Lighting direction when photographing coins

[dougsmit]

This image shows the light set up that made my non-directional images.  As shown it would produce the bottom row of images in my set of three.  To get the middle row, I held a card between light and coin blocking the direct light from the bulb.  The top row was taken by bending the gooseneck and pointing the reflector straight at the coin.  The camera was set to select the proper shutter speed for the f/11 aperture I had set.  That was several seconds for the middle row (10 seconds for the black coin) and under one second for the top row with brighter, direct light.



Less directional coin lighting set up in a closet

A: Canon Digital Rebel DSLR with 100mm macro lens and 1.4x converter mounted on old enlarger frame as a copystand

B: Compact fluorescent bulb in gooseneck fixture pointed up as shown for non directional light or aimed at coin for directional (top row of sample set)

C: White card slipped under boxes on closet shelf to provide bounce surface

D: Coin holding rig (details in right photo)

E: Black felt background

F: Cardboard box to catch coins that accidentally drop off dowel (added after a bad experience)

G: Wood base sitting on lazy susan to allow easy rotation of coin

H: Gray reflector to define edges of coin

I: Dowel rod to support coin far above background

J. Black liner to keep down reflections on background (H and J are attached to a plastic container with the bottom removed).

[dougsmit]

About the time you think you have a handle on lighting a coin for photography, along comes a coin that refuses to cooperate.
Today's subject is a Jital of Mangubarni (feel free to correct me if you know I'm wrong) 1220-1224 AD.  What separates this from hundreds of other varieties is the legends that only partly show on the coin so it is desirable that any photo of the coin show the letters as well as possible.  The coin is a mid grade billon with a bit of a texture that competes with the die details more than would be the case on a coin of better silver or pure copper. 

The top image was shot with the light more or less like shown in my last post.  The bottom one turns the light directly at the coin and places it as close as possible to the lens so a glare bounces from the high parts of the design into the lens.  Despite the fact that it overemphasizes the surface texture, this glare makes the lettering stand out a but more clearly. 

In hand, both look like the coin depending on which way you wiggle it or whether you are working in normal or bright, very directional light (as you find near a window).  The color of the two does not match because the glare reflects the color of the lamp more than the metal.  This also can be observed when examining the coin in hand. 

Which strikes you as the better image of the coin?

[Randygeki(h2)]

I like the relief the upper photo shows, the second seems rather flat, but aside from that I like the 2nd shot more. Both are great shots though. My photgraphy skills needs much improovement so my opinion doesnt carry much weight 

[James Anderson]

Keep working on it! I'll bet you can get some images that combine the best of both approaches. Jim A

[Matthew W2]

I prefer the second shot (bottom) - the top one looks too flat to me.

[Mark Z]

Doug,

That's an interesting idea having the coin essentially suspended above the background. Is that an idea of yours or is that common?

mz

[dougsmit]

Common.  A general premise of photography is to separate the subject so the background is out of focus and does not compete with the subject for attention.  I have been propping coins on dowels since before the Internet and do not remember where I got that idea.  More people use glass which I do if I want the background to be something other than blank but glass introduces glares so you have to be careful with angles.

[Mark Z]

Common.  A general premise of photography is to separate the subject so the background is out of focus and does not compete with the subject for attention.  I have been propping coins on dowels since before the Internet and do not remember where I got that idea.  More people use glass which I do if I want the background to be something other than blank but glass introduces glares so you have to be careful with angles.

Do you have any problems with the camera focusing on the wrong thing, i.e. the background as opposed to the coin?

mz

[Danny S. Jones]

Doug,

I finally took your advice today and decided that I would no longer photoshop my backgrounds, but focus on better coin photography. Taking your various examples shown here and on your website, I built my own rig. I lined a box with black construction paper and black velvet cloth at the bottom. I then secured a dowel rod colored with a black marker via a screw through the bottom of the box. With aluminum foil wrapped over a piece of cardstock on one side and a plain white piece of cardstock in the other, I made reflectors that are attached to the sides of by box.

I tried various types of lighting before finding what seemed to work best was what you had already recommended. After trying several bounce flash accessories, umbrella monolights, a 75 watt studio modeling light, 500 watt studio flood lights, and even my softbox, what I eventually found that worked the best was a compact florescent light that I positioned on a studio tripod above the camera and a florescent desk lamp to illuminate the coin sides (with the help of the reflectors).  If your wondering why the overkill just for coin photos... I dabble in video production and have a lot of studio lighting equipment.

