Preferred type of coin photograph

[Rich Beale]

I may have the opportunity to take some photographs of coins at the BM, and depending on the quantity/quality, I may post some here in addition to the publication I am currently considering.

My question then relates to how people like to see ancient coins presented. Personally, I prefer my coins to show a little of the life that they have when held in hand, and I find that a black background works well to contrast with the bright metal.

The industry standard however is to use bright white light to create an even, unbiased image on a white background.

Which, if either, do you prefer? Two sets of pictures of the same coin are presented below for comparison. If you prefer to see coins presented in another format (such as the rather fuzzy pictures taken of coins in NGC slabs..), then please feel free to elaborate.

All comments wecome and valued.

Rich

[areich]

I prefer the ones that are less shiny and with white background.
Actually, I MUCH prefer them.

[wandigeaux (1940 - 2010)]

Type B please (pretty please)!  George S.

[areich]

Except for a little to small borders in some places the type B pictures are pretty much perfect.

[Akropolis]

I prefer the black/dark background. It makes the coin come "alive"....to me.
PeteB

[Enodia]

is the background color the only difference? because it seems that the type A coins are much brighter and more contrasty (which looks better on the second coin than on the first).
but overall i like the look of the type B coins better.

~ Peter

[slokind]

Not only on a white background, or a nearly white one, but it should be achieved in the photography, not by eliminating a 'natural' background.  Too, too many people, whether they 'click-in' black or white surrounding the coin's image, just use the tools in Photoshop or another program.  It is almost as bad as photographing coins in those cardboard and mylar stapled mailing containers!  Either the coin is 'shaved', even if ever so slightly, or some vestige of the 'natural' background remains around it.  In the case of an irregular coin or one cracked open the result is often a real mess.  And false.  That is why the French Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum in its first years was excoriated for doing it to vases.
Aesthetically, also, it is important.  Ancient coins are not like paper disks or like gummed stickers for children to stick on their Valentine's Day cards.  Their edges are actually rounded or trimmed, in either case not quite regularly, and they do not look real, and they certainly are ugly, if their real character is denied.
That is why putting the coin on glass (or on a dowel) and having some light bounced off a surface a couple of inches below is desirable.  I learned it initially when I was taught at the excavations, photographing for publication, for showing sherds of broken pottery or for showing objects that by their nature had to be lain flat.
I do not know why the same basic lessons that were learned for the Corpus Vasorum have to be relearned nearly a century later for coins.  Trained first in scientific (biological, I think) photography, the great Max Hirmer NEVER cut out coins like paper dolls!
What some Ars Numismatica does is whatever they think will sell, but museums and scholars ought not to follow their example.
Pat L.

[Andrew McCabe]

White backgrounds please. The coin looks much better.

I agree on the desirability of not altering the coin's background as discussed by Pat. Photographing in nature so to speak. Practically, it can be hard work to achieve and I understand why those who mass produce pics may do a manual crop.

[David Atherton]

I chose the white background as well. I used to prefer the black background for the reasons Pete cited, now I prefer a more natural looking, less harsh image.

[mihali84]

I also prefer the white background, i find the lighting used more attractive, and it shows the subtleties in the amount of grey toning better.

Mike

[areich]

Regarding the cutting of the coin out of the background, I think it's the difference (and please excuse me for using a tired old cliché) between a picture of a real woman and one that has been airbrushed and all blemishes (and sometimes more) removed.
The first is 'better' but the second will, unfortunately, sell better. That's why, in general, I take out the background when I want to sell coins but feel kind of bad about it.

My collection coins I generally keep as they are, mabe removing especially annoying flecks of dirt from the background.

[Rich Beale]

Thanks to all who have responded thus far. As it stands, tybe B, the industry standardised photography is winning, which is not altogether unexpected.

My beef with the standardised white background photos is the light used to take them. It results in a rather flat looking image I feel, and it is harder to perceive depth and relief. This is especially true on coins with a concave flan. Moreover, coins with a light iridescence can sometimes show none of this in a white standardised photo, whereas flash does an adequate job of highlighting these colour variations.

