https://www.cointalk.com/threads/getting-more-even-lighting-in-coin-photos.297527/ Theodosius posted the above thread that got me thinking and we all know how dangerous that can be. If you have not read the above thread, this one will be even more confusing than it will be anyhow. It is directed at people who like to take pictures of their coins. Others will be well advised to leave now. Thanks to @Theodosius, I selected one coin for its plain silver surfaces. One side is high relief while the other is a bit more flat. I photographed that coin six times using the same camera, lens etc but modified the lights using ways familiar to me and one Theodosius suggested in his thread. Part of me says I should add a poll here but I don't know which one I like best so why should I expect you to. There are good parts to several (not all) and I might combine a couple things here if I wanted to make this the world's best image of this coin. However, I remain convinced that little variaations within each style could well change that light form winner to loser and a different coin might change everything even more. First I'l show a very confusing image showing the set-ups that produced the images. There are only four parts to that image but those who stick with it will see that they cover all six variations. Click on the images to enlarge. I used two different LED lights. One was a flat panel; the other a ring. Both were daylight balance and made of a number of individual LED units. These two were used separately and both together giving three variations. The fourth choice, as suggested by Theodosius) used the ring light surrounded by a sleeve of white paper completely circling the coin. Fifth variation used both panel and ring with the addition of a cloth (handkerchief) open on the side of the panel. Last removed the diffusers but added a small silver block which could be adjusted to thrown extra light back onto the dark side of the coin. Where I felt it would help, a small, low ring of white paper was placed around the coin just to throw a little light on the edge for sake of separation. This was not included in the case of the large paper sleeve or the handkerchief (cloth) as this seemed redundant. The coin image has six parts labeled in the lower right corner. In the case of the ring, panel and both, the upper left corner image shows all parts. One was turned off for the single light options. Since both lights have brightness controls, there would be a thousand combinations possible according to which was set higher or lower. Any image using the panel could be varied by rotating the coin so the directional part of the light would produce even more variations. I will not be adding 10,000 more images to demonstrate. Should I mention that the coin could be tilted just a bit one way or the other changing the 10k to a million. The point is that there is always something left that just might make a difference if only we try. The coin is an AR stater/nomos of Kroton c.400 BC. Mine is more worn than many offered but has smooth surfaces and good metal. It came to live with me in 1999 and intends to finish the century (which is more than I can say). I am not telling my opinions of these images quite yet but invite anyone still here to offer comments or suggestions as desired. These images are guesses when it comes to color and contrast so possible suggestions could include adding/lowering contrast, for example. Those who have examples of this coin are invited to show their photos of it. It has been a favorite type of mine ever since I first saw it. The metal is high grade silver and wears quickly. Mint state examples might not be cheap.
If only one image set was offered, any one pair would be deemed better than 99% of coin photographs. That said, the bottom right is my favorite (panel + reflector). Wait, no. Ring Only is the best. Wait, no. I want more light on the edges in that pair. Ring + Panel. Yeah. That one. Oh, wait-- no. The leaf in the reverse left field isn't as distinct as in other images. ...etc.
Gosh, this is a hard one to pick, but there is one I know I do not care for. That is "ring only". Almost a wash out to my eye on my monitor. I believe "panel + reflector" is my favorite shot, followed very closely by "ring + panel". All good shots, but I think there is more depth in these two. Wishy-washy I know, but that's what I got.
Like Bing, there is one that is definitely not my favorite but it is different than Bing's not-favorite. I think the "Ring Sleeve" set loses depth and detail. Look at the obverse-- the coin looks more worn in that image. Fewer details are visible. The reverse suffers the same way, although not as much.
man, i don't know. the ring only has a bit sharper details (on my monitor), but looses the toning, which is also true to some extent of the other coins on the left. it's kind of a 6 way draw to me. did you take many pics with each set up and select the best? i'm no photographer, but i take 5 or 6 pics of each side at least, and hope i get a good one. i tried a set up kind of like theodosus did, but i had to take SO MANY pics to get one good one, i gave up and went back to just natural sunlight.
