Apart from watching bids on my consigned coins, I really like to compare my pictures versus those of the auction house. I use a Nikon d3200 with a cheap Cosina macro lens, mounted on a wooden box with axial lighting (total cost me about €200 five years ago). CNG removes the background, while my photo's are with a black background. To enable comparison, I've edited the background away using www.remove.bg, which reduces the resolution. First, two coins that were auctioned last year (mine, CNG) https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=388294 In my opinion: CNG is the winner. Their image shows the surfaces better, and is overall sharper. Next, more or less similarly (mine, CNG): https://cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=390138 Much the same: CNG is more clearer. These two were taken with my old setup; I've tweaked quite a bit since then. So currently, there are three coins in E848: A sestertius of Domitian (Mine vs CNG): https://auctions.cngcoins.com/lots/...51-g-6h-rome-mint-struck-under-titus-ad-80-81 I was a bit disappointed by the image: what happened to the dark green colour?! It's nearly a black-white image ... I don't really like CNG's attempt on this one, and hope it will not negatively impact the hammer price ... Next: A 10 Litrai of Hieronymous II https://auctions.cngcoins.com/lots/...ronymos-215-214-bc-ar-10-litrai-21mm-836-g-7h I think the photo of CNG is much more flattering to the coin than mine. This one was difficult to capture. There is actually a funny story. I bought this coin to clean and resell. It was overlooked by most because of the ugly deposits: I cleaned it, and also found a hidden provenance! Curious what this one will do. Finally, a common denarius of Sept severus: https://auctions.cngcoins.com/lots/...us-155mm-288-g-6h-rome-mint-struck-ad-197-198 I think these photo's don't differ too much. Mine looks a bit green; CNG's version a bit purple (on my monitor, that is). But overall, quite similar. Please share your comparisons!
I believe you are demonstrating that some coins respond to axial lighting while others look better with directional light. CNG does not have time or inclination to treat every coin as an individual. You can. Overall, I prefer some direction to coin lighting but fill to soften shadows is usually good. For years I have been showing these same comparison shots using three different lighting methods. Perhaps I should update them but they make the point that not all coins looks best using one system. Top: ringlight middle: directional with fill (artificial) bottom: north facing window (diffused)
I use an iphone 10 sitting on a pile of books, usually with two fluorescent desk lights. If I invested a little in my setup and changed to a gray neutral background instead of green, I could do better. Here are a few comparisons to CNG pics. Generally I like CNG's photography, but there's always room for improvement.
CNG uses some pretty heavy duty post-processing in Photoshop. The raw photo is both brightened and increased in contrast. I personally like the effect, especially in publishing, because it delineates profiles and lettering so well (the contrast) but it does come at the expense of some "realism". Although I'm not an imaging guru I believe this is referred to as "posterizing". If you were to do this to a people pic though the effect would look unnatural. Take my ugly ass for example, along with a photo of a coin we can all relate to, that does a 50% increase in contrast and another 50% increase in brightness. Note how the penny looks CNGish and, me, well... there's no hope fixing that mug lol Rasiel
Don't mean to clog up the thread but here's another direct comparison. This is (well, was) my Constantine IV from my ERIC II book as photographed by CNG (top) and as photographed by me on the bottom. To each their own but even if I'm as objective as possible I would consider my shot the better in terms of resolution, sharpness and fidelity of color reproduction. However, CNG's photo took probably all of 10 seconds while I probably spent an hour fussing over mine. You could say it's an artisanal vs. industrial process with all the pros and cons that that conveys.
Roerbakmix, Your photo of the Domitian sestertius looks far superior to CNG's . The clean-up you did on the 10 litrai coin is impressive ! How do these coins look in natural sunlight ? I've always favored shooting photos in natural diffused sunlight versus artificial light, & use an inexpensive Cannon Rebel XS camera. Pictured below are photos of a Chinese 10 cash coin CNG sold for me from their E-Auction 483. The top photo is CNG's & the bottom one is mine. There is a big difference in color between these photos . I have a Year 2 Jewish shekel coming up for auction in CNG Triton XXIV, lot 781. The top photo pictured below is a CNG photo & the bottom photo is mine. The CNG photo makes the coin look much darker than it actually is, & frankly I'm not happy with it ! CNG photos of slabbed coins are generally of poor quality, & I'm sorry I didn't remove the coin from the slab before giving it to them. Another coin I have in the same auction, a Roman provincial bronze of Tiberius, I did remove from the slab before giving it to them is pictured below. CNG's photo is on top & the slabbed photo is below it. The CNG photo, lot 928, is outstanding despite some lost detail on the obverse compared to the slabbed photo .
@Roerbakmix , I prefer your great pics to CNG when it comes to beholding the beauty of a coin. When inspecting a coin, I prefer the pics of the auction house, as they are bright enough to reveal every little flaw. I also have as my goal to take «better» pics than the seller. Not there yet, but I’ve had some progress, at least. Seller: Looks like artificial lighting. Mine: window towards north.
Learning to "read" auction house photos is particularly critical in a pandemic where travel to view coins is impractical. CNG's photos have evolved over time but today they tend to make bright coins look more toned, toned coins more gray, gold look more red, and bronze look darker. Here are a few examples:
Saw that CNG addressed this very problem just. Not the best solution but now you can see more of the coin at least.
A.J., I totally agree with you on the gold coin photos . I've got a Libertas Americana gold restrike medal in CNG Triton XXIV, lot 1358. The CNG photo has a light red tone on my medal that isn't seen on my photos. The composition of this medal is 92% gold & 8% silver. If it was alloyed with copper a red tinge might be expected. It's interesting how the theme of baby Hercules strangling the snakes on your coin appears again on my gold medal 2,000 years later ! CNG also seems to bleach out color on many silver & bronze coins too.
