Please Critique My Images

I put together an axial lighting system.
I know it works at best poorly with slabbed coins.
So, for the time being, I'm going to use it only for my raw coins.

Here are four images of a 1938 Jefferson Nickel.
The two with the black background are the raw originals.
The two with the white background have been:
- close and circular cropped
- reduced to 50%
- slightly "photoshopped" (some contrast and brightness added)

Please comment on both the "before" and "after" the results.
Grading the coin is not important.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks good!
but you need to add a little brightness to the image

 

Its a simple fix, but they're slightly misaligned.

 

I like them. The first set gives me more information about the coin.

 

Both are pretty good.
1st one is a bit dark
2nd one is like I'd like to do.
Both should have the subject matter of a 1941/2 Merc

 

The before images are superior, in my eye. Having not seen the coin in person, however, I can't judge which is more accurate. Does the coin have brilliant original surfaces, or has it "toned" to a more common, even slate grayish appearence, or somewhere in between?

Smaller is NEVER better when it comes to coin images.

 

The pics look very good. I like it with the brightness added. TC

 

Kanga,

Your starting images are excellent. With a little improvement in your photoshop skills, you can make them look great. Here are the steps I took:

• Rotate Canvas Arbitrary CCW 11 degrees
• Crop photo so that edges of photo touch edges of coin
• Resize photo to 500 x 500 pixels
• Use elliptical marquee, edit & cut to remove coin from background
• Start new file 500 x 500 pixels
• Paste photo
• Image--Adjustments--Brightness +30
• Image--Adjustments--Auto Contrast
• Filter--Sharpen (optional)
• Repeat steps with reverse Rotate Canvas CCW 3 degrees

What do you think?

 

When I said I "photoshopped" the original images I used the term in the generic sense.
I actually have Paint Shop Pro.
Because these are raw coins, depending upon the file size I'll probably probably keep the raw images untouched.
Later I can manipulate the images on an "as needed" basis.

 

Just checked.
The raw images run about 150KB as a .jpg.
Not large, so I'll be able to retain them as is.

 

I see the tops unnaturally dark if the lighting was actually axial but I've never photographed a nickel so do not appreciate how this happened. I would suggest using the exact set up but rotating the coin 1/8th turn each time to produce a series of shots that should be the same if the light is perfectly axial (very difficult to do). You can then select the one where the glares and dark areas fall when you prefer. This will help most if your light set up is really not axial but only an approximation.

Actually shooting RAW files (if your camera allows) might allow you to retain detail in the shadows without having so much contrast that detail is lost on the other end.

 

I think my problem is more basic, but you ID'ed the difficulty.
Too dark.
I'm going to stick with "square one" for the moment.
I need to increase the exposure time so that the images come out closer to the coin in-hand.
OR
Move my light source closer.
I could change the f-stop to gather more light but then I'd lose depth of focus which means I'd have to monitor that more closely.

Your suggestion of coin orientation will come later if necessary.
TBD

And using RAW files would eat up huge amounts of storage.

 

I like them. doctored them up a little using Picasa.

 

Nice balance between brightness and contrast.
Certainly shows the details as I would like them.
But the coin in-hand has more "mint shine" than displayed in your adjustment.
I still think I need to start off with a better original image.
The closer I can get to what the coin looks like in real life, the less editing that will be required and the better the adjusted image will present that look.

My technique is a work in progress.
And at a minimum I expect to need different camera settings for copper.

 

That looks great!

 

To me the black background photos are the best. The highghts seem just right and not over emphasized. The white background photos are good but...... isolates the coin too much, meaning it seems a little too much for a coin with this little luster. That is a very nice 1938 nickel. I want it.

 

I'm learning as well. My axial lighting is just a cheap picture frame that I set at an angle to reflect the light back on the coin. Since I don't have a copy stand, I set my little tripod directly on the glass since I got a frame with frosting along the perimeter. Then I use cent rolls to block the direct light. I adjust the angle of the frame by moving the coin storage box on the right and top book on the left back and forth for the proper angle. Of course my camera is usually attached and the lens is close to the center of the frame.



Is reflective lighting is the same as axial lighting?

If the goal s to get all light to originate in the same direction, then moving a light source closer would defeat the purpose as the angles from the top and bottom of the bulb become greater. It would necessitate getting a larger and more distant light source (like the sun) for a broad reflected light source without increasing the uniform 'angularity' of the light.

However, If you simply want reflective lighting, then moving the light closer would reflect light over a greater portion of the coin and eliminate shadows, but there would be more variation in the angles of the light.

I'm a very long way from getting the initial imaging right. Your questions help more than just you and I appreciate them. I hope my posting here doesn't bother you, but I felt it is better than multiple threads on the same topic.

 

I apologize for commenting on this thread. I tried and discovered that making a decent image of a Jefferson nickel requires more skill than I have. I attach the first photo of a Jefferson nickel I ever took (maybe it will be the last?). My setup works better for ancients than for modern. I do suggest that if you are limited by such considerations as storage space, you will probably not be willing to put in the effort to do better than the original posting.

My nickel is not axial but very non directional reflected light bounced around inside a small white closet. As shown in Marshall's set up photo, axial requires a beam splitter so the light source actually comes from the exact direction of the lens. To be technically correct, the light source needs to be narrow enough so little falls in from other angles but when the idea is to get a good photo rather than do a textbook example of axial, the larger light may be better. I decided I prefer light reflected from larger surfaces better than axial but this is very much a matter of personal preference.

 

Good News and Bad News

Another attempt with the lighting closer.

The Bad News:
Either I still don't have enough light striking the coin
OR
The angle isn't right.
The coin's surface is imaged BUT the rim is not.

The Good News:
I stumbled on a good way to catch the toning.
The image and the real coin match closely.

OT - Test Question:
What's special about this coin?





Now to see if I can get more light on the coin without washing out the toning.

 

Looks like a OMM.