Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
• Your Biggest Coin Photography Frustrations?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="nerosmyfavorite68, post: 26613114, member: 134416"]My new photography station and a discovery of something I was doing wrong in the manual photography settings yielded some dramatic improvments; much more in focus than they used to be.</p><p><br /></p><p>The results are still subpar but much improved. The low-grade A2 follis actually shows way more detail in the picture than it does with the naked eye. I had to use a magnifier to ascertain what's up and down, it's that faint. It's also very dark.</p><p><br /></p><p>A more competent macro photographer could have yielded much improvement on the silver coin. It has a silky, gunmetal grey old-cabinet tone, and the toning is much more consistent and pleasing than in the picture.</p><p><br /></p><p>I get the photography terms mixed up. What's the 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 number - the f-stop? In all cases so far, 0.4. worked out the best. I have ISO at 80, the same as I use on people. The exposure was at factory norm on the silver but I had to bump it up for the very dark low-grade coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>There's only about 2 or 3 times a year where I get unphotographed coins. It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a bunch of money on my photography station. My Sony alpha 77 dSLR achieves pin-sharp detail for people, though I don't have a macro lens. I suppose if I could find a somewhat inexpensive used Minolta macro lens it might make sense to buy a macro tripod. My two tripods are useless for macro. (These are all Note ultra pics).</p><p><br /></p><p>The Note usually produces too much grain when I use the auto mode but it does take quite passable pics of people; much better looking coloration than my macro pics.</p><p><br /></p><p>The actual toning of the reverse of the quadrigatus is much like the obverse; silky, old-cabinet toning, and not the harsh dark highlights that the picture suggests. However, it's wayyy more in focus than ever before.</p><p><br /></p><p>I'd also need some kind of lightbox. But I'm not good at DIY, and unless I bought a pre-made one from someone or bought an expensive, professional one, I'm in a pickle about that.</p><p><br /></p><p>The background is a white piece of paper. </p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1696535[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1696536[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="nerosmyfavorite68, post: 26613114, member: 134416"]My new photography station and a discovery of something I was doing wrong in the manual photography settings yielded some dramatic improvments; much more in focus than they used to be. The results are still subpar but much improved. The low-grade A2 follis actually shows way more detail in the picture than it does with the naked eye. I had to use a magnifier to ascertain what's up and down, it's that faint. It's also very dark. A more competent macro photographer could have yielded much improvement on the silver coin. It has a silky, gunmetal grey old-cabinet tone, and the toning is much more consistent and pleasing than in the picture. I get the photography terms mixed up. What's the 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 number - the f-stop? In all cases so far, 0.4. worked out the best. I have ISO at 80, the same as I use on people. The exposure was at factory norm on the silver but I had to bump it up for the very dark low-grade coins. There's only about 2 or 3 times a year where I get unphotographed coins. It doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a bunch of money on my photography station. My Sony alpha 77 dSLR achieves pin-sharp detail for people, though I don't have a macro lens. I suppose if I could find a somewhat inexpensive used Minolta macro lens it might make sense to buy a macro tripod. My two tripods are useless for macro. (These are all Note ultra pics). The Note usually produces too much grain when I use the auto mode but it does take quite passable pics of people; much better looking coloration than my macro pics. The actual toning of the reverse of the quadrigatus is much like the obverse; silky, old-cabinet toning, and not the harsh dark highlights that the picture suggests. However, it's wayyy more in focus than ever before. I'd also need some kind of lightbox. But I'm not good at DIY, and unless I bought a pre-made one from someone or bought an expensive, professional one, I'm in a pickle about that. The background is a white piece of paper. [ATTACH=full]1696535[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1696536[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]
Your name or email address:
Do you already have an account?
No, create an account now.
Yes, my password is:
Forgot your password?
Stay logged in
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Coin Chat
>
• Your Biggest Coin Photography Frustrations?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...