• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

An attempt at Axial lighting photography

25 posts in this topic

So recently I purchased a very pretty Bust Dime from Stacks. The coin is an AU58 and has gorgeous color when tilted in the light. Shooting the coin straight on did not capture the color very well, so I tried axial lighting. That didnt work too well either.

 

Here is Stacks images which do a great job at capturing both the details and the color.

 

25ggmdu.jpg

 

Here is a picture with a light directly hitting the coin. Obviously there is now way to get rid of that much glare:

 

2ege82t.jpg

 

Here is an attempt at Axial lighting. Didnt work very well.

 

29e3sm0.jpg

 

So while it has some color, it doesnt have nearly as much as the Stacks image. Im not sure who/how Stacks images their coins. Any suggestions as to what I can do?

 

Ankur

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What type of glass did you use? I think I see a curve in the glass causing blur in parts of the coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stack's image compromises between the color and details. Your "into the light" shot shows there is more color on the coin that they didn't want to image, due to the glare.

 

If you want all the greens and blues you see around the stars, you may want to try lights at 10, 2, and 6. Stack's picture doesn't light the lower part of the coin, which is why the colors aren't strong there.

 

Axial lighting has never proven useful to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is rare that I obtain what I consider to be good images from axial lighting. You have my deepest sympathies on obtaining the perfect shot of this coin. Good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is rare that I obtain what I consider to be good images from axial lighting. You have my deepest sympathies on obtaining the perfect shot of this coin. Good luck.

 

lol it's going to be a tough one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stack's image compromises between the color and details. Your "into the light" shot shows there is more color on the coin that they didn't want to image, due to the glare.

 

If you want all the greens and blues you see around the stars, you may want to try lights at 10, 2, and 6. Stack's picture doesn't light the lower part of the coin, which is why the colors aren't strong there.

 

Axial lighting has never proven useful to me.

 

+1 in almost all cases I can accomplish what I want with better results without messing with that type of lighting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple toned proof coins where the toning is a very thin "film" over the glassy fields, and it is only viewable in all of its glory with this style of (axial) imaging. Outside of that very special case, I'd stick with direct light...and I'd try the 3 lights as Messydesk suggests -- I shoot almost everything with three lights nowadays.

 

On circulation strike coins, even though you can get some of the colors to come out with axial lighting, the images end up super flat, and the luster completely dead. I only ever post these types of images together with a regular direct light image....otherwise they can be hugely misleading as to the look of the coin in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stack's image compromises between the color and details. Your "into the light" shot shows there is more color on the coin that they didn't want to image, due to the glare.

 

If you want all the greens and blues you see around the stars, you may want to try lights at 10, 2, and 6. Stack's picture doesn't light the lower part of the coin, which is why the colors aren't strong there.

 

Axial lighting has never proven useful to me.

 

+1 in almost all cases I can accomplish what I want with better results without messing with that type of lighting

 

As do I. I can used for axial lighting when doing proof coins...especially ones with toning. Fortunately, I've never been a big fan of proof coins so I haven't had to bother.

 

Ankur can always send his coin to me and I'll give it a shot. :devil:

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a couple toned proof coins where the toning is a very thin "film" over the glassy fields, and it is only viewable in all of its glory with this style of (axial) imaging.

 

Indeed. Higher grade examples often times are effectively shot using axial lighting to showcase a specimen's coloring.

 

I often use axial lighting when shooting higher grade specimens, or specimens which still show evidence of luster or RB coloring.

 

Below is a simple diagram of the setup that I use:

 

CheetahsAxialLightingSetup2.jpg

 

In my experience, lots of effort has to be made when photographing slabbed specimens using axial lighting. Glare and unwanted reflection often occurs from the slab surface. Orbiting the lighting, as well as tilting the glass, until glare and reflection are minimized often helps.

 

Fuld-151-430c-Franklin-Combined.jpg

(specimen was photographed through an NGC slab)

 

I've also found that old copper specimens, such as those where detail needs to be elicited, sometimes benefit when photographed using axial lighting.

