FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board
Numismatic and History Discussion Forums => Coin Photography, Conservation and Storage => Topic started by: dougsmit on January 25, 2017, 09:35:13 pm
-
I'm a little offended that it has been a month and a half since we had a photo post so I'll start this thread asking how those of you that photograph coins light to light them. My illustration shows the same coin (a Commodus denarius) lighted with direct light from an Ott light on the left and by an LED ring light on the right. The center image used both lights at the same time. Certainly there could be a thousand variations made by moving the direct light around, closer, farther, higher, lower, brighter and dimmer in relation to the ring which is also dimable. Minor tipping of the coin would also change the effect. We might also add another light or bounce the one we have off a white surface to soften the effect. In other words I should have made a picture with a thousand variations instead of three. If we did the same for bronze, gold, dull, polished or a hundred other types of coins we would have quite a pile of photos. I wonder if I would find one that I liked better than the rest.
I tend to find the solo use of the ring just a bit harsh for most coins but have been using it on more and more coins lately. If you have a favorite rig, please explain it and post samples that demonstrate the features it offers that makes it attractive to you.
-
yes! I am always messing with my photo rig. I have a light ring and agree that its too harsh and I pick up glare, I currently use a halogen desk lamp at a canted angle for lighting. I fuss with getting the right focal range as much as anything and have tried a variety of set up's. I appreciate the insights gained on this forum.
cw
-
Hi Doug and Wiley,
I am forever struggling with lighting, but it seems that I have come to point where I am at least mostly satisfied with the images I get from my photo sessions.
I bought a ring light some time ago and the results were not really pleasing. The silver coins turned out very harsh, nothing like the actual coins, but you could see every detail - which is something you want when you put together your gallery. So I experimented a bit, and this is what I came up with. Since I do not have a permanent location for my set-up I used to shoot pics in the sun room which had light from all directions, including through skylights, and from an Ott lamp. The result was a very flat looking coin, details rather indistinguishable (pic #1). I then took my gear to another room with less natural light and set up the Ott lamp at about 10:30h. The result was pic #2, not really ideal for my purposes. Now the ring light came into play. After some trial and error I used room #2 with some natural light mostly from 6h, the Ott light at 11 and the ring light, not turned up full blast but reduced to about 60%, and came up with pic #3 which for my present purpose, completing my gallery of Parthian coins, is quite acceptable. Mind you, it is not an artistic photo, taken for aesthetic appeal, but what I think is best suited for my present purpose.
Schatz
-
I agree pic 3 to me brings out a more "pleasing" image, interesting on the different details brought out in the different lights.
cw
-
Just a little add-on: pic #1 and #2 are of the same coin and they are slightly out of focus, pic #3 shows a different coin in focus (I have become better at that, too).
Schatz
-
Hi Doug,
I really prefer image 3, as it shows a lot more of the
finer details, and brings out the relief nicely. Well done!
Do you get similar results using a white background?
What does one ask for at the camera shop, etc., when
asking for this ring-lighting? Is there a particular model
number or other integral detail that ensures one gets
the correct item? I see that there are a lot of options
on various online suppliers.
I have been using a flatbed scanner of late, and have
had poor results from previous ring-style units, but your
results are outstanding in comparison and compel me to
reconsider matters, especially this option.
I had also found that LED lighting was too intense, and
simply did not seem to work with coins. They were good
for stamps and banknotes, etc., but not for ancient coins.
This shows that there has been some advances.
All the best,
Walter
-
Hi Walter,
I actually have 2 ring lights, both with 144 LED bulbs. One is divided into 4 sections which you can turn on or off in addition to the knob which regulates the light intensity. It is fun to experiment with this gadget, but rather time consuming if you want to use all possible combinations of lighted sections. The other ring light is one undivided ring with 144 little bulbs and a knob to regulate the light intensity. I bought both of them on the Internet. They are made in China but marketed by a US company - slightly more expensive than the ones directly from China, but I always worry about customs, and the additional cost is worth my peace of mind.
I have tried very few coin shots with white background. At some time I decided that back is what I wanted for silver coins. I even did some white background shots for bronze coins. Logic would suggest that that brings out the detail of those difficult coins better. But I found that the difference is minuscule and decided to stay with black. (cf. attached pics)
Hope this is useful to you. Perhaps you can post some of your pictures. I am sure Doug or other experienced photographers would give you tips.
Schatz
-
On the photo with the black background, there is a white line around the edges of each side of coin.
What causes that? and how can it be avoided?
-
Yes, Callimachus,
you are right. I have noticed this with many dark coins and am not quite sure what causes it. It never bothered me because it sets off the dark coin from the dark background. Of course, originally the picture's background was not black but an irregular medium light color despite the black piece of cardboard at the bottom of the white china bowl on which I place a piece of non-reflecting glass that holds the dowel stick which props up the coin. No intended background color appears true in artificial light if it is at such a distance from the lens. The white ring around the coin may well be a reflection from the white china bowl or the ring light.
Perhaps someone who has a better grip on physics than I can explain.
Schatz
-
Yes, Callimachus,
you are right. I have noticed this with many dark coins and am not quite sure what causes it. It never bothered me because it sets off the dark coin from the dark background. Of course, originally the picture's background was not black but an irregular medium light color despite the black piece of cardboard at the bottom of the white china bowl on which I place a piece of non-reflecting glass that holds the dowel stick which props up the coin. No intended background color appears true in artificial light if it is at such a distance from the lens. The white ring around the coin may well be a reflection from the white china bowl or the ring light.
Perhaps someone who has a better grip on physics than I can explain.
Schatz
No one seems willing to accept what I consider to be a fact of life. The easiest and best way to accomplish a black background on a photo is to shoot a black (not gray, not green, not....) background. Black is defined as the lack of light so you need to shoot the coin with no light reaching the background. How you do that is your business. I have made quite a number of experiments toward this nd and the best answer for a ring light is not the same as the easy answer for directional lights. I do like to throw a little light on the edges of the coin especially when the coin is thick enough to have an interesting edge. That does not mean a white rim but just being sure some light does hit the edges of the coin. Again how you do that is also your business. I do not yet have a photo of my current rig but I will warn that things that work best will bring ridicule from various sources. My bestand current answer looks worse than this one.
-
Wow!
PeteB
-
I'm going to employ your method as soon as I buy a camera that doesn't do mandatory auto light adjustment.
-
My recent change was to replace the shadow tube 'H' in the above photo with a cone made from black plastic flower pots (the disposable ones plants are sold in at a garden center). The angled side and greater area resulted in a darker background black. The top hole was made separately from the same material (black food carry out boxes works, too) so I could use one only slightly larger than the coin. This shows in the photo as shot but is easy to select and erase since the part touching the coin is level 000000 black as shot.
The reason for this change was to make easier shooting thick coins bouncing a bit of light on the edges from the paper ring. I might have overdone it with the white paper but using gray or making the ring larger would lessen the effect. This is a matter of playing around until you get what you want. Obviously those whose reason for making coin photos to promote eBay sales won't put in such efforts. These coins are my children and we all want our babies to be a cute as possible. Unfortunately, my Commodus obverse has complexion problems but Selene on the reverse is attractive. ;D
-
Some I took today with doug's flower pot method. A huge improvement for me!