[dougsmit]

I prefer black backgrounds but not your black background images.  They are much to contrasty with exaggerated highlights.  Since you are able to produce rather good images on a white background, I'd go with that choice.  Personally, I have more trouble getting a natural range of tones when using a white background because shooting into the light produces flare that compresses the range.  I need to work on my technique for lighter backgrounds.  I'd like a neutral gray but have had no luck making them match well without more work than it is worth. 

[slokind]

I agree wholeheartedly with Doug (and, for the record, I also like Pete's (Akropolis) photos with a mulberry background—but it doesn't work so well when I try it: it is his).
Earlier today, I added the use of a dowel to my preceding post, because I've watched Doug work and know how careful he is to avoid specious exaggerations of any kind.  The distance, strength, and amount of diffusion of the light source(s) are what is critical.  Gradations and nuances are important, provided they are real.  Flash, IMO, is vile.
My self-pedagogy for getting predictable and easily processed images was to put a photographer's 18% reflectivity neutral gray card under the raised coin and to fuss with the lamps until I had minimized the use of Photoshop needed to get the metal looking right and the gray card matching the gray background (Forvm on my computer provides areas of neutral gray, and I have my screen set for 18% gray).
The closer you can get to filling the lesser dimension of the frame with the coin the better the camera will read both the coin and the gray card behind it, and, when you get the gray neutral (very easy) the coin also will look right unless the lamps are too close.
I attach a gray-ground coin photographed a couple of years ago and a white-ground image made yesterday after memorizing the basic procedure with my basic set up.  This was VERY easy to process, but, because I had the camera almost as close as the Macro lens would go, for the small coins I was photographing at 50 per session (!), I was lucky to get the edges as sharp as they are, and the lamps were a little too close for subtlety.  However, if you have a basic set up, your post-processing with Levels or Curves (your choice) will become much easier than using the Magic Wand or the Lasso or the alternatives provided, and quicker, too.
I stuck with gray-card inclusion self-pedagogy for more than a year.
Pat L.
These were processed on my desktop and look a bit different on the laptop.   CLICK FOR MAX QUALITY

[moonmoth]

The answer that works for you depends on the purpose of the photographs.  If you are clear about that, the answer to your question will become clear also.

You say they are possibly for a publication.  Is your intention:

To showcase your artistic skills, using coin photos as the medium?
To show ideal images of the coins as they could be if they were perfect?
To produce a record of the coins which is academically consistent and exact?

These are three typical reasons for taking photos of coins, and they lead to different answers. No-one can say that any one of these is right or wrong, but a number of people will think it's a shame if you miss the chance to produce an academically useful record of part of a museum collection.

On my own coin photos I delete the background (and do some other processing), and without care this can lead to the problem Pat describes, that you lose a little of the edges of the coins.  I can see this on some of my earlier photos.  It happens when the coin is nearly the same colour as the background; toned silvers, not bronzes; and I have to mask out part of the edge to avoid this.

I can define my own purpose as:

To show the coins as accurately as I can, in a consistent format, losing as little detail as possible.

This is not suitable for an academic record because it requires some processing to deal with the range of contrast, bringing out detail in dark shadows and bright patches, so every coin is processed slightly differently, but it works fine for my web page and for publication.

Bill

[Danny S. Jones]

Rich, I agree that the "A" photographs show the life, luster, and luminance of the coin and represent more closely what the coin would look like in hand. Although some may not agree, I absolutely love those pictures. The "B" photos lose this aspect of the coins as well as the nuances of the toning.

That being said, the "B" photos reveal much more of the detail of the coins that are hidden beneath the all the aspects that make the "A" coins so appealing to my (and as you stated, your) particular taste. For record sake, however, I must agree with the majority opinion, and recommend the second set of photos which preserve detail rather than depth and luminance, which is paramount in academic studies of classical numismatics as opposed to a more artistic showing in which the first set might be preferred. Bill worded the argument for the several purposes of coin photography perfectly. For the BM collections, there is no doubt that detail should win out over all other aspects.

