Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Hanukkah Sameach! Tell them you want a coin from FORVM for Hanukkah!!!! Internet challenged? We are happy to take your order over the phone 252-646-1958. Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Ho Ho Ho Merry Christmas!!! Tell them you want a coin from FORVM for Christmas!!!! Internet challenged? We are happy to take your order over the phone 252-646-1958.


FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Coin Photography, Conservation and Storage  |  Topic: What is "true to life" in a coin photo? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [All] Go Down Print
Author Topic: What is "true to life" in a coin photo?  (Read 6136 times)
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« on: July 26, 2006, 01:50:47 pm »

This thread was stimulated by some comments in another thread, "Your advice needed for cutting and cropping coins", to the effect that some people prefer an unedited photo because it better represents the coin as it is in the hand, in real life.

Some people might prefer an idealised image, that gives the best possible view of their coin.  Some might even go further and fix up blemishes, but for this thread I will leave alone that ignoble concept.

But what is an unedited image?  Even the purists must make many choices to get any image onto  a screen.  Things that will affect how the photo looks include:

- Choice of camera
- Choice of background and setting
- Choice of lighting type and position.
- Choice whether to use flash.
- Choice of exposure time, focus setting, aperture, white balance, simulated film speed.
- Choice of file type: JPEG, RAW, or other.
- Choice of quality in a JPEG.
- Many choices when converting a RAW image.
- Choice of software to display the image.

And the condition and type of the coin also makes a big difference.  All this is before any thought is given to editing. 

My own view is that an unretouched photo does not usuallly represent a coin at its best.  By its best, I mean showing all the flaws and blemishes, all the details of tone and patina, every good and bad point about it.  I do not think that the beauty of a coin is in artificial perfection, but in its real self.  I will happily:

- edit highlights so that the coin surface can be seen instead of a white glare.
- Similarly edit black areas with no visible detail.  I will still aim to preserve a full tonal range of white to black if possible.
- Apply levels gradients to compensate for one-sided lighting.
- Sharpen enough (using "unsharp masking") to compensate for the inherent softness of digital images.
- Adjust saturation levels to compensate for odd camera effects.
- Allow the final image to be lighter than the coin seen under normal lighting conditions, such as a room's incandescent bulbs, so that detail is made apparent.  The coin looks like that under very bright light anyway.

If I think I have made the result too artificial, I will scrap it and start again, using less bold changes.

Here's one example.  The first photo is the one I saw when I bought the coin.  The second is the unretouched flash images of the obverse and reverse, pasted together and shrunk for this display, but otherwise unchanged.  The final one (next message) will be the version I ended up with.



Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2006, 01:54:24 pm »

OK .. here is my final version.

Now, I do not think this image is untrue to the coin.  No-one can say it artificially eliminates flaws, for example.  In fact I think it is more true to the essence of the coin in my hand than either of the two previous images.

Any comments?  .....

Bill
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2006, 02:30:59 pm »

It depends on the camera you are using. A great digital camera will not make soft images thus no need to sharpen...I have never had to use sharpen filter on any coin.

Lighting if set up right will not leave areas that are dark or very bright thus there should be little need for selective adjustment, maybe a bump in the levels or a bump on brightness and contrast at the most.

I started taking photos of coins and using all the above listed techniques to adjust and fix what I was lacking in correct camera settings or poor lighting.

I spent quite some time messing with shutter speed, lighting placement, light filtering and finally found a setting that produces about as close to the original coin color, detail, lighting, etc...as I think is possible.












All these coins came out almost as perfect as can be. I did not use any form of PS adjustment, not even a bump on the levels...optio5i digital with a down light (about 2 feet florescent at a bit of an angle)

I guess when I said that I wanted to do as little in editing as possible is that IMO most good cameras (digital or otherwise) are perfectly able to capture an image almost life like in most aspects if the settings are just right (which takes a lot of time and testing) thus eliminating the need for further editing. Unless its just a bump here or there on a slider.

Also I cant stress enough the difference the angle of the light makes...I was going to post a comparison of a coin that drastically showed the effect the angle of light makes. It was a rather flat Constantine coin with the right angle it can help bring out the edges with a little shadow (like you would do if it were in hand) and in the case of this coin, it caused the back figure to look DRASTICLLY different in relation to what side the light is coming from. One way made the figure look almost like a skeleton....the other angle brought out the details much more and was a dead perfect reproduction of the figure as it is in real life, filled out the face and the cloth on the body...

What I am mainly looking to achieve is the clearest possble detail, the best possible match in color, without lighting glare (as if holding it well away from a light that makes a heavy shine) in the original photo itself doing as little post adjustment in PS.



