But what a difference a tiny change makes. After @Collect89 gave me this in a prize back i won. I took phot's of it and posted them. He then kinda challenged me saying I could do better job photographing this coin. Well I took that challenge...and made one little tiny change. The old way. ..Doesn't show the Cameo very well. The new way Better?? Thanks...Mont
You are gonna laugh...a while ago I had diffused my lighting because the luster of a lot of my Unc. Ikes caused such a glare it washed out the details of the coins. Tonight I took them off and went with straight on lighting no diffusing....bare in mind my lighting is one goose neck OTT light and one swinging arm lamp with a 5200k (white light) bulb in it. This is probably about the best this kind off lighting can do.
The funny thing about Proofs vs. highly lustrous coins is that the practice which smooths out the blinding reflectivity of luster - diffusion - does Proofs no good. This, I think, is because of the difference in the field surfaces at a microscopic level. Luster is caused by the granularity of the surfaces, tiny irregularities and graininess. This makes for a thousand little "mirrors" reflecting light back into the lens from the right angle - about 90 degrees from the direction of the lighting - causing the "crisscross" effect of bright and dark bands on the fields: Diffusion mellows this so you can get lesser contrast between the field surfaces which directly reflect and those which don't, which screw up the thinking of a camera's digital sensor more than it does your eyes or mine. Proofs, on the other hand, have as nearly a perfectly smooth surface as the Mint could achieve. None of that microgranularity causing reflections - applied lighting simply bounces off in the exact physical direction one would expect of a mirror's reflection. There are far fewer places on the surface of a Proof which will mathematically reflect applied light directly back into the lens, noted (in part) by the "spray" of tiny spots of direct reflectivity behind the head on your "better" obverse image. And, having removed the diffusion, you also remove the tradeoff which diffusion costs the photographer - lesser contrast. So your second set of images have far greater contrast than the diffused set, and show the coin off to better effect. Lighting follows strict rules of physics. Unfortunately, those rules change for every composition and level of luster.
I don't know that I'd say the second is better, just different. It looks like the exposure changed a bit, and that you have fewer burned out areas, but you still have them, as well as dark shadows. For proof coins like this one, a couple diffused light sources work best. Proof coins are usually very high contrast, and you need to knock that contrast down a bit to get a good picture.
Montcollector's proof quarter has the additional photographic difficulty of being inside of a slab. The coin is a 67 Cameo so all the clutter in the fields may be caused by plastic reflections. View attachment 650474
Your lights are currently hitting the coin from a low angle and to the sides of the coin. Move your lights to a higher angle and you will get bettering lighting of the devices of the coin, and you won't get the "halo" around the edge of the devices. Low angles show up as the devices being outlined by light, high angles show up as outlines of devices being "shadow" areas. In general, high angle is much better for showing luster, toning, and details of the surface. Below are some pics I took to show this effect a few years back, and a diagram of what I mean by a "higher angle" for your lights.
Here is the coin I have photographed that is closest to the one posted above. You can see that when lit from a higher angle above the coin, you don't get the light-halo around the devices, and the coin devices are more evenly lit. Side lighting (low angle) casts shadows from the side, and highlights the relief areas (the parts of the design sticking "up"). Top lighting casts shadows from the top, and highlights the parts of the coin you generally are interested in seeing (the devices and design).
Back in the 70's (using Pro Kodachrome Type A 40 ASA stuff) I used a cylinder of velum surrounding the whole coin being hit by 4 lights, one at 10 o'clock, one at 2 o'clock, at 4 and at 8. It doesn't produce a look like modern coin photographs, but it had a unique beauty all its own. The light was fully omni-directional. I remember shooting some PL Bermuda coins that came out stunning. I haven't looked at any Bermuda coins lately but when I went, most new circulation coins were PL.
The key to getting pics like brg5658 shows (with inky black fields) is to have the lights high enough to illuminate the devices without edge highlights, but low enough to not directly reflect off the fields. SuperDave has long espoused the ringlight approach, where the diameter of the ringlight and distance from light to coin is set to meet the criteria described above. The ringlight approach makes the light much more diffuse than brg5658's approach, so results in a more uniform lighting of the devices, while brg5658's approach creates highlights, shadow detail, and luster presentation on the devices. Both approaches have merit, it just depends on the final look desired.
Wow, there is some great advice & info from everybody. V. Kurt Bellman has describes the technique we discussed when you received the coin. Also, you gotta love the results that Brg5658 has achieved. Brg5658's photo is perfect in my eyes. I cheated & doctored your photo: It would be very cool if you get an even better photo & then post it here.
I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you. J/K of course. I used a photo editing program (like photoshop but not) & cloned a dark area over the areas that had the distracting reflections. The photo is doctored. It is only for fun.
Here is one I took of a 1978 Proof I took with diffused set-up a while ago. Think I will try shooting this one again. Unfortunately there is nothing I can do about the hair(it's under plastic) and marks as they are on the OGP plastic it is in.
Not entirely true. You may be able to move it off the field with static electricity if you're patient enough.
