Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
Ancient Coins
>
Another green beauty
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="robinjojo, post: 7892465, member: 110226"]Have found, over the course of attempting to become minimally competent photographing coins, that getting decent images of bronze coins particularly challenging, especially if they have patinated surfaces. The reasons are several.</p><p><br /></p><p>1. Bronze ancients, due to the highly reactive nature of the metal, are apt to develop rough or irregular surfaces. No proof-like Morgan dollars here!</p><p><br /></p><p>2. The patina on a given coin can vary significantly. Depending on how the coin has fared over the past 2,000 years or so, the patina can be smooth and even, or a combination of smooth and rough. This can vary from one side to the other, depending on how the coin was deposited.</p><p><br /></p><p>3. Darkly patinated bronzes are a bear to photograph. If the surfaces are rough or uneven, the challenge is even greater. It is really hard, when using natural light, which I prefer, to avoid photographing such a coin, with the resultant images looking almost more like lumps of unrefined ore.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here's one example. When viewed in person, the coin is quite respectable, but due to the very dark patina, plus rough surfaces, the images show the geological features of the coin, detracting from the overall appearance. I experimented with lighting when processing the image, but brightness or darkness really have no material impact on the coin's appearance - pretty bad either way.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1361969[/ATTACH]</p><p><br /></p><p>4. Ancient bronzes with glossy patinas require great care with lighting, quite similar to silver ancients. Because of the reflectivity of the surfaces, plus the inevitable surface irregularities, I have found that it quite easy to create images that seem to highlight those surface irregularities at the expense of the overall appearance of the coin. This factor, along with the others mentioned, often lead to the description of a given coin as "better in hand". This is true, particularly for ancient bronzes, since the impact of the coin, in hand, can be quite different from the images, closeup. As we look at a sestertius, as or dupondius, we are looking at the coin overall, which can make it quite appealing compared to looking at the "warts and all" in a magnified image.</p><p><br /></p><p>5. As far as I can determine, virtually all ancient bronze coins, especially the larger denominations, have had some work done to them over the span of their extensive lives, ranging from simple cleaning to more aggressive treatment. This intervention also impacts the nature of the surfaces. If a coin has been lightly tooled or if there was some smoothing, how does that come off in the image? The more harshly treated coins are quite obvious when viewing their images, but more nuanced treatment is more difficult to depict in an image.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here's a case in point. This is a sestertius of Antoninus Pius, Anona reverse, 156-57 AD, RIC 980. This coin has a wonderful olive green and dark brown patina, and strike on both side, probably the best I own. However, I have no doubt that has been "worked" on, with probably some light smoothing in the fields. Still, it was an easy coin to photograph, and the images are very close to the actual coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>[ATTACH=full]1361966[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="robinjojo, post: 7892465, member: 110226"]Have found, over the course of attempting to become minimally competent photographing coins, that getting decent images of bronze coins particularly challenging, especially if they have patinated surfaces. The reasons are several. 1. Bronze ancients, due to the highly reactive nature of the metal, are apt to develop rough or irregular surfaces. No proof-like Morgan dollars here! 2. The patina on a given coin can vary significantly. Depending on how the coin has fared over the past 2,000 years or so, the patina can be smooth and even, or a combination of smooth and rough. This can vary from one side to the other, depending on how the coin was deposited. 3. Darkly patinated bronzes are a bear to photograph. If the surfaces are rough or uneven, the challenge is even greater. It is really hard, when using natural light, which I prefer, to avoid photographing such a coin, with the resultant images looking almost more like lumps of unrefined ore. Here's one example. When viewed in person, the coin is quite respectable, but due to the very dark patina, plus rough surfaces, the images show the geological features of the coin, detracting from the overall appearance. I experimented with lighting when processing the image, but brightness or darkness really have no material impact on the coin's appearance - pretty bad either way. [ATTACH=full]1361969[/ATTACH] 4. Ancient bronzes with glossy patinas require great care with lighting, quite similar to silver ancients. Because of the reflectivity of the surfaces, plus the inevitable surface irregularities, I have found that it quite easy to create images that seem to highlight those surface irregularities at the expense of the overall appearance of the coin. This factor, along with the others mentioned, often lead to the description of a given coin as "better in hand". This is true, particularly for ancient bronzes, since the impact of the coin, in hand, can be quite different from the images, closeup. As we look at a sestertius, as or dupondius, we are looking at the coin overall, which can make it quite appealing compared to looking at the "warts and all" in a magnified image. 5. As far as I can determine, virtually all ancient bronze coins, especially the larger denominations, have had some work done to them over the span of their extensive lives, ranging from simple cleaning to more aggressive treatment. This intervention also impacts the nature of the surfaces. If a coin has been lightly tooled or if there was some smoothing, how does that come off in the image? The more harshly treated coins are quite obvious when viewing their images, but more nuanced treatment is more difficult to depict in an image. Here's a case in point. This is a sestertius of Antoninus Pius, Anona reverse, 156-57 AD, RIC 980. This coin has a wonderful olive green and dark brown patina, and strike on both side, probably the best I own. However, I have no doubt that has been "worked" on, with probably some light smoothing in the fields. Still, it was an easy coin to photograph, and the images are very close to the actual coin. [ATTACH=full]1361966[/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
>
Ancient Coins
>
Another green beauty
>
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...