No offense to the gentleman, but if you look at the whole-coin photo is post 57 you'll see why you're better off with what you already have. Also, I dont see how his repeatedly posting photos of small details or select areas is of any help to you. He may think it's fine and dandy, but thus far I don't see where you've said anything about wishing to image anything but the entire coin. These so-called USB "microscopes" can certainly be a passable tool if one wants a low price, but they're very limited in what they can do, and definitely are not the solve-all solution some seem to think. As with any tool though, it's only as useful as the person using it. Yours are indeed improving even though the last (post 50) seems to hide flaws more than you would like. With the number of times you've now re-imaged the coin, I'm sure you're starting to see how small differences in lighting, technique, etc, etc can make a big difference. Keep at it...
That's not too bad overall, but notice how using just one light left you with a problem? Two average/cheap desk lamps, not placed together at 12 o'clock, with matching bulbs will make a clear difference. As said earlier, initially try positioning at 10 and 2, but it's certainly okay to reposition as needed or you see fit.
It all depends on the quality of images you wish to take. Two lamps set at 10 and 2 has always been the starting point for getting great images. You start there and adjust height, direction and angle to light the coin properly. These same adjustments can be used to show or hide the actual look of the coin.
This. It takes a certain number of lumens to effectively light a coin. Getting all those lumens from a single source tends to create a half-lit coin in the final product, greatly increasing the difficulty of getting a good shot. On the other hand, three lights or more (usually) interferes with depicting luster and surface qualities. Two is a nice compromise, giving the largest "sweet spot" for adjustment. With that said, experience can bend equipment to your will. One light: That was from a point-and-shoot, by the way, before I ever owned a dSLR. 4MP Minolta Dimage Z2.
Did you happen to notice the results after following your advice? I didn't say one couldn't be used, but wasn't quite cutting it. What works/suffices for one doesn't always do the same for another, and with the technique she's using, it isn't going to hurt. No offense to Mr. Potter, but in looking at the photos on his site, even though certainly passable, additional lights may help to improve his as well.
Here's an image of Ken and his setup . You can see how high the lens sits from the coin . That's why only one light is needed ..
Okay, Rick... your hero uses one so that means it is the absolute best way for anyone and everyone, and anyone who uses and/or prefers different must be a bumming idiot. We got it. Oh, but let's ignore the tool he's using in the photo, and that a stereo microscope and phone camera are two different beasts. As for Mr. Potter, is that what he uses for imaging full coins, or just small details? I'm not sure why this is so difficult, but the OP has yet to say she's interested in anything but imaging the entire coin. A stereo microscope is certainly a fine tool, but is also not the blanket best tool for every job or situation. If I need to remove a flathead screw and only have a butter knife, I'm going to try to make the best of it instead of running out and buying an expensive specialty head driver that is completely unnecessary for the job at hand.
See Book, they are interested in vams, goes along with the Morgans . Now who gave them good advice ?????
Wow, genius.... different thread not posted until WELL after each of our posts were, but no reason to worry about details, right? Even with her new question, she still doesn't need your little play tool or a stereo microscope now does she?