Shot on my iPhone and images combine d using the FrameMagic app.
-
And here is the set-up.
I've got a tripod and horizontal extension in the way, which means I should need fewer shots to get the right one.
I've noticed higher relief coins are difficult (like this Larissa bronze), and I can't seem to get it all in focus.
-
Some I took today with doug's flower pot method. A huge improvement for me!
Shot on my iPhone and images combine d using the FrameMagic app.
How on earth did you get the iPhone to focus so close to the coin?
Every photo I've taken with an iPhone is completley out of focus!
Does using a black background instead of a whitebackground affect the colour of the coin at all if you were to crop the coins from the blackbackground and put them on a white one / transparent?
If not, I might give that flower pot method a try- it looks cleaner than using a white background.
Peter
-
I hold the phone (iPhone 6s) about two inches away. It takes about 5 shots per side to get it "right" (it could always be better, of course). I have a tripod on the way so perhaps that will cut down the amount of shots per side... but I'm not sure, since I manually adjust the brightness by sliding my finger up or down on the screen.
Still, 5 shots is nothing compared to the time I would spend editing out the background. Magic wand always cut into my coins, and using an eraser tool on Photoshop, while good, was not perfect and was very time consuming.
The FrameMagic app is amazing. I used to have multiple paintbrush screens open and copy paste, etc. Now I select the pics which import directly into the app, resize and straighten with my fingers, and export with the click of a button. All in, in takes about 5 minutes to fully photograph and process a coin, maybe less. It used to be much more than that and the photos, as you can see from my gallery, are horrible:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=14806
Even the black background ones aren't right because I was still shooting with my camera which automatically adjusted the light, so it took many minutes on Photoshop to get them passable, and they are often too dark. I can't wait to re-shoot them all!
-
Are Iphones really that bad? Our Samsung Android has a macro mode to be turned on, manual exposure compensation settings and selective focus by touching the screen where you want it to focus. The only problem is the small sensor and tiny lens are nothing compared to a real camera.
-
Will a regular sized camera make it easier to get the entire coin perfectly focused? I'm having trouble there. Some spots are crystal clear while others are a tad blurry. See attached pic. Coin is about 8mm and I used a clip-on macro lens.
-
Will a regular sized camera make it easier to get the entire coin perfectly focused? I'm having trouble there. Some spots are crystal clear while others are a tad blurry. See attached pic. Coin is about 8mm and I used a clip-on macro lens.
What you have is a "Depth of field" problem. Your plane of focus is very shallow so only the top sliver of the coin is in focus. If you have a camera that lets you increase the aperture of your lens (setting it to a larger number e.g. f/4 to 5.6) it will increase what appears to be in focus.
-
Thanks, Neo. I don't think I can do that on the phone.
Larger coins are fine, it is the really tiny ones (which need the macro lens) that are troublesome.
-
And here is the set-up.
I've got a tripod and horizontal extension in the way, which means I should need fewer shots to get the right one.
I've noticed higher relief coins are difficult (like this Larissa bronze), and I can't seem to get it all in focus.
Hi Nick,
I didn't know that you use an iPhone to take your photos.
I don't think a tripod will help. In my mind, it will be too restrictive. Using your arms gives you more options (length, angle, etc.).
Meepzorp
-
Thanks, Neo. I don't think I can do that on the phone.
Larger coins are fine, it is the really tiny ones (which need the macro lens) that are troublesome.
Hi Nick,
I have the same problem with my iPhone 4. Large and medium-sized coins come out fine. But small coins come out blurry. I just have to take numerous photos (sometimes as many as 30-50 photos per side), and I adjust the angle of the iPhone. Eventually, it comes out right.
I normally shoot 8 photos per side.
Meepzorp
-
Thanks, Neo. I don't think I can do that on the phone.
Larger coins are fine, it is the really tiny ones (which need the macro lens) that are troublesome.
This makes sense because the closer you are to your subject, the more shallow the depth of field. I don't know of any way around this with an iPhone. With a camera with manual settings it's extremely easy to adjust.
-
Some I took today with doug's flower pot method. A huge improvement for me!
Shot on my iPhone and images combine d using the FrameMagic app.
How on earth did you get the iPhone to focus so close to the coin?
Every photo I've taken with an iPhone is completley out of focus!
Does using a black background instead of a whitebackground affect the colour of the coin at all if you were to crop the coins from the blackbackground and put them on a white one / transparent?
If not, I might give that flower pot method a try- it looks cleaner than using a white background.
Peter
Hi Pete,
My iPhone focuses fine. As Nick stated, you must hold it approximately 2 inches from the coin. And you should angle the iPhone with respect to the coin. Don't hold it parallel to the coin.
All of my website photos were shot with an old iPhone 4.
I use a medium grey background.
Meepzorp
-
When I travel, I used this set up to make some coin photo...:)
Q.
-
And this is the photo after immediately (more smaller magnification than the original), and after to using black background..:)
Regards
Q.
-
Good, but still lacking the sharpness I want, like this one. Just the far right of each side is slightly blurry. This is with the macro.
The second is sharp too, regular iPhone lens, and exactly what I want.
-
Meep I'm having success with an iPhone mount (not tripod) that is moveable but cuts down on the jitters that blur the pics.
-
Hi Nick,
It's OK I used this without any manipulation and only if I travel and I have with me only my iPhone , and if I want to document some interesting coin which one not mine .
Any othe cases I used my home set-up---
:)
Q.
p.s.
I try to show is useful easily any circumstances..
of course if you want to more help any kind of software help you... like Photoshop or GIMP or.. ...
Q.
That picture above to click and to show only 2 minute..
Q.
-
Oh I have no doubt about the quality of your photos! 😄 I use gimp and photoshop but find the app FrameMagic just as useful for my purposes.
I'm at the point now where I'm considering buying a camera vs reshooting the collection with the iPhone.
-
It's OK Nick.. +++
A good camera is very useful,
To the iPhone is always on hand :)
Q. :)
-
Will a regular sized camera make it easier to get the entire coin perfectly focused? I'm having trouble there. Some spots are crystal clear while others are a tad blurry. See attached pic. Coin is about 8mm and I used a clip-on macro lens.
What you have is a "Depth of field" problem. Your plane of focus is very shallow so only the top sliver of the coin is in focus. If you have a camera that lets you increase the aperture of your lens (setting it to a larger number e.g. f/4 to 5.6) it will increase what appears to be in focus.
Hi,
It's the other way around, a lower f-stop = higher aperture.
But the logic is correct - that is the issue with the photos not being in focus.
Peter
-
Thats a neat set up
-
There seems to be a lot of confused and contradictory information floating around here.
"And you should angle the iPhone with respect to the coin. Don't hold it parallel to the coin." On the contrary - the camera should always be exactly parallel to the coin. I have a small level about 2 inches across to place across the back of my camera to make sure the camera is exactly level when I take pictures of my coins. I also make sure the surface where the coin is to be placed is exactly level. Thus the camera and the coin surface will be parallel. When the camera is not parallel to the coin, one side of the coin will be blurry. And a round flan will look oval.
About apertures: The larger the "hole" of the lense, the smaller the aperture number. An F2 aperture is larger than an F4 or F8 aperture. (I know it doesn't make sense: a larger lense "hole" has a smaller number.) To increase depth of field, the lense must make a smaller "hole" -- ie you must set the "F number" to a bigger number. A smaller lense "hole" lets in less light, but it increases depth of field. If you have a thick coin or one with high relief, increasing the depth of field this way may help. Mollinari is correct when he says "setting it to a larger number e.g. f/4 to 5.6 it will increase what appears to be in focus."
Lenses these days commonly have distortion around the edges, either showing as things being blurry, or straight lines being curved. You can avoid this to some extent by placing your coin at the center of the picture, and not having it go all the way to any edge of the viewfinder. You'll have to crop away the excess blank space to have a photo of just your coin, but that is better than a photo of a small coin on an immense background. If you have your camera set to a larger size picture, then when you crop away all that excess background, the remaining coin picture will still be relatively large. They do make high quality lenses where the distortion at the edges is minimized, but they are very expensive and not to be found in the regular day to day cameras people usually have.
Of course, if you get your camera too close to your coin, it will never get in focus. especially with the auto-focus found on today's cameras and phones. You might want to do a test series of photos to determine just how close you can get before it will not focus any more. If your camera has a macro setting, be sure and experiment around with that.
I sometimes miss my old camera where I could use manual focus if I wished, and I could set the aperture however I wanted. It even had a depth-of-field button to press so I could see exactly the depth of field produced by my manual settings or the automatic settings if I had it set in that mode. Unfortunately, it required film . . .
Below I've attached two photos of the same coin that illustrate what I've been talking about here. The photo on the left side was take "straight on" -- camera and coin were parallel. Notice the round flan. The photo on the right was taken with the coin tilted slightly to try to pick up a bit more surface reflection. Notice the flan is not round, and the top of the coin above NSTA is blurry. This is due to the camera and coin not being in parallel planes. Increasing depth of field may have helped a bit.
-
The reason you usually see f/2 or f/4 is that the number is a ratio of the focal length of the lens to the working aperture or diameter of the hole that lets light through. A simple lens with 100mm focal length has a 50mm hole at f/2 and a 25mm hole at f/4. It gets a bit more complex to measure when the lens is a complex stack of elements rather than one lens but it should make sense that a hole 1/2 the diameter of the length would let in more light than one with a hole 1/4 that same length. Since the f is a constant we just forget that part and look at the 2 or 4 which is engraved on the camera.
Photo optics is a very complex subject and users don't need to know how it is all done. Just don't fight the problem. When we shoot things very close we encounter problems that make little trouble for landscape photographers. There are things that can be done to minimize the problems and make depth of field and other physical laws your friend rather than your enemy. These techniques have really blossomed in the age of digital photography. We can't break the laws of physics but there are ways they can be bribed. A favorite of mine is the focus stack where you tak several pictures with the focus point in a different point for each one and then tell the computer to compare every part of each image and merge them into one using only the sharpest parts of each original. Cheating? Yes, and proud of it!
(http://www.pbase.com/dougsmit/image/111130430.jpg)
Coin photography is just another side hobby available to each of us. Some of you clean coins; some buy low and sell high; others figure out how various issues relate to each other. Some of us like to take pictures better than necessary to sell the coin on eBay.
-
Picture A shot at f 3.5
Picture B shot at f 10
All post processing exactly the same.
-
There seems to be a lot of confused and contradictory information floating around here.
"And you should angle the iPhone with respect to the coin. Don't hold it parallel to the coin." On the contrary - the camera should always be exactly parallel to the coin. I have a small level about 2 inches across to place across the back of my camera to make sure the camera is exactly level when I take pictures of my coins. I also make sure the surface where the coin is to be placed is exactly level. Thus the camera and the coin surface will be parallel. When the camera is not parallel to the coin, one side of the coin will be blurry. And a round flan will look oval.
Below I've attached two photos of the same coin that illustrate what I've been talking about here. The photo on the left side was take "straight on" -- camera and coin were parallel. Notice the round flan. The photo on the right was taken with the coin tilted slightly to try to pick up a bit more surface reflection. Notice the flan is not round, and the top of the coin above NSTA is blurry. This is due to the camera and coin not being in parallel planes. Increasing depth of field may have helped a bit.
Hi Calli,
What you are stating may be true for a camera. I've never used a digital camera to take a photo of a coin. But it is certainly not true for an iPhone.
I've shot literally thousands upon thousands of coin photos with an old iPhone 4. When I hold the iPhone parallel to the coin, the photo comes out blurry. When I hold the iPhone at a 5-20 degree angle to the coin (along both the X-axis and Y-axis), the photo comes out much sharper and crisper. I don't know why this is true. It defies logic. But it is true. At least, it is in my case. Maybe it has something to do with the way the lens is mounted in an iPhone 4?
Do my coin photos look oval? I don't think so.
Meepzorp
-
Do my coin photos look oval? I don't think so.
Hi Meepzorp,
I don't think anyone is questioning the quality of your photos - you take great photos!
The fact that you and others here have worked out how to use your iphones to take photos still astounds me. All I got was blur when I tried using an iphone 6. Even my blackberry (yes I'm still using one) did a better job ;D
You might consider putting together a guide for taking photos using cameras on your phone.
Peter
-
The principles of optics work the same whether the lense is mounted in a camera or an iPhone, film or digital.
Meepzorp may be on the right track when he says "Maybe it has something to do with the way the lens is mounted in an iPhone 4?"
-
I orient mine for flat tabletop shooting. A horizontal setup makes it more comfortable to shoot (IMO).
The lighting diagram doesn't show scale well, but I shoot with a Canon 5D3 using a Canon 100mm Macro f/2.8. I have a Canon 430EXii off camera left with a bounce card so all the light doesn't spill away from the coin. The backdrop looks huge in this, but is just a bottle of isopropyl with a sheet of construction paper taped to it. The coin is on top of a rubber jewelers anvil. The coins are proper up with kneadable rubber, but I hear good things about mounting wax. It is triggered with pocket wizards, but I am switching to cables to save the batteries. A flash on the camera could work as a trigger as well.
I ordered a few foam blocks today to make the set up easier to swap around differently sized coins. This should also be more versatile and manipulatable. It might be cool to shoot some of the more reflective silver coins with red or other color paper around them to make them glow.
Another way to achieve a black background is to apply the inverse square law. Basically, light falls off at an exponential rate (right, math people?). So you can make your shots go to black by just having nothing behind them (and no obvious light). Imagine how a disposable camera photo looks if you take a picture with flash, at night, outside. Really tightening down your aperture is a must to take advantage of this property of light.
I am getting my best results ISO 320 - f/22 - 1/160th. The 430EXii is set at 1/4 power but I edged it up and down a bit.
The big issue will be how close the flash and bounce card are to the coin. Moving that around by just a few inches makes a huge difference, because of the inverse square law mentioned above.
Reflective, colored glass surfaces could be fun to play with too.
Also included are a few I shot last night with the set up I am tweaking.
-
Here is a photo of what my set up looks like in real life.
EDIT: I set this up just to demonstrate. In practice, I put the bounce card on the opposite side of the flash when shooting.
-
The coin looks great but I don't understand what you're talking about with the background.