Logged
maridvnvm
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4186



« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2006, 02:53:04 pm »

Since migrating to a digital camera I have been struggling with getting a setup that gives the sort of images that reflected reality of my coins.
I can only concur that finding a lighting setup that you are happy with is challenging.
My collection contains silver, silvered (ranging from fully silvered through partially silvered to slight silvering remaining) and bronze coins, with their associated range of toning range. I have worked towards a setup that produces images that I am happy with that reasonably closely represent the coin in hand when seen on the screen of my laptop.
I try to work with a minimum of software effort since I have too many coins to photograph to be able to spend time in software.
I take my photographs at a high resolution and then reduce them for general use, whilst keeping the high resolution images for the records.

The following is an example of the image that I am now getting. Whilst I am not 100% happy yet I will keep tinkering util I have it about right.



And the picture below is an example of the detail from the full size image,

Regards,
Martin
Logged
slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6722


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2006, 02:54:38 pm »

I have fussed a great deal over this question, and I have no bone to pick with any of the above.  Defining what is True / vrai / vero / treu / alêthos or gnêsios in a coin photo is almost impossible; words won't hack it (consider how Keats couldn't really evoke a neo-Attic marble urn...).  I got to thinking that the negative approach is more useful.  Can't be exhaustive, but, for example, a true photo of a denarius doesn't look like cookie dough; a true photo of a stripped orichalcum sestertius doesn't look like gold, and gold is not at all lemon-colored; metal does not look like plasticine or plaster or plastic.  Though allowance for dim monitors must be made, out of consideration for one's fellow members who haven't been able to replace the things, no image of a coin ought to look like a photo through milk glass (or like an image taken through a puddle of molasses, either).  Do you agree?  There are as many true ways of seeing, so of photographing, as there are local and regional light situations, personal eyes and visual processing in the brain, and so on: no one is truer than the other.  But the false ones are false to practically everyone.  Right?  Pat L.
P. S. Your Probus breastplate has true probity (couldn't resist putting it that way), and it is also a great advertisement for digital cameras.
P.P.S.  I sometimes, considering the reflectivity of shiny silver, hold one of the red boxes I used to get Saflips in opposite the lamp, to obtain some warm highlights (choose your own color, but red cannot be mistaken for the local color of the coin); I did so on a very clean denarius I got the other day (attached)--maybe a bit much, but the neutral gray of the ground glass is unretouched.
Logged
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2006, 02:58:55 pm »

Hi, DruMAX!

I think you have done an excellent job with the lighting, the exposure, and the focus, and you are producing some remarkable photos.  But here's where the question of taste comes in.  From my viewpoint, I'd say you have too much yellow in the Claudius and Gallienus coins to be true to life.  I would desaturate that considerably.  See below .. this also has the obverse turned clockwise slightly, a slight gradient applied to lighten the bottom left of the obverse, the black toned areas lightened very slightly, and 15% unsharp mask, radius 1 pixel, threshold 0. You don't need to make any of these changes.  But I would if it were my coin.  I sit there thinking "how can I bring out the true beauty of this coin?" and the software tools in Photoshop are all there for me.

However good your camera, and yours is clearly a stunner and well set up, all the variable factors I mentioned above will come into play somewhere.  And I forgot to mention that different computer screens, viewed in different lighting conditions, can make the same photo look very different.

I'm not saying there's any right or wrong here.  In fact I am saying there definitely is not any right or wrong here .. whether you get the right image with the camera or with the software or both, it's just as artifical and just as real.

Bill
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2006, 03:15:38 pm »

Hi, Pat!

I got to thinking that the negative approach is more useful.  Can't be exhaustive, but, for example, a true photo of a denarius doesn't look like cookie dough; a true photo of a stripped orichalcum sestertius doesn't look like gold, and gold is not at all lemon-colored; metal does not look like plasticine or plaster or plastic.  Though allowance for dim monitors must be made, out of consideration for one's fellow members who haven't been able to replace the things, no image of a coin ought to look like a photo through milk glass (or like an image taken through a puddle of molasses, either).  Do you agree?

I think people should use the approach that works best for them.  When I used film, I would have said the same as you about the negative approach.  You can't fix a poor film negative, not really.  But a digital image is not a negative.  Different approaches can be used .. images that seem to be through milky glass or treacle might or might not contain the necessary information.  You can't put it in if it's not there.  But often there is something to be stripped out: excessive brightness, or excessive yellow, for example.

You can always use the empirical test.  Does the end result look satisfactory?  If so, does it matter how you got it?

But .. what does "satisfactory"  mean?  This differs from person to person and I won't argue with taste or purpose.  In my case, I want to love the image as much as I love the coin.

Bill
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2006, 03:37:04 pm »


P.P.S.  I sometimes, considering the reflectivity of shiny silver, hold one of the red boxes I used to get Saflips in opposite the lamp, to obtain some warm highlights (choose your own color, but red cannot be mistaken for the local color of the coin); I did so on a very clean denarius I got the other day (attached)--maybe a bit much, but the neutral gray of the ground glass is unretouched.

Pat, I can't be critical of your photos.  You know what you want, and you get it.  Any comments I might have made on other shots of yours were made in ignorance of their purpose and are withdrawn. 

In my case, as long as I can represent the roughness of an over-cleaned denarius, the toning on a long-stored one, the soft and greasy look of an old-fashioned fouree, and the bright false look of a white metal imitation, I won't care how I do it.  (Note that I am not yet claiming to be able to do all these things!)

Bill

Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2006, 03:54:53 pm »

Hi, DruMAX!

I think you have done an excellent job with the lighting, the exposure, and the focus, and you are producing some remarkable photos.  But here's where the question of taste comes in.  From my viewpoint, I'd say you have too much yellow in the Claudius and Gallienus coins to be true to life.  I would desaturate that considerably.  See below .. this also has the obverse turned clockwise slightly, a slight gradient applied to lighten the bottom left of the obverse, the black toned areas lightened very slightly, and 15% unsharp mask, radius 1 pixel, threshold 0. You don't need to make any of these changes.  But I would if it were my coin.  I sit there thinking "how can I bring out the true beauty of this coin?" and the software tools in Photoshop are all there for me.

However good your camera, and yours is clearly a stunner and well set up, all the variable factors I mentioned above will come into play somewhere.  And I forgot to mention that different computer screens, viewed in different lighting conditions, can make the same photo look very different.

I'm not saying there's any right or wrong here.  In fact I am saying there definitely is not any right or wrong here .. whether you get the right image with the camera or with the software or both, it's just as artifical and just as real.

Bill





I would have to say that the changes you made, at least in my opinion, made the photo look a bit less like the surface of the actual coin. This coin has a bright copper color that is almost identical to the picture I posted...By moving the light a bit father away I took some shine off it. I have held these scans up to pro calibrated Canon Color Laser Copier 5000 prints (almost photo realistic prints I make at work ) to the real coin and they are about as dead on as I can get them, if they need anything at all, maybe just a very minor color balance correction but I wont bother with that as its it such an extremely minor difference in tone. The changes you have made removed the vibrant copper color that the coin does indeed have in person.  Maybe its just the difference of perception each person has when they look at these coins and photos of coins. Either way, I feel very satisfied with my current set-up and technique. Not to say I wouldnt make changes if I felt they were needed....or that my way is the best way at all.
Logged
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2006, 04:18:44 pm »

First: the use of a photo editor is absolutely necessary and inavoidable. There is a great difference
between monitors. I adjust all my photos to my 3-year old Sony notebook with 1600x1200 UXGA  monitor.
At the moment I am working with a brand new Think Pad 1400X1050 monitor which has  different properties.
My photos looks too dark and too contrast on it.  Editing includes a lot of subtleties and adjustment can be done
much more precisely than just using only camera features. E.g., enhancement depends on the desired size of the picture.
Even a rotation on 1 degree sometimes does matter.

Second: the coin is a dynamic object  and there is no sense to  separate it from the environment. We look at it under various lighting conditions and in various environment. By the way, never in the environment of the photo stand.
Moreover, different people may have different preferences. E.g., I like  photos made under natural light in front of a window
(under different  conditions) but recently I my preferences, at least, for some coins,  turned to electric light.    
Logged
maridvnvm
Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Online Online

Posts: 4186



« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2006, 04:41:08 pm »

As much as I envy the images created by Numerianus, I have found that the natural lighting available in my home does not allow me to generate consistent results, which is one of the criteria that I strive for. As such I have had to resort to a desk lamp with a daylight bulb setup. I used to use a flatbed scanner but the images generated seemed completely out of my control.

I have included two images of the same coin, the first is from a flatbed scanner, the second was taken a few minutes ago just to illustrate the results that I could achieve with a bronze coin with a variagated patina.
Regards,
Martin

Flatbed:-


Digital Camera below:-
Logged
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2006, 05:43:09 pm »

First: the use of a photo editor is absolutely necessary and inavoidable. There is a great difference
between monitors. I adjust all my photos to my 3-year old Sony notebook with 1600x1200 UXGA  monitor.
At the moment I am working with a brand new Think Pad 1400X1050 monitor which has  different properties.
My photos looks too dark and too contrast on it.  Editing includes a lot of subtleties and adjustment can be done
much more precisely than just using only camera features. E.g., enhancement depends on the desired size of the picture.
Even a rotation on 1 degree sometimes does matter.
   

I both agree and disagree. If you are talking about cutting, pasting, rotating and the like...certainly you must use PS. But I do not think that one must use it for adjustments to the image itself (color, contrast, levels, saturation) if the camera is set correctly. I automatically attempt to adjust the Brightness/contrast and level with everything but these days, 8 out of 10 times I look at it and realize that it isnt needed and leave it be.

