Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Denis Richard, post: 4650025, member: 112673&quot;]IMO a good coin photo won&#039;t depict luster. It shouldn&#039;t. Luster is glare from reflection and where you see luster in a photo, you&#039;re not seeing the coin beneath the glare.&nbsp; Granted, you may want to know your coin is highly reflective. That&#039;s fine. A luster band is an indication of the coins reflectivity but unfortunately, it also masks how a coin actually looks. IME when I want to look at a lustrous coin in hand, I turn it side to side to move the glare away from my eye, or change the light source to remove it completely so I can actually see the coin. For me, that&#039;s what a good coin already photograph does. </p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve always felt &quot;In hand&quot; images are an approximation of how the coin actually looks. Honestly, a coin only has one look. That&#039;s it. It is was it is. A coin has a finite texture, reflectivity and tonal range and if captured properly, in colour correct light, you can know and photograph preciously what a coin looks like. Whereas, an &quot;in hand&quot; viewing has as many variables and different &quot;looks&quot; as&nbsp; there are people viewing it. As Publius2 stated earlier this thread,&nbsp; &quot;I would hazard that pretty much everybody understands what is meant by the term (in hand) and everybody buys into the ambiguity and imprecision.&quot;[/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