Coin Photos Lighting Requirements

You're absolutely right, I guess that's why men and women spend over billion dollars a year on cosmetics to Photoshop themselves. I don't know it's just me I preferred to see something that looks natural. To me it's just wrong to look at a coin that's been prettied up not natural, it's like they're trying to hide something

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

You miss the point, though. With a digital camera, it is impossible to get "natural" as you desire, straight from the camera. The bits require processing to turn them into a photo. Some of that processing is done in the camera itself, and some is also typically done with Photoshop or other tools external to the camera. That's just the way digital photography is done.

The question of whether the photographer and editor are trying to accurately represent the exact coin in "natural lighting" is and always has been a valid question, but you certainly cannot equate "photoshop = not natural".

 

Download a PDF manual from the Nikon website........save the eyes.

 

To capture a mintmark with a bit of the date on a Cent, you need 10:1 magnification. Here's an example:



The extension required is easy to calculate. We know that:

Magnification = (Total Extension - Focal Length)/ Focal Length

or M = (TE - FL) / FL

solving for TE, you get:

TE = FL (M + 1)

So to get 10:1 with your 105mm, you would need 105 ( 10 + 1) = 1155mm (!!!) This isn't really true, since at closest focus distance your 105mm lens shortens its focal length to around 60mm. But this would still require 660mm of extension.

This is of course impractical, and points out why higher magnifications are achieved using short focal length lenses.

You might want to start another thread to discuss how to achieve higher magnifications. Would probably be a popular discussion topic.

 

I've seen some quite extraordinary macro photographs without any Photoshop I guess we just have to move everything outside onto a leaf in order to get natural quality macro shots the bottom line I just have to learn how to take good macro photos sometimes I get good shots others not so good it's a work in progress

 

Unless you're using really high-end equipment (not necessarily "high-cost," just kit which is very good at our needs), achieving these kind of results is going to take a lot of learning and practice on your part. Do not be downhearted that the results aren't immediately flawless, and with the equipment you have there is probably a quality ceiling below that of dSLR-based systems. That doesn't mean you won't be able to persuade it to create images the viewer will be able to form accurate opinions of.

I, myself, do not care one whit how you come up with an image that faithfully represents the coin. If you've processed the living daylights out of it in Photoshop (or the Gimp, as I use, because "free" is a heckuva lot less expensive than Photoshop) to create an image that looks just like the coin, you've done well. The crime is when you use those postprocessing skills to create a deceptive image, not a realistic one.

Edit: I wish I'd have been following rmpsrpms around the Internet to bookmark his postings. He's done more to advance the art of coin photography in the last five years than just about all who came before, combined.

 

Couldn't agree with you more right now I'm just not going to invest more than I already have maybe later I'll keep this an expensive Canon and work with it I'm getting better as you can see on the photo that I am providing working with the lighting

 

Photography and Numismatics have always been my hobby for the last 50 years. Since our retirement my wife and I sell coins in and round our area. Getting realistic photos of coins and those coins has become my pastime. There is nothing more frustrating to me than purchasing a coin or receiving a photo of a coin which has been doctored. So getting as realistic as possible without breaking the piggy bank is a personal need Photoshop has been around for the last 20+ years and having had the opportunity to use this software it does many things allowing the photographer fix flaws usually seen after the picture was taken.
My first thought is always take the best photo possible and use Photoshop, GMIP, or PhotoScape to post process the images as realistic as possible to acquire the best results Hammers have been known to be used as Screw Drivers. Using the proper tool in its place is always the best, sometime knowing is the challenge.

 

I thought that I'd add the here - always interested in how folk take coin pictures.

The problem I have had is with proof or shiny coins they always look black. I know now that is the camera reflection rather than a deliberate attempt to slur HM. Looking through the guidance here decided to try a bit of glass. Wow! See below my set up. And the results just a bit of glass makes. Helps to have a bit of paper the other side to reflect the light back also.


Work in progress.


I understand it is not up to the results you guys get, but loads of progress for me.

To be clear, the dark left image is just without the glass - the right is with the glass only.

 

I have been experimenting with glass and had not seen any difference. But then again I was not shooting proofs

 

I think that is the key. With a proof the black of the camera reflects back to the coin and can look very wrong.

Oh, and I know I need another light!

 

That is a percentage of the axial lighting process. The part you're missing is that any direct illumination of the coin has to be blocked - all light has to reflect from the glass down to the coin - and the angle needs to be ~45 degrees. Further, it's a really difficult technique to master and is only advantageous for toners as it seriously compromises exposure and ISO since so little light hits the coin.

 

When I initially built my coin photographing box I designed it to look down on the coin but with this camera it would not work so I decided to go with a different design but still occasionally have problems with shadows depending on where my lights are it seems to work pretty good for me I just need to set up some kind a dimmer switch on it so I have better control over the lighting

 

Use a light in a milk container ..

 

That costs any chance at depicting luster. If not showing luster is acceptable, it's a decent technique for showing details, but I quit lighting in that fashion ten years ago.