Tale of two pics.

[morganguru]

Same Franklin proof, no editing, no juicing, just a difference in the lighting.

The first pic looks DCAM all day n night.

The second, your typical lifeless proof.

There is a bit of contrast between device n field, the first exaggerates it.

It's somewhere in between but I couldn't capture it.

 

 

[rmpsrpms]

Nice demo. I've never gotten the hang of shooting proofs well. Mine always look like nice business strikes as my lighting shows surface detail. What was the difference between these shots from lighting perspective?

[mkman123]

yep a pic can make a big difference.

 

Is it a cameo?

 

 

[morganguru]

Nice demo. I've never gotten the hang of shooting proofs well. Mine