Trying out my new camera. What do you think? Beware!lots of pics.

[ibyandsellsmith]

Hello! all, I just went out and bought a brand new Rebel EOS 350 D and the 60mm Macro lens. I figured this would be the better for coins since it's lighter and I'll be close up anyways . So if you don't mind, I could use some professional criticism, or just an opinion.

Most of these Pictures were set on a low Aperture, since I was focusing on a particular area.

[rrantique]

I think they look great, better than anything i have taken anyway. (thumbs u

[MikeInFL]

They look to be a very nice first effort! Well done.

 

Try experimenting with using just a very slight angle to the coin to have it all come in focus yet still show the color.

 

Hope this helps...Mike

[ibyandsellsmith]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think they look great, better than anything i have taken anyway. (thumbs u

Thank you! your to kind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They look to be a very nice first effort! Well done.

 

Try experimenting with using just a very slight angle to the coin to have it all come in focus yet still show the color.

 

Hope this helps...Mike

I will definitely try that, I've had a hard time keeping everything in focus. When I turn up the Aperture the shutter speed kills me.

[SuperDave]

When I turn up the Aperture the shutter speed kills me.

 

What ISO setting are you using? A higher ISO setting usually means more "noise" in the shot, but under the lighting conditions for coin pics it tends not to be a problem. With a similar setup to yours (350D/100mm macro), I have no problems working at ISO 400 or 800, which allows me to keep exposures fast. In any event, as long as the camera is securely mounted on a tripod or copy stand, and you use either a timed or remote shutter, there's no reason why you can't achieve great results with exposures down to 1/4 second or slower.

 

I never used to believe that myself, until someone here (thanks Mike!) told me to try it.

 

These days, I almost never shoot with an aperture any wider than f/8, and I'm usually around f/12-f/14. That gives me the depth of field I need to accommodate a little tilt, if necessary. Given that you're using a different lens, your mileage might vary, but I gather the 60mm is a capable lens in its' own right so you should be able to duplicate my results.

 

 

 

[bsshog40]

They look very good Richard. Also, as mentioned, try not to get too much of an angle so you can still get the coin looking circular than oval. Very nice shots tho'. Won't take long you will get better with that rebel. Nice camera.

[rrantique]

Dave that shot of the proof eagle is outstanding

 

Heck all are great shots.

[cpm9ball]

 

 

Great photos, Dave! Out of curiosity, did this eagle grade 69?

 

Chris

[mazorj-migration]

Nice pics for your first efforts. Even though I've been taking pictures for pleasure and for money for 40 years, photographing coins is a demanding specialty. I'm still fine-tuning my techniques and I depair whenever I see spectacular examples like those from SuperDave.

 

In addition to all the other excellent comments, let me add that getting the color just right is a daunting task. Our eyes adjust to tungsten, florescent, and daylight lighting, and other factors, when we look at an object, but the recording medium (be it film or digital) sees it for what it is - warmer or cooler in color, more or less contrasty, in or out of focus. Even if the camera's color balance setting is spot on, what comes out in the first print or digital image seldom is optimal. You will want to work on adjusting the color with a decent photo editing program. Keep good notes because you may not remember the various steps and settings that worked last time. And not only does each type of coin have its own unique characteristics (e.g., cents vs nickels vs silver vs gold) but each specific coin will vary according to composition, age, overall condition, etc.

 

The amount of time you put into tweaking an image should depend on how the pic will be used. If you just need a quick-and-dirty mug shot to e-mail to a friend, you can make it "good enough" with not much effort. If you want an archival documententation image that accurately depicts the real coin, you'll have to invest time and patience to get it right.

 

[MikeInFL]

"In addition to all the other excellent comments, let me add that getting the color just right is a daunting task."

 

It is not a daunting task in the least provided your camera has the ability to do a custom (i.e. measured) white balance -- in which case getting the correct color/white balance is a breeze. It takes only a second or two and works perfectly every time.