-
I must say I am glad to see someone using a full frame camera (one better than my mkII) but I am no fan of flash for coin photography. Continuous light makes it a lot easier to preview and control where the glares fall. I do not like large areas of blank white which are easy to get on shiny surfaces with flash. I also believe the fighting gravity to avoid shooting down is more trouble than it is worth. Manual exposure with continuous lights is also easier to get to match exposures for two sides of the coin.
One downside of a 24x36mm sensor is that many coins I shoot are considerably smaller than 24mm so you end up wasting more of the sensor advantage. I'm not suggesting shooting with no slop room around but the price of a set of extension tubes allows shooting smaller coins with ease. You can get carried away. The Syracuse hexas below used 5 extension tubes from two sets but still had a lot of slop around the 6mm coin.
I usually use f/11 with that lens. Sharpness falls off at higher apertures. I use focus stack software for coins that are too deep for f/11 but even the hexas here was ok with one shot per side because it is not high relief.
Thanks for sharing the rig.
Below:
Syracuse AR hexas
Nero AE dupondius
Julia Domna billon tetradrachm
All with daylight balance LED lights
-
Good point about going above f/11. I'd forgotten about that, diffraction? Thanks!
I don't really have the space to set up a top down shooting situation where I am, not if I want to leave it up. I need a workshop/studio!
I was wondering about people's experience with extension tubes. I have only used one once before on some product photos that had to be blown up to wrap some trucks.
There is a lot of wasted real estate on the sensor. But, not if I get the Fuji GFX 50S! I have been eyeing it. My 5D3 is on it's last legs and the newer 5D models aren't doing it for me.
Your point about continuous light is well made. I am enjoying playing around with the flashes, just because it's fun. I don't do a lot of macro work professionally. I may try one with some kind of diffusor between the flash and the coin, maybe a gauze panel or something. It is somewhat of a space issue for me, and I also am trying to resist the urge to buy more specialized gadgets.
I don't know that I mind a little edge being blown out or a little glare for drama, but i take your point. Left to my own devices, I'd probably over do it. I was considering setting up a rim light of some kind, just to give you an idea...
I have some continuous lights that I bought for headshots but didn't end up liking very much. I might dig one of those out and give it a try.
Thanks!
-
Great looking photos, by the way!
The coin looks great but I don't understand what you're talking about with the background.
Thanks! In short, light fall off rapidly from its source. If you get the flash/light really close to the subject and there isn't anything with a few feet of the backdrop, you should be able to simulate blackness. A reflective surface could mess this up. I was offering it as a possibility, I am not sure it would be the easiest or best way to get the effect.
-
Hi,
On the subject of lighting, can I ask for your frank opinions on 3 different lighting set ups.
1. I can set up light so that it does not fall directly onto the coin and instead faces slightly away from the coin - refer photo of Octalia Severa denarius.
2. Or I can set up the light so that it falls (from a reasonable distance) directly onto the coin - refer photo of Domitian denarius.
3. Another technique I have often used in the past is to bring the head of the desk-lamp almost entirely down to the level of the coin, parallel to the ground, but to the left of the coin, so light emanates from the side but never directly onto the face of the coin - refer photo of Pamphylia, Aspendos stater.
The difference between the photos is that 2 is reflective/shiny, more like a silver coin would look in hand, whereas 1 and 3 sport more of a matte-like surface.
Do any of you have a strict view about how you set up the light and whether you prefer matte-like surfaces or more reflective/shiny surfaces?
I have found it easier to produce a much sharper image with technique 2.
Peter
-
Hi,
The difference between the photos is that 2 is reflective/shiny, more like a silver coin would look in hand, whereas 1 and 3 sport more of a matte-like surface.
Do any of you have a strict view about how you set up the light and whether you prefer matte-like surfaces or more reflective/shiny surfaces?
I have found it easier to produce a much sharper image with technique 2.
Peter
The closest I come to a 'strict' rule is to keep areas of absolute white (FFFFFF) and absolute black (000000) except for the background as small as possible. Large areas of blanked detail of either extreme make poor photos. 'Shiny' means blanked highlights so I prefer matte. That said, I prefer your Domitian photo. The 'sharpness' gained by adding contrast is fake sharpness. There is more detail in a photo with smooth or less abrupt transitions from dark to light.
-
Thanks Doug,
I will take more photos with same / similar lighting setup as the Domitian and post here for comment.
Peter
-
Hi,
I have taken a series of photos using 1) light from desk-lamp directly overhead; 2) light shining at close to 90 degree angle to edge of coin i.e. same as holding coin under light with it facing towards you instead of facing the light.
I would appreciate your views on which lighting set up results in a better photo.
The photos on the left use lighting set-up 1) above and the the photos on the right use lighting set-up 2) which is a far more indirect light source.
Historically I have taken most of my photos using lighting-setup 2) or similar.
However the Domitian I posted earlier which Doug commented was the better of my earlier photos, uses 1).
The Larissa drachm I have also attached uses 1).
My preliminary view is that 1) is better for silver coins; and 2) is better for bronze coins.
Peter
-
I agree with your 'preliminary view' but point out that very small changes in coin position and light angle can move the glares to better or less acceptable places so it is still possible to find a middle ground. I might suggest playing around with more soft bounced light and less harsh direct light.
-
With lighting placement, I have found that the farther the light source, the "shinier" or "contrasty" the coin appears.
The first image uses a very bright LED desk-lamp which is at its natural height from the coin.
The second image uses the same desk-lamp brought down so that it is only a few inches on to of the coin (slightly to the side so that the light indirectly falls onto the coin).
How far do others place their light source from the coin when taking photos?
Peter
-
Also, again, would like views on which photo you prefer.
Peter
-
The second. The first seems a little glary.
-
Thanks Robert,
Peter
-
I would assume that #2 more accurately shows the coin's true colors?
-
I would assume that #2 more accurately shows the coin's true colors?
That is correct.
The issue is with the kind of lamp I am using. Although it is a very bright LED it does not have that cone shaped head which seems to concentrate the beam of light. If it is too far away the illumination is too poor. I've worked out that I need it 10 to 15 cm away from the coin and that way I get less reflective surfaces.
The trouble with this particular coin is that it appears to have had some renaissance wax or something applied in a manner resulting in a very shiny patina.
I've never had as much trouble photographing a bronze coin.
Peter
-
Hi,
I have been experimenting with axial lighting. I have never used this technique before.
The typical set up as I understand it from various sources on the internet is to place a pane of glass above the coin at a 45 degree angle with the light source perpendicular to the coin so that light travelling from the source is reflected directly onto the coin and then straight up towards the lens of the camera as though originating from there. This lighting method removes shadows from the image and makes legends easier to read.
Many of those sources also recommend blocking extraneous light by e.g. placing an object in front of the coin so it is not exposed to he light source directly other than as reflected from the pane of glass.
I have found that I like the photos when I do not block the light from hitting the coin directly from the light source i.e. so there is a combination of direct light and axial lighting.
I have illustrated this with 2 photos. The first was taken without blocking the direct light, the second taken, with an object completely blocking direct light from the light source.
Do others experience this also and use a combination of the two?
Or is likely related to the manner with which I have taken the photos and the preferred approach is not to have direct lighting.
Also, when do others use axial lighting? I have found it results in nicer photos for some coins but not others.
