Gold Byzantine coin - which photo do you prefer?

Dear All,

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

I have only recently bought a few examples of affordable gold and electrum coinage. All reasonably affordable examples. I have found photographing these coins more challenging than bronze or toned silver because varying the direction of the lighting source has a more profound effect on the final photo.

I have posted three photos of the same Byzantine coin I took yesterday. The coin was struck under Basil II and Constantine VIII.

Please share your thoughts on which photo you is the most appealing to you as well as voting in the poll. I have stuck with Photo 1 as I believe it most closely resembles the coin in hand but I see that some vendors exclusively use photos like in Photo 3, which is the kind of lighting that is used for modern proof coins.

Photo 1: less direct lighting. The coin appears most like in hand and not standing right under a light.



Photo 2: more direct lighting. In between Photo 1 and 3.


Photo 3: effectively axial lighting. The angle is such that the light reflects straight up into the lens of the camera. Many modern proof coins are photographed in this way. Brings out the details in the legends and devices the most clearly. But results in a coin which does not represent what it looks like in hand. Looks almost computer generated!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

2

 

Photo 1 has the widest tonal range and best captures the essence of the actual physical object. It reveals the three-dimensional quality of the coin. The other two photos are flat and have a "posterization" effect with a limited tonal range. Especially photo 3. I'm surprised the majority of voters picked photo 3. It doesn't look like a real object. It looks more like a comic book version of the real coin. Photo 1, the gold looks like metal. Photos 2 and 3, the gold looks like yellow paint.

 

I like the third picture but my gut says the second one.

 

#1 looks like you can see more details on both sides of the coin

 

I voted 3 because of the lack of shadows enables me to see the details of the reverse better. Sure, it's not perfect but I can see the coin the best.

 

3 looks like the auction and reference book photos we all have spent too much time looking at.

I wanted to pick 1 but was afraid of being laughed at.

I went with 2 as a tradeoff.

They are all nice photos though.

John

 

2. Is a nice balance for me. Amazing coin by the way.


Thanks,
Jacob

 

I like #1. It is the most naturalistic imho. Great coin btw.

 

Like so many other things, we all have differing opinions. I like #2 best.

 

I chose number 2. I think it shows surface condition and details the best.
Beautiful coin by the way.

 

2 for me

 

Great coin!
I chose #1 it shows most of the state a coin is in.
In photo no.3 you can hardly see the texture of the golden coin and the details on its surface, especially obverse.

 

2

 

I picked no.1, but I wonder how much impact our monitors have on our decisions.

 

I was leaning towards #2 and now that Doug prefers it, I have to vote for it as well

 

#1 Better to see its surface and color for grading, auction (coin looks more well-fed), and authentication.

I've read somewhere that coins look very different using fluorescent light. I've also read about tungsten light being used. I guess the lighting does not matter these days as today's digital images can be improved so only the sharpness of the original image counts.

 

Tough call! I like being able to see all three, but if I can only have one, it has to be #1, since that is what the OP said it looks like in hand.

 

2

 

2 for me. Something about it makes for a nice shot.