| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 2,928 |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189222 Posts |
My photography experience has been limited to "documenting" vacations or the occasional new house, using automatic film or lower end digital cameras. Since the birth of our son, my wife has allowed me to start taking pictures with her Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT; way nicer than either Kodak I have! Since I have become more comfortable with the camera, I decided to take a picture of a loose Eisenhower dollar. This is by no means representative of my Eisenhower Dansco, but I love all the Ikes and this one has managed to avoid being placed in a 2x2...  |
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
1501 Posts |
Looks to me like you have a good handle on the whole picture situation, including large size postings! Great job jbuck |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
Edited by KurtS
09/01/2008 10:10 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1541 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189222 Posts |
Quote:
Looks to me like you have a good handle on the whole picture situation, including large size postings! Great job jbuck Quote:
That's a nice shot. Thanks!  Quote:
Just when you thought it was safe...FranklinIke returns! Nooooooooo!  Quote:
Nice shot! I just noticed: what's up with the mintmark? Is it MD or a D/D? Probably just a JPEG artifact. I will try to get a closer shot later, but for now, here is an original size closeup on the the mintmark...  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
Jbuck, I love that camera. That's what I use also. However, I forked out a few hundred for a nice Tokina 100mm Macro lens. I'm curious as to how you're getting your coin pictures. I'm guessing that the pictures have a lot of background around the coin and that you crop to just get the coin. But, I'm intrigued by the fact that you were able to get the clear close-ups without the macro. Tell us how you did this!
|
|
Moderator
United States
189222 Posts |
Quote:
I'm guessing that the pictures have a lot of background around the coin and that you crop to just get the coin. That is correct. The coin image is probably 20% of the total picture or less. Quote:
But, I'm intrigued by the fact that you were able to get the clear close-ups without the macro. Tell us how you did this! The coin is sitting on a napkin on a table next to a window that gets full sun. The blinds were adjusted to get a nice light diffusion, so the flash was not used. I used the 18-55 lens (I am told that I am not ready to use the fancy ones yet). I used the "sport/action" setting and held the camera about twelve inches directly above the coin. With the action setting, any shaking I had holding the camera was not an issue. Simple, huh? I could get a lot closer with the macro setting, but nowhere near as clear after the snap (too much movement, of course). We do have a tripod, so my next experiment will be to try that with the timer or the remote. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1541 Posts |
Which software you're using to crop the image?
|
|
Moderator
United States
189222 Posts |
I use an older version of a shareware program called Lview Pro. I have been using it for years and it seems to do the trick. I have started to experiment with paint.net some, but I did not use it for this image. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5318 Posts |
As you can probably tell, I'm a strong proponent of photoshop because of flexibility of control. If there is one single thing that can be easily adjusted to improve coin photos, it is the dynamic range (brightness levels). Depending on lighting, some cameras will blow out highlights or the internal software will be overly aggressive in controlling shadows/hightlights. In the case of your Ike photo, the camera limited the highlights and shadows, creating bit of a washed-out look. It's an easy thing in photoshop to adjust levels and control highlights, as I did for "FranklinIke". Edited by KurtS
09/02/2008 12:12 pm
|
|
Moderator
United States
189222 Posts |
Quote:
As you can probably tell, I'm a strong proponent of photoshop because of flexibility of control. I have an older version of PS (I think version 5) that I used when I was in IT and had to "do it all" for the company I worked for. I would be afraid to try loading it on an XP or Vista machine; and I cannot justify the expense of getting the latest version! That said, Adobe is hands down the best of the best. Both of my brothers-in-law are professional graphic artists and use Adobe CS3 on their Macs. They really amaze me with what they can do. For my job, I use a great program called Adobe Audition (formerly Cool Edit). Then again, I am a sound guy, so it is more up my alley.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3234 Posts |
I'm impressed. I always knew my camera was a good one, but now you're making my macro lens look like a bad investment! Ironically enough the 17-85mm lens upgrade I have for the Canon, jbuck, would allow you to take shots at up to THREE stops (three slower speeds) lower than what you can with the standard 18-55 lens!
Good job.
Now, you just need a copy stand (medium+ duty for the camera weight) and lighting and you've got it made.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189222 Posts |
Thank you for the compliments! Quote:
Now, you just need a copy stand (medium+ duty for the camera weight) and lighting and you've got it made. It is all apart of the master plan.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1173 Posts |
FWIW, JBuck, if ever you want to go the photoshop route, Adobe's Photoshop Elements 6.0 is excellent, and can often be purchased for $79.99-99.99 depending on where you shop. I think PSE 7.0 will be released soon, making it likely that version 6.0 will go even cheaper.
|
|
Moderator
United States
189222 Posts |
Thanks for the tip! |
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 2,928 |
|
Posted 09/01/2008 4:08 pm
