I've never been truly satisfied with the photos I took of my Justinian solidus. Compared to how it looks in hand, it is a lot more yellow than it should be. And (besides for the initial photos) I have a strict "no-taking-it-out-of-the-holder-and-touching-it" policy since my solidus is gold and thus soft, and I would literally stop breathing if something bad happened to it. So I've used Photoshop to change the color of my solidus in the original photos to better match that softer, more natural dull yellow that I see with my own eyes. Oh and I added a solid black background as well. Thoughts? Opinions? Thanks! Before: After: (Yeah I know. I've got to edit out those jagged edges from the old background at 1-2 o clock on the obverse)
Second photo looks more like real gold to me. The first photo colors look off somehow. That is a big improvement.
Both look good to me, but if you say the color of the new shoot is closest to the actual coin, I'll pick that one.
Thanks all! I just realized something. Technically this wouldn't be a reshoot, since I didn't actually shoot new photos, but I'm sticking to calling what I did a "reshoot"
Thanks Eric. Yeah, I know I wasn't really falsifying anything or being devious but I was kinda worried that someone would call me out on my editing my photos. Good to see all the encouraging comments.
I think it's actually a requirement to edit the photos if the camera's settings oversaturate the color, as happened with your solidus. Honestly, I wish more dealers, especially online ones, would try to post photos that reflect what the coin ACTUALLY looks like, instead of blown out or oversaturated images. Usually, the coin looks better in person, which is a pleasant surprise; but if you're bidding because of an emerald patina, and it turns out to be something else, well....
+1 Dealer photos are often all over the place. Coins can be oversaturated, washed out, or photographed in such a way to minimize flaws. Scanned coins can be deceptive looking, and with digital cameras white balance is frequently off. There are indeed times that a coin turns out to look better in the hand, but often my first reaction is to wonder if I've really received the same coin that I ordered! I often wonder if certain sellers practice to deceive, or are just clumsy or inept photographers. ValientKnight, I think you've done a great job finessing your image in photoshop. Well done.
As a for instance, I append first the original photo upon which I based a bid for a recent acquisition, and then my two photos (still not awesome, but more representative) of the actual coin (a quartuncia from 217-215 BCE, Rome's smallest [nominal] denomination at 1/480th of a denarius!). To be fair, the dealer, who is very reputable and also willing to discuss what the coin actually looks like, has mentioned that it's difficult to get photos that indicate the true condition of a coin that don't also exaggerate its flaws (especially tiny coins like this one once increased in size 10x!). BTW, the orangey color on the quarter is because I used ambient light through my den window to take the photo, and it happened to be sunset, so....
I have some quartunciae. Neat little coins that correspond with their concurrent RR Litrae Rome minted for their exploits in Magna Graecia and the Celts in No. Italia. Same issue with me: photos and colors vary from shot to shot!
Hey, maybe we should start a thread on "Smallest Denomination(s) in your collection and how to photograph them" or some such!