 

1787-Vlack-19-87C-Combined.jpg

 

HT-201-HowellWorks-Combined-Black-Specimen1.jpg

 

Here are a few more examples of other specimens:

 

HT-34-IllustriousPredecessor-Combined.jpg

 

Fuld-208-408-R-1-Patriotic-Combined.jpg

 

Fuld-237-423a-Combined.jpg

 

Fuld-37-256a-HorrorsBlessings-Combined.jpg

 

Pa-197A-Saml-Hart-CombinedWh.jpg

 

PA-197B-SamlHart-Combined-SB-01-12-6547-13.jpg

 

Thanks,

 

Cheetah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to toss water on the fire, but neither the description nor the illustration describe axial lighting. What is shown is just another variation on diffused lighting.

 

It doesn’t really matter what it's called for you own use, as long as the results are what you want, but misuse of descriptive terms confuses others. (Kind of like Wally Breen calling a “fin” a “wire rim” and assigning magical powers to it.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to toss water on the fire, but neither the description nor the illustration describe axial lighting. What is shown is just another variation on diffused lighting.

 

It doesn’t really matter what it's called for you own use, as long as the results are what you want, but misuse of descriptive terms confuses others. (Kind of like Wally Breen calling a “fin” a “wire rim” and assigning magical powers to it.)

 

My photography vendor who is CPP certified describes the two techniques by the following:

 

Axial or Axis Lighting

Illumination from the lens axis using light reflected from a partially mirrored glass angled 45 degrees in front of the lens.

 

Diffused Lighting

Utilizing any form of translucent material that permits light to pass through but diffusing it such that objects on the other side are not clearly visible. The diffuser becomes the primary light source, which is as broad as the lighted area of the diffuser.

 

The method for which I describe is indeed Axial Lighting. And I'll stick with their guidance.

 

But thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you will check the literature on scientific photography (try reading Blaker’s “Handbook for Scientific Photography” or Gibson’s “Closeup Photography and Photomacrography” for starters) you will find that your "vendor who is CPP certified" gave you an incomplete description.

 

What you describe is a diffuse lighting technique and is not axial lighting. You might think you have axial lighting because you are including a piece of glass acting as a beam splitter. However, the light source is large and spreads all around the coincident portion of the beam. The result is a diffuse light source with a bit of direct light in the center. Only light from the very center of your glass plate is axial, the balance is off axis and that contaminates the highlights and shadows. (It also creates the off-center "hot spot" in some of your photos.)

 

Your technique can work fine, but it is not axial lighting and should not be described as “axial lighting” unless you add some qualifiers.

 

In true axial lighting, the beam splitter (glass plate or prism) should be only slightly larger than the diameter of the lens. Also the light source must be no larger in beam diameter, as measured at the beam splitter, than the face of the beam splitter. All other light must be removed from the work area. Knowledgeable users of axial lighting sometimes add a short cylinder, coated with black telescope flocking on the inside, when photographing small objects. This further protects the subject from stray light and can eliminate the need for black covers and drapes.

 

[incidentally, I have been a member of the Professional Photographers of America since 1973 (although I dropped membership several years ago on leaving the business end). I was a commercial photographer for many years. I also helped prepare the first Certified Professional Photographer test criteria back when PPA managed it. I know exactly what it is and what it isn’t – it emphasizes basic knowledge and competency – that is all. It gives the person trying to make a living taking pictures something to hang on the wall or put on business cards. In a business that has no “professional” standards (like being a coin dealer) it offers a small reassurance of competency.]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a very similar dime taken with lights next to the lens as recommended by Goodman, no tilt of the coin, and no axial lighting or diffusion. The key as messy suggests is to get the whole coin lit. I used CFL's that Bob Campbell recommended for this image, I also use halogens for some images. The key is to fully light the coin and avoid glare from the slab, and bring out the toning, always takes some time to orient the lights well. I am about 95% there on this image - a touch dark on the rim above Miss Liberty's cap so the color does not come out completely there, but otherwise a fair depiction. I suppose I could increase the brightness of the image or a little higher exposure, I suspect that is what Stack's did/does to get their images(?).

