| Author |
 Replies: 25 / Views: 6,426 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Alright, this one is a toughie! It's my toned, proof-like 1941-S dime. I bounced four Janjsö's off the down-reflector (three on the reverse, which didn't show enough contrast with four), then underexposed it to not blow out the highlights, then brought the brightness back up in post. I had to fuss with this a lot to get it to a reasonable state, but I'm not completely happy:   In hand, the coin looks like a mirror, and when viewing it, you naturally tilt it toward a well lit wall or ceiling to light it nicely. Any tips? Should I try axial lighting maybe? I've never been in love with axial-lit coin images, but maybe this is an exception? |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
458 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1298 Posts |
You might get some "tips" or ideas in Mark Goodman's book 'Numismatic Photography' 2nd Edition. He covers toned coins, proof coins, and several photographic techniques. A good book to have!!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1193 Posts |
Captain, I wouldn't worry too much LOL, I think your photo of this coin captured more emotion in her eyes than AW even afforded her. I truly mean it when I say that this photo has officially changed my perception of the Mercury dime. INCREDIBLE |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1795 Posts |
El Capitan looks good to me my man.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4132 Posts |
Here's a test with axial lighting. I don't know if it's "better". It does cost a lot in terms of sharpness, going through the angled piece of glass. But I just used the glass from a picture frame, maybe optically flat glass would do a lot better.  (higher resolutions)Edited by CaptainFwiffo
07/30/2012 8:36 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4037 Posts |
Quite a different "look" isn't it? Please remind me, this coin is raw, correct? Some folks (including me) like the overall look of axial lighting but not some of the specifics such as the shadowing on design elements. But axial is most like the so-called "in-hand look" since that's how we hold coins for viewing.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
It's in an old-style NGC slab. I had to remove the glare from the slab in post, but I worked hard to get it even with diffusion. If you look carefully, you can see that the top of the wing and the hair have a bright stripe - that's light coming directly from the diffuser instead of off the glass. I tried to make a little shield to block that, but it made the glare on the slab uneven, which was too hard to compensate for.
I can't really decide which I like better. The "regular" lighting better captures the shininess and metallic look of the coin, but the axial does look a bit more like how it look when you tilt it into the light. They both capture different aspects of how the coin looks. With the 1945, I felt like I was able to capture the luster and color of the coin in a single shot pretty easily. This one is much harder.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4037 Posts |
Another disadvantage to axial is that it doesn't show luster, so while it is great at showing color and gives that in-hand look the only way to get luster to show is to have a bit of an angle to the light. With the Smile Directors you can get the lights almost to the axial point (just a couple degrees off vertical) but shine the light from an angle and thus develop a bit of luster. You need to drop the angle a bit more to get full luster, but then color starts to change away from the axial look.
I've experimented with using CZP to merge multiple images of a coin taken with different lighting styles to end up with an overall look that combines color, luster, and detail. It works but is a lot of extra effort. For certain coins it's probably worth it.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Have you managed to get smile directors to get a good result with proofs (particularly non-cameo proofs)? It's hard to get anything but chrome-like glare from this coin at almost any lighting angle because it's so proof-like. It may just be that one image of each side is not sufficient to illustrate many coins. Anyhow, I managed to block out the non-axial light and capture the reverse pretty nicely.  (higher resolutions) |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Here's the axial lighting rig.   |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Block the light from directly shining on to the coin - use only the light reflected through the glass - and watch that thing explode. With axial lighting, you don't allow any light to directly hit the coin. It defeats the purpose.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4037 Posts |
You're making me want to experiment with axial again.
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
OK, I need more lights. You mentioned using CZP to combine images taken with different lighting styles, so I thought "hey, how about I just combine different lighting styles by using them all at once." So I'm trying to point two or three highish-angle Jansjos at the thing to bring out the luster and texture, and then using the axial lighting as a "fill light". The problem is that the axial lighting is a lot dimmer, so even with several layers of diffusion paper on the direct Jansjos I think I need a lot more wattage on the axial side.
I tried using the down-reflector to soak up some of the light and make it easier to get the light in close, but then the frame of the axial setup is casting too much of a shadow.
So maybe I need to run to Ikea and get like four more lights. The setup already looks enough like an octopus!
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4037 Posts |
I've never been good at getting proofs to show deep mirrors. SD recommends ringlights but even then I usually end up with too much surface finish showing and not enough mirror. This is the case with the smile directors as well. They tend to mimic axial lighting but without the central brightness. In reality they are like a section of a ringlight that is optimized in diameter to be just outside the direct reflection diameter of the coin. So while not axial, they are as close as you can get without glare. I suppose part of the reason I've never done a lot with proofs is that I don't own many. However, I did just pick up this 1950 Proof Nickel that has great mirrors, so I figured it would be a good subject to show how the smileys do with proofs. No toning, just original surfaces.   Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4132 Posts |
Hmm, I see what you mean. It looks like a nice coin, but no mirrors. Here's the first pass at combining a couple direct (diffused) Jansjos with the axial lighting to fill in the "black hole" which I know also plagues insect photographers.  [/url] (higher resolutions) (higher resolutions)I like the obverse in this combination much better than the reverse. I can't seem to get both sides to agree on lighting at all! Edited by CaptainFwiffo
07/31/2012 01:43 am
|
| |
Replies: 25 / Views: 6,426 |
Posted 07/29/2012 08:52 am
