| Author |
 Replies: 70 / Views: 8,065 |
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5854 Posts |
I like how this one turned out.   |
|
Valued Member
United States
456 Posts |
These are very beautiful photos. Barry, I especially like that reverse proof. I guess I'm going to have to go spend some time in the photography section and learn how to get my Canon to take pictures like these. Thanks everyone for sharing.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
10625 Posts |
I was pleased with the results of this one. I found it to be a bit of a challenge to get good results shooting through plastic.   It's about the best I could do with my point & shoot. |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Wow. Nohope has, very quietly, joined the upper echelon.  CaptainFwiffo, I am totally in love with what you and barryg have done on those Reverse Proofs. It's the opposite look from what we normally do with Proof coins, it's glorious and it's changed how I'm going to handle them in the future. Have you a "regular" Proof to try with axial lighting? A bit overexposed (deliberately), but it captures the color and flavor of the coin nicely. Sometimes the technical "best" isn't what's best for the coin:   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
I haven't done axial lighting on a regular proof yet. I really avoid it as much as possible because it's so fussy to set up, is a nuisance to post-process, and significantly reduces sharpness. I've thought about getting optically flatter glass to eliminate that last problem (maybe salvaged from an old flat-bed scanner), but haven't gotten around to it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8517 Posts |
Nohope.....what are you using ?
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
I've thought about getting optically flatter glass to eliminate that last problem (maybe salvaged from an old flat-bed scanner), but haven't gotten around to it. Beamsplitter glass. Not cheap, but Prethen uses it to great effect. Axial lighting isn't for 100% crops, anyway - it's for bringing out the subtleties in a full-face image of a coin posted at one-quarter of the original size. There's no reason, with your equipment, why you can't reach to ISO1600 or even 3200 to give you manageable aperture and exposure values. At some point in the future, I intend to build an adjustable glass using curved friction lid supports, which will take a lot of the angst out of axial lighting. |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5953 Posts |
Cannon T3i with 100mm Macro lens, 4 Single LED light sources (Shadow Control), 3 Halogen Spots general lighting
Still think I can find a little more out of it though its still not quite to the point where I am happy with the results every time.
Took several hours adjusting lights my a few mm to get the Nickels where I was happy with them.
Edited by nohope587
01/20/2013 4:43 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Nickels are a scream, easily the most difficult coins to get the lighting correct with.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
I dunno, brass bucks have given me fits, harder than nickels. Really glossy modern coins are tough generally.
I don't ever have to turn up the ISO past 100, my setup is stable enough that I can tolerate long exposures. It's just that it's so hard to get the lighting *even* with axial lighting. It has to be diffused over a broad area, and you have to block it from falling directly on the coin without casting a shadow on the glass as well. Usually I end up with something uneven from one side to the other, so I have to use an adjustment gradient in post to fix it. Not to mention all the extra reflections you have to try to eliminate, and the problem of fiddling with the coin's position (I have to do it after the lighting configuration is in place because the glass moves the apparent position of the coin like it's underwater).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3276 Posts |
I have the cannon t3i. And I have two lenses: the macro 18-55 and the macro 55-250. Which would be better to use? And how should I set my camera up, do I just throw it on a tripod and angle it down?
I need tips on a whole setup because I'm not sure what I'm doing. I also don't have any lighting.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 921 Posts |
Quote:
I have two lenses: the macro 18-55 and the macro 55-250. Which would be better to use? You MUST use a tripod for close-ups... try using natural lighting as a substitute... Use all automatic settings.... Flip to the macro setting on the camera itself, but I bet "auto everything" would probably be better with those lenses... Other than that, you would need to spend some cash on an actual macro lense... The Canon 100mm macro lens many are using run from the low of $400 to around $600+.... The beauty of DSLR's or any digital camera is that you can always delete the bad pics & shoot again if needed... Not like the old days of paying to get your pics developed! You had to have your own darkroom, even with that, the materials to process the pics killed the weight of your wallet steady! Glad them days are gone!! As for using what you have now, just try a mix of things & record whats what & what you like/dislike kinda deal...eventually you will find the best combo of settings to use...  |
|
New Member
United States
42 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4038 Posts |
1955-S/S/S RPM #1, EDS, taken with my HRT2i and a Nikon 4x Plan Apo 0.2 objective, 31 image stack.  Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Valued Member
United States
237 Posts |
1883-CC  1820  I'm only good with reverses it seems. |
|
|
Replies: 70 / Views: 8,065 |
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 01/20/2013 12:18 am
