Should TrueView Proof Coins Images Have Two Different Photos?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Cazkaboom, Jul 15, 2012.

  1. Cazkaboom

    Cazkaboom One for all, all for me.

    Hey guys, so this came to me a while back when I was learning how to take photos of coins.
    I thought that with proofs there are two distinguished "Looks" to coins. There is the straight on mirrored look showing the depth of the coin and letting the cameo show, and then there is the look through Axial Lighting that captures the true colors.

    Straight on:
    [​IMG]

    Axial
    [​IMG]


    Anybody agree, or am I just a bit looney?
     
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. cciesielski01

    cciesielski01 Laced Up

    I agree they should do 2 photos.
    Nice photos caz!
     
  4. gbroke

    gbroke Naturally Toned

    I posted a thread about this exact same thing. There should be two photos. Sellers should also post two photos.
    On a side not, Bahabully uses two photos with different lighting, which is awesome. :thumb:

    Also, you are a bit loony, but that has nothing to do with the topic though.
     
  5. Cazkaboom

    Cazkaboom One for all, all for me.

    What about SMS Coins? They are dripping lusturous, but then they are often prooflike.
    [​IMG]
     
  6. brg5658

    brg5658 Well-Known Member

    TrueView images are already more expensive (at $20 a pop I believe) than professional coin imaging by the best of the best -- even Mark Goodman (the guy who wrote the book on numismatic photography) charges significantly less ($10 per coin is his going rate). Those who swear by the TrueViews claim the difference in quality is substantial because PCGS (i.e., Phil Arnold) shoots the coins outside of the plastic, and thus has much more ability to catch the true "look" of the coin. The TrueViews that are available for coins that I own (none of which I paid for) across the board are not accurate to the look of the coin in hand. In particular, the images are over saturated and downplay surface marks.

    The reason why I bring this information up is because, if you want them to TrueView in two different ways, would they then charge you $40 per coin? Or maybe just 50% more at $30 / coin? That's an outlandish amount of money for a picture of a coin, but some people are so in love with these images that I'm sure they'd still pay $40 each if they had to. :eek:
     
  7. gbroke

    gbroke Naturally Toned

    Proofs and SMS. I try and show the true cameo or lack there of.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]






    Toned Proofs and SMS. I think two lighting images are a must.


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]


    Lustrous business strikes without toning. I go for the luster shots.
    [​IMG]


    Lustrus business strikes with toning. I try to capture the color and luster togethor, leaning a little more toward color.
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Cazkaboom

    Cazkaboom One for all, all for me.

    I wholeheartedly agree wih you 100%

    I'm not saying they should charge double, but I think they should make it the standard with all their work 2 different shots on proofs for the one price.
     
  9. Cazkaboom

    Cazkaboom One for all, all for me.

    Greg, you and I are on the exact same page.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page