How Much Do You Trust TrueView?

It's the same thing as watching the nightly news. You know you're going to get spin; it's only a matter of being able to decode it into raw fact. So it is with imagery, plus the additional complication that you probably won't even see the coin in-hand the same way as the photographer because you don't have the same eyes or the same lights.

Images are just spin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd like to add that the TrueViews show color very well, but not the color/luster combo. This is important to keep in mind for AU coins.

 

Okay you guys got me lol. Okay if only TrueView photos then yes I ignore them. If the seller provides both TV and regular photos then I look at both and try to determine what the coin would look like in hand. In other words I don't ignore TV in all circumstances.

I don't know all the technical definitions or lingo, but lets be honest, TrueView photos do make the coins look as good as can be or better than they really are. So call it whatever you want but I think we both know what I am referring to. And it's not just me that thinks so, read the comments on this thread from other folks.

I'm not saying your friend Phil makes changes to color, contrast, hue, balance, etc. I don't know what he does, but the coins usually look nicer in TV photos than they are in hand. I've owned a good amount of coins that were TV'ed so I'm also going off first hand experience.

 

That's not really true overall. Some do, some look worse, others look the same. It depends on the coin and yes some get sacrificed a bit since he can't spend an hour adjusting settings all the time. Toning is hard to capture anyway and how is one really supposed to photograph something where if you change the angle the color changes?

And yes I have had a lot of coins with it and and the number I have thought looked too good in the photo was minuscule, I find myself thinking copper looks a lot worse in the photos than in hand far more often.

They certainly aren't perfect, but in no way are they trying to be deceptive and people can certainly purchase off their images

 

Keep in mind, very few of us go to the effort of optimally lighting the coins we observe in-hand. We grab a lamp, a gooseneck or folding banker's lamp if we're feeling sophisticated, with whatever bulb it happens to have in it, and look at the coin. Maybe we're in a room - like a show bourse - with bright overhead lighting and that's it.

When we look at a coin under those conditions, we see exactly what a camera will depict under similar conditions. A relatively lifeless piece, which we have to play back and forth with a bit to evaluate the luster and color.

The human eye doesn't do White Balance as well as a camera does, either. That's why Daylight lamp bulbs appear to provide such realistic color to us - they're presenting those colors closer to our subconscious sense of "white balance," that provided by sunlight.

If you prepare your personal viewing conditions with as much care and effort as you arrange the lighting of your best shots, you will see the same glory which the camera does.

I don't use Daylight bulbs to light my imagery - no need; the camera or postprocessing can correct - but I damn sure do when looking at coins in my hand. I have a separate gooseneck lamp just for viewing coins, and it has a 60w R20 incandescent full-spectrum growlight in it. And it's shaded so no extraneous light reaches my eye, and that's the only light turned on in the room when I do it.

I want to see the coin the way my camera sees it, so I know my imagery is accurate, if admittedly "maximized" for appeal.

 

Okay so we agree that many times the coins look better in TrueView. I won't use the words usually or normally this time since I don't have concrete statistics to present (but if I had to bet money I would say more than half the time).

I never accused Phil (or whoever does them) of trying to be deceptive. For all I know they're a wonderful human. I just think (for whatever the reason) that the photos come out looking nicer than the coin does in hand. I think most folks would agree.

 

He's actually very helpful if you have an issue with anything. And there are multiple shots of a lot of coins if you think it is to far off you can ask if they have any others to swap with

Overall I don't agree with that. There are certain one where it happens as it does with everyone's pictures, but overall most are pretty accurate.

 

To be fair, it's hard to capture color and luster well simultaneously because the laws of optics conspire against you.

 

I like a True View. Phil does a wonderful job of deflecting the glare. The pics are clear enough "usually" to see the peaks and valleys of the lustre, under magnification.
With the Ebay and auction scene some of ya have gotten used to accepting flashy pics, and most of the time sub par photography.
If I was ever to get on the internet and buy a coin, and expect it to be a certain grade I would like to see a true view with it. If I was doing some Cherry Pickin? I could handle the blurry or under lit photography.
I am one that doesn't buy, as of yet,
Unless it is in my hand, and under my loupe.

 

Yup, you're right Doug. Reminds me of before I retired from biomedical research and would go to scientific meetings. Presenters would show a picture or graph pertinent to one of the cases or replicates in their study. They would usually say, "This is a typical example". I would roll my eyes because I knew it was the very best they had for making their point.

Cal

 

Based on the coins with TV that I've viewed in-hand, I would say you are incorrect. They are for sure significantly enhanced to have more color saturation than can be seen with any type of lighting. I would call this "juiced" since they are more boldly-colored than the coins are in reality.

I am not sure exactly how Phil lights coins, but for sure there is some amount of axial lighting to bring out deep toning. This may be done using a little tilt rather than an axial lighting system. There is also a component of off-axis light to bring out the luster.

I applaud Phil's ability to give a good, balanced presentation of lighting techniques that bring out the color and luster of the TV'd coins. This combination of lighting techniques, applied before encapsulation, is literally impossible to replicate post-encapsulation. What this means is it's not possible to either view a holdered coin, nor photograph one, such that it will look like the TV image. Thus by definition the TV cannot replicate the "in-hand" look, and must be considered a composite or reference view of the raw coin rather than something you should expect to see when viewing the holdered coin.

 

There was a thread on the CU forum about it not long ago where he told as much as he is allowed to about what he does. Nothing he described would I consider juicing or deceptive

 

You haven't been on eBay much have you

I agree that just about every seller would like photos that make their coin look its best, but there are many sellers that are incapable of doing so because they lack the equipment and/or experience. You also have some sellers that are just too lazy to put in the effort. Even if they were professional photographers I would still rather see their photos in addition to TrueView photos (as opposed to TrueView photos only).

This might sound strange to some of you, but I trust photos more when they look amateurish. One of the things I would say I've improved most on is the ability to gauge a coins in hand look through regular photos. It's not a science that can be perfected since there are so many variables (in that every set of photos is different) but one that I think someone can get good at.

I'd also like to add that while I do try to use the best photos I can get in my listings, I will only use the photos that are best AND are an accurate representation of the coin. To me it's a disservice if your coins look much better in the photos. The buyer is going to eventually receive the coin. Last thing I want is for them to be disappointed.

 

I go by evidence, not words. I highly recommend you compare the TV images of a few coins vs the way they look in-hand, then come back here and say they are not juiced.

 

You contradict yourself between these two paragraphs about the lighting.
Juiced is all about post editing, not the lighting used to capture the image.

 

Apparently you don't since the evidence does not back up deceptive juicing. I've already stated my opinion of them a few times you can read back if you would like to know it. I'd also highly recommend that you look at several 100 or thousand before coming to "evidence" based conclusions, a few is hardly proof of anything

 

Looks tilted. It's almost like the angle of the light can change the color of toning

 

Larry, if you really want to get technical, the formal definition of "juiced" is to squeeze a fruit and extract the liquid from it.

I don't know why you keep getting hung up on that word. Who gives a ____ if some people consider it post editing and others just consider it the end result. The bottom line is that the photo appears enhanced.