 

Best, HT

 

1832dPCGSXF45CAC.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you will check the literature on scientific photography (try reading Blaker’s “Handbook for Scientific Photography” or Gibson’s “Closeup Photography and Photomacrography” for starters) you will find that your "vendor who is CPP certified" gave you an incomplete description.

 

What you describe is a diffuse lighting technique and is not axial lighting. You might think you have axial lighting because you are including a piece of glass acting as a beam splitter. However, the light source is large and spreads all around the coincident portion of the beam. The result is a diffuse light source with a bit of direct light in the center. Only light from the very center of your glass plate is axial, the balance is off axis and that contaminates the highlights and shadows. (It also creates the off-center "hot spot" in some of your photos.)

 

Your technique can work fine, but it is not axial lighting and should not be described as “axial lighting” unless you add some qualifiers.

 

In true axial lighting, the beam splitter (glass plate or prism) should be only slightly larger than the diameter of the lens. Also the light source must be no larger in beam diameter, as measured at the beam splitter, than the face of the beam splitter. All other light must be removed from the work area. Knowledgeable users of axial lighting sometimes add a short cylinder, coated with black telescope flocking on the inside, when photographing small objects. This further protects the subject from stray light and can eliminate the need for black covers and drapes.

 

[incidentally, I have been a member of the Professional Photographers of America since 1973 (although I dropped membership several years ago on leaving the business end). I was a commercial photographer for many years. I also helped prepare the first Certified Professional Photographer test criteria back when PPA managed it. I know exactly what it is and what it isn’t – it emphasizes basic knowledge and competency – that is all. It gives the person trying to make a living taking pictures something to hang on the wall or put on business cards. In a business that has no “professional” standards (like being a coin dealer) it offers a small reassurance of competency.]

 

Roger, while I agree with your description, what Cheetah has diagrammed is colloquially called "axial lighting" for numismatic photography. That term comes from the guy who wrote the book on numismatic photography (Mark Goodman). Even if it is not 100% scientifically "exact", it is an accepted description of that method among all numismatic photographers that I know.

 

All niche fields have jargon that can mean one thing here, and another thing there. If you described an "axial lighting" setup to almost any numismatic photographer they would likely think of what Cheetah has described. I don't think "qualifiers" are necessary in this case simply because no one was confused -- I think even you knew what was meant by "axial lighting" in this instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a very similar dime taken with lights next to the lens as recommended by Goodman, no tilt of the coin, and no axial lighting or diffusion. The key as messy suggests is to get the whole coin lit. I used CFL's that Bob Campbell recommended for this image, I also use halogens for some images. The key is to fully light the coin and avoid glare from the slab, and bring out the toning, always takes some time to orient the lights well. I am about 95% there on this image - a touch dark on the rim above Miss Liberty's cap so the color does not come out completely there, but otherwise a fair depiction. I suppose I could increase the brightness of the image or a little higher exposure, I suspect that is what Stack's did/does to get their images(?).

 

Best, HT

 

1832dPCGSXF45CAC.jpg

 

 

HardTimes, so this coin has two green beans? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

brg:

 

The utility of colloquial usage is appreciated, but describing one thing and doing another easily confuses the novice. They think they are doing A when in reality they are doing B and do not understand the differences between them. If a coin is photographed with modified axial lighting, then say so and move on.

 

Remember “ballistic rolls of Golden Dollars,” and “melt the golden dollars and pay off the national debt?” Ever grimace when people say “edge” but mean “rim.” Is a “first strike” a first strike? The hobby list could go on quite a distance.

 

I’m lobbying for basic accuracy of language use – nothing more.

 

[bTW – I reviewed Mark’s excellent book before it went to press, and prepared a review for the publisher. After publication I also provided him with a copy of a book titled “Numismatic Photography” that I completed in 1999 but did not publish. It was too film-oriented for the coming era of good digital cameras.]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites