Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 2653133, member: 19463&quot;]Years ago I really fought with this one.&nbsp; The problem is caused by the shiny green patina.&nbsp; Keeping it the right color and not overemphasizing surface irregularities forced me to try several times.&nbsp; I have not shot this coin again for several years.&nbsp; Perhaps I do not want to know if I could do better or not??? </p><p><br /></p><p>First Photo Try</p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/neroduplug.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Nero, 54-68 AD, Dupondius, Lugdunum Mint, Securitas seated reverse, 13.2g. Invert (6 o&#039;clock) axis</p><p>This coin looks better &#039;in hand&#039; than in the photos. It is difficult to shoot a good color image of a shiny patina. The reflections tend to appear a cooler in the image than the natural color but can not be corrected simply by adjusting the overall color of the image without introducing other color problems. My first attempt failed to capture the true look of the coin. It is actually an image of the glare from the coin more than a record of the surfaces themselves. Millenium Sear illustrates a similar (but much higher grade) coin with glossy surfaces as number 1968. This can be effective in black and white but usually fails in color. I will need to photograph this coin several times before I get it &#039;just right&#039;.</p><p><br /></p><p>Second Photo Try</p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/nerodup2.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Same Coin, Different Lighting</p><p><br /></p><p>A small variation in lighting angle can make a big difference in the reflections on the coin surfaces. The second improved the color balance between highlights and shadow areas but overemphasized surface variations introducing color shadings not seen on the coin itself. At the same time, the second image fails to capture the bold legends as seen in the first and on the coin itself. The difference between the two was a only small change in lighting angle. Can either (both?) of these be a fair representation of the coin? The goal is an image that tells the truth rather than on fooling the viewer into believing the subject is better or worse than it is.&nbsp; The glare on top of the head is really offensive to me. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Third Photo Try</p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/nerodup3.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p>Same Coin, Again</p><p><br /></p><p>Another try differs from the last with yet another minor change in lighting angle and the addition of a diffusing tissue to soften the light. The result is somewhere between the two earlier tries in several respects and captures the actual appearance of the coin better than either. The image may not be considered as attractive as the first since it does not hide the surface variations present on the coin (but exaggerated by the second try).</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Fourth Photo Try</p><p><img src="http://www.forumancientcoins.com/dougsmith/b1615p6.jpg" class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" alt="" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>The next attempt shows the result of even more diffusing the lighting used for the photo. In place of the small (almost &#039;point&#039;) light source used for the other images, this was taken with a broad light from two screw base florescent bulbs reflected by a large silver cone. The result was a reduction of the high point glares and a more accurate rendition of the color of the coin made possible by the elimination of the excessively blue highlights. Whether or not it is the most pleasing, this is the most accurate image of the coin.[/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