| Author |
 Replies: 14 / Views: 1,464 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
My opinion is that each picture has its own advantages. What do you guys think?   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4989 Posts |
Wow nice camera! I like the first one since it shows more of the mint luster but does not detract from the super attractive toning
Edited by fenton
12/03/2010 10:27 am
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23731 Posts |
The first one, would like to see what the obverse looks like.
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
321 Posts |
Ya I trashed all my obv pics. No winners out of the batch. I'll get a good one sometime this month though. It's also not as nice as the rev. My goal in life is to eventually find a ms 64 or 65 morgan that has this toning on both sides; A strong complete blue ring around the rim.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4944 Posts |
Two great coins/pics.
I think my favorite is the first one though.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Both are superb, but the first pic is one of the single finest Morgan shots I've ever seen. You can grade from a shot of that accuracy, ten times out of ten. It illustrates the luster perfectly, which is lacking in the second pic.
Isn't it amazing, how much more difficult Morgan obverses are than reverses? The large expanses of the cheek and forehead, combined with the large areas of field, make the obverse highly reflective. If you get them right, you lose the lettering, and vice versa.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
Dave, it really is much easier to shoot the rev. The all important cheek area is so large that highlighting the whole cheek without any shadows and accurately describing the marks and luster makes for a long night of lighting adjustment. I just got my first (what I think is a) ms 65 morgan  . That will be fun to shoot. |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
I usually use 3 lights for the obverse vs. two for the reverse, and much shorter exposures, of course. Is your second pic above axially-lit?
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
Not really it's actually just weird light positioning. I mean...the lighting is indirect...kinda...I'll try to explain.
instead of both lights pointing down at the coin, they are pointing at each other and nearly touching bulbs like -><- with the coin about 6 inches below right in the middle. So it is indirect lighting but I don't think it qualifies for axial does it? It does look a lot like axial results
The set up odd but I've found it to really make toning pop.
EDIT: I haven't tried 3 lights yet. I'll definitely play with that soon
Edited by mattbrowning7
12/04/2010 6:59 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
56 Posts |
I like your first pic better. Appears to be a weakly struck coin though.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
321 Posts |
It's actually a pretty good strike for the new orleans mint. most were struck much weaker
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3278 Posts |
The first picture is much nicer. Shows luster as Dave mentioned, more importantly (to me)
the shot shows the Eagle in all it's glory, with great feather definition. I like the reverse
much better with Morgans and I think the strike is very nice on this coin.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
455 Posts |
Great photographs! I love the toning. Lovely coin overall but I wish you had a photograph of the obverse.
|
|
New Member
United States
26 Posts |
Gotta vote for first picture. Looks more expensive. :)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
870 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 14 / Views: 1,464 |
|
Posted 12/03/2010 12:00 pm
