Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;geekpryde, post: 2042773, member: 36248&quot;]I&#039;m going to quote myself from a previous thread on the topic:</p><p><br /></p><p>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 &quot;pop&quot;. 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 &quot;reality&quot;, which is perhaps 1% of the possible realities for a given coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;Now, we all want to show off our coins in the best possible way, it&#039;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?</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;This has been kind of bugging me lately, because when certain people do this, we call it &quot;juicing&quot;, 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 &quot;in-camera&quot; manipulation / setup as opposed to post-processing with software. IMHO, some of these &quot;un-juiced&quot; photos can be equally misleading. I&#039;ve purchased a few myself.</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;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&#039;s just say new collectors need to understand that one photo cannot necessarily tell a person how a coin &quot;looks&quot;, especially when talking about toned coins.[/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