It seems its just a matter of those who prefer to set the camera just right to those who prefer to take the picture and correct it after in PS. I just believe that if I get the camera set just right, the look will be more true than if I attempt to correct what I get from a camera not set precisely.

maridvnvm: the second one looks better to me. I dont like the look scanners give because of the lack of a localized light source, instead you get a complete saturation of light with no realistic shadowing. Of course we work with what tool we have.
Logged
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2006, 11:05:26 pm »

One choice that has to be made when taking a digital photo is the file type.  This has a massive effect on how the image is produced.

I think all digital cameras will produce a JPEG.  This is a "lossy" format - it is compressed in such a way that some data is always lost.  The camera contains software that will take the raw image from its sensor, edit it to whatever colour temperature has been set (the "white balance"), adjust the brightness and saturation, and leave out some information to compress the result into a smaller file size.   The resulting edited data is then saved to a memory stick.

Some cameras offer the option of saving a raw image, containing all the data captured by the sensor.  This can then be converted or edited later using either the software provided with the camera or a third party editor such as Photoshop's RAW plugin.  This raw image is the nearest you will get to a negative using a digital camera.

The method used by Pat and others allows the camera to do the initial editing.  A raw image from the same camera would look much different.  But the advantages of a raw image are:

- you can edit for the correct colour temperature, brightness and saturation later, using better software than the stuff in the camera.
- You can go back and do it again later if still better software becomes available.
- You have all the data and can save the edited version in a loss-free format like TIFF if you prefer.  If you want smaller file sizes, TIFF has the option of using the loss-free LZW compression algorithm.
- You can edit and re-edit withut losing data.  If you edit a JPEG and save the result, for example to change the background colour, you are compressing something that has already lost some data through a compression algorithm.  A high-quality JPEG can stand that without affecting how the human eye perceives the result, but some can not.

Now, a good camera with good software will do a good job.  JPEG compression was defined by the Joint Photographic Experts Group to look good to the human eye.  If it gives the desired result, I would not quarrel with it.  It works for Pat, and I like it too.  But purists should be aware that letting the camera software do your editing for you, which all JPEGs straight from the camera do, is not a particularly better option than doing it yourself with different software.

The Photoshop raw plugin allows a lot of detailed control over how your image is converted ready for editing with Photoshop.  Here, as an example, is the nearest I can get to showing a raw image, and the JPEG version produced using Photoshop.  (The raw image is as shown by the Photoshop browser, captured off screen by other software.)  The raw version looks like cheese, because of the low colour temperature of the incandescent bulb I used as lighting, but contains all the information I need to produce a true image.

Bill
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2006, 11:44:30 pm »

I completely agree. The settings of a digital camera do not change physical properties. They are  controls   varying parameters of some implemented algorithms of image processing applied to the array of numbers obtained from the sensor matrix, a kind of authomatical adjustment.   This means that if the camera store just this array, you can do the job on your computer manually with a number of algorithms and obtain much better results for an individual picture on your particular monitor. The information lost during the passage from yje  raw format  to (large) jpeg is not essential and one still can profit from the manual adjustment which is better than an automatical adjustment.
As I said, there are many subtleties. How do you chose the size of the pic? In fact, rescaling  means that pixels are aggregated 
and the outcome may vary quite a lot in dependence of size.  The perception depends also on the size. Should the size of the pic  depends on the coin size? 
Logged
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 27, 2006, 12:54:27 am »

I was getting the color you are showing in your 'raw' jpg when I started but was able to get a raw image that was far closer to the correst color by adjusting the light settings on the camera.

Well, I guess its all in how you approach the subject. I use both conventional cameras and digital cameras as part of my profession to generate graphics and photos for both print and the web. The way I see it is unless you are printing your end product will be 72 dpi jpg for web view (saving the large format before reduction). Much of the same options are present on my camera that I would use in PhotoshopCS: levels, brightness contrast, color balance, hue saturation in additions to light settings and other settings that pertain to the conversion and compression.  I would be hard pressed to think of much else I would utilize in PS  that wouldnt begin truly changing the image or actual physical properties of the coin (selective pixel changes, cloning or most filters.)

There is little need for sharpening the image if it is a large format shot in macro (they are as clear as a bell, you see every little mark before downsize with high mega pixel camera) nor would one blur it (since it has already been compressed and the point is to get the sharpest image possible). I see no need for most other image adjustment options if you can accomplish these tasks with he camera. I took the time and effort to program several settings for different levels of light that I use to best capture high relief and low relief.

