USB Microscope Photographing Coins.

As a sidebar note it may be of interest to note that the letter ‘L' within 'LIBERTY' appears blurred because its height above the coin's surface is incrementally greater since it resides on a significantly-sloped rim-sided curvature that many other LHCs lack.

In summary, besides pointing out an alternate method for USB photographing varying depths built upon a coin's primary lowest surface I would also like to read all opinions from the readers insofar as whether or not this coin is a DDO or possibly some other type of variety.

Thanks,

mdpmedia

To each his own... But... I really don't want to create another Rube Goldberg machine. Or spend time and money gathering building materials, customizing and re-purposing other things into a complex device to perform a simple task.

Especially when that device already exists.

Hi,

All of previous photos I took earlier in this USB Microscope Photographing Coins thread involved the implementation of 'only' spiral CFL bulbs covered with regular white copy paper to further soften the light rays etc.

Here are side-by-side comparison shots of the obverse side of this coin using my USB camera vs my Epson WorkForce 610 scanner:



The scanner photos complement the diffused USB shots in that the scanner assists in better accentuating the minor dings and scratches which are important in classifying a coin as a MS-63 instead of a MS-62 for example.

In my continual pursuit of trying to use this USB camera in every way possible I finally had to break down and take my very first shots engaging the already-integrated LED lights within my USB camera.

I estimate that adequate lumens emanating from the covered LEDs are still capable of sneaking around the open orifice to shine upon this coin where the USB camera collects the image of its object etc.

For the science folks out there all types of lighting sources typically use lumens as a measuring unit to identify their quantity of emitted 'visible' light. Any further discussion into this subject matter is beyond the scope of this narrative.

Earlier in this thread I remember one of the viewers suggested covering two or three of these USB LED lights with tape to reduce the glare from proof-like surfaces. In my particular endeavor covering only this number of LEDs did not 'cut the mustard'.

Because I am photographing a rather shiny patina of a 1925 Norse Commemorative Medal suitable for grading evaluation covering ALL eight of theses LEDs with dark black duct tape produced the most acceptable very closeup photos.

I additionally made a destructive modification to my USB camera. It seemed that the clear plastic guard covering the end of my particular USB camera where the LEDs are prevented me from focusing down close enough to create those super tight macro shots.

Therefore, I simply pried off this clear and tapered one inch long protective cone to be able to almost touch any object by the USB camera tip when filming...

The end result of this modification demanded the use of only the low beam option in terms of the intensity of the LED lights on this USB camera. Apparently, sufficient illumination occurred using the low beam even with ALL of the LEDs covered with black sticky duct tape.

Remember that the following closeup photos in this thread entry below did NOT use any CFL bulbs whatsoever.

Per the attached shots of the Viking's head I cut down about 80% of the glare from this MS-type coin and about the same percentage of that undesirable blue tint that is so characteristic of LED technology.

Please note the attached photos and how the gold color changed sides when I rotated the coin 180 degrees.





I have requested that this coin be graded by all interested CCF members and staff.