 

Now for those whose cameras don't have the ability to get a custom white balance, the challenge is greater -- but simply taking a picture of a grey-card and correcting the white balance in post-processing makes it only marginally more difficult than if the camera handled it.

 

The real challenge in coin photography, in my opinion, is getting the lighting (and to a lesser extent exposure) correct -- along with a lack of dynamic range inherent in all digital cameras. But with time and practice, even these challenges can be overcome.

 

"The amount of time you put into tweaking an image should depend on how the pic will be used."

 

Correction: The amount of time you put into tweaking an image should depend on how the pic will be used AND how well you captured the image in the camera (see previous comments re:white balance, exposure, and lighting). Frankly, if you're spending a lot of time post-processing, that means you did a bad job of capturing the image in the first place.

 

Respectfully submitted and all IMHO...Mike

[SuperDave]

Respectfully submitted and all IMHO...Mike

 

....Speaking of the guy who pointed out that I didn't have to concentrate on keeping by exposures brief.....

 

I created a light for shooting Proofs by acquiring an 8" Circline fluorescent ceiling fixture, and cutting a hole in the center large enough to fit the lens of the camera through. That way, I get even light around all but about 15 degrees of the coin. It's not so hot for the contrast you want with lustrous silver or copper, but it's killer with Proofs.

 

I have to be honest, though. I 'Shopped a batch of white specks out of the fields of the ASE.

[MikeInFL]

"I have to be honest, though. I 'Shopped a batch of white specks out of the fields of the ASE."

 

Cheater!

[nwcs]

Nice for a first effort. The two biggest problems are with exposure and white balance. I recommend center weighting and set the light source in the white balance to the light source you're using.

[nwcs]

>I will definitely try that, I've had a hard time keeping everything in focus. When I turn up the Aperture the shutter speed kills me.

 

This is why a tripod or copy stand is a must. You want the lowest ISO for the shots and a rock steady support. And you want to manually focus on the coin. Also keep in mind that at shutter speeds of about 1/4 - 1/15 second you may have mirror slap vibration to contend with so stability is key to a good picture.

[mazorj-migration]

"In addition to all the other excellent comments, let me add that getting the color just right is a daunting task."

 

It is not a daunting task in the least provided your camera has the ability to do a custom (i.e. measured) white balance -- in which case getting the correct color/white balance is a breeze. It takes only a second or two and works perfectly every time.

 

...

 

"The amount of time you put into tweaking an image should depend on how the pic will be used."

 

Correction: The amount of time you put into tweaking an image should depend on how the pic will be used AND how well you captured the image in the camera (see previous comments re:white balance, exposure, and lighting). Frankly, if you're spending a lot of time post-processing, that means you did a bad job of capturing the image in the first place.

 

Respectfully submitted and all IMHO...Mike

 

Mike, you're absolutely right that if you don't start with proper color balance then you'll waste a lot of time trying to correct the overall color cast. I use the techniques you describe so I get plenty of images where the color shows up "plenty good enough" right out of the camera. What's daunting is taking some images that last 5 yards to the goal line that you've set. I've had images that required some enhancement to bring out a certain aspect of color that shows on the coin but not on the image, or eliminating an inexplicable color anomaly (spot or overall cast) that is in the image but not on the coin. And sometimes, introducing a slight overall color shift produces a more pleasing and informative image than one that is accurate to within 5 degrees Kelvin. There's more to "color management" and producing an image exactly right to your tastes than getting the initial color balance right, which as you make clear, is a must.

 

Of course, it doesn't help that I'm still learning the fine points of using Paint Shop Pro XI in what admittedly is an obessive search for improvement. "Monkey see, monkey undo and try again." Eventually I end up with what to me is an improved image - and eventually I'll learn what kinds of fixes are worth the effort and which aren't. Actually, though, I spend more time fiddling with things like contrast and highlights and such. As with color balance, the best way to deal with that is in "pre-production" with the lighting set-up, which is an art in itself. But even then, there's always room for a little improvement on any image if you want to work at it.