Regards,
Danny

[slokind]

And now, Danny, I must jump in: excessive procedural consistency, with insufficient awareness of the how the digital chip works and, for that matter, lenses, is not necessarily either scientific or even more profoundly consistent.  Adjustment made to show the detail in shadow, for example, is scientifically valuable and procedurally valid.  Photoshop is a TOOL, for producing either objective or false results.
As for the words, 'academic' and 'aesthetic': excessive procedural consistency of the superficial kind is 'academic' in the pejorative sense, to the nth degree, and often can produce a misleading image.  As for 'aesthetic', the only problem is the one typified in this discussion: one man's aesthetic is another's gaudy, or in another case one man's aesthetic is another's languid, or the like.  That is, 'aesthetic' really is, in the best and worst senses, a subjective matter: aisthanomai is the Greek verb for 'feel by means of the senses'.  Utterly valid and important but not determinable.
Pat L.
P.S. And as for aesthetics, I often prefer Bill's and Doug's to my own (not always, but often), but I can't take theirs!  And it isn't just different equipment. 

[Danny S. Jones]

Pat utters an extremely valid point in the fact that Photoshop is often used to manipulate photos to the extreme and produce false results. To a certain extent, the tweaks used to render more detail in a photo, even for academic study, produce a false image. This is however, necessary for scholarly study of detail that cannot be obtained by the naked eye nor by photos of the natural lighting genre.

The key words in this argument, however, as Pat pointed out are "subjectivity" and "aesthetics" which can neither be quantified nor forced upon a mass audience as being exclusively "correct."

P.S. And as for aesthetics, I often prefer Bill's and Doug's to my own (not always, but often), but I can't take theirs!  And it isn't just different equipment. 

It takes much more than proper equipment. I have made a significant investment in new photography equipment, and have yet to produce the quality results I have seen from others here on FORVM, try as I may. My hope is that it will be a short learning curve. I have enjoyed the hobby of photography for many years, but never delved into macro photography until I became a serious ancient coin enthusiast. As always, your input is much appreciated and enjoyed Pat.

Regards,
Danny

[dougsmit]

To avoid stealing this thread even if it is a related question I stared a new thread on the question of background color for coin photos:
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=62235.0

If the subject is of interest, please visit and comment.

[James Anderson]

I firmly agree with Pat (though I have no idea what she meant) , but it does seem to me that it should be possible to bring out all the detail on a coin with lighting alone, others may disagree. I do tweaking with Photoshop Elements (Photoshop is out of my price range) only to the extent of a slight adjustment with contrast and unsharp mask, no more than one or two percent, to compensate for softening created by magnification. Jim A

[Danny S. Jones]

Rich,
Could you show or describe your coin photography setup? Your photos are consistently of high quality and have great eye appeal. (Of course it helps that you usually deal in higher grade coins.) With a super high volume of coins, I'm sure you've found a way to make the process faster. I'd love to see your setup, and I'm sure many others here would also.

Danny

[Potator II]

I do prefer type B, not because of the white background (I prefer black backgrounds) but for the soft and smooth aspect of the light which enhances the details and iridescent toning of the coins shown.

As for Doug's post, which he links to above, I prefer the pics with black background.

Nothing in life is either all white or all black 
Potator

[Rich Beale]

Let it never be said that I don't respond to constructive criticism!

After a little bit of playing around, I've found a new angle that works equally well for bronze and silver. As it happens, the only thing that was preventing adequate photography of both materials in one set-up was the white balance.

So, here are the latest results. How do these strike you? All thoughts welcomed.

Best regards,
Rich

[Rich Beale]

Danny, in response to your query I have taken a couple of pictures of the setup I currently use.

It is very simple, and it is only a relatively cheap camera (£175 about five years ago). Try as I might, I simply cannot bring myself to spend thousands of Euros on the device that is in common employment at the moment. I always prefer to spend the money on coins!

A flourescent white light bulb leans closely over a self-illuminating white pad, while the camera is angled slightly, instead of pointing straight down.
 
For a black background, simply replace the white pad with a matte black acrylic sheet.

It couldn't be simpler, but finding the exact right angles and positions can be a bit of a nuisance.

[Rich Beale]

Using this setup (and the white pad) you can produce photographs like the one below. To completely eliminate any background shadow you need to adjust the angle of lighting slightly so its shining from directly above (or make use of mirrors).

[bpmurphy]

[Optimo Principi]

[moonmoth]

[Optimo Principi]

[James Anderson]

[Optimo Principi]

[okidoki]

[Andrew McCabe]

[Rich Beale]

[okidoki]