When High Resolution Hurts: The Case for Showing Less

I once photographed a coin so clearly that the images couldn’t be used. It sounds counterintuitive, but I ran into exactly that situation while photographing a commemorative coin series for a private mint. The lesson changed how I approach certain commercial photography projects.



As a coin photographer, I naturally focus on capturing every detail. I always aim for sharper images and clearer definition, zooming in to 100%, almost like it’s a reflex. But it’s worth asking: when does clarity stop being helpful? When does the camera show more than the product should reveal?

A few years ago, a private mint in Texas hired me to photograph two commemorative proof sets, each with twelve coins. The coins were made of base metal and about the size of a silver dollar. One set was gold-plated and the other was silver-plated, making twenty-four coins in all. Each coin, along with its capsule and clamshell case, sold for about $12.

They wanted everything: individual hero shots, photos of the coins in their cases, group images, banners, and website headers. That was fine with me.

Given the product's price point, I asked them to send multiple sets so I could select the best examples of each coin. I asked for unopened coins only. No samples that had been in and out of the capsules. Proof coins are brutally honest in high res. Dust particles, hardly invisible to the eye, become boulder-sized. I’ve been down this road. Cleaning that up in post-production is time-intensive and expensive, so it's best to start where you want to finish, with pristine coins.

When the sets arrived, they looked great inside their capsules. The coins were bright and shiny, with frosted designs standing out against mirrored backgrounds.


Their current images

On their website, the collection’s promo images were 3D renderings. It was clear they weren’t real coins, but they looked good enough and accurately reflected the coin’s design.


I set up my dynamic axial lighting, which I use for most raw coins and especially for mirrored or prooflike surfaces. I always put on a fresh pair of black nitrile gloves before handling coins, just like a doctor getting ready for surgery. With gloves on, I took the first coin out of its capsule and placed it under the camera. Everything looked good through the viewfinder, so I took the shot.


Since I shoot tethered, the images appeared on my monitor right away. The first photos looked good. The mirror finishes came out well, and I saw nice gradients across the surfaces. I kept going and finished the whole series.


Coin image at 800 × 800 pixels, website presentation size

The real surprise came during editing, when I compared my photos to the mint’s renderings. I expected some differences, but not such a big gap. The renderings had sharp lines, deep details, and intricate designs. My photos, on the other hand, looked like they’d been cast in sand.


Side-by-side comparison of the rendering and my coin image, at 100%.

I figured the coins were plated after being struck, so I expected them to lose some sharpness. But what I saw was much worse than that. Whole layers of fine detail in the renderings just weren’t there on the real coins. I assumed renderings were concept art, but they showed a coin that the real product couldn’t match.

When I sent the images to the client, they were surprised. They liked the technical quality of the photos but were disappointed with the content.


The clamshell cases had the same issue.

In the manufacturer’s renderings, the printed logo inside the lid looked sharp and elegant. In my photos, you can see the ink sitting unevenly on the fabric, slightly blurring. Things your eye glosses over in hand are uncomfortably evident here. Like the old saying about a silk purse and a sow’s ear, high-resolution photography does not perform miracles.

In the end, the mint decided not to use the individual hero shots or close-up clamshell images on their website. They still paid for them, though.

On the bright side, they used the group and banner shots—any images where the fine details weren’t as noticeable.



The lesson here is simple, and I tell customers this whenever I get a similar project that crosses my desk. In numismatic photography, more detail usually means more value; however, the goal is to serve the product. There are situations when the most technically accurate image isn’t the most useful for selling. So before you go for maximum resolution, consider whether the product can handle that level of detail.

Because sometimes the lens tells the truth a little too loudly.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You make an interesting point @Denis Richard. It's very true, too - a fine, quality photograph is a wonderful thing, but it can sometimes look worse than the coin looks in hand. The eye tends to blend or airbrush out tiny imperfections that come out very sharply in a picture.

 

SO true!

Thanks for your typically well-laid out, detailed presentation -- replete with beautiful numismatic images!

Like I say when someone complains that a picture I took of them makes them look too short... or too fat... or too old... or too whatever:

"Camera don't lie."

 

Bravo Denis on a most marvelous presentation. As to the 'graininess' of your photogs compared to the mint renderings.....could that be because of laser etching on the mints' part? And then their AI enhancement? One thing I know most supreme and that is the fact that photos (when done well, such as you have) do not lie. The product is lacking, and not your photographs.

 

I often lament PCGS true views for this reason. They make small spots eye sores when the coin in hand is not nearly as plagued as the true view would suggest.