I love beautifully toned coins. I've built my small collection with that goal in mind, but I also like to own a professionally taken photograph so that I can share my joy of ownership with others. I prefer to have a picture that is as accurate as it can be. Of course, a single one dimensional picture cannot entirely capture a look of a coin that has many different attributes when seen in hand, where one can rotate and view from many angles. Despite this limitation, I often see collectors that post pictures on various forums that raise questions in my mind as to the coin's true appearance. I understand that some professional photographers have a desire to please their clients to "bring out", in my opinion, fantastical colors that likely are not on the coin in such vivid fashion. On the other hand, there are professional photographers that have a commitment to integrity to accurately represent a coin's true appearance. While I hesitate to disparage a very popular photographer (and do not assert that all of his photos are inaccurate) here is a PCGS TruView photo of a coin that I own that emphasizes a reddish color not seen in the coin (and perhaps not the best example to illustrate my point): and here is a much more accurate picture from @brg5658 http://brgphoto.com/ Beyond challenging generally the ethics of coin photographers, what responsibilities do we collectors have when posting professionally taken photographs? When we post a professionally taken photo that isn't accurate, do we need to state that it isn't quite what it appears? Do you have better examples to further this thread? Do you think me a coin Nazi for raising this point? What say you?
I know that TruViews are very popular, and there is no doubt that there is high skill there. However, I find that TruViews generally look more like cartoons or caricatures of the actual coin. There is some art and subjectivity in taking a photo. You can't completely reproduce the look of the coin in hand, so the photographer has to choose which aspects to emphasize. Some choose luster, some choose color, some choose to show the surfaces (marks, strike, etc). It also largely depends on the coin. I personally prefer a well balanced picture. Rather than emphasizing any single aspect to perfection, i prefer a photo that balances all of them. This, to me, is the most honest approach. I don't think you need to explain professional photographs when you post them, unless they are egregious. If the picture accurately portrays the coin (or one aspect of the coin), with no intent to decieve, then I don't see a problem with it. If the coin in hand doesn't really look like the picture, then a couple of words explaining it would probably be in order (especially if you are trying to sell the coin).
I'm going to quote myself from a previous thread on the topic: You could say this about many PCGS TrueView photos, and even many of the best photo-takers here on CT. Images looks fantastic, tack-sharp focus, high res, tons of light, and shot at the most ideal light angle to make the colors "pop". Nothing necessarily nefarious, but yet, the photos do not represent the normal in-hand view, under normal light, with human eyes. These pictures are accurate, but they only reflect one "reality", which is perhaps 1% of the possible realities for a given coin. Now, we all want to show off our coins in the best possible way, it's nothing different than say a business woman dressing up for a meeting, putting on makeup, and looking her personal best. But if the same person wears sweatpants 99% of the time, how accurate is the first reality? This has been kind of bugging me lately, because when certain people do this, we call it "juicing", especially when talking about artificially boosting color saturation. But if someone spends an hour of prep to get the most ideal coin pictures, this is okay. So called "in-camera" manipulation / setup as opposed to post-processing with software. IMHO, some of these "un-juiced" photos can be equally misleading. I've purchased a few myself. Not trying to step on any toes here, as I truly respect and admire the people who post the best coin photos here, and I try my best to replicate their work. It's just say new collectors need to understand that one photo cannot necessarily tell a person how a coin "looks", especially when talking about toned coins.
Phil's photos usually tilt toward the reddish side. I'm not sure if it is due to the camera settings or to the color profile he uses.
An example from my own collection. PCGS Photos, which I like very much: Seller photos: My Photo #1: My Photo #2:
My feeling is that photos should be as close as possible to the 'in hand' view. Otherwise you're just foolin' yourself........and others.
Yes. I also think that nothing is like the coin actually "in hand". With the coin in-hand you can then adjust the lighting you are using, take out a loupe, TILT the coin(!!!!), and can be assured that your eyes are not being deceived by some very artful "photoshopping." What TruView and other coin images are missing, in my opinion, is a VIDEO component: With the coin in hand, you can rotate and tilt it to check on the luster and that hourglass "cartwheel" on higher-grade coins. I've noticed very flat-looking images of coins online, only to later see the real coin in-hand and be amazed at how much BETTER the coin looks in-hand! I've also had the reverse experience: Looked good in online pics, only to see just how bad it is in-hand... Is there any compelling reason why there can't be a video component to a listing at an auction/retail site, or for TruViews?
I've always felt that TruViews are "glamour shots. Nothing wrong with that. They are similar to images made with axial lighting.
I like true-views in general, but they are not always really accurate. Whenever I'm making an online purchase and the sellers photos leave a bit to be desired, I check to see if there is a trueview of the coin. This sellers photos of this coin were taken about five feet away from the coin, so the bidding was staying pretty low. I went and found this And ended up getting the coin pretty cheap. I would have to say that this particular image is nearly spot on.
This has always been the case in astronomy. People see the glorious colored pictures of distant star clusters, nebula or other galaxies and wonder what happened the first time they view through a telescope with the naked eye. Except for a few closer stars in our own galaxy, there isn't any color to see. It's all one monotonous tone. The color is seen with time exposure and light absorption on the pixels or by stacking composite photographs using various color filters. No Photoshopping is necessary, although it can also be done. The human eye sees in real time and cannot do this. I would imagine there are camera techniques for coins that are applied in the same way.
