| Author |
 Replies: 12 / Views: 2,091 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
79 Posts |
Pun completely intended. I've begun trying to photograph coins.Here's a few examples of what I've done so far:      Heres a link if you want to see larger pics (flickr has this weired copyright thing even though there my pics, so I cant post any larger): http://www.flickr.com/photos/566515...26379173609/I'm currently using a Kodak C183, a black t-shirt as a background, a cigar box to steady my hands on, and sunlight from the window. Probably not the best equiptment, but I'm trying to do what I can with it. I'm saving up to get a small tripod, a good background (hopefully something you can't see the weaving in), and maybe some kind of remote trigger so I can snap a shot without accidentally bumping it. Well, now to the main point of why I posted this, is there anyway I could improve my shots until I do get better equiptment? Any help would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
91 Posts |
I don't see that there is much improvement needed. Considering your set-up I would say you are doing just fine. For posting on forums or ebay you will need to find a way to post larger photos. Great job on what you have done. Alan |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Couple quick things, with the understanding that you're already doing pretty darn good under the circumstances: Can I assume your original images are larger than Flickr is allowing you to display? Your Kodak has 14MP, so I'm guessing these are smaller than original. If so, Photobucket (or similar) will allow you to upload physically-larger images. However, you'll have to reduce JPEG Quality to get the filesizes smaller; most photo hosting places limit the sheer number of bits you dump on them before they limit image size. Second, are you shooting offhand (no shutter delay, holding the camera in your hands)? You've mentioned a tripod, so I'm thinking you already have a fix in for this one. Third. When you get the tripod, see if you can snag a cheap gooseneck table lamp from somewhere (or two). That will give you adjustable lighting, freeing you from being a slave to sunny days.  Fourth: If you do all that, you can work to minimize reflections off of adjacent surfaces by your selection of the place where you shoot. Light bouncing off of bright walls, adjacent filing cabinets, stuff like that, reduces contrast. Don't let me discourage you, though - this is all in the spirit of tweaking what are already excellent results. |
|
Valued Member
 United States
79 Posts |
Quote:
Can I assume your original images are larger than Flickr is allowing you to display? Your Kodak has 14MP, so I'm guessing these are smaller than original. If so, Photobucket (or similar) will allow you to upload physically-larger images. However, you'll have to reduce JPEG Quality to get the filesizes smaller; most photo hosting places limit the sheer number of bits you dump on them before they limit image size. Quite larger. I just used flickr because it was conveniant since I had already had an account there for my origami photos. I'll give photobucket a shot. Quote:
Second, are you shooting offhand (no shutter delay, holding the camera in your hands)? You've mentioned a tripod, so I'm thinking you already have a fix in for this one. Sort of, I hold it in my hand, no shutter delay, but I do rest my forearms on top of an old cigar box I have to try to reduce as much hand movement as I can. Do you know of any good small tripods, like say half a foot tall, that can have a camera mounted on it so that the lense is pointed down? Quote:
Third. When you get the tripod, see if you can snag a cheap gooseneck table lamp from somewhere (or two). That will give you adjustable lighting, freeing you from being a slave to sunny days. Good idea. I do prefer sunlight, but it rains quite a bit here, so I could see myself needing one coming up shortly. Any suggestions of what sort of bulb I should get? Quote:
Don't let me discourage you, though - this is all in the spirit of tweaking what are already excellent results. Not at all, I came here for constructive crticism, and thats what I got Thanks! |
|
Valued Member
United States
79 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
You're obviously gifted with steadier hands than I. Only the first shot, the 1972 obverse, betrays an unsteady shot. If you go to a tripod, I recommend a fullsize one. A tabletop tripod will lock you in to a specific distance from the coin - are you currently less than 6" from the coin when shooting? One last recommendation - time to start poking your nose into postprocessing software. I recommend the Gimp, which is free but requires a rather steep learning curve. Your images are of sufficient quality, though, to make me believe that with a little postprocessing help you'll be able to duplicate the results of much more "serious" camera outfits. |
|
Valued Member
United States
91 Posts |
You are doing exceptionally well and Superdave has given you some excellent suggestions for setting up your photography lab. Once you have your camera setup on a tripod and your lighting is selected I would suggest you study your cameras guide and learn how to setup your custom white balance. That is very important. The photos you have posted today are good but the 'color' is a bit off. This can be corrected by shooting with the proper white balance set in your camera. I'm sure Superdave will touch on this in greater detail when the time is right.
Alan
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
You got it, Alan. One step at a time. Coin photography is intimidating to the newer shooter, especially when you try to explain all of the relevant factors at the same time. Piece by piece, though, you can see how it all fits together as you go. As far as white balance goes, this camera has only presets - no Custom - so we may need to discuss specific light bulbs in the future. |
|
Valued Member
United States
79 Posts |
Quote:
Only the first shot, the 1972 obverse, betrays an unsteady shot. I know, it makes me kinda sad, but its the only pick I took that showed the toning properly, every other shot I take of it makes it look like a dull gray, or makes it throw a mean glare (yay proofs!). Quote:
are you currently less than 6" from the coin when shooting? Yes, the lense is about 3" from the coin. One of the few good things about this camera is that it has a pretty good macro setting. Quote:
One last recommendation - time to start poking your nose into postprocessing software. I recommend the Gimp, which is free but requires a rather steep learning curve. Your images are of sufficient quality, though, to make me believe that with a little postprocessing help you'll be able to duplicate the results of much more "serious" camera outfits. I've actually used Gimp before, never for editing photos, but I am somewhat familiar with the program. I can get my hands on the newest Photoshop for cheap if you think that would be any better. Edited by HalfDollarDave
04/20/2011 4:01 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
79 Posts |
Its starting to cloud up a bit, so I decided to try get a picture of the 1972 S half again through the diffused sunlight, here are the results:  There is a slight bit of a dark reflection in front of Kennedy's forehead, but I can live with it for now :P. |
|
Valued Member
United States
91 Posts |
Ahhh...I'm seeing as very overexposed.
Alan
|
|
Valued Member
United States
79 Posts |
OK, fiddled around a bit with the exposure settings, and here are the results:  Do you typically have to make sure you don't overexpose proofs? Also, while the color of the actual metal looks better now, the toning looks way darker than it is on the coin. Is there any way to get a happy medium between the two? |
|
Valued Member
United States
91 Posts |
Not having the coin in hand makes comment difficult. To my eyes the second photo you posted of the 1972 looks more like I would expect it to look. But you said your coin is toned, so I have no reference to help me comment. This most recent post appears to still be overexposed, but I'm groping in the dark for this. My best advice is to judge it for yourself. If, in your eyes it is an accurate representation of your coin, then go with it. Alan  |
| |
Replies: 12 / Views: 2,091 |
|
Posted 04/20/2011 10:49 am