I take photography (my other hobby) quite seriously, but have never excelled at shooting macro. Quite frankly I stink at coin photography and try to make up for it with photoshop. This to me seems deceitful to a certain degree, and I've always wanted to perfect the art of photographing my coins so I wouldn't have to cut and paste the backgrounds. My problem was always trying to get a consistently even white or solid black while at the same time lighting the coin correctly. Since I am partial to black (I think it seems more classy) I tried my hand today at getting a perfectly solid, bokeh-blurred black background. I think I've finally got it!

This coin pictured below has a shiny, solid black patina and is from an uncleaned lot I just finished working on. The photo, other than obverse and reverse being rotated and joined, is completely untouched from the camera - with a true solid black background. I used a Canon 7D shooting raw at 18MP. Shutter speed of 1/4sec with an aperture of 8. The coin itself is nothing special, and I know it's far from perfect, but I can truly say it's the first completely natural, un-photoshopped coin photo that I've been happy with. I welcome your comments or suggestions on how to improve. As soon as I dig out my other camera, I'll take a picture of my setup.

(Click the photo to enlarge.)

Respectfully,
Danny Jones

[dougsmit]

My only comment is that there is no such thing as a 'no-Photoshopped' RAW image.  RAW files are just a string of 1's and 0' without processing in a program of some sort (Photoshop or DPP or Elements or....).  Since you are going to the trouble to shoot RAW (I do, others should) I'd suggest going a step farther and playing with the controls to make the image exactly what you might want.  This strikes me as a bit dark and contrasty so I'd back off on the blacks slider just a bit and see if you can recover a little more texture in the low end.  If there is no detail there, try increasing exposure when shooting. 

I have been relatively happy with my shots taken in a small white closet allowing a lot of bounce light but it works poorly for very low relief coins which do better with more direction.  Black coins are hard but so are any color that is shiny.

For Mark:  Trouble? No trouble.  A shot like this just requires manual focus.  All coin shots require paying attention to focus at least to the point of setting the camera to favor focus in the center or placing the coin over a focus sensor.  I usually take the lazy way out and let the autofocus do the work but I do ocassionally have to reshoot something with manual override to get what I want.  While this example was shot 'honestly' as shown in the setup shot, this really would be just as well done with a cut and paste in postprocessing.

[Danny S. Jones]

My only comment is that there is no such thing as a 'no-Photoshopped' RAW image.  RAW files are just a string of 1's and 0' without processing in a program of some sort (Photoshop or DPP or Elements or....).  Since you are going to the trouble to shoot RAW (I do, others should) I'd suggest going a step farther and playing with the controls to make the image exactly what you might want.  This strikes me as a bit dark and contrasty so I'd back off on the blacks slider just a bit and see if you can recover a little more texture in the low end.  If there is no detail there, try increasing exposure when shooting. 

Raw files give you plenty of leeway for post-processing. My idea was to get it right in the camera with as little to no post processing necessary. That way, I can focus on shooting the coins and not playing around excessively with Photoshop. The Severus below was tweaked in Canon's RAW program, Digital Photo Professional, and then combined in Photoshop. Although it is better than my last attempt, I do admit it still lacks the life that I can see in your photography.

I used an umbrella reflector to give an evenly spread light over the coin and a florescent desk lamp for directional light. With the foil and cardstock, I reflected that light to illuminate the sides of the coin, and used a 75 watt modeling light/softbox to offset the shadows on the left. I tried the halogen floodlights also, but they were too much, and the photos looked unnatural. Trying numerous positions for the directional light, I am happy but not completely satisfied with the result.

What can I do to improve?

Respectfully,
Danny Jones

[dougsmit]

My first thought looking at this image is that there is nothing on the coin that is black.  The darkest shadows are a bit milky making me suspect that you overdid the shadow fill.  If the coin is, as it looks, bright; it will be hard to keep the highlights from being lost.  The coin needs both sparkle and black on a very small amount of the area even if we lose detail in that area.  Also play with rotating the coin making minor changes in the light angle from the umbrella.  I have no experience with umbrellas but suspect there is enough directional light from them that it could make a difference.  It is easier to rotate the coin and correct that in postprocessing than it is to move the light.

[Danny S. Jones]

After being shot five times by a Canon, Severus is no worse for for the wear. However, I think I may have found a sweet-spot in my lighting configuration with just the right mix of reflected light from the umbrella and directed light from my florescent desk lamp. I discarded the softbox light and blocked all other ambient lighting so I could better control the direction and intensity of light to the subject matter. Too much fill light was giving me too little contrast, as in the first coin in the top row (the same shot as the last post). Shot two seemed to have too much shadow, and shot three too much highlight. I included shot four (first coin on the bottom row) because I thought the almost "negative" effect was an interesting look, shot with a high intensity light shining straight down on the coin next to the camera lens (although this would never be a useful coin photo.) The last shot was the look I was searching for. The lighting, contrast, shadows and highlights all serve to bring this portrait to life. It is essentially the image I have been trying to achieve. The only pitfall I had with this shot was sacrificing the lighting to the back of the head to achieve the shadowed relief of the inscription. I welcome all suggestions, and I'm sure with practice, I'll improve.

Respectfully,
Danny


(click to enlarge photo)

[dougsmit]

I like bottom right best.  If I were to play more, I'd try moving the umbrella closer to the camera and see if the effect changes for the better or worse.  I'll point out that doing so will put a lot of light in the viewfinder so you may need to either block the eyepiece to avoid fooling the meter or shooting on manual.  I now shoot on manual using the meter on the obverse to determine the exposure I want and shooting the reverse at the exact same setting.  I find this makes balancing the two haves easier than letting the camera change its mind a little between the two exposures.  Shooting RAW makes it easy to adjust later but it is easier to do both the same when possible.

[James Anderson]

I've found that a small plastic mirror about one inch square can usually be effective in dealing with dark areas such as the one on the coin at lower right. I have several such mirrors cut from a sheet of mirrored acrylic. Some experiment with location is always necessary, and you will need some type of soft neutrally colored plastic or even a bit of modeling clay to hold the mirror in place. Jim A

[Matthew W2]

After being shot five times by a Canon, Severus is no worse for for the wear. However, I think I may have found a sweet-spot in my lighting configuration with just the right mix of reflected light from the umbrella and directed light from my florescent desk lamp. I discarded the softbox light and blocked all other ambient lighting so I could better control the direction and intensity of light to the subject matter. Too much fill light was giving me too little contrast, as in the first coin in the top row (the same shot as the last post). Shot two seemed to have too much shadow, and shot three too much highlight. I included shot four (first coin on the bottom row) because I thought the almost "negative" effect was an interesting look, shot with a high intensity light shining straight down on the coin next to the camera lens (although this would never be a useful coin photo.) The last shot was the look I was searching for. The lighting, contrast, shadows and highlights all serve to bring this portrait to life. It is essentially the image I have been trying to achieve. The only pitfall I had with this shot was sacrificing the lighting to the back of the head to achieve the shadowed relief of the inscription. I welcome all suggestions, and I'm sure with practice, I'll improve.

Respectfully,
Danny


(click to enlarge photo)

I think the one on the bottom right is definitely the best  - can you give more detail on how you did the lighting for that one?

[cmcdon0923]

Personally, I like the first image best.

The hair detail on the back of the head is the strongest of them all....MUCH more so that on the last image, which except for that one point, is definitely the second best, IMHO.

[slokind]

Yes, no. 5 is really very nice.  No. 4, on the other hand, is one of the temptations that I find vile.
No. 5 looks like a real silver coin.
Now see what you can do with a sestertius or a tetrassarion of some kind.
Pat L.

[Danny S. Jones]

I think the one on the bottom right is definitely the best  - can you give more detail on how you did the lighting for that one?

The umbrella light was raised about one meter above the camera to illuminate the entire coin softly, while all other ambient lighting in the room was blocked or turned off. I then lowered the position of the directional florescent desk lamp until the proper highlights and shadows were achieved. Also note that the desk lamp was on the right side of the coin with the illumination coming from the foil reflector on the left side. One word of caution, though: I am not the expert on this subject. I am still learning and experimenting. To that end, you should look to Doug Smith, Pat Lawrence, Bill Welch (moonmoth) and others who have mastered the art of coin photography with years of experience.

Personally, I like the first image best.

The hair detail on the back of the head is the strongest of them all....MUCH more so that on the last image, which except for that one point, is definitely the second best, IMHO.

For recognizing and studying detail, I agree with you on that point. I could use a reflector or mirror as mentioned by Jim above to illuminate the shadowed area, but my goal here was to create an aesthetically pleasing photo which would bring a spark of life to the portrait. As Doug pointed out, to achieve that goal, there had to be a certain degree of light and shadow, even if they are blown out in small areas. A ring light or in my case the umbrella video light, if over-used, highlights all the various details but creates an unnatural look. The last coin was the one I chose to go with because of aesthetic quality and the fact that it flatters the portrait, keeping detail without the harsh overtones.

Yes, no. 5 is really very nice.  No. 4, on the other hand, is one of the temptations that I find vile.
No. 5 looks like a real silver coin.
Now see what you can do with a sestertius or a tetrassarion of some kind.
Pat L.

Thank you, Pat. I covet your opinions and value your compliments. I only included no. 4 because this is a discussion of lighting direction. Vile is an excellent adjective, as this the the lighting direction of choice for many modern proof coins, accentuating the luster while drowning out detail. I find it an interesting look, though unusable for any true purpose other than exaggeration for the sale of a coin.
Now to see if I can find just the right angles for low relief Judeans and Romans as well as extremely high relief Greeks.

Respectfully,
Danny

[James Anderson]

Just to clarify what I posted earlier, I didn't mean using a reflector to illuminate, which is of course common, but rather to use a small amount of light to soften a strong shadow. As soon as  I saw the coin image I was wanting to try it . But it is a useful technique, and worth keeping in mind. Jim A

[moonmoth]

Just to clarify what I posted earlier, I didn't mean using a reflector to illuminate, which is of course common, but rather to use a small amount of light to soften a strong shadow. As soon as  I saw the coin image I was wanting to try it . But it is a useful technique, and worth keeping in mind. Jim A

I used to do this with a smallish piece of white paper, but eventually I decided that it lost too much contrast and definition.  Now, if part of the coin appears too dark, so dark that all detail is lost, I lighten the very darkest tones a little with Photoshop.

Bill

[dougsmit]

  Now, if part of the coin appears too dark, so dark that all detail is lost, I lighten the very darkest tones a little with Photoshop.

Bill

I also consider this the best answer when the goal is a pretty picture most easily obtained.  That is why I photograph most coins but I might have to consider whether the technique changed anything that would make it inappropriate to sell the coin based on the image. 

[slokind]

Here's a photo quite unfair to a nice denarius.  But I had no idea it would happen.  It shows how sensitive silver is to color.
The usual darkened room, the usual Ott-lites.  No other lamps even in adjacent rooms.  The usual set up.
I was so surprised when I brought the coin up to pair the obv. and rev.
Then I looked at myself; I was wearing an orange tee shirt!
That was the only warm color in the environment, but with the DSL I do tend to stand closer, since I've been peering through the viewfinder...
I could hardly believe it when I saw it.
It's a lousy photo, anyway, but I thought it would be useful for someone, to see that what you wear is part of the set-up.  Maybe next time you want to keep Septimius's curls from being too dark, just wear a white shirt!
Pat L.
CLICK--and check out A Pius's ear, too.

[moonmoth]

It shows how sensitive silver is to color.

And not just silver.  I use a halogen light for coin photography.  If I don't wait until dark, there are blue tones on the side near the window; and if I don't turn off the main room light, there are reddish highlights.  The blues are particularly noticeable on bronze coins, which don't have much of those tones by nature.

  Now, if part of the coin appears too dark, so dark that all detail is lost, I lighten the very darkest tones a little with Photoshop.

Bill

I also consider this the best answer when the goal is a pretty picture most easily obtained.  That is why I photograph most coins but I might have to consider whether the technique changed anything that would make it inappropriate to sell the coin based on the image. 

Photographs have limitations that are not at I am a spammer; they are two-dimensional and static, with unchanging light.  (Though there are web-based techniques that can improve on that.)

I agree that it's very easy to make a coin look unreal with Photoshop. My aim is not just to give a good-looking result, but to record all the details, details that would be seen by anyone handling the coin.  That's fair to buyers, as well as pleasing me.  This isn't meant to imply any criticism of your own photos, which are enviable.

Bill

[Danny S. Jones]

Photographs have limitations that are not at I am a spammer

This isn't the first thread I've seen this phrase in the middle of a post. Is there an automated replacement of various words on the forum?

edit: I found the answer to my question on this thread:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=49649.0;