I use Photoshop and Illustrator every day for photo restoration, manipulation, web graphics, graphics for offset print and the web and in conjunction with illustrator and know that one can achieve a "true life" image if you choose to go that route and it seems to me a question of whether you want to do it manually afterwards in PS or (if camera allows) when you convert the image.  Without doubt most images I bring into Photoshop (from a digital camera) I will end up making slight adjustments before reducing it for web view (mainly contrast and slight color tweaks) but in the end those small adjustment are all that is needed when the camera is set correctly for the conditions. This also is dependent on the camera one uses and the options said camera offers.

In the end I just want as accurate a representation of the actual coin as one can get in 72 dpi and 600 points width how ever one reaches that. I think many have said there is no one right way.
Logged
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #15 on: July 27, 2006, 01:22:11 am »

My wife is photographer  and infographist
(see her webpages http://kabanova.neuf.fr/). She is very sceptic about my work with Photoshops considering it as
non-professional. But many people say good words about my outcomes.
Logged
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 27, 2006, 04:09:49 am »

Then, as has been pointed out elsewhere, there is the question of reducing the size of the image.  The original is huge in web terms, pretty big in print terms, and will certainly need some work.  This can also be done in the camera, by selecting a small size of JPEG.  But again, you need to be aware that you are letting the camera's software do this for you, and it might not be using the best algorithm.  Photoshop uses a pretty good algorithm.

Many cameras apply sharpening to their JPEG images before saving them.  Reducing the size of the image also makes it look slightly sharper.  Here, as examples, are first, a section of the raw image I showed above, converted for colour temperature but left at its original size; then, the same section reduced in size by about the same amount as I used to show the final image above.  The second image shows the reduced image on the left, and on the right the same but with 20% extra sharpening applied.  Which looks most lifelike is up to the vision and taste of the photographer. 

Bill
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #17 on: July 27, 2006, 04:18:01 am »

Hi, DruMAX.

I was getting the color you are showing in your 'raw' jpg when I started but was able to get a raw image that was far closer to the correst color by adjusting the light settings on the camera.

That probably means that the camera's software is doing some pre-processing. 

In the end I just want as accurate a representation of the actual coin as one can get in 72 dpi and 600 points width how ever one reaches that. I think many have said there is no one right way.

Absolutely!  I don't mean to suggest that there is.  In fact, the opposite: I mean to suggest that there definitely is not a single right way.  I am merely setting out in more detail what some of the options for processing digital images really entail. 

It would be very boring if everyone used the same method and produced identical pictures.

Bill
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 27, 2006, 07:54:41 am »

But many people say good words about my outcomes.

and thats what I think we all are looking for. Can you post a photo of one of your coins? One you think is a stunning example as a better reference of the outcome of your process?
Logged
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #19 on: July 27, 2006, 08:32:00 am »

I displayed already an example of Maxentius coin which is not very simple case: brilliant black patina
combined with a desert one, green concretions.  It  is too dark on the screen of Think Pad I used at the moment.
So all my photos, probably, needs a brightness corrections to adjust for this type of monitors (of course, this can be done very quickly by Picasa). Now the photo which I like.  Philip  (electric light):
Logged
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #20 on: July 27, 2006, 08:37:37 am »

Now to compare. Galerius (electric light, 96 dvi)
Logged
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #21 on: July 27, 2006, 08:41:39 am »

The same coin under sunlight looks quite different.
Logged
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #22 on: July 27, 2006, 08:45:47 am »

Gallienus (electric light).
Logged
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #23 on: July 27, 2006, 09:07:00 am »

thanks!! they look very good indeed.
Logged
slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6722


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 27, 2006, 10:46:43 am »

Everything you all say is basic knowledge and quite true, and external HD storage for all the raw files is now affordable.  But there is a difference between your accession file photos, also used for sharing / selling on line, and the photos you take for your great show of numismatic photography or for the great book to replace the now hard to obtain Hirmer volumes.  I mean, even techie photographers like Ansel Adems took Leica 1 snapshots in early Kodachrome without consulting the zone system.  Also, since digital cameras contain chips and some resident software, it is technically accurate to say that they do processing, but the auto-sharpening can be (ought to be) turned off, and settings such as White Balance / Color Balance amount to no more than interchangeable backs with different films--except that they are more nuanced.  That's not really 'processing'.  Also, though of course all but beginners' cameras allow Raw as a choice, there are alternatives other than taking a picture with lower-number (lossier) jpeg.  Take the largest file the camera can at the highest, finest jpeg camera setting (similar to Graphic Converter's 100% or Photoshop's 12), and store that one rather than the larger and much rawer Raw image--unless, as I said, you're a graphic designer or want for yourself total personal manipulability.  Work with a first copy of that file.  Thing is, when you use digital camera instead of the handy flatbed scanner, you want good files, but you don't want to spend ALL your time being a numismatic Ansel Adams or Renger-Patsch, unless you have no numismatic studies to do, too.  Pat L.
Logged
jamesicus
Guest
« Reply #25 on: July 27, 2006, 11:50:55 am »

What it comes down too for me is how accurately I have captured the essence and appearance of the coin when I compare the image on my computer screen(s) with the coin as I hold it in my hand sitting at my kitchen table. That is all I desire.

