| Author |
 Replies: 59 / Views: 15,712 |
|
New Member
United States
43 Posts |
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
56855 Posts |
Quote:
I just came into some money from a cherrypick what was it? What is your lighting set up? John1  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1298 Posts |
jtlee321, those photos are just plain beautiful. I also would be interested is your setup. Could you explain, or better yet, show us some pictures.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
I use a Nikon D90 with a AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm 1:2.8G ED lens.
But as a pro you should consider the Nikkor 105mm Micro lens.
And if you want a higher end lens look around for the Nikkor(?) 155mm Micro lens.
I don't think they are made anymore but they are nice since it sits so far away from the object that it makes lighting very easy.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4036 Posts |
Justin...your photos are very nice, but I do see a lot of inconsistency in the way you light the coin. For coins, the usual goal is the "in-hand look". Most folks view coins in-hand with a single light, shining nearly axially. Of course this won't produce what folks consider a nice photo of the coin, but coming as close as possible is the goal of most coin photographers. Your 1899 Indian comes closest to this goal. It appears to have been done either axially or near-axially, and is showing the glowing fields and devices, with shadowed edges, that this lighting style produces. Axial of course produces no luster presentation, so being a bit off of axial is often a benefit for lustrous coins. IMO your 1964-D Quarter reverse comes closest to the lighting style that produces best luster, even illumination, and shadow detail, but is processed a bit too bright to show luster well. It may also be that the lights were a bit too high, or too diffuse, to show the luster. In my own imaging I lean more toward the look of the Quarter reverse, but maybe with a bit more luster presentation at the expense of higher contrast and maybe a few blown spectral highlights. Your 88-O Dollar is more in line with this thinking. I personally am not fond of the obverse photo of the 83-O Dollar obverse, as the lights are too low an angle. The 83-O reverse is good, though. And my last comment...the 88-O is pretty much right on for composition (ie rotation) but all the others are slightly off. It's a pet peeve of mine, and your shots are not grossly out of rotation (83-O obverse is the worst offender) but it's still nicer to look at a coin that's well-composed...Ray
Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
New Member
 United States
43 Posts |
Thanks guys. RMPS, The samples I posted were me experimenting with different light angles, diffusion and heights. I have found a setup I like and now my images are a lot more consistent. The 1883-O and 1899 Indian were both shot using Axial lighting. The 1883-O is actually a two image blend of the axial light to capture the color of the toning and a traditional light set up to capture the luster of it. The axial light on the Morgan showed an absolute dead looking surface while the tradition light hid a lot of the actual color showing. I'm still perfecting my technique. You are right that a couple of the coins are just a bit off for rotation, I did a quick drop onto the backdrops to produce a quick sample. Once I have a permanent setup I will show a few examples. My current set up is a tripod with the center pole reversed with the head at the bottom and aimed straight down. I am using two goose neck table lamps with 600 lumen LED Ikea bulbs. A few of my images have been shot using an old white t-shirt cut into small squares and placed over the lamp to make the light more diffuse. A few of these images are without the diffuser. I think I am liking the images without the diffuser in place. As for light placement I have decided that I like the lights at approximately 10 & 2 and up towards the lens at a higher angle. The axial shots are just using an 11x14 piece of glass from a cheap frame and using only one of the goose neck lights bent over so that the head of the light is almost flush with the surface of the table. I'm still experimenting quite a bit, but getting close to getting to where I want to be. My problem right now, is I use the living room for my setup. I have two younger children running around, so it get's set up and then torn back down, hence some of the inconsistency. My biggest thing I want to get is copy stand, enlarger lens and a bellows system. I've looked at the 105 micro from Nikon, but I would only being using it for coin photography, so I can't see spending $900.00 on that. That's why I'm looking for suggestions on the enlarger lens and bellows. I have never used any of that equipment and know next to nothing about it. For the person asking about the cherrypick.. It was a 1919-P DDO Mercury dime. It is the finest straight graded example so far at EF-40. I bought it for under $10.00 and sold it for $5250.00. So now I am pouring some of that money back into my hobby of photography and coin collecting. |
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
Quote:For the person asking about the cherrypick.. It was a 1919-P DDO Mercury dime. It is the finest straight graded example so far at EF-40. I bought it for under $10.00 and sold it for $5250.00. So now I am pouring some of that money back into my hobby of photography and coin collecting. That person was me. Wow you lucky dog  I would like to see a photo of it. John1 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5825 Posts |
I use a simple copy stand; none of the bells-and-whistles. The image shows two lights but I've backed off to one. It's an OTT-LITE with a 13w "white light" tube and positioned at 10. Using Aperture Priority (f7.1 & ISO 400) and Live View I get results that are plenty good for me. I suspect you are more picky. I tried axial lighting and it worked but it's really only necessary for proof or DMPL coins or toning colors.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4036 Posts |
Justin...take a look through the posts here as there is a wealth of info on what you are trying to do, though it is not geared toward full-size copy stands but instead toward various smaller stands based on microscope stands with integral focus capability. When you use a bellows, you must manually focus, and there are several ways to do it: 1) Use the bellows front lens standard (most sensitive) 2) Use the bellows rear standard (least sensitive, good for very high magnification) 3) Move the whole bellows on a focus rail (keeps constant magnification) 4) Move the whole bellows on a focusing stage (gives fine control and constant magnification) Your other option is to use fixed extensions with a helicoid. This is similar to #1 but without the bellows. It requires you mount the camera to the tripod, where bellows allows you to remove camera more easily for other purposes. For lenses, enlarging or reproduction/duplication lenses in the 75-105mm range work well with most bellows and most coin sizes. However, there is a complex relationship between coin size, lens focal length, bellows minimum extension (including camera and lens adapters), and copy stand maximum height such that there are only certain combinations that allow photography of a full range of US coin sizes (up to Dollar or ASE). Before you buy anything, seek advice here to make sure the lens and bellows you choose will work together. Contact me for photographic equipment or visit my home page at: http://macrocoins.com |
|
Valued Member
United States
171 Posts |
Kanga could you please give the source for your camera stand? Thank You
|
|
New Member
United States
43 Posts |
Hey Rmpsrpms,
I am thinking about getting a Nikon 50mm, 75mm and 105mm enlarging lens to do a full range of coins. From what I can tell the 50mm will be great for high magnification work such as details of varieties. The 105mm should give nice working distance for Dollars. What would be a good focal length for shooting dimes and something as small as trimes while still giving a good working distance?
I am going the copy stand route instead of using a microscope stand. The copy stand I'm looking at has a 28" column.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4036 Posts |
If you go the bellows route, then 50mm may be too short even for Trimes with some bellows. But you can go with extensions directly attached to the camera (or a helicoid) and make it work with Trimes or even Cents and still have a reasonable working distance. However, my preference is still 75mm for as much as possible since this range includes so many lens choices, including the venerable 75ARD1, and gives good working distance.
|
|
New Member
United States
43 Posts |
Edited by jtlee321
09/27/2015 7:37 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4036 Posts |
I generally don't recommend folks buy 50mm f4 lenses. Even the Rodagon, which I can't find a listing for at f4 (only f2.8, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodenstock_GmbH), may be a 4-element design vs the preferred 6-elements of other Rodagons. Anyway, if you go for a 50mm, I recommend getting an f2.8 as you'll be doing higher mags with the shorter lens and the larger aperture is helpful for maintaining sharpness. |
|
New Member
United States
43 Posts |
I did a little more research and see what you mean about the 2.8 vs 4 design. I'm going to focus first on getting the 75. Not a whole lot on ebay right now, but I am watching this one. There are no bids on this yet, I think mostly because of the high starting price. But, what do you think of it? It looks to be in really good shape. Do you think the price is fair? http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rodenstock-...em35f28363c4 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4036 Posts |
Looks good to me, and the price is good for the condition.
|
| |
Replies: 59 / Views: 15,712 |
Posted 09/11/2015 08:15 am
