on how easy it is to achieve quality pictures on your own with inexpensive equipment and simple setups. I am not trying to persuade people not to use their service.

Thanks again for all the participation in the thread.

Happy imaging!

-greg

 

Hey Gbroke,

I have a lot of experience getting TrueViews and also having coins shot by a top notch private photographer (robec). My experience is on raw coins (no slab) is that robec can often beat the TrueView -- however keep in mind that almost all TrueViews are shot in about 10 to 30 seconds ... while robec would often take 20 minutes to an hour or more and take many more shots at many more angles. Most TrueViews, of colorfully toned coins, are shot in basically one way -- to max out the color -- and this often sacrifices the luster on unc coins and the mirror/gloss on proof coins. I personally like photos more when a photo captures at least some of the luster and/or mirror and/or gloss -- and TrueViews generally don't (unless you ask specifically for that).

In any case, I think this "time spent" difference is why robec can often beat the TrueView. The TrueView photographer shoots hundreds to sometimes thousands of coins a day ... while robec generally can shoot 3 or maybe 4 on his best days -- so there is a big time spent difference. That being said I still LOVE the way TrueView photos look in almost every case.

Now if you are talking about photographing a coin already behind plastic (slabbed) -- there is no substitute for a PCGS crackout, an out of the slab TrueView photos, and a reholder at the same grade. Private photographers will always be dealing with slab glare when shooting through plastic and will typically have impairment, especially when trying to max out the color.

There is one other little trick I wanted to share about TrueView photos. If you post the internet optimized "Large" sized TrueView photos (1100 x 550 pixels) directly from their database, they will typically look a bit "soft" in the focus department. This is because PCGS uses a very aggressive lossy compression algorithm to reduce the file size of the Large images. You can "make" your own (better) version of that sized image by starting with their MAX sized image 5757 pixels in width, then cutting out the coins using a circular selection tool, then resizing to fit on the Large sized template, then saving using a HIGHER QUALITY compression setting (say 90% quality ... i.e. 10% compression). This little trick makes a huge difference in how sharp the coins look at the web optimized size of 1100 pixels wide.

Here is a nice example of how Robec having more time to shoot allows him to capture more "looks" of a colorfully toned coin.
This row of 6 photos below were shot at six different lighting angles.
Note how GLOSSY and MIRRORED shot #1 looks! And how shot #6 captures some color and some glossy mirror. While shot #2 basically maxes out the color and minimizes the glossy mirror.



Now compare that with the TrueView photo which was shot in a few seconds and basically maxed out the color -- so it looks more like Robec's shot #2 above.



The upshot is most toned coins have a whole slew of various looks and some might appeal to you more than others. It makes perfect sense that if you are shooting your own coin and have hours to spend with it, you will find that one shot that "sings" to you personally. While the PCGS TrueView photographer doesnt have that luxury and needs to crank these through (can you imagine having a backlog of 1000+ coins that you need to photograph in one day? wow) ... so they are shot simply to max out the color (which is what most (but not all) colorfully toned coin collectors like).

 

Winged, that is a good tip about using the high res image. I will give it a go and see how it improves.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

Here is a good example of a "remade" Large sized TrueView image from the MAX sized master image and how it compares with the heavily compressed Large sized version in the PCGS database.

The top photo is my remade version using the MAX sized TrueView and saving it as a JPG file using very high quality settings (90% quality, only 10% compression)
The bottom photo is the Large sized photo that resides in the TrueView database, which had VERY AGRESSIVE (low quality) compression applied to it by PCGS.
See the difference in the sharpness? Note especially the beard hairs.

The bottom Large sized image in the TrueView database almost looks a bit blurry or out of focus (that aggressive lossy compression really smears things out).
Honestly I have tried to tell PCGS about this shortcoming in their procedure, but this kind of stuff falls on deaf ears. I even started a thread about this some time ago over on the CU board -- to no avail.
With the advent of cheaper and cheaper disk drives, there is no reason for PCGS to so aggressively compress images (and reduce the quality) to save disk space.
Thankfully they do store the master 5757 width image, called "Max", (in it's full unadulterated glory) on their servers as well, so you can make your own "higher quality" web optimized (1100 x 550) "Large" sized TV's.

You will need to click on these and look at them at their native 1100 x 550 pixel size to really see what I am talking about.

 

great example! those two photos are miles apart.

 

On a side note is that the same flying eagle that was mentioned on this forum a while back about it being AT or not?

 

I definitely remember that 1916 Lincoln cent....