I have now acheived that goal by employing selected methodologies and techniques that have been posted in various threads on this Forum -- inexpensive digital camera with excellent macro properties (Pentax optico), black background for shadow suppression, fluorescent "sunlight" bulbs in a single desk lamp for illumination, mini camera stand for steady shutter release -- I am content and at ease with this set-up.

I save the images in .JPG format and, apart from cropping the background and resizing the image, do not apply any propriety software enhancements. I do not aspire to any heights of photographic excellence, but I am at peace with the way my coins are depicted on my Roman Imperial coin web pages.

Logged
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 27, 2006, 12:04:25 pm »

What it comes down too for me is how accurately I have captured the essence and appearance of the coin when I compare the image on my computer screen(s) with the coin as I hold it in my hand sitting at my kitchen table. That is all I desire.

I have now acheived that goal by employing selected methodologies and techniques that have been posted in various threads on this Forum -- inexpensive digital camera with excellent macro properties (Pentax optico), black background for shadow suppression, fluorescent "sunlight" bulbs in a single desk lamp for illumination, mini camera stand for steady shutter release -- I am content and at ease with this set-up.

I save the images in .JPG format and, apart from cropping the background and resizing the image, do not apply any propriety software enhancements. I do not aspire to any heights of photographic excellence, but I am at peace with the way my coins are depicted on my Roman Imperial coin web pages.



Well said...My thoughts exactly though I WILL always keep a copy of the raw data file jsut inc ase I  see a problem and want to go back. Nice site BTW and nice photos Smiley
Logged
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 27, 2006, 03:28:47 pm »

Finally ... 

So, in digital photography, the final image can be controlled to a remarkable amount of detail, or photographers can use a range of automatic options which allow the software writers to dictate the results, or something in between.

The simplest way to achieve a good result would be to use the automatic options that work well, and manually control the rest.  (This is essentially what Pat said, anticipating my attempt at synthesis.)

The question for each photographer is, where to strike the balance that works best for you?  To find this out takes trial and error, work and experiment.  There may be new software to learn.  For example, setting aside the huge and complicated Photoshop itself for the moment, the RAW conversion plugin alone has many options and settings, which give very delicate control over the result (which is why I think an auto white balance is very much "processing").  Some of these options duplicate what Photoshop can do, and it does some of them better than Photoshop, some of them not as well.  I had to learn which was which.  I have saved good settings for silver and bronze as pre-sets, and manual adjustments are minimised.  I can now produce a good image from RAW in seconds, like the silver coin I showed earlier in this thread, but it took a long time to learn how.

There is no one correct approach.  Pat Lawrence has a system that works well for her.  Sometimes, like Pat, I use a high quality JPEG as the base image, but I can't help feeling that's a lazy approach (*) and mostly I keep a RAW file like DruMAX as well.  Now that DVDs are a cheap storage medium, I can archive them quite happily.

What I do suggest is that you can't find the best approach for you without knowing all the options, being aware when you are letting the camera do it for you, and trying out a range of techniques and ideas.  There has been much discussion of photographic techniques here, from which I have learned a lot, but not much on image processing.  I think both are critically important to producing a good final image. (Whatever "good" may mean to each individual.)

In a way I envy people who are completely satisfied with their pictures.  I am not.  I find that I can always go back to old ones and see how I can improve them using what I have learned since they were made.  And every time, I learn more about the coin, because I look at it in detail and with a different viewpoint.

Works for me!

Bill

(*)I am not accusing Pat of being lazy.  I don't think that's possible.  In fact I don't see how she finds time for everything.  I am explaining my own personal OCD-like feelings on the matter.
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2006, 04:19:18 pm »

I should say that I am seldom COMPLETELY satisfied with my results but IMO you have to draw the line somewhere. When I first started documenting my coins I had to learn a lot. I came to the project with extensive PS and photography experience but no experience taking shots of such small things, trying to get such detail while still keeping the overall look of the coin "true to life"

I came here and started posting my photos and looking at others, reading threads discussing techniques and getting helpful feed back (thanks for that)  and realized I had a lot of work to do to get something I could live with. It took filling my camera up MANY times with practice shots with different set ups, camera settings and learning everything there is to know about my digital camera until I got something I could live with. Because all my photos go onto a website and they need to be uniform I set up a template in PS that I would transfer to after initial upload of the raw image and any tweaks I find I might need to do in large format. The template is just the correct size canvas that I can transfer to quickly and save out to a final .jpg. (I save a small 200 pt width and a larger 600 pt width)

