Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Denis Richard, post: 4611715, member: 112673"]That is exactly my point; there is no more 'artificial' shine and colour on the pretty one then there is "artificial" dirt and scratches on the others. That is how the coins look when properly illuminated. There seems to a bias in this community that if it's pretty or attractive, it must be photoshopped, ergo; fraud.  The other two coins are typical of the coins I shoot, most of which are not attractive, but if you bought either of the other two online, based on the photos, would you complain or return them because there don't look as dirty or beat up in hand as they do in the picture?  I doubt it. You'd probably be happy about that. If you really wanted to look for each bit of dirt or scratch on them in hand with a loupe, you'll find them, but you see them all at once, properly lit, with the photo. So why would anyone complain or return a coin that looks better in a photo, simply because they can't see it, all at once, in hand? You said yourself, "They are not the same as having the coin 'in hand', but you wouldn't expect them to be."  All of this sort of circles back to my original post. Why do you want to capture what a coin looks like "in hand" when that is rarely how it actually looks?[/QUOTE]