After a few years I finally took some time to try my hand at taking my own photos of my tetradrachm of Ptolemy II, one of the most beautiful coins in my humble collection. Prior to this I had been using the seller's photos (which is not bad itself). Unfortunately, my current photography set-up causes colors (such as toning) to look stronger/deeper than they actually are in hand (especially with silver), which sometimes leads me to try to tweak the photos through the Photos application on my computer to get the coin looking closer to how it does in-hand (anyone else here do this with some of their own photos?). Can’t help but feel like I am cheating a little when I do this, but since I am only working on the colors and trying to have them appear more accurate, I don’t feel too bad (in the new photos I'd put the coin now at around 95% accurate to how it looks in-hand). Ptolemy II, Ptolemaic Kingdom AR tetradrachm Obv: Diademed head of Ptolemy I right, wearing aegis Rev: ΠTOΛEMAIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ, eagle standing left on thunderbolt, monogram in left field, shield in front of eagle Mint: Alexandria Date: 285-246 BC Ref: Svoronos 574 Please post anything Ptolemaic, and/or any notable coin photography stories or advice!
Very nice coin and photo, @ValientKnight! The coin is well-lit and the image is sharp. I hope to gain some better skills in photographing coins after I have more time to assemble a set-up and practice. I've enjoyed reading tips from experts on CoinTalk! Here's a similar Ptolemy II coin- seller's photo. One difference in this design is that the shield is behind the eagle instead of in front of it. Ptolemaic Kingdom. Ptolemy II Philadelphos (285-246 BC). AR Tetradrachm (12.42 g, 12h). Alexandria mint. Diademed head of Ptolemy right, wearing aegis. / ΠTOΛEMAIOY BAΣIΛEΩΣ, eagle with closed wings standing left on winged thunderbolt; ΣT, monogram, and ΠT to left, shield to right, dotted border. Svoronos 538; SNG Copenhagen 103.
Excellent photo. We all might benefit from details on how it was lighted. Most cameras default to making images too saturated with color and too contrasty because people like their pictures to 'pop' and dull days make dull pictures. There is nothing wrong with editing with the coin in hand and making changes that make the image closer to truth.
Keep in mind that you're the only one who can compare your photo to the actual coin, so you are much more critical of your photos than the rest of us. I guess it's sort of like listening to your recorded voice. I usually have to reduce the saturation on my coin photos and reduce the level to darken them a little if I'm going to get them close to what they look like in hand. Another time I "cheat" is when I'm stitching the front and back together and notice that there's a fiber or speck of something on the surface that I didn't notice when I photographed it. That drives me crazy. Here's an example. When I was processing this coin I noticed some weird fiber on the soldier's cheek that isn't part of the coin, so I used the "clone" tool (in Photoshop) to copy a 4-pixel-wide image of the surface right next to the fiber over the fiber. Here's the original image, much too bright and colorful, with an arrow pointing to the accursed fiber: Here's the final image, with reduced levels and reduced saturation and NO FIBER: Greek AE9 TROAS, Kebren, ca. 412-399 B.C. Obv: Head of satrap to left, wearing tiara Rev: KE Monogram SNG Cop. 261 SNG von Aulock 1547 9mm, 0.7g CNG e506, 985
I don't think it's cheating... it's compensating for bad equipment, bad lighting, limitations of equipment, or photographer inexpertise. Or some combination of those things. Your goal was to take focused well-lit pictures that resemble what you see with your eyeballs and it sounds like you did that. I don't think it matters how you accomplished this, whether by perfect camera settings or with post-processing. Nice pics!!
If you're wanting to do away with a pesky speck of dust, a better and easier option is to use the Spot Healing Brush (it's icon is a bandaid ) with as small a circle as possible to surround the offending speck. It's in Photoshop Elements. You said Photoshop... don't know if you're using the regular full version and if it has the Spot Healing Brush but it probably does. Select the Spot Healing Brush, dial down the size to as few pixels as possible, and click the speck. PSE samples the surrounding pixels and determines how the area should look without without the pixels-that-don't-belong .
That is a fact and the bane of my life in photography. The sharper you make a photo (good light, good equipment, good camera operation) the worse those pesky dirt spots look. Rule of thumb: That which would brush off should be 'healed' but that which is a permanent fixture should be left. It is like doing a portrait of a teen: spot heal the occasional pimple but leave the moles and scars.
Magnificent coin and great photograph! In my opinion a little post-processing to make the image as accurate as possible is perfectly acceptable.
Thanks for the tip @TIF. I've tried it out, and it does work very well on small specks of foreign material.
