Coin Photo Setup

That's a very well done reflector set up you have there. Impressive. Not like my tinker toy jury-rig set up .

I've been trying to think of some material I might use other than the cardboard I have now that would be easily pliable (and something that would stay put) in order to make slight changes in the reflector angle for lighting variations. I can do it to some degree now but it's awkard and not always precise. To me it seems easier than moving the lights as their position is critical and it's easy to over adjust when trying to get just a very slight change.

What I don't like about the foil is that it reflects more than it diffuses. You can see this in the shadows, which are too pronounced around some features (especially the face) for my taste. My goal in illuminating a coin is to have all the features outlined enough with shadow to ensure you can see them, but not to lose definition. The diffuse white is great around the edges of the features, but loses some definition on flatter surfaces (see the front lip of the cap over forehead). It is probably just down to angles and distances in setup. In the end I agree that the foil reflector really looks best for its luster and surface color definition, so I'm going to play with it a bit more and see if I can generate some guidelines. This is my first attempt at imaging a Mercury dime and I'm finding it interesting how hard it is to illuminate the field above the cap!

SDcoinguy...I almost always have best luck with two lights at 10:00 and 2:00, for most US coins. This illuminates the devices/features well and accentuates cartwheel luster well on both left and right fields. If you put the lights opposite each other, they would each illuminate "luster bars" on top and bottom of the coin, but since they are coming from opposite sides they diffuse that area and reduce contrast so that luster is reduced. For a very lustrous coin, it is sometimes better to use one or two diffuse lights to overall illuminate the coin, and then a pinpoint source to accentuate the luster where you want it to show. Figure that luster is accentuated in a line (the "luster bar") perpendicular to the direction the pinpoint light source is pointing. So if you shine a light from 6:00, you will accentuate a luster bar that goes from 3:00-9:00, though it will be interrupted by any devices or features on the coin.

As for height of the sources, this is really experimental based on the type of light source and the style of presentation you are looking for. The lower the source(s), the "bigger" they look, ie they have a wider illumination angle vs the coin. So as you move the source closer to the coin, it will make a more diffuse looking illumination with less shadowing. Move the source farther from the coin, and it looks "smaller" and "pinpoint" so accentuates more luster and creates more shadowing. So height is something you will need to experiment with to get the "look" you want.

By request, I took a photo of a British Sovereign reverse with my latest setup, using 2 LED direct lighting. It's the first gold coin I've taken a picture of for a long time (been focused on copper, and a little silver) and it imaged so easily! I think what's going on is there is no prominent face to deal with. Our brains are wired to focus on faces, and any small issues with lighting, shadows, etc show up much more prominently when a face is involved. Anyway, here is the result:

SuperDave...You have a good eye for color. This sovereign is indeed green-toned! I have a preference for toned coins, and perhaps green ones more than any other color. Here is a later sovereign that is pretty much untoned gold color for comparison. Same white balance as the first one:

I stand reassured; the second Sovereign is proof positive that it is the coin and not the image. Perhaps a takeaway here regarding the baselining of coins presented for technology-related discussion.

As regards the Buffs, from a subjective, "this is what a coin should look like in a photo" perspective, I like the first image by a clear margin. From a grading standpoint, I believe the second photo is the most informative, with perhaps -0.5EV.

It illustrates the potentially-deceptive subtleties of coin photography. Especially considering I'm looking at these shots on my own monitor, calibrated perhaps differently than yours and known to be (deliberately) a little "colder" than the second monitor to my left.

Edit: On my "warm" monitor, no difference in opinion is noted, save that the coin is a little better-toned. How do you see its' color in-hand?

It could just be my own personal preference as opposed to the "popular" one, but it's that extra contrast which makes it subjectively "nice" to me.

Consider, though: I've been heart-and-soul into coin photography for six years now. That's included looking at the published work of anyone I could find who shoots coins, to get a feel for what's considered "right."

At no point during this time have I found an individual who is approaching the subject with anything near your degree of directed, structured research. You are refining the genre here. Although I'm three months from starting my walk down the same path, I'm already beyond excited by the possibilities.