Peter
-
I see two problems with the concept as presented. Much light is lost when using axial but there is no way to control the proportion of axial with the directional that spills onto the coin. The direct seems to overpower the axial in the sample. Secondly, when we shoot with a pure and balanced axial rig, it makes no difference from which side the light comes into the mirror since it will be directed straight down. The sample has the direct light coming from the left which does not look good on the obverse but is fine for the reverse.
I have stopped working with axial but do use a mix of ring and direct which is similar but allows balance between the two since the lights have individual brightness controls. I would warn that both lights need to have the same color balance or changing the relative brightness would introduce color shifts on only parts of the image.
-
Hi Doug,
Thanks for your feedback. A couple questions in my reply below if you may.
I may need to try using a ring light for my digital camera.
Q1. In your experience do they vary greatly in quality? I have noticed expensive ring lights for DSLR cameras (several hundred dollars), and very cheap ones on eBay for both DSLRs and compact digital cameras (less than 100 dollars).
I am experiencing difficulty in settling upon a lighting set up that suits shiny bronze coins in particular. When I have direct lighting from above, it results in too much glare on parts of the coins making the photo look overexposed in those areas. The further away the light source the greater the contrast and whiter the overexposed areas. If I angle the lighting to make the lighting more indirect I end up with flatter / dull looking photos in which the the direction the light is too apparent.
That's why I have attempted axial lighting. The axial lighting appears to work fine with flat highly reflective surfaces. I took some very nice photos of modern coins.
With the bumpy irregular surfaces of ancient coins I find I cannot get sufficient light when blocking off the direct source (presumably because much of that light is being reflected off the coin at different angles).
Q2. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the lighting in an axial set up? Could it be the quality of the glass I am using (I took a pane of glass out of a picture frame). I am using a fairly powerful LED light by residential standards (1000 lumen). Should I invest in an even more powerful light source to reduce the loss of light?
Peter
-
I can be of little help since I only have one LED ring and am happy with it. I know nothing about others and finding the same 'brand' of Chinese lights on eBay is not easy. The important features are:
1. Daylight color balance
2. Adjustable brightness
3. Sufficient diameter to fit your lens.
The easiest way to soften light is to point the light away from the coin and light the whole room rather than the coin. This requires more light or a longer exposure but, if your camera is solidly mounted, long exposures are not a problem. The LED lights I have, both direct and ring are much brighter than necessary so I have them turned way down using the adjustable brightness knob. The one I have is made for use on a stereo microscope. The larger ones made for regular photography are overkill.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2380057.m570.l1313.TR2.TRC1.A0.H0.Xmicroscope+led+ring+light.TRS0&_nkw=microscope+led+ring+light&_sacat=0
None of the above are identical to mine but I suspect many or all could be used. I can not suggest a specific one and have never used any but the one I have (AmScope model MIC 209). I have no reason to believe it is better than any other.
-
Thanks Doug,
I have given up on axial lighting for now as it makes my coins look unnatural, particularly the bronze ones.
I spent hours on photographing this King Philip AE bronze using different lighting set ups and settled on the following photo, which I like, other than the white overexposed highlights which I can not seem to avoid... Even if I turn the light away from the coin and increase exposure time, I still end up with washed out highlights. Perhaps it is a compact camera thing. I am now seriously contemplating a DSLR with macro lens.
Peter
-
While I would be the last person to discourage purchase of a decent DSLR, I'd call that an excellent image. Glaring highlights are certainly a problem but, often, I find myself sorry I eliminated them too successfully making the image look unnaturally flat when missing specular highlights altogether. When you hold a coin in hand you can wiggle it and move the highlights around so they don't blank out anything. A still image forces you to live with them, try to position them in a pleasing location or lose the natural look they convey. Each choice carries a downside.
If you position the coin on something just a bit adjustable (small lump of clay) and make very small changes in angle, you may find it shocking just how much change happens with how little movement. At some point I tend to give up and move on to another coin. When I return at a later date, I frequently wonder just what I was thinking when I shot the thing earlier. We want to make the coin look good but not unnatural and not conceal faults. People say they want photos that look like the coin in hand but I insist that this requires a decision on where the hand is located when it is defined as correct. Both of the coins below have faults that need to show but not be overemphasized. The billon Otho has fine field scratched right of the face. The more silvery Septimius has a lamination behind the head. I'm currently toying with the question whether one should be more sparkly and the other less so but it would be wrong for both to look the same since the coins are quite different 'in hand'. I may not be finished with these but I have so many other photos more in need of reshooting that they are 'on hold' for the time being.
PM me if you want to talk about dSLR's and don't want to bore the whole list.
-
Thanks Doug,
Very nice photos.
In your photos, the white highlights are not so white and you can see the underlying color and detail (other than perhaps in the edges of the highlights).
That is the effect that I see in so many professional photos of coins that I cannot seem replicate myself. In all my photos the white highlights are completely white and devoid of detail underneath. Changing exposure, how much light falls on the coin, the angle of the light etc. makes no difference to this. Even if I angle the light away so that there is a shadow over the coin, and then increase the exposure time, I still end up with white highlights...
Using the clay is a smart suggestion - I never thought of that. I've been using a little piece of tissue paper underneath to help angle the coin the way I want it.
I have sent you a PM re dSLRs.
Peter
-
Here's another photo of a coin which I have struggled to get right.
I have settled with this photo for now but plan to make another attempt shortly.
It is unusually shiny for a bronze coin. It looks like it has been re-patinated.
Its shininess combined with its round surfaces on the obverse has made it particularly difficult.
Per the previous posts, no matter where I position the light I end up with washed out highlights. All I can change is where these fall on the coin.
Though I can fix it afterwards in e.g. Photoshop, I have decided to work with the strict rule that I will not alter photos once taken (even levels).
The first photo is mine, the second and third photos are of the coin as advertised for sale by the Vendor I bought it from. Though I prefer my photo overall (which is more representative of the coin in hand), the highlights on the Vendor's photos are more subtle than on mine and don't result in any loss in detail.
Peter
-
I have uploaded photos of a single coin with 2 different lighting set ups.
The first has more direct light.
The second has more indirect light which I achieved by diffusing the light using tissue paper.
Calling for any opinions - which photo do you find more appealing?
Personally I am leaning towards the second one.
-
I'll be difficult. Obverse - second; reverse - first
This coin has a very great difference between the two sides. The obverse is high relief an convex while the reverse design sits in a depression. This make it likely that different lighting might be better for each side.
I might suggest shooting the obverse several times making little changes in the tilt so the highlights move to different places. Some will be worse. Perhaps one will be better. Small changes in angle can make big differences.
-
Thanks Doug,
That's great feedback. I must agree with you - the reverse comes out nicer with direct light.
I will try something different and post more photos in due course.
Peter
-
An embarrassing number of photos later, I present 2 more attempts.
1 with direct lighting but less glarish the previous coin.
1 with indirect lighting, but with adjustments made to get slightly more highlighting on the reverse.
I used 2 lights for this coin - one on each side. With only 1 light I found the obverse looked flat. With 2, the obverse looked more 3 dimensional.
Doug - I envy the photo you posted above. All details are sharp with no overexposed parts. Did you use a ring light for that image?
Peter
-
Looking good. Mine was taken before I had a ring and I really don't know which light it used. Sorry.
-
Thank you Doug,
I'll make sure to post photos soon of the same coin once I purchase a dSLR.
I am curious to see the difference it will make!
Peter
-
I borrowed a friend's dSLR but it did not come with a macro lens and we did not take any photos decent enough to display here.
I have attached a photo using a completely different lighting set up.
I used direct light from the top of the coin. In between the light and camera on the copy stand I placed a piece of baking paper which I folded back and forth like an accordion so that it could stand vertically with limited support and also do a better job at diffusing light than tissue paper.
I am happy with the result. I am happier with the obverse than the reverse which is worn fairly flat and dull no matter which lighting set up I used. The DIVA part of the legend is not out of focus - it is just more worn than the rest of the legend.
Peter
-
I am happy with the result. I am happier with the obverse than the reverse which is worn fairly flat and dull no matter which lighting set up I used. The DIVA part of the legend is not out of focus - it is just more worn than the rest of the legend.
You should be happy. Keep up the good work.
-
I agree. Nice photo.
-
Thank you both of you for your kind words. :)
Thank you Doug for your helpful advice.
Peter
-
Here are 3 photos of the same coin using different lighting set ups.
A. Direct light diffused with baking paper as earlier Faustina I coin.
B. Indirect light.
C. Axial lighting.
C. produces an image with the clearest features though it totally misrepresents what the coin looks like in hand.
B. is the closest to the coin as it appears in hand. Less clarity than C (axial lighting). Also appears flatter due to indirect lighting source.
A. did not come out as well as I expected...
I found this to be a particularly difficult subject to photograph as it is shiny with smoothed fields and the legends are not clearly visible on the reverse.
Peter
-
If the coin is green, B has to be best but it might be possible to balance the colors better on the others. Glare does tend to go blue.
-
I have settled for B.
On close inspection the coin appears to be tooled on the reverse as well as smoothed - I don't think it deserves any more photos... I really wish people would stop and think before irreversibly damaging a piece of ancient history.
I will try your suggestion on working on colour balance on the next series of coins I post here using different lighting set ups.
I am learning that lighting is horses for courses. The same set up rarely yields the same result with a different coin. I suppose that is part of the challenge and fun in photographing ancient coins! If you had the perfect set up and simply had to press a button to take a photo it would hardly be an engaging hobby!
Peter
-
Hi,
I have been experimenting with axial lighting. I have never used this technique before.
The typical set up as I understand it from various sources on the internet is to place a pane of glass above the coin at a 45 degree angle with the light source perpendicular to the coin so that light travelling from the source is reflected directly onto the coin and then straight up towards the lens of the camera as though originating from there. This lighting method removes shadows from the image and makes legends easier to read.
Many of those sources also recommend blocking extraneous light by e.g. placing an object in front of the coin so it is not exposed to he light source directly other than as reflected from the pane of glass.
I have found that I like the photos when I do not block the light from hitting the coin directly from the light source i.e. so there is a combination of direct light and axial lighting.
I have illustrated this with 2 photos. The first was taken without blocking the direct light, the second taken, with an object completely blocking direct light from the light source.
Do others experience this also and use a combination of the two?
Or is likely related to the manner with which I have taken the photos and the preferred approach is not to have direct lighting.
Also, when do others use axial lighting? I have found it results in nicer photos for some coins but not others.
Peter
I have retaken the Faustina sestertius using my most recent lighting set up (more diffused lighting) which is working better for me - I still get 'depth' in the coin whilst reducing overexposed highlights.
It is the third photo below. The first two photos were taken using the lighting set ups described in the quoted post above.
I am still not perfectly happy with this photo but believe it to be a significant improvement.
Peter
-
I agree that itis better. The reverse strikes me as very good but I can not say just what needs to be done to the obverse Perhaps change nothing in the lighting but prop the coin on a small bit of clay that would allow t to be wiggled a bit. Take several with tiny tilt differences ad see if one is better than the others.
-
Thank you Doug,
I will post some photos later after playing around with the angle of the obverse as you have suggested. It is unbelievable how changes to lighting can have such a profound effect on the overall appearance of the coin. Even subtle changes can mean the difference between a bad and good photo.
-
Taking decent photos of highly convex coins like the Philip II bronze coins I have posted in this thread has proven to be a challenge.
1) Light does not fall evenly on the coin like a flatter coins. This results in overexposed parts which I can either choose a) diffuse the light to a degree but can make the resulting coin look bland; or b) as Doug has suggested - move the coin until the highlights rest on the part of the coin which looks the least terrible. At the same time there are also underexposed parts unless the light comes directly from above using axial lighting or a ring light (which I do not have). 2 lights, one on each side, seems to have a better result than bouncing the light onto the underexposed parts using e.g. a white card.
2) Keeping all parts of the coin in focus is not possible with my compact camera, even at higher f-stops. I did try to merge a couple of images taken from focusing on different parts of the coin, but the difference was nominal.
The photo below is the result of countless takes. Particularly difficult due to the texture on the coin and soft, less defined features.
Can anyone share their techniques for taking photos convex coins like this one?
Peter
-
Digital photos that are overexposed do not postprocess well into good images. I would suggest setting the camera to give two stops less exposure and try again with other things being the same.
-
Thank you Doug,
Reducing the exposure does lead to better outcomes in post-processing. That is proven in the case of this coin in the photos below.
Focus still remains a primary issue for me with highly reflective concave coins. Higher f-stops does not increase depth of field enough to keep most of the coin in focus. On this coin the lower half the coin (particularly around the mouth) is still hazy with not enough detail picked up. I think it is due to the reflective nature of the coin combined with the concave surface of the obverse. I seem to get better photos of flatter toned coins or coins without shiny surfaces. It may be limitation of the lens and sensor of my compact camera and one I must live with until I get my dSLR (very soon, I hope!). I may have to accept a degree of post-processing and image sharpening in the meantime.
I have attached the same coin - the first image is unsharpened but with levels adjusted. The second image is the same photo but with unsharp mask applied.
Peter
-
Here is my final attempt.
Tilting the coin backwards so that more light hits the lower part of the coin assists somewhat. But I am still not pleased with the outcome.
First image is unsharpened. The second has had 'unsharp mask' applied to it. I don't like doing that as it feels like cheating...but I suppose it is there to be used and not all images come out sharp enough.
I will wait until I have better equipment before posting another photo of this coin.
Peter
-
Congratulations on arrival at an important stage in the process. Your photo is as good as the coin but you realize that there will always be other answers. I doubt better equipment will help a lot but it does make the process more fun and I keep wanting more, too. Now do the same with other coins. I find myself hesitant to buy coins that I fear I will not be able to photograph but learning which ones fit that group really is a difficult process. The prettiest coins are not always the most fun to photograph.
-
Thank you Doug,
That's very high praise coming from you!
Given I intend to collect these rather concave / convex Philip II coins, I must grow proficient at photographing them no matter how difficult!
I have had a new batch arrive this week and all of them have been easier to photograph than the one above.
Hopefully others have found the above posts and your advice as helpful as I have with respect to understanding lighting and how it affects the quality of photos.
To summarise some learnings to date with such coins - from my experience with my equipment and set up which comprises a compact digital camera and copy stand with 2 mounted moveable lights:
1. making subtle changes to the angle of the coin leads to large differences. Continued experimentation is recommended.
