Coin photography - Axial set up

[markn]

Nice set up Aus Coin. I'm starting to head down that path.

Markn, you mentioned that the set up that Aus Coin has doesn't capture toning too well. Any comments on what set up would capture toning?

I've started to take images, but my sizes are about 20mb. I've tried switching the camera in macro to a lower setting, but have to sacrifice quality.

My experience is that a setup that is good for showing detail (like AC's images) are rubbish for showing lustre and toning.  Her images look like the lighting is at some angle to the surface of the coin.

An axial setup is good for toning and not so good at detail and no good for lustre.  

So there's a balance in there somewhere.  Lighting should be close to perpendicular to the surface of the coin to bring out toning but not completely perpendicular so that lustre still shows.

As I've said many times that balance requires a LOT of light shining down on the coin and a camera shooting along the same line as the lighting.  I've also said many times that the quantity and angle of the light is much more important than the camera.  You can take perfectly acceptable images with a point and shoot camera with lots of light.  You will struggle to take good images with poor lighting no matter how expensive your camera or lens is.

[Robster]

Still struggling with coins with large blank fields.! Think I have found one struck through wire.!!

[markn]

Still struggling with coins with large blank fields.! Think I have found one struck through wire.!!

Nice, I like strike-throughs.  There's something not quite right with the white balance on your images Rob.  I also think the light is a little "hot" or directional.  Have you tried moving them further away or putting a diffuser in front of them?

[Robster]

You are right Mark, at my age I can't be expected to remember all of the procedures. LOL.

[markn]

You are right Mark, at my age I can't be expected to remember all of the procedures. LOL.

I'm having a good day if I can remember my own name.

[Fulvio]

I've started to take images, but my sizes are about 20mb. I've tried switching the camera in macro to a lower setting, but have to sacrifice quality.

You can knock the JPEG compression back to 75% and reduce file size by a factor of six with no visible degradation. Then you can reduce image size and resolution to get something more manageable for posting.

[robbiegal]

am I achieving that when I 'resize' my pics smaller by about 1/4 of their original megapixel size  either in my local paint program or in photobucket?

[Fulvio]

am I achieving that when I 'resize' my pics smaller by about 1/4 of their original megapixel size  either in my local paint program or in photobucket?

Probably not. The default quality setting is generally 100%, and it will be in your program's preferences. As for online postprocessing, I would never use that, for many reasons including lack of control.

[robbiegal]

oh ta

[Fulvio]

Here, just for fun, is an example that might illustrate how it works:

http://goo.gl/mtYVT

There you will find a shot I just took, in five versions, plus some screenshots.
The original JPEG, as it came out of the camera (5MP), is 2.2Mb. When edited (no changes, just select all, trim, and save), it blows out to 3.9Mb @ 100%. Reducing the quality in 25% steps produces 796k, 512k, 328k respectively. 20% is the minimum before the program (GraphicConverter) complains its too low.

File sizes will of course vary depending on what's in the picture. A solid colour will be a much smaller file than a complex, finely detailed shot with riotous colours.

It makes sense to choose the most appropriate quality settings for the task at hand. Sadly, very few people out there on de interwebz has any idea, which is why you see slow-loading pages with 20Mb images on them. As cameras become higher and higher resolution, this problem will only get worse.

Oh, and always keep your originals safe and play around only with copies. Though having said that, I store everything at 75%, unless an image is intended for a magazine or poster, but that's rare. After 250,000 images and counting, (storage) size really does start to matter.

[ausjack]

I've been watchin this one for a while now and just like to thank you all for the tips :thank_you:

[Steveqld]

Just revitalizing this topic.  I have a copy of Numismatic Photography 2nd Ed by Mark Goodman and it has a useful summary of the options at the end.  These are:









Just for the record I did consider copyright implications and believe the copying of the 4 pages falls in the Fair Dealing provisions due to the limited number of pages, that I've already purchased the book, that they are posted for the purposes of promoting discussion and education, is for a non-commercial purpose and to promote purchase of the book which you would have to do to obtain detailed explanations of the summary.

I actually have 2 copies of this book so if anyone is interested I'm prepared to send one out "on tour".  That is, if someone wants to borrow it I'll send it to them and they can send it back in a few weeks or, alternatively if more than 1 wants to have a look at it then borrower 1 can send it to borrower 2 in two weeks and borrower 2 can send it to borrower 3 after two weeks ....., you get the idea and the last borrower can send it back to me.

Be aware that the book weighs close to 480 grams so postage won't be cheap.

The book is biased towards USA coins but the principles of photographing through slabs, proof coins, copper coins, color etc remain the same.  You can also buy your own copy for $31.66 from the Book Depository with free postage.  This is the Index



PM me if you would like to borrow it.

[markn]

It's a good book.  Incidentally before I got my copy I'd already arrived at a vertical lighting setup with typical camera settings being F10 and shutter speed anywhere between 1/250 to 1/500.  I did improve the lights we used based on the recommendations in the book though. He has some interesting observations about bringing out colour using higher F stops like F20.  I've tested it and not noticed a difference to be honest.

[Fulvio]

I'd disagree with a couple of things he says, but yeah, its a good overall guide. just be aware that it IS four years old now (well, probably more like 5 or 6).

[coxspau]

Steve, thanks for posting the pages. These are a great insight and will probably result in a few purchases of the same book being delayed until improvement is sought. Some great tips in the attachments alone.