I DO save the RAW data files for ROMAN coins I have (not world, I dont obsess on those near as much) so if I ever feel I need to go back to them I can. So I would simply say I am satisfied with my results and feel the process I use is a good one but I would never say there is no room for improvement. I just got to a point where I felt my coin photos (on the whole) are very close to "true life" coming directly from the camera after testing and programing different settings for different type of coins and after a few tweaks in PS I am satisfied (as long as my RAW image is as focused and clear as possible, I can always go back to it) but in the end, you have to pick a technique and run with it or you will never get a finished product to post.
Logged
slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6722


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2006, 09:03:46 pm »

Oh, I AM lazy, whenever I can get by with it.  I won't bother with a true digital SLR.  I'll take brand-new images of the required coins only for publication!  I have too many hobbies.  I haven't ironed any clothing for twenty years.  Just wait till you're 70+.  My old Nikon F2 camera bag with the lenses and filters just got to weigh too much.  I work productively only when I'm enjoying it (I think that is true of almost everyone).  Pat
Logged
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #30 on: July 29, 2006, 04:15:07 pm »

1. It seems that for lazy people Picasa may have werve well. It allows make an adjustment  very easily and keeps records only on modified parameter so the files are not touched. The problem is that cropping and pasting  should be done by another program.

2. I have a striking  example which shows that  "true" is relative. Both pics of this high grade small Constantine coin were
taken the  the same lighting. The difference is the angle of the camera. In fact, both images are "true". 
Logged
DruMAX
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432

Pecunia non olet


WWW
« Reply #31 on: July 29, 2006, 04:49:35 pm »

I agree adjustments to the angle of the light, light distance, and camera angle is often key to getting the BEST 'true' shot. Those are the only REAL adjustments to make when it comes to trying to get the best detail, it matters how the light is hitting and reflecting thus the camera angle and light angle are the real key though I do have a few saved setting adjustments to the camera for low relief and high relief coins. I take MANY different shots with different light angles and camera angles and choose the one that shows best detail and truest color...as if I am holding it in my hand looking at it after finding a good angle that shows the detail best Smiley

BTW: the left shot is the most appealing with a more rich color and texture while the right seems a bit diffused with light like you are catching too much reflection assuming those are unaltered in PS and just show difference in camera angle..great portrait on the coin BTW.
Logged
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #32 on: July 29, 2006, 11:46:54 pm »

2. I have a striking  example which shows that  "true" is relative. Both pics of this high grade small Constantine coin were
taken the  the same lighting. The difference is the angle of the camera. In fact, both images are "true". 
That's an interesting demonstration. 

It's not just the angle of the light, of course.  It's the type and intensity.  Coins can look very different under different lighting, not just reflecting the colour of the light source - which you can make neutral, or neutralise using software - but also bringing out colours in the coin.
 
You couldn't pick this coin out of a group by looking for a green one.  It looks almost black until a strong light is shone on it.  Of course, it's hard to take a photo without doing that.  So the photo is a true image of this coin under strong light, but it's not what you'd see if you just picked it up in the normal way.  Is that "true?"

Bill

Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2006, 12:25:53 am »

So .. JPEG or RAW?

To assist in this decision, here is a list of adjustments you can make manually if you convert a RAW file using the Photoshop plugin.

Temperature; tint; exposure; shadows; brightness; contrast; saturation; sharpness; luminance smoothing; color noise reduction; chromatic aberration red/cyan; chromatic aberration blue/yellow; vignetting amount; vignetting midpoint; shadow tint; red hue; red saturation; blue hue; blue saturation; green hue; green saturation.

If you allow the camera to produce a JPEG, you allow it to make all these adjustments (allowing for the fact that some of them are combinations of others, so there is some duplication).  Some you can trust, because they will be based on the characteristics of the sensor, and the manufacturers' software writers know those much better than you do.  Some, on the other hand, will relate to the characteristics of the lens and the lighting. 

If you use Photoshop, or have access to another decent RAW converter, You might find it worth playing around with some of these options to see if you can get a better result.  You should be able to save any useful combinations as presets for future use.

May be this isn't worth it for images for day-to-day use, but it will be for those special images.  And if you have a great pre-set setting for your standard camera setup, conversion will be so quick and easy you might want to use it all the time.

Bill
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
Numerianus
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1189

I love this forum!


« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2006, 12:50:25 am »

I would like to discuss some points about light intensity. I think that the effect of strong light is related
with a nonlinearity of the sensor response, otherwise we could just to increase the exposition.
Unfortunately, many coins have very dark, sometimes, black patina, and they are looking, indeed, black, i.e.
"invisible" under comfortable light. That is why we need to manipulate with photoeditors and adjust the picture.
So, the "natural" colors are not really natural. Our eyes refused to work properly when light will be of the corresponding intensity.

