Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3463265, member: 19463&quot;]I have no business participating in this question because I have no experience with high end gold coins and their photography.&nbsp; I guarantee you that if I were to spend that kind of money on a coin, I&#039;d probably opt for something more like that Regalianus or some Archaic Greek item you don&#039;t see everyday.&nbsp; However I do have opinions on photography. </p><p>Of the seller photos I find the Roma one offensive due to the red hue but could live with most of the rest.&nbsp; Which is best depends on which of my computers I an using but I&#039;ll get to than further down after most people have stopped reading my drivel.</p><p><br /></p><p>Suarez said:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>These words sum up photography rather well in general but coin photography especially well. There are several different factors that contribute to a photo.&nbsp;&nbsp; The ones that come to mind this morning are brightness, contrast, hue and saturation. There are others (bit depth, light source CRI etc.).&nbsp; Each can vary separately for each color (red, green, blue, cyan, magenta, yellow) but have to play together to render such things as brown (the color that gives me the most trouble).&nbsp; When photographing something that glitters like mint state gold we really see the factor I call &#039;wiggle&#039; but Suarez defined better with &quot;you move it around and while you&#039;re doing that you&#039;re probably also changing the quality and incidence angle of the light source(s)&quot;.&nbsp; This explains why some of us really like those videos of coins in hand as discussed on a recent thread here when Harlan Berk published some examples.&nbsp; Those of us who like cameras don&#039;t like to admit that a movie sot from a cell phone has some advantages over our cameras but life is not always fair.&nbsp; Every coin photo is a record of light as it bounced off of an object.&nbsp; Some of this light is glare or noise which destroys detail but is necessary to show a degree of sparkle expected from a metal object.&nbsp; That means a perfect image has to include imperfections in balance with what would seem to be perfection.&nbsp; Confusing?&nbsp;&nbsp; It gets worse.</p><p><br /></p><p>Suarez correctly pointed out this &quot;varies from person to person.&quot;&nbsp; That is an understatement.&nbsp; I read Coin Talk on two computers.&nbsp; One is a ten year old desktop with a monitor that is fading (none of us are what we were ten years ago and only a few of us are getting better).&nbsp; To illustrate this I downloaded his last (best?) image and tweaked it in Photoshop elements separately on each computer to produce what I, alone then and there, found most pleasing.&nbsp; Then I combined the two to show here.&nbsp; One will look better to each according to equipment and brain training.&nbsp; </p><p>[ATTACH=full]921005[/ATTACH] </p><p>Some may see one of mine as an improvement on Suarez&#039; original and some will not.&nbsp; Some may have breakfast and change their mind as to which is best according to their blood sugar spikes.&nbsp; Many won&#039;t see any difference (this attitude is important to sellers of cell phones and cheap cameras) since their opinion is based on the coin rather than the image. </p><p><br /></p><p>Laptop users need to be aware of the changes in an image caused by tilting the screen a little up or down.&nbsp; These cheap flatscreens do not perform well over a great angle of view so you can adjust poor images a bit in some cases with a little tilting.&nbsp; I note this is also true for smaller flatscreen TV&#039;s but most larger than about 40&quot; get better in this regard, perhaps because they are expected to be used in small rooms with people viewing from less than ideal positions.&nbsp; You can buy better monitors to correct this but most people don&#039;t (and don&#039;t see any reason to care).&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>I have so little experience in hand with ancient gold I had to drop back to a US coin my father gave me about sixty years ago.&nbsp; He had paid $5 for it an neglected to turn it in when Mr. Roosevelt so demanded. </p><p><img src="https://pbase.com/dougsmit/image/114684283.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /> </p><p>The three images vary by lighting.&nbsp; The left shows surface textures and faults. The center is mostly glare as reflected by this little mirror and hides those textures. The right image combines the other two in what I considered at that time and using that equipment to be a balance of the other two. I get so tired of people asking which looks like the coin in hand.&nbsp; They all do.&nbsp; It just depends on where that hand is located and the factor I call &quot;wiggle&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I rarely agree with Suarez on matters relating to the details of the hobby.&nbsp; On the above quoted passage, I see him as 100% spot-on.&nbsp; Coin collecting offers a number of optional side specialties appreciated only by some of us. There are coin cleaners, flyspeckers, slabbers (and slab crackers), historians, catalog number junkies, online forum operators, investors, bargain hunters, book collectors and, my personal favorite, photographers.&nbsp; I know my choices are different from yours.&nbsp; That is as it should be.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

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