Spargrodan, Many thanks for the video info on CNG Triton XXIV ! I went to the website & checked out my Tiberius provincial bronze, lot 928, & it looks so much better on that video !
For some years I have bought coins from CNG however I usually ignore the color in the photo. I concentrate on the other factors strike centering as well as the significance of the coin to me. Recently I purchased this coin from CNG. Philip I Ae Sestertius Rome 245-247 AD Rv Anonna standing left RIC 168a 19.24 grms 28 mm . I saw this coin in New York and I was the underbidder. The surfaces are more brown and rich than what is suggested by this photograph. I did get the coin more or less at what I had bid. As usual I sent the coin to my friend and he took a pic. I like his photo better. I think i does capture the essence of the coin. To illustrate my posts, I often use coin photos with a blue background and note that they were taken by ‘W Hansen’. One member wondered last month who he is. 'W Hansen' is Wayne Hansen, a friend, who has used a crude, handheld setup to photograph both his and my coins over the past 15 years. We both write articles for our local, professionally produced, on-line coin magazine called The Planchet (freely available after the past year on the Edmonton Coin Club website). For his photos he uses natural light, preferably bright but filtered through solid light cloud. The light is restricted to more or less one direction with blinds. The coin sits on top of a stack of three pills stacked together for depth, which sits atop an old blue catalogue cover for the background. The camera is an old Nikon 4500 swivel body from 2004 so not high resolution. Beyond that, the images are adjusted and simply paired and joined with a snapshot process. He wrote an article on the technique in September 2013 - found in The Planchet archives at: https://edmontoncoinclub.com/the-planchet/the-planchet-archived/
Thank you for sharing this article. I agree with most of the important points and lighting except there is no reason to hand hold and take so many images when it is so simple to make a stand that will provide a sharp image every time. This shows my old Nikon 990 (my first digital in 2000) which does have a setting I suspect is on the newer 4500 where the camera takes three images in quick succession and saves only the sharpest of the three. The sharpest image is defined as the one with the largest file size since JPG images with more detail use more memory than do fuzzy ones. Other than hand holding my greatest difference is the use of drugs. There is no reason to put your coins on drugs. This image shows a small piece of dowel under the coin but I now believe the best thing is a piece of the rubber finger grip pad removed from a disposable ball point pen. I stopped using this camera 17 years ago when, like CNG, I went DSLR. I stopped using DSLR's last year when I got a mirrorless digital with articulated screen that makes it easier to shoot (comfortably) large numbers of coins in a short time. My 990 still works and could make images of high enough quality for uses including Coin Talk. While I differ on a few points, it does seem to me that Mr. Hansen has a good eye for lighting orientation to make a good photo ---- or is it that you just have some very photogenic coins?
Intresting topic! Facinating to see all the comparisons; it seems they do indeed heighten contrast a fair bit. I don’t think I have a comparison shot from CNG, but I do have one from Roma (my pic below): I too shoot with an axial setup. My white balance is a little off, making it a little more reddish, while I think the Roma picture is a bit too pale. The coin falls somewhere in the middle. Axial picks up the most subtle of tonings and hues, which is why the reverse looks so red compared to the Roma pictures; it is a very subtle toning visible only under extreme angles. Roma has clear direction in their lighting, which creates clear highlights (although in this case they don't really obscure any detail ). I personally find less direction to the light preferable for personal use, but that is just that. Image techniques and styles are a surely personal preference!
Some really fine posts on the always difficult process of numismatic photography. My goal when selling is to give the purchaser the reassurance that what the photo shows they will receive in hand. Glamour shots, which I love, is for me. Reality of the coin in hand is best for the purchaser of the coin. Some coins drive me crazy and seem to defy my attempts. They are usually very small bronzes. Each coin deserves our respect, never stop trying to improve ones skills. The Alex III has beautiful in hand with some really toning. The photo plays with lighting for my person viewing pleasure. Notice the Constantius II photos of the same coin, same camera. The Alex III was taken with my old D 10, I upgraded recently to a D 70. The two Constantius II photos were taken with a Sony Mavica, the first digital camera I purchased in 2000. Considering the times it did a good job. I am always looking for the "perfect" process but, each coin is different. Just have some fun.
Raz, good to see your smiling face. I'm a near neighbor in PDX. I contributed a couple of ByzCoin s to your poster years ago
Yes. Whenever you buy a coin from a photo you should, when it arrives, critically compare it to the photo in order to learn to "read" the photos of that seller. This is a great thread with many examples to show how photos can give an incorrect impression of a coin. This can work to your benefit if you know a particular seller's photos make the coins look worse than they are. Silver often looks less metallic than it is. Colors of AE from a particular seller can be consistently off in one direction or another. If you have a patinated coin in hand, you will naturally rotate and tilt it with respect to the light source until you find an angle that brings out the detail. Often it is a pretty precise angle. In hand, you will judge the coin by its appearance at that best angle, not by its appearance at other angles. The seller might not have devoted the time to find that best angle and then the seller's picture might not show the coin at its best. Learn to read coin photos and you might be able to see that the coin is better than its photo. Learn to read coin photos and you will be happier with your purchases. It is one thing to learn to take better pictures yourself. It is another, and quite important, to learn to read pictures taken by others.
Yes! Buying from photos is a skill and many of you buy using a phone to see the pictures. That requires another 'language lesson'. Metallic sparkle is a real problem to me. Without it, pictures are flat and lifeless; with it, there are area with blanked out detail.
