| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 4,140 |
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5953 Posts |
I change out a couple of overhead spot lights in the house a few weeks ago. At 6watts they are rated at 100wat incandescent equivalent.
They sure do put out a lot of light and are very directional.
My wife loves them as they are instant on and crisp white light.
They might be just the thing for my photo stand.
I was thinking of changing out the Halogens in my goose-necks for them but at $80 a bulb I thought I would see if anyone here has used them yet and what do you think of them.
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Still too rich for my blood, but I'm very interested in the concept. Greater efficiency with less heat is a nice thing; my halogens are going to melt a coin some day.  A downside I've heard about is differing color temperature depending on the angle from which the LED is viewed, so they'd need to be arrayed directly to get good white balance. I'm going to want 3, and while the cost of those 3 is above $100, I'm waiting. |
|
Moderator
United States
16679 Posts |
I use incandescent for my photography. I have used LED'S with some okay results. Still prefer the former.
swcoin.ecrater.com
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
5953 Posts |
The problem with halogens is burnt fingers (melted my lens hood first time I used them) and you can visibly see the electricity meter speed up when you turn them on. I sometimes us CF bulbs but you have to wait a few minutes for them to reach full and stable brightness.
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
I'm pretty much stuck on MR16-R20 sized bulbs. They're small and easy to get close to vertical over the coin, giving you an extra dimension of capability not offered by larger bulbs. And unavailable in CFL, unless you want something that falls painfully short of the actual rating.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
70 Posts |
I just bought a pair of these led gooseneck lights for $10 a piece at IKEA http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/p...cts/10128734I pretty much copied your setup Dave so thank you for that. I'm a photographer by trade so I've been trying all my normal lighting tricks and not getting good results. This setup works very well, imo. The white balance does seem to change a bit, but custom white balance seems to keep the colors close enough that it's not objectionable. You could always correct it in post if you really wanted. It's interesting to see how much the lighting can change the look of a coin. These are all of the same coin.  The first one shows off the mirror fields of this coin nicely, but hides detail in the breast feathers and obscures some scratches/cleaning marks. The center one shows the detail very well, including the flaws, but doesn't show the coins proof like finish. The last one may be the best compromise, but I still think I like the center one best. Thoughts? |
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
My pictures are taken through a magnifying loop with a 1990's camera on a tripod! LOL! I'm not getting to bad of results! I think it's more experimentation with what you have until you get it down! I swear to God I'm not lying! It's an old Concord 3042!  |
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
I've got an old camcorder with a 64X zoom that I'd love to convert to a scope, but I'm not smart enough! I know it could be done tho!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
OldFlabergeezer, I fixed the picture in your post to show, you had one of the tags messed up. I hope you do not mind
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:I just bought a pair of these led gooseneck lights for $10 a piece at IKEA http://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/p...cts/10128734 Ooooh. That is precisely what I'm looking for. Sheer lumens don't matter; I can vary exposure to compensate. You da man. With regard to your shots, I lean towards the third because of lighting. You used one lamp for the second and both for the third, right? I like the presentation of luster better in the second, and it does better with the breast, but at the cost of differing contrast between left and right sides. You should be able to achieve the same line of light wash across the fields with two lamps, only it'll "X" the coin, kinda like so:  That will even out the contrast across the whole coin. I suspect you're just a slightly longer exposure from that look with the third shot. For mirrors, your best bet is to set up a shot showing the coin reflecting something. It'll require a lot of light on the subject being reflected, and relatively little on the coin itself. It's a different look than you'd go for if you wanted to show the strict details of the coin itself.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
70 Posts |
Both lights were used in all of those, just to differing degrees. In the one on the left, both lights were pointed towards an adjacent wall and no light directly on the coin. The middle one had one lamp close to the coin and the other further away, and the last one had both lights backed off. Here's the same coin with both lights directly on the coin.  I think direct lighting works very well for circulated coins and indirect works best for mint state. Then again, I've only had these for a day so that might change. Here's my favorite coin purchase so far, and the only one I know I won't be selling. A beautifully ugly 1878-cc.  |
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
Hey Dave, that second snap of the mirror image, only with a flag in the reflection might make you a few bucks man! Nice picture! Just a sugestion!
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
14454 Posts |
Quote:
Hey Dave, that second snap of the mirror image, only with a flag in the reflection might make you a few bucks man! Nice picture! Just a sugestion! If its the coin I think it is, he had me submit it to NGC for him and I had never seen a 1921 look like that coin looked. And to make it even worse, NGC only gave it a PL designation and I have no idea what their reasoning behind that was because it had some of the deepest mirrors I had ever seen at that time and still the deepest mirrors I have ever seen on a 1921 Morgan |
|
Valued Member
United States
60 Posts |
PL? Please forgive my ignorance? What is PL?
As far as the coin goes, that's the nicest I've seen in person, picture or otherwise! Wish it was yours because I'd love to have a picture of the Flag in reflection. Kind of like she was looking at it! I think you'd sell a million if you had it Copyrighted!
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
"PL" means "prooflike." When you apply that term to regular mint Business Strikes (intended for circulation), it refers to the reflectivity of the surfaces - although you can expect most Proofs to have a surface you can shave in, only the very few first strikes from a brand-new Business Strike die have such nice surfaces. That one was, in fact, the coin Bryan is talking about. There are two "grades" of "Prooflike." The lower, "PL," means (roughly) you can read 12pt black-on-white type in the coin from a distance of about 4-6". The upper, "Deep Mirror Prooflike," (DMPL), means you can read the same type at a distance of 8" or more. We call DMPL's "headlights." The reflection is blinding; it'll hurt your eyes if you look straight into a reflected light from them. You have to see one in person to realize how staggeringly bright they are. A casual purchase of a DMPL Morgan as a gift is what jumpstarted my return to numismatics - I bought it off ebay and it drove me to my knees when I saw it. The rest is history. That coin was from the same die which was used to strike the Zerbe Proof 1921's. They sent it to regular production afterward. My example must have been from the very first strikes when they did. To my mind, it got the proper grade. There are vary darn few Prooflike 1921's, much less DMPL's, but the standard is the standard. It got MS63PL from NGC. In some years, they're more common than others; you can have many in that grade for less than $100. I got $550 for that coin on ebay.  |
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Heck, I forgot to address you, flashinm. Drop the exposure of the Mint State coin pics one stop, maybe two, and add 10% Contrast in the Gimp. That is *exactly* the lighting you want. Just wait until you see it. |
| |
Replies: 20 / Views: 4,140 |
Posted 01/14/2011 5:57 pm