2. on the obverse which is concave, using 2 lights, one on each side, produces a better outcome for those coins with a very high relief. Otherwise it is hard to get light to the other side of the coin unless there have the light directly above (e.g. axial or ring light).
3. shinier coins even ones with patina requires careful selection of the level of exposure - err on less exposure, not more.
4. Using a smaller aperture (higher f-stop) is necessary to keep more of the coin in focus.
5. Diffusing the light helps reduce the amount of overexposed white parts on the coin. Softening the light too much however can result in a bland lifeless coin.
6. The angle of the light makes a HUGE difference to the clarity of symbols, legends and other features. For instance, light falling from one side can obscure important features of the coin. However light falling from the other side might make them pop out.
7. Different lighting might suit one side e.g. the obverse and not the other side (reverse). For instance where I said above it is helpful to sometimes use two lights (one on each side), this is not true of the reverse which is convex. Two lights obscures the detail on the reverse.
Peter
-
Those 7 pretty well describe life as we photograph it. Perhaps I'd add one more.
8. Keep practicing. If you find you are getting frustrated, take a break.
-
I use gimp to edit my photos, and having a pure black background makes the job easier. Here are some notes regarding my implementation of Doug Smith's shadow tube.
In order to get the blackest background, it is best to have the background as far as possible from the light source. So the shadow tube should be as long as possible, within the constraints of your copy stand etc. A whiskey bottle box is a manageable size. Any whiskey can be used, but after much trial and error I decided on a mid-level single-malt.
The tube is lined with black velvet. There are various types of velvet. Go for the deepest black and avoid anything shiny. The fabric sheds lots of lint when it is cut. I lined the edges with glue to prevent further fraying. (Alternatively, one could buy some black flocking paper from an astronomical telescope supply company.)
My first photos were OK, but the background was not absolutely black. I use a ring light, and the bottom of the tube is perpendicular to the light source. That made me think of using a reflective cone to deflect the light away from the center. I thought about using an acrylic martini glass, or a plastic soda bottle, but the dimensions were not quite right. Finally I settled on reflective window film, which allowed me to create a cone of exactly the right dimensions.
In order to accommodate small coins I chose a thin dowel. To provide a stable base for larger coins, I cut up some old markers which can be fitted over the dowel to increase the diameter. Paper is spooled and inserted into the markers so that they fit snugly. Some of the markers are angled on top in order to get irregular coins to face up.
The dowel is inserted and into a wooden disk that fits into the bottom of the shadow tube. The wooden disk is glued onto a stack of old DVD's. The DVD's sit on the base of a DVD case with the spindle cut off at about 1cm. This allows the shadow tube to be rotated smoothly and easily.
In order to make further minor position adjustments, I mounted the shadow tube on a home-made X-Y positioning stage which, while functional, is not a good design, so I won't go into detail.
Finally, a stack of wooden shims allows me to raise and lower the X-Y stage (I don't have a copy stand which would allow me to raise and lower the camera).
-
I am glad to see so much thought put into this. I am currently happy with a shade producer made from a matte black plastic flower pot of the type you get buying flowers from a nursery. I find that the tapered sides reflect less than a straight tube. On top, I rest a plastic take-out food container with a hole cut just a bit larger than the coin. I have four sizes. My old fashion dowel support is now a steel rod which accepts various interchangeable tops. Most coins use a tube from a plastic ball point pen with the silicon rubber soft grip pulled up so the coin rests on the soft material. Larger coins use one made from a disposable syringe that came with liquid Baby Ibuprofen. Smallest ones use a longer support tip made from a ball point refill with a tiny bit of clay on top.
I have never learned Gimp so continue to use Canon DPP freeware (comes with camera) and Adobe Photoshop Elements (far from free but I am used to it and resist change).
In the right image below, the tall post is the steel rod while the other three are placed there for the photo on a rack made to keep them handy. I may be able to give up collecting coins since making these Rube Goldberg photo rigs has become a hobby in itself. :laugh:
-
Doug and EB,
I can see that you both prefer black backgrounds.
What advantages are there in photographing a coin with a black background instead of photographing it with some other background e.g. white and filling it in later with black? Is it that it saves a step in post processing or do you notice that the coins photograph better when using the black background?
Peter
-
Hi Peter,
For me it's the post-processing. I like to do a background fill (bucket fill in GIMP) to completely eliminate the background. White looks nice, but I find it much harder to get a clean edge.
By the way, for those who use GIMP, I will be posting in another thread some python scripts that I have written to semi-automate the process of background fill, crop, and arranging side-by-side.
Regards,
EB
-
I will be very interested to see your Python scripts.
My observation is that light from a white background bounces around and creates flare that eats into coin detail reducing micro contrasts. If you want white in the end, shoot on white. If you want only a photo of the coin, the black background is nothing and does not interfere with the coin. Black is the absence of light so we call it level 000000 or 00 of each red, green and blue; white is the presence of more light than the camera can record which is ff (hexidecimal for 255) level for each color. It is easier to deal with zero than to stop exactly on 255.
-
By the way, for those who use GIMP, I will be posting in another thread some python scripts that I have written to semi-automate the process of background fill, crop, and arranging side-by-side.
Hi EB,
Do your python scripts cater for white backgrounds as well? What about where you do not have a perfectly white / black background? I rarely get white, especially when using indirect lighting. If I use direct lighting I get close but even then it needs some cleaning up. I am currently using the fuzzy select tool to remove the background which is usually a matter of seconds, followed by feathering, then cutting and pasting the obverse and reverse images into a new image as new layers.
I upgraded my laptop recently (MacBook Pro) and installed the latest version of GIMP. For the first time ever it is crashing on me from time to time. It also does not remember my settings when I exit and go back in. Otherwise, I enjoy using it. I used Photoshop initially many years ago before moving to GIMP and thought the change was seamless as it is just as intuitive to use.
I will be very interested to see your Python scripts.
My observation is that light from a white background bounces around and creates flare that eats into coin detail reducing micro contrasts. If you want white in the end, shoot on white. If you want only a photo of the coin, the black background is nothing and does not interfere with the coin. Black is the absence of light so we call it level 000000 or 00 of each red, green and blue; white is the presence of more light than the camera can record which is ff (hexidecimal for 255) level for each color. It is easier to deal with zero than to stop exactly on 255.
Hi Doug,
In your opinion, is the improvement in quality noticeable enough to warrant playing around with black background even where you plan to insert a white background later? If so, I may give it a try - though I doubt I can put together as impressive a set up as you and EB!
Peter
-
No, if you want white, I would shoot on gray and select out to white. The trouble comes when the white is too bright when shot. Of course the background white has to be the same color white as the coin illumination lights.
White backgrounds will make coins look darker. The two below are the same image but some of the black background was turned white in half. Cut and paste from these images and you will see they match.
-
To my eyes, the colors look different, not just the level of brightness!
Thanks for clarifying. I keep the original gimp files for each of my photos so it is very simple to change the background if I decide to do so in the future.
-
For me it's the post-processing. I like to do a background fill (bucket fill in GIMP) to completely eliminate the background. White looks nice, but I find it much harder to get a clean edge.
Shoot with a coloured background with the coin above the background to avoid a shadow. One click with 'Magic Wand' (I use Paintshop Pro but I presume Gimp is similar) and the whole coloured background is selected. Then use flood fill to substitute with white, black, transparent or whatever. Nice clean edge and no leftover colour. You also lessen the problems mention by Doug with shooting a white background.
-
Hi PeterD,
Thank you for the suggestion. I had tried shooting with a colored background, but shadows caused problems. However, after reading your post I think I will try again with more distance between the coin and the background.
Regards,
EB
-
Thank you Doug,
I'll make sure to post photos soon of the same coin once I purchase a dSLR.
I am curious to see the difference it will make!
Peter
I just purchased a DSLR with a 100mm macro lens.
A few hundred photos in, I find I have spent most of today photographing everything but coins!
I will post coin photos soon for comparison purposes.
From the few photos I have taken of coins I believe I am achieving superior results to my Canon Powershot G9X (compact camera). The biggest difference seems to be dynamic range.
My DSLR is also a Canon and the menu structure and features are largely similar to my compact camera. This means that the learning curve is not as steep as I thought. Therefore hope to post something very soon.
Peter
-
OK here is a comparison of the same coin using 2 cameras.
The photo using the compact camera came out surprisingly well. But I have taken between 15,000 to 20,000 photos now with this camera so am very familiar with all functions and settings and which aperture / exposure works best with different types of coins.
The photo taken with the DSLR has a much greater resolution due to the macro lens allowing for a much larger photo (both cameras have around the same number of mega pixels).
The resulting image was much larger with more parts in focus. I used manual focus in the SLR photo. I am still experimenting with manual vs. auto focus. So far I have failed to see any difference in my photos using manual vs. auto focus.
The most notable difference is the greater range of colours in the photo taken using the DSLR. This is particularly visible when you focus your eye on the earthen fill.
I still have lots of experimenting to do with my new camera.
I will post further comparisons once I have had sufficient practice.
[Edit: I have added the final DSLR photo with the reverse]
Peter
-
The lighting is more even with the DSLR which is a big improvement. A bit of reflected light from the bottom sometimes helps with high relief coins but it is easy to overdo. That is what I accomplish with my small paper ring around the coin.
Canon cameras come packed with free software called Digital Photo Professional that allows use of RAW mode and a lot of controls for image processing but NOT cropping and combining images so you still need something else. While this is only somewhat useful for coins it makes a lot of difference on some images where you have less control over the lighting circumstances like nature and kids. I recommend learning it. Other manufacturers sell similar software but that is an extra $100 while Canon is free. It was on a disk packed with the camera.
-
Hi Doug,
I have updated my post to show the reverse of the coin tool as taken with the DSLR. I am pleased with the initial results.
1. I have tried the paper ring technique with my compact camera in the past but I could never get it to work. I would end up with strange looking results. I will try it again with the DSLR and post the results here.
2. Is there much of an advantage to shooting in RAW vs. JPEG? I have never used the RAW format. Do you find the differences noticeable enough that they are worth the effort of additional post processing? I did some reading and was surprised to learn that with JPEG the camera does quite a bit of processing (including sharpening) so am now curious to understand what the difference would be if I shot in RAW. I have no knowledge yet about how to process RAW photos. Do you happen to have any examples you could share?
Peter
-
All of my photos from recent years have been RAW. For coins, it makes less difference if you are careful to get everything just right before you shoot. I still do coins RAW since I am comfortable with the concept.
The big advantage of RAW is that you do not make decisions about an image that are not reversible like you do with JPG. When you shoot JPG, the camera takes the RAW image and processes it sight unseen based on settings you made before the shot was made. The RAW image is then deleted with no chance of review. When you shoot RAW, you make those same decisions and save the result as a JPG image but not until you have viewed what the result will be in terms of color balance, tonal range and to a limited degree exposure. The really big difference is you can opt to retain more than 8 bits of each color so making a low contrast image more snappy will not leave gaps in the tonal curve that would result if you added contrast postprocessing an 8 bit by definition JPG. If no changes are made, there will be no difference but it leaves open a chance to correct things without gaps in the tones of the image.
I suppose this is like asking a tone deaf person like me to appreciate the difference between a Stradivarius and a Wal-Mart violin???
-
Hi Doug,
Thank you for pointing out that Canon software!
Not only does it allow processing in RAW, it allows me to remotely and wirelessly control my camera via my computer and see my photos (in full resolution) immediately after each shoot!
Wow!
I never realised how laborious the process I took for granted of transferring the SD card back and forth between camera and computer was by comparison!
I sent you a PM but on reflection I think my questions may be of interest to others and is still within the subject / theme of this thread.
1. The Canon software has preset processing (e.g. sharpening) which it applies to each RAW image and which can be undone and modified. Do you start off with that preset processing and then make adjustments, or do you turn that preset processing off and start from the raw RAW image?
2. On the subject of lighting, is there any difference for a given aperture in having more lighting and faster shutter speed, vs. less lighting and slower shutter speed? My reading on this says that exposure is theoretically the same (I am using aperture priority mode) but that a faster shutter speed is preferable for sharper images. I am using a copy stand and would like to know because I can get more time from my battery operated light if I use less brightness. Also I would like to know in case there are any noticeable differences in image quality. I have not noticed any.
Thanks,
Peter
-
1. Sharpening is best applied last after cropping and all other postprocessing so I don't use it in the RAW conversion step but only at the end.
2. Smaller apertures (larger f/ numbers like f/16) give more depth of field than wider ones (like f/8) which can be good shooting high relief coins BUT they increase an aberration called diffraction so there is a place in the middle that gives best results. This differs according to sensor size and amount you will be enlarging the image. With my full frame DSLR, I shoot at f/9 or f/11 but suspect your crop camera might be better at f/8 or f/9. Many point and shoot cameras are diffraction limited at full aperture because of their tiny sensors. The differences here are gradual and may not show up much unless you make huge prints. There is always the fact that most of our coins add their own unsharpness so we might not see differences on coins lacking fine detail. All this assumes your tripod/copy stand is rock solid and you are using a remote release or self timer to take the shot. Vibrations are worse than diffraction. At some point you may be tempted to have a 20x30" print made of a super sharp coin just to prove you can but for selling coins online, all this is moot.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
The above will tell more than most people want to know. It has a utility where you input the variables and it calculates whether you are diffraction limited for a specific camera and aperture. Your camera is a 1.6x crop model and should match other Canons of that group.
I will be in and out a lot this week and next so may be very slow at replying to questions.
-
Hi Doug,
Thanks again for the information - you are a wealth of knowledge. The article was particularly useful and did a great job in explaining diffraction as I never really understood what was causing it. I would encourage others to read it too.
When initially testing aperture, I found f/11 to be optimum but achieved a better depth of field at f/13 for the particularly convex / concave Philip II coins I am photographing (around 30 more to go!) without noticeable effects of diffraction (though I am sure it would be noticeable to your experienced eyes!).
My question on lighting was assuming a constant aperture (e.g. f/11), is there any difference between having the same theoretical exposure with a faster shutter speed and more brightness from the light source vs. less brightness from the light source and a slower shutter speed. Reading I have done suggests go for an increase in brightness and get a faster shutter speed to reduce effects of vibration etc. but I was wondering if you had noticed any difference on quality in doing so.
Peter