Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Photo Critique: Toned Roosie and Jefferson
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="Lehigh96, post: 925226, member: 15309"]I am one of those guys who learned how to take photos of coins through trial and error. I have no real knowledge of photography. The other day I was reading a thread over on the CU forum and was left thinking that they were speaking in a completely different language. The whole conversation was over my head. I like my photographs but don't really consider myself in a position to really give a whole lot of advice about photography methods in general. I feel more comfortable just telling others what works for me.</p><p><br /></p><p>Regarding you photos, I think they are a very good start. I don't think there is too much light on the Jefferson nickel but I am a little concerned about the color. Whether the coin is AT or NT is not really an issue because even if it is NT, it would most likely be deemed not market acceptable by the TPG's in the current environment.</p><p><br /></p><p>In my experience, AT coins will often present a whole new set of problems for a photographer. Naturally iridescent toned coins will usually show color shifting toning. Artificial toned coins will appear iridescent but in a way that the color will almost completely disappear at certain angles. It is hard to describe in words, tough to capture in photos, but simple to discern in hand. These photos should illustrate what I am talking about. They are of the same coin taken at different angles.</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Raw/JeffersonNickel1955RawBUAT.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><img src="http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Raw/JeffersonNickel1955RawBUAT2.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>There is little doubt in my mind that this Jefferson is AT. Did your coin present a problem like this when you photographed it? If so, it is probably AT. BTW, I took the first set of photos in February 2009 and the second set tonight. Notice the difference in the quality of my photos over the last year and a half.</p><p><br /></p><p>The proof Roosevelt has a different problem. Direct lighting on proof coins causes hot spots. This is why I prefer diffused lighting for proof coins. When using diffused lighting, you typically will only need one light since you are shining the diffused light directly at the coin. With direct lighting, you must angle the lights so they don't overlap the coin in order to eliminate glare. Try the diffused lighting technique and see what happens.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="Lehigh96, post: 925226, member: 15309"]I am one of those guys who learned how to take photos of coins through trial and error. I have no real knowledge of photography. The other day I was reading a thread over on the CU forum and was left thinking that they were speaking in a completely different language. The whole conversation was over my head. I like my photographs but don't really consider myself in a position to really give a whole lot of advice about photography methods in general. I feel more comfortable just telling others what works for me. Regarding you photos, I think they are a very good start. I don't think there is too much light on the Jefferson nickel but I am a little concerned about the color. Whether the coin is AT or NT is not really an issue because even if it is NT, it would most likely be deemed not market acceptable by the TPG's in the current environment. In my experience, AT coins will often present a whole new set of problems for a photographer. Naturally iridescent toned coins will usually show color shifting toning. Artificial toned coins will appear iridescent but in a way that the color will almost completely disappear at certain angles. It is hard to describe in words, tough to capture in photos, but simple to discern in hand. These photos should illustrate what I am talking about. They are of the same coin taken at different angles. [IMG]http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Raw/JeffersonNickel1955RawBUAT.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o59/ACPitBoss/Jefferson%20Nickels%20Raw/JeffersonNickel1955RawBUAT2.jpg[/IMG] There is little doubt in my mind that this Jefferson is AT. Did your coin present a problem like this when you photographed it? If so, it is probably AT. BTW, I took the first set of photos in February 2009 and the second set tonight. Notice the difference in the quality of my photos over the last year and a half. The proof Roosevelt has a different problem. Direct lighting on proof coins causes hot spots. This is why I prefer diffused lighting for proof coins. When using diffused lighting, you typically will only need one light since you are shining the diffused light directly at the coin. With direct lighting, you must angle the lights so they don't overlap the coin in order to eliminate glare. Try the diffused lighting technique and see what happens.[/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
>
US Coins Forum
>
Photo Critique: Toned Roosie and Jefferson
>
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...