Copy Stand Vs. Tripod

Ray,
I want the camera lens square to the coin.

Am I a bad person if I lower the camera to the shooting table, rest the lens bezel on the table, tighten the adjustments, then simply raise the camera?

And could I enhance my setup by introducing a Leica/Leitz tripod ball head? Thinking of Morgan VAM shoots where I need to angle the camera in for a doubled die shot.

And if I haven't bit off enough, What do I need to know about making a lens mounted shooting stand? Specifically, where do I grasp the lens? And will this affect my ability to make focal adjustments?

Louie 2 Bits...
It's a pink coin! Really, would you have known about the camera color if you hadn't seen the posted photos?
But I know what you say is true. Ten minutes after I bought a red camera (on line,) I read the article about colored cameras for coin shoots.
Looks like I'll be shooting through a milk bottle, or covering the camera in matte black duct tape.

BigFredd,
Did you sharpen my image? And if you can work such magic, could you improve the portrait I use for internet dating sites?

Thanks all,
Kurt

PS, I know you've had to go through this many times before, but this is my first time, and I appreciate your patience and professionalism.

I downloaded Irfanview, and have started to learn about it. It seems user friendly and offers newbies quick gratification.
Thanks,
Kurt

Good points.
Certainly, I don't do this over a coin.
And knowing that the mount will flex as I pick up the weight of the camera and lens, I've tried supporting the camera and moving the paper between the camera and base.
When the light drag of paper movement is equally distributed around the perimeter of the lens bezel, I hope to approximate an oblique position. (And wonder if the Leica/Leitz ball socket wouldn't be useful.) And I could employ a feeler guage as well.
In the greater scheme of things, this is primitive. So is hunting with a slingshot. But if it works, life is better than if we don't use the primitave tools.
The important question, that you have answered, is that it is not harmful to the camera lens to set it on the table. Just know that it may not lift straight up.

Thanks,
Kurt

Nice clear detail. With that detail you won't need to upgrade. But if you are getting that level of detail on small features, it is not showing up in your overall images you are posting. They are too small and for some reason not clear enough to show off your equipment and skills. Your final image should be around 800px or so. I recommend as well downsizing only by integers to maintain max resolution.

Your lighting looks good. Luster bars are properly placed, and shadow detail is showing up well.

I hate white backgrounds. Others may disagree. I don't like to close-crop my coin images to remove the background, so I usually shoot on a background I can leave in place. Disadvantage is the texture will show up if the DOF is set wide enough. If you want the background to disappear, cut a dowel (1" or so for dollars, 1/2" for cents) about 1" long and set the coin on it. Put whatever material you want under the dowel to set the color, and the 1" height will make it look like the coin is suspended in air, which it is. You can also just make a stack of dollars or whatever to set the coin on to experiment with height. This will simplify your "workflow". It also makes it more feasible to do side-lighting, edge lighting, etc to bring out surface details.

Oh, and...
I love the suggestions about using a pedestal. Will try soon, but last shoot was with a TPG slabbed coin.
The background is a light grey cardstock. I thought it would not conflict with the camera's settings for a silver coin.
The circle cropped photo did two things. It removed unnecessary data, and gave me the opportunity to learn about cropping. Later, I'll want to add a cropped obverse and Reverse with VAM details to a single picture.

If anyone can tell me how to transmit a 1200x1200 Pixel file of less than 100KB, I will be forever grateful.

Thanks,
Kurt

Thanks all,

I'm still having problems understanding the relationships between file size and pixels.
And as I have never seen a "properties" window that gave both pieces of information, I can only conclude that the relationship is so linear as to be redundant to give both numbers.
And having problems getting a detailed photograph uploaded.
As I said before, I can only deliver detail if I crop the photo down to a minor fraction of the original picture.
My biggest problem at this time is not taking the picture,
but uploading it.



I set my Pentax K-x settings to least detailed (and it seemed very counter intuitive to do so.)
The M settings (and who knows what an M is, as the owner's manual didn't see fit to define the variable) range from 12 to 2. I chose 2, the smallest. 1728 x 1152 (Just guessing, but maybe pixels, however they were not thoughtful enough to define the quantity.)
Then I changed the Quality setting. To the very lowest quality (again counterintuitive as our goal is to achieve the best quality image, but what do I know?)
Then I take the picture.

The properties are given as 269KB. No mention of pixels.

I send it through Irfanview for croping to get a square picture with no extras. Where it miraculously expands to 282KB. (Mystifies me.)
Send it through Irfanview again to set new size. This time 800x800 pixels. And it comes out a 184KB file.
Irfanview again. 500x500 and get 112KB.
Ditto 450x450. @103 KB that will not upload to CCF.

425x425 did.


What an I missing?

A little confused, but as everyone on this blog has been so generous with their time and expertise, I hold out hope that I may come to learn enough to keep me plodding forward.

Thanks All
Kurt

wf- you're kewl.

72- You are taking very detailed images, so you have to use 425*425 to get under 90k. When manipulating, always go as directly as possible. IOW, 1728*1152 > crop > resize resample 425*425, not 1728*1152 > crop > save > 800*800 > 500*500 > 450*450 > 425*425.

Every time you manipulate an image, you lose a little clarity and add a little info (K).