When I'm looking at these photographs the differences seem so minute that any one of the six would certainly suffice to be a fine representation of the coin if it were in my collection. You have the advantage of having the coin in hand to compare but since I'm relegated to electronically viewing them . . . dang this is hard! Lets see, MINDSET: if I were editor of the @dougsmit colossal collection catalogue and could only chose one image: -Ring + Panel - KEEP; subtle lighting, coin surfaces look nice (but not flat), shows a hint of the toning. -Ring Only - OUT; the surfaces look rougher to me than all the other images -Panel Only - OUT; I don't like the reverse image; roughness in the fields around devices -Cloth Diffuser - KEEP; very close to the Ring + Panel photo but seems a bit "warmer" (if that is the correct term) -Ring Sleeve - OUT; lighting seems somewhat harsh, more "in your face" bounce than of subtle light/shadow -Panel + Reflector - KEEP, Nice balance of shadow/light; surfaces seem well represented So, I've kept: Ring + Panel, Cloth Diffuser, and Panel + Reflector Get rid of another -> Cloth Diffuser - OUT The lighting here does not seem to me to be as subtle as the remaining two photographs (I can tell it is lit) Here are my final two choices. Which to use to illustrate Doug's cat? Which represents the color of the coin best? I really don't know . . . my eye seems to keep being drawn to Ring + Panel. That's it !! RING + PANEL for me. -d
I like the panel only shot because (although I do not know from personal experience) it seems to be the color the coin 'should' be or probably is in real life.
Interesting experiment. In general, those on the right are "warmer" images than those on the left. My two favorites appear on both sides: top left, ring + panel, and bottom right, panel + reflector. Bottom right seems to show detail best. Perhaps top left (or ring only, as LaCointessa surmises) is closer to how coin would appear in hand under most light conditions?
Thanks very much Doug for the thought provoking range of photo setups and the resulting images. It is very nice of you to take the time to set this up and share it with all of us. I can tell some serious time went into it. I am intrigued by the results from the cloth reflector and the LED panel. I think there was a thread on LED panels a while back, I may need to look at getting one. I believe I used the word "like" about a photo very loosely in my original thread. To understand the type of photo I personally "like", I should explain what I want to use the photo for. There are two things I want the photos for. Number one is as a substitute for the coin that I can study at home. All my coins are in my bank vault 99% of the time. So I would like a photo that accurately captures all the details of the coins engraving, toning, color, cracks, deposits, patina, etc. so that I can study the coin via the photo as I learn more about the coin type. This means the photo should look at much like the coin itself, which is not easy as Doug stated because of all the variables that come into play. This also means I want all the details lit up enough to see them and not be hidden in shadows. A certain amount of contrast is needed for this, which may be subjective or depend on the monitor used or even the observer's eyesight. Number two is to be able to detect changes in the coin over time. Are silver coins becoming more toned? Is the patina of my bronze coins changing color over time? Worst of all, is bronze disease or other environmental factors causing the coin to deteriorate? An accurate picture which reproduces the true colors of the coin is needed to detect this. I have owned some of my coins 35 years and my memory of what most of them looked like back then is getting hazy at best. To say which of Doug's photos I "like" the most I would have to have the coin in hand and then compare it to the photos. I think there is another important use for coin photography, which is to present an artistic or dramatic image of the coin for aesthetic enjoyment. This is a worthy goal as well. This allows us to share our coins with our friends across the world and enjoy them ourselves when they are stored away. A different set of lighting, backgrounds, shadows etc. may be called for to make an artistic or dramatic presentation of the coin, or maybe a really good photo may satisfy all the uses I described. I personally like to create a still life with coins in it as an interesting way to present a coin or group of coins. This has its own different technical challenges. John
Hard to pick a photo without knowing the "true color" of the Coin. If I had to pick which images are most pleasing, I would pick the top two and the lower right images.
I agree with the three. Many would add #4 - "to sell the things" but the coins I have sold recently have gone through JA's sales venue and he reshoots them anyway. In most cases, my photos show faults more than most people would see 'in hand' simply because a 15mm coin blown up to huge size with lighting selected to show off details will emphasize faults, too. Some of my images look like the coin under my microscope and that is not always a good thing since the finest hairline looks like a gully. For the record, the photos I post on CT are quite a bit reduced in size from the size my camera takes to a size CT software will accept but still large enough to show small details if the user clicks on the image. I usually print 4x6" prints from those reduced files but use the big ones for larger prints. I have made a few 20x30" prints from the full files but few of my coins really look good blown up that large. They work if you hang them on the wall and don't stand too close. This image shows the full size image at the right, what I usually show here left top and what appears life size on my screen (you may have to click to see full file depending on your monitor settings) bottom left. The coin is 24mm in diameter. Size does make a difference in what you see. Come to think of it, pictures of me look better if kept small - very small - as well.