I wrote  many times that  the coin (even bronze) is a mirror  reflecting the environment.  The environment we use for macrophotography is very specific: the black body of the camera and its interior (this poses great difficulties with photographing of bright silver). Of course,  it is different when we use just eyes
The left  photo was taken   when the camera was perpendicuar to the coin surface. For the  right photo there is an angle and the surface reflects the abatjour of the lamp and the camera reflections play no role.
I like more the left pic but I like some  the appearance of the right one as well - sometimes turning the coin I see exactly this image, colorless (one should not forget that our eyes-brain is  an image processor).   
Logged
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2006, 04:39:56 am »

I would like to discuss some points about light intensity. I think that the effect of strong light is related with a nonlinearity of the sensor response, otherwise we could just to increase the exposition.  Unfortunately, many coins have very dark, sometimes, black patina, and they are looking, indeed, black, i.e. "invisible" under comfortable light. That is why we need to manipulate with photoeditors and adjust the picture.
So, the "natural" colors are not really natural. Our eyes refused to work properly when light will be of the corresponding intensity.

I agree.  Sometimes I can sit in front of the screen holding the coin and try to match on screen what I see.  Sometimes I have to shine a bright light on the coin and match that.  Sometimes I just try to bring out as many features as I can, even if the result differs from what I can see with the naked eye.

Bill
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
slokind
Tribuna Plebis Perpetua
Procurator Monetae
Caesar
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6722


Art is an experimental science


WWW
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2006, 01:49:12 pm »

It is a relief to turn from trying to define 'cult' and 'god' to merely defining 'truth'  Wink.  There are several real (cf. res) truths (yes, I know that verus and treu, considered etymologically, make hash of that statement).  Many scanners and digital cameras sense and convey truths that even keen eyesight in noon sunlight does not register by itself.  Not only does that sweet Deultum of Diadumenian come out green, it also is proven to be clean, undoctored patina.  My old scanner (which only worked in a SCSI chain...) revealed retouching in glaring terms.  For that matter, a RAW image harbors the same information as a Canon or Nikon JPEG yields.  False-color Landsat images also record real differences.  One needn't get into subatomic physics to realize that true-to-life is not all there is to truth.  Cameras help us to see.  Even early ones did.  We make tools to extend our vision.  Pat L.
Logged
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2006, 02:08:28 pm »

We make tools to extend our vision.  Pat L.

I'd accept that as a summary of the reason why I started this thread!  Image processing software is just such a tool.

Incidentally, that green patina is very strange when examined with artificially extended vision.  It looks like crazed glass.  As far as I know, you can't get glass without heating silica or other minerals to quite high temperatures.  Something like 1700 celsius is needed to fuse silica (sand), and the range goes down to about 500 celsius for boron glass.  You could probably get a realistic glass-forming mixture with sand, soda ash and limestone somewhere in between those temperatures.  I wonder if coins with this kind of patina have been through an intense fire?

This enlargement includes the left side of the letter T in the exergue.

Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
Robert_Brenchley
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7326

Honi soit qui mal y pense.


WWW
« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2006, 02:49:24 am »

Unlikely without melting or at least distorting the metal! There is a similarity in appearance, but i don't know enough of the processes involved in the formation of patina to have an answer.
Logged

Robert Brenchley

My gallery: http://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Cleisthenes
Comitia Curiata II
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


"not unlike a clamberer on a steep cliff," Newman


WWW
« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2006, 03:06:51 am »

We make tools to extend our vision.  Pat L.

Wow!  This is a sentence to make Keats jealous.  As a brief conversation with Oscar Wilde went, "I wish I had said that. . .!", Wilde.  "Ah, you will, Oscar, you will", James McNeill Whistler.

When I use your sentence, Pat, I will--of course--give credit where it is due.

Cleisthenes (Jim)
Logged

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Nullum Gratuitum Prandium!
"Flamma fumo est proxima!"--Plautus
 Chi-Rho
moonmoth
Procurator Caesaris
Caesar
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2495



WWW
« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2006, 12:45:14 pm »

Unlikely without melting or at least distorting the metal! There is a similarity in appearance, but i don't know enough of the processes involved in the formation of patina to have an answer.

Yes, Pat sent me a message with a similar import.  I did some internet research and found that bronze melts at around 950 Celsius, and any realistic glass components wouldn't melt below about 1,000 Celsius.  So despite the glassy appearance, that's most unlikely to be the origin of this patina.
Logged

"... A form of twisted symbolical bedsock ... the true purpose of which, as they realised at first glance, would never (alas) be revealed to mankind."
Pages: 1 2 [All] Go Up Print 
FORVM`s Classical Numismatics Discussion Board  |  Numismatic and History Discussions  |  Coin Photography, Conservation and Storage  |  Topic: What is "true to life" in a coin photo? « previous next »
Jump to:  

Recent Price Reductions in Forum's Shop


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 3.79 seconds with 104 queries.