Photo preference - Faustina tetradrachm

These two images show the same coin (Faustina II Alexandria tetradrachm) photographed with two different cameras, two different lenses lenses on two different camera stands with two different lighting rigs. Do you see one as better than the other? Why? Do you believe one shows better equipment or better techniques? Do you see something simple that could be done to the one that you did not prefer that would make it better than the one you did prefer?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I prefer the lighting and more natural appearance of the first photograph. It "pleases the eye" whereas the more harsh, less natural appearance of the 2nd pic displeases my eye.

 

I prefer the first for the same reason, but I would like it even more with a uniform deep black background.

Q

 

Wonderful looking coin! That aside, Boy-O, I am flip flopping more than (add name of any politician here)! At first I thought that the top one was a no brainer. But is that due to the fact that I looked at it first? Then looking closer at the 2nd image, I feel like I can see more detail (certainly in the hair) and get a better sense of depth. Though with the top image I am able to see some of the blemishes better. On the second I can't even notice the messy splotch kinda looking like a low hanging "adam's apple". Also, on the 2nd I am almost unable to see the little scary green (hoping it's not BD) spot just below her feet.
See, flip flop flip flop!
As I am certainly not known for my photographic excellence I will not answer but leave you with my observations. Besides, you are the master asking the question. I am starting to think that you, Doug, are the reincarnation of Socrates in an ancient coin collectors guise.

 

I like the "life" that the lighting brings in the 2nd one, myself. The light dances a little. It emphasizes the relief of the strike and you can see "deeper" into the coin. #1 seems too flat to me (it is a solid pic though, but when side-by-side with #2, it feels flat).

Edit: (and lovely coin BTW, Doug!)

 

I prefer the second one. The lighting makes the details of the face come more to life on the obverse. Plus I like the contrast between surface and details better.

If I were to guess I would say that the second photo was taken with natural sunlight? (Probably not based on your description but it has that look of natural light to me which I prefer)

 

I like the first one as well. It looks more like what I’d expect it to look like in hand. However, it could use a bit more contrast as it does look a little flat. I think somewhere in between 1 and 2 is the sweet spot.

Both are miles beyond my photos in quality... so I feel a little silly providing opinions.

 

Both are fine to me. But the second is a bit better in my opinion. @Curtisimo expresses well my thoughts.

 

I like the 2nd one due to having more contrast and being able to see more details in the coin. I do wonder what the 1st picture would look like with the same background as 2. Perhaps that's why it looks a little more washed out to me?

 

Yeah both are nice, but i like the 2nd best

 

The top photo is a better reference image because there appears to be more visible detail in the shadow areas. The true edge of the coin is visible and does not disappear into the background.

The bottom photo is more dramatic from a presentation perspective and would be a more exciting image to use in a book or exhibit.

 

Thanks all. I have been working on a new rig for simple, no frills photos. That was the first. It used a 12 year old, well used Canon original model Digital Rebel and one twist CFL bulb with no reflectors or effort to keep light off the background. The second uses a Canon 5DmkII (now out of date but still a full frame DSLR) with several lights and toys. I have to be careful to avoid too much contrast with this (my normal) rig. Usually when I ask a question between A and B, my favorite is somewhere inbetween. Of course there will be another reshoot. Thanks to those who commented.

 

Late to the party...

Tough pick. The first set is gentle and pleasing but the lighting in the second set improves the relief. I picked the second set but it was almost a toss-up and I'd really prefer the first but with the lighting coming in at more of an angle from 12 o'clock and/or a bit more contrast.

Deacon Ray's point about the coin edges blending into the background in the second set is something I have trouble with all the time. It's hard to get the angled lighting I prefer while adequately illuminating all of the coin's perimeter.

 

The problem often comes down to changing one thing to improve a feature makes another thing worse. That is why some coins get shot several times.

 

I voted no choice. First one looked very nice but the second one highlighted the relief and edges better.

 

The sweet spot for me would be that elusive "somewhere in between", but for this example I have to pick the second photo for the same reasons given. The first is pleasant, but the second has the contrast, if only the light came from a slightly different angle (just for a different look on her face). Having said all that, I'm way out of my league when it comes to coin photography.

 

2nd image for me... only the owner can confirm but my bet is it's closer to what the coin like looks in hand. We usually tilt the coin to see detail and get the light to an optimal position for the eye without even thinking about it.. I may be way off but the first image seems to deaden this effect. Only one opinion. Lovely coin.

 

The first image looked more natural to me. The second jarred with me for some reason.

 

I like the top one better -- it's softer and more life-like. The bottom image has too much contrast, even though the contrast highlights the details of the portrait a bit better.

The only thing I don't like about the top photo is the ring of dark gray around each coin; I'd rather the background be uniform.

 

I voted # two, no dissecting the photo , just found it more appealing.