Help getting a good picture

[renegade3220]

Ok, so I have read a lot of posts about taking a good picture of a coin. I don't have an uber camera but found the post about pics with a cheap camera very informative. I have built my own little cheap setup that I mimicked from the one in that post and can take very nice picture of a penny ( dark toned from 1968; tried to not pick a shiny one) however I can't get a decent pic of a roman coin. I have better ones when I wasn't even trying. I have tried to focus on a piece of paper with typing on it, set up a timed shot, and sill nothing!

What gives!?!?!?!?

[James Anderson]

Need to see some examples of your  Roman pics.                 

[slokind]

One possibility: the paper with typing is at least a millimeter farther from the focus plane than the high points on the coin are—in many cases farther.
Pat L.

[Enodia]

One possibility: the paper with typing is at least a millimeter farther from the focus plane than the high points on the coin are—in many cases farther.
Pat L.

can't that be fixed by using a longer exposure with a smaller aperture?

~ Peter

[slokind]

It can be to a certain extent, depending on the optics and ability to change camera settings, as well as the closeness of the focal plane to the subject.  If in Macro mode it is as close as you can get it and still focus at maximum zoom, you probably have no depth even at f.32.
But he spoke of getting a good picture of the quite flat US one cent but not of the ancient coin, which he mentioned he had tried to control by focusing on a font printed on the background (same would be true of graph paper).  Possibly, if your camera is cheap enough, the CCD chip in it can't handle focusing without very linear detail.  Some of those in cell phones can't.
Pat L.

[Danny S. Jones]

One excellent virtue of cheap point and shoot cameras is the very thing that sets them apart from the more expensive ones: a tiny aperture. This creates a very long focal length, allowing most everything in the picture to be in focus all at the same time. The original post didn't tell what the exact problem was, whether a focus problem in the camera setup or possibly improper lighting on a dark patina not allowing for proper exposure or the AF to even focus on the coin.

Explaining the problem in more detail and posting pictures will be more productive if you want specific answers. There are many here who would love to help.

Regards,
Danny

[renegade3220]

Ok, so here is some stuff.  First, my camera is a SONY Cybershot 12.1 Mega Pixel, wide angle lense 30 mm, 4x optical zoom, optical steady shot, full 1080 hd still image.

Here are some pics.  The first one is in my little contraption of a setup.  It is the obverse of a VOT coin.  You can't make out anything on it.  The coin is raise off of the surface below, I have a natural fluorescent light aimed at it, and the camera is resting by itself and the photo was taken using the countdown timer. 

The second and third photos are just me shooting the coin on a peice of paper holding the camera by hand.

I threw the fourth in because I could.  It literally is me just taking a picture of the coin underwater and through a magnifying lense.  It isn't great but it is so much brighter, and looks much more like the coins color.

I just do not know...  Thanks for the help.

[renegade3220]

Ohh ya, the coin is in the process of being cleaned.  It is much cleaner since these pictures!!! 

And these pics have been cleaned up in Photoshop. I used the layers option to bring to bring out the natural photo colors.  I am not good with any CS3 program, but my wife is a wiz at them! 

[Danny S. Jones]

Actually, the simple photos (2 & 3) have the best lighting and detail, and are in sharpest focus. It seems we go to great lengths to get pictures to look a little better, when for $1000 or so less, we could settle for adequate. I'm preaching to myself here, having gone all out in photo equipment to take better coin photos. After a new DSLR, lens, filters, stand, lighting, etc... I'm seeing maybe a 10% upgrade in picture quality. (Quality is hard to quantify.) Anyway, you're getting the hang of it.

Nice green patina, by the way.

Danny

[mihali84]

I agree with Danny that photos 2 and 3 are the best of the four.  I also shoot my coins on a piece of white paper and it has worked out pretty well so far.  I usually use a random object, a marble bookend in my case, to stabilize the camera when shooting, very simple setup. 

Mike

[renegade3220]

I knew you guys were going to say that.  I just wish I could get them a little brighter.  Right now, my natural light fluoro bulb is coming in from the side.  It just seems that no matter what I do I can't get it better.  The coin has even more detail than shown in those pictures, but that is what I am getting.  I guess I will stick to just sitting the coin on white paper.  My little photo box seems to be falling flat.  I noticed that the one I mimicked it after took an amazing photo of a coin (see thread Good Photos with a Cheap Camera), with a camera older and not as good as mine.  I am obviously missing something with that. 

I hope to be finished with that coin soon.  It looks really dry as you can see, so I will maybe try the whole Ren Wax thing on it.

Does anyone have any advice on the settings on a digital camera like this that are typically best to use?  Thanks.

[James Anderson]

I always use Aperture Priority with the setting in the middle range. You can find as many opinions on this (usually fiercely held) as there are photographers. But lighting is always the key. For ancient coins I generally make at least a dozen images of each side, with different adjustments. I have also experimented with a variety of different types of lights. You probably should too. Its a useful learning experience. Jim A