 

When I just need a quick pic, all I do most of the time is crop and maybe whack it with a couple of the software's automated fixes. That gets me the "plenty good enough" image most of the time

 

Sorry if I'm running on in verbose mode, but I figure that some of the readers here will benefit from this kind of discussion.

 

 

[mazorj-migration]

"I have to be honest, though. I 'Shopped a batch of white specks out of the fields of the ASE."

 

Cheater!

 

Boy, let's not get into the never-ending argument over what is truth and what is not truth in photography! We'll be arguing that one 'til the mint sends out the last presidential dollar!

 

 

[mazorj-migration]

I created a light for shooting Proofs by acquiring an 8" Circline fluorescent ceiling fixture, and cutting a hole in the center large enough to fit the lens of the camera through. That way, I get even light around all but about 15 degrees of the coin. It's not so hot for the contrast you want with lustrous silver or copper, but it's killer with Proofs.

 

The poor man's ring light! Love it! Home Depot is on my to-do list.

 

But it must require a somewhat heavy bracing set-up, eh? How did you solve that, to give it enough articulation for adjustments while absolutely guarding against it falling and whacking the heck out of the specimen coin?

 

And do you use a florescent lights filter on the lens, or fiddle with camera light balance and software tweaking?

 

[MikeInFL]

Let's just say I'm more of a purist when it comes to image capture, as was alluded to when saying: "Frankly, if you're spending a lot of time post-processing, that means you did a bad job of capturing the image in the first place."

 

Whereas your goal is to "produces a more pleasing and informative image" through post-processing.

 

Nothing wrong with your ideal, nor mine -- they are just different.

[bsshog40]

I actually bought one of those $20 clamp lights that have a magnifying glass in the middle and a small flourescent ring type bulb that goes all the way around. I took the Mag glass out. I can just lower my camera into the middle and it does great for proofs also. This was taken thru this set-up.

[MikeInFL]

When I just need a quick pic, all I do most of the time is crop and maybe whack it with a couple of the software's automated fixes. That gets me the "plenty good enough" image most of the time.

 

Here's my workflow:

 

1) Adjust white balance.

2) Capture multiple images of both sides of a coin.

3) Download pics to PC.

4) Edit RAW file in Nikon Capture.

5) Apply Dynamic Lighting if necessary.

5) Crop out extraneous background, send 16bit TIFF to Photoshop Elements.

6) Sharpen (@~100,.7,3)

7) Crop and black-out background.

8) Resize

9) Change to 8 bit color

10) Save JPG

 

That's it.

[ibyandsellsmith]

Thanks to everybody for your feedback. Just to answer a few of the questions, I set the ISO to 100 in lower Aperture and generally kick it up to 1600 on higher Aperture. As far as the tripod I'm still using the one I bought for my point and shoot, so it wont stay still without me holding it, but I'm looking for a decent copy stand, for under $150.00, maybe, maybe not we'll see, if I'm plugged in to my computer I can hit a button on the screen, and the picture comes right up. I still need to get a 15% gray card, also, for the color balance. I'm hoping within 3 months or so, I can shoot a good picture of a coin.

 

P.S. Again, thanks to everyone for participating, I really enjoyed the comments.

Richard

[ibyandsellsmith]

When I just need a quick pic, all I do most of the time is crop and maybe whack it with a couple of the software's automated fixes. That gets me the "plenty good enough" image most of the time.

 

Here's my workflow:

 

1) Adjust white balance.

2) Capture multiple images of both sides of a coin.

3) Download pics to PC.

4) Edit RAW file in Nikon Capture.

5) Apply Dynamic Lighting if necessary.

5) Crop out extraneous background, send 16bit TIFF to Photoshop Elements.

6) Sharpen (@~100,.7,3)

7) Crop and black-out background.

8) Resize

9) Change to 8 bit color

10) Save JPG

 

That's it.

Holy cow, When do you have time to post them pics.

[MikeInFL]

I created a light for shooting Proofs by acquiring an 8" Circline fluorescent ceiling fixture, and cutting a hole in the center large enough to fit the lens of the camera through. That way, I get even light around all but about 15 degrees of the coin. It's not so hot for the contrast you want with lustrous silver or copper, but it's killer with Proofs.

 

The poor man's ring light! Love it! Home Depot is on my to-do list.

 

But it must require a somewhat heavy bracing set-up, eh? How did you solve that, to give it enough articulation for adjustments while absolutely guarding against it falling and whacking the heck out of the specimen coin?

 

And do you use a florescent lights filter on the lens, or fiddle with camera light balance and software tweaking?

 

Here's even a cheaper idea:

 

You can do the same thing with a paper cyllinder, or a even a lightshade. Using very diffused radial light is what causes the great contrast in these shots (along with ensuring you get no reflection off the mirrors).

 

Here's one image made using normal incandescent lighting and a paper cyllinder:

 

 

Please excuse the overexposed photo, but you get the idea... The photo was taken with 4 incandescent bulbs and a paper cyllinder consisting of two pieces of copy paper and scotch tape.

 

Have fun...Mike

[MikeInFL]

When I just need a quick pic, all I do most of the time is crop and maybe whack it with a couple of the software's automated fixes. That gets me the "plenty good enough" image most of the time.

 

Here's my workflow:

 

1) Adjust white balance.

2) Capture multiple images of both sides of a coin.

3) Download pics to PC.

4) Edit RAW file in Nikon Capture.

5) Apply Dynamic Lighting if necessary.

5) Crop out extraneous background, send 16bit TIFF to Photoshop Elements.

6) Sharpen (@~100,.7,3)

7) Crop and black-out background.

8) Resize

9) Change to 8 bit color

10) Save JPG

 

That's it.

Holy cow, When do you have time to post them pics.

 

It only takes a little while once you get the hang of it -- I'd say twenty minutes from start to finish -- and I don't get new coins all that often.

[mazorj-migration]

Let's just say I'm more of a purist when it comes to image capture, as was alluded to when saying: "Frankly, if you're spending a lot of time post-processing, that means you did a bad job of capturing the image in the first place."

 

Whereas your goal is to "produces a more pleasing and informative image" through post-processing.

 

Nothing wrong with your ideal, nor mine -- they are just different.

 

Amen - different strokes for different folks.

 

So... anybody want to talk about setting image file parameters - file types, pixel counts, compression ratios, and similarly geeky stuff? Being an old-school, some-time journalism and wedding photographer who grew up with film, I come to digital with an obsession for image quality. I simultaneously record each shot in a 15 Mb NEF and a 5 Mb jpeg file. Figuring out how best to dial down the pixel resolution, set the image dimensions, set the file compression, etc,. for specific uses, are another work in progress for me.

 

[MikeInFL]

Thanks to everybody for your feedback. Just to answer a few of the questions, I set the ISO to 100 in lower Aperture and generally kick it up to 1600 on higher Aperture. As far as the tripod I'm still using the one I bought for my point and shoot, so it wont stay still without me holding it, but I'm looking for a decent copy stand, for under $150.00, maybe, maybe not we'll see, if I'm plugged in to my computer I can hit a button on the screen, and the picture comes right up. I still need to get a 15% gray card, also, for the color balance. I'm hoping within 3 months or so, I can shoot a good picture of a coin.

 

Focus (no pun indended) on getting a solid tripod or copy stand. Boosting the ISO is a bad idea and symptomatic of your not having a copy stand (and then you'll be able to just lengthen your exposure). I'd try adding weight to your current tripod to get it to stay steady. Duct tape is also not out of the question.

 

In the meantime, work on your white balance. You can get a grey card cheaply at most photography stores (Wolf Camera, for instance, is in many malls). You can also get one here: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=sort&A=search&Q=&sortDrop=Price%3A+Low+to+High&bl=&atl=&pn=1&st=search&mnp=0.0&mxp=0.0&sv=GRAY&shs=GRAY+CARD&ac=&fi=all&pn=1&ci=0&cmpsrch=&cltp=&clsgr=

 

I think you will be surprised how quickly your photographs would improve if you would make these two improvements to your setup.

 

Good luck...Mike

[MikeInFL]

Let's just say I'm more of a purist when it comes to image capture, as was alluded to when saying: "Frankly, if you're spending a lot of time post-processing, that means you did a bad job of capturing the image in the first place."

 

Whereas your goal is to "produces a more pleasing and informative image" through post-processing.

 

Nothing wrong with your ideal, nor mine -- they are just different.

 

Amen - different strokes for different folks.

 

So... anybody want to talk about setting image file parameters - file types, pixel counts, compression ratios, and similarly geeky stuff? Being an old-school, some-time journalism and wedding photographer who grew up with film, I come to digital with an obsession for image quality. I simultaneously record each shot in a 15 Mb NEF and a 5 Mb jpeg file. Figuring out how best to dial down the pixel resolution, set the image dimensions, set the file compression, etc,. for specific uses, are another work in progress for me.

 

I'll go there with you, and I'll bet you can predict my response if you've been paying attention:

 

I only capture RAW (NEF) files in the highest resolution with no compression and all settings, other than white balance, to normal/off.

 

My web files are saved as 8 bit JPG files with the lowest compression at around 800 pixels square, but that's more a function of keeping my hosting bills down than anything else.

 

[mazorj-migration]

 

Here's even a cheaper idea:

 

You can do the same thing with a paper cyllinder, or a even a lightshade. Using very diffused radial light is what causes the great contrast in these shots (along with ensuring you get no reflection off the mirrors).

 

Here's one image made using normal incandescent lighting and a paper cyllinder:

 

 

Please excuse the overexposed photo, but you get the idea... The photo was taken with 4 incandescent bulbs and a paper cyllinder consisting of two pieces of copy paper and scotch tape.

 

Have fun...Mike

 

Very, very nice - almost a surrealistic quality to it.

 

Hey, wait! I thought you were of the documentarian school, not the artsy type? That doesn't look like any Ike I ever saw!

 

 

[MikeInFL]

It was from my early, experimental days.

[mazorj-migration]

As far as the tripod I'm still using the one I bought for my point and shoot, so it wont stay still without me holding it, but I'm looking for a decent copy stand, for under $150.00, maybe, maybe not we'll see,

Richard

 

You can save on the copy stand if you're willing to accept a slight increase in hassle factor. I got the Manfrotto 3001PRO tripod, with head, for about (+/-) what you quoted for a copy stand. It's sturdy enough to add an extender (in my case, a micro-stage but anything that locates the camera farther from the head will do) so that the camera projects out far enough that you can position the tripod against the table and point the camera down at the table surface. Height adjustment has to be done with the legs, hence the slight hassle factor, but if you mark the legs with a Sharpie at their exension joints you can easily reset the height after using it elsewhere.

 

This model has other useful features for copy/close-up work and it's strong enough to support my heavy Nikon D200.

 

I had toyed with the idea of converting a free enlarger on Craig's List to a copy stand (doable if you're reasonably handy with tools and hardware) but for now, I'm quite happy... except...

 

Except for the fact that when I went to my camera shop to look at copy stands, the one they had was $150 - but the woman behind the counter informed me "Oh, gee. I just sold mine last week in a yard sale. It's been taking up space forever"

 

Me: "Dang, that always happens to me! What did you get for it?"

 

Her: "Five bucks."