Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;rmpsrpms, post: 2711636, member: 31773&quot;]I did not contradict myself. I just gave more information about how I believe Phil lights coins. What do you believe is my contradiction?</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Can&#039;t tell. Only way to know is to hold the coin in-hand and compare to the pictures.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>It&#039;s true that I have not compared hundreds of coins vs their TVs. But why is that needed? A few dozen examples seems like enough. Those were juiced. Looking at a few hundred more won&#039;t change that.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Well, certainly not intentionally. Only way it could be juiced is if your camera settings are juicing it. It&#039;s not just post-processing that can be used to juice images. An image can be juiced right out of the camera if the saturation and contrast are cranked all the way up. Most folks believe that an image coming &quot;out of camera&quot; is somehow magically pure, but it is subject to the demosaicing and jpg conversion algorithms, and the user settings for sharpness, contrast, and saturation. Based on looking at the coin, though, it looks like you are not cranking your settings, so you&#039;re likely not even unintentionally juicing the image.</p><p><br /></p><p>Lighting it axially, or pseudo-axially through tilting, is not juicing.[/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