What A Difference The Lighting Makes!

Ahh, you're just pulling our legs. The direct lighting is really just a negative of the axial, right? Nice medal...Ray

Way before digital cameras I took the ANA summer seminar on coin photography, quite enlightening to say the least, they use axial lighting for all there photography, probably still do. The had a simple box constructed of wood to hold the glass and the lamp, made it quite simple, somewhere I have the design in a storage unit with all my other seminar handouts (I'd look for it if it wasn't 1800 miles away right now). They were using optical glass, which if you look for it is quite expensive, until I figured out the glass from a flatbed scanner would probably be ideal, I have an old grayscale SCSI Apple one scanner that has no real value any more, I plan on busting out the glass and using it after I cut it to fit, the ANA axial glass was about 8" square as I recall.

I got the scanner idea after pricing optical glass (about $60.00 for a 4"x5" piece) when I was contracted to scan 10,000+ negatives, my Epson scanner has the transparency top on it for full 11" x 14" scan area, but the negatives would always move on me even using the negative carriers, so I planned on going to a piece of glass to hold them flat. I was scanning 645, 6x7 and 35mm strips, along with many mounted slides.

Still have not tried it though. Would love to see a photograph of the axial setup used to shoot this with.

Nice shot really shows off the color nicely.

Looks real nice! My lighting seems to be my drawback at the moment.

WoW, that is quite a difference due to the lighting. Never even noticed the difference beween the two ways to shoot a coin, but it makes sense. Thanks for shaing!

Hi everyone,

First I will post a picture (schematic and actual) of my axial set-up. It is a low-budget set up, using two 8x10 frames from Hobby Lobby ($7 for the pair) and a small set of brass hinges from the same store (< $2). I hinged together the two frames with the two "back sides" out and the two "picture sides" sandwiched toward one another. I did it this way so the glass had a lip to sit on while I angled it up. I have flexibility of angle of the set-up by using a small dowel with sticky tack on each end to keep the glass stable and fixed at the angle I choose.

As Dave mentioned, you must diffuse your light source when doing axial shots, and it needs to be as brights as possible. I use two Ott light bulbs put in gooseneck lamps, and I position them behind the frame set up, with a diffusion curtain between (I have used a white pillow case for this, or paper towels -- again, low-budget here!)

Schematic:



Actual set-up:


---------------------------
As Ray mentioned, there is a loss of contrast when shooting images this way, especially when the coins are in slabs. And, I had to post-process the images to get that contrast back. I actually prefer to use the Gamma correction in Photoshop to accomplish this, with a subsequent brightening. This is what I have found to work best. I usually do a Gamma correction of around 0.75, and then brighten anywhere from 20-30. I don't mess with saturation or contrast (at least not on the few shots I have taken). I have found that after the Gamma and brightness adjustments, you can improve some images further by bringing in the edges in a levels adjustment -- this is most useful for dark copper (with blue toning) that I have tried to image.

When I get home this evening, I can post the unprocessed images of this medal, just for comparison. The exposure times are quite long (1.5 seconds for these images), so stability and a timer/remote release are a must. In reality, I'm just playing with this method because it brings out colors on certain coins, and it emphasizes prooflike surfaces of some others. In general, I prefer the direct or semi-diffused direct lighting with Jansjos because it is more true to how the coin looks in hand. But, there are certain things you can see in axial lit images that completely escape standard lighting images.

I hope this is helpful, and I really look forward to further dialogue here. :)

-Brandon

Dave, The Otts are placed pretty low, and the lip of the frame already blocks most of the direct light. I will try adding a little additional block there and see if it makes a difference. Thanks for the hint.

I am going to try the direct Jansjo lamps technique since I don't have the acreage to place this type of set-up on.

You are *such* an engineer.

At this level, much of what we're doing is analog, not digital. We've figured out how to obtain sharp focus and stark contrast, and the only thing left is to achieve what we think looks "good" in a coin shot. That's a subjective decision, and what looks good to you might not work for me. I believe it's tilting at windmills to try and settle on one final standard for that reason.

I will, at the risk of sounding disrespectful (obviously not intended), urge you guys to point the lens at some truly lustrous Morgans. That hasn't happened much during this ongoing dialogue of the last few months. You will be presented with problems in contrast unlike any other - lustrous gold comes close - and it's my contention that some theories currently accepted as gospel will need to go by the wayside when tackling lustrous silver.

Lustrous copper or nickel is a walk in the park by comparison to a silver coin with huge, smooth fields.