Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;rmpsrpms, post: 1753981, member: 31773&quot;]Thanks BT...it&#039;s a very interestingly-toned coin, with a sort of frosty luster.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I discovered an interesting phenomenon when I started photographing my own coins. Many of the coins I had put aside over the years did not photograph well, even though they looked pretty good in normal viewing. Others that I had overlooked in the past for various reasons ended up being very photogenic. The ones that look best in normal viewing, but not in a photo, tend to be appealing due to strong luster that hides small marks. Photographing a coin (at least using my technique) tends to be very revealing of contact marks, abrasion, etc because the photo is such a large magnification of the coin, especially for smaller coins. Luster presentation in a photo is also virtually non-existent since luster presents through movement of the coin, which single images can&#039;t achieve, so I don&#039;t try to emphasize it, instead concentrating on color and surfaces. Some photographers light their coins to emphasize luster the best they can, but I find that the technique results in essentially a &quot;glamor&quot; shot for the coin, and the luster can hide imperfections like vaseline on a portrait lens hides imperfections in a model&#039;s face. Lighting for color and surfaces tends to favor high technical grades, and indeed makes the coin look possibly worse than it would in normal viewing. Ultimately, the result is that I now favor coins that photograph well and it has affected how I view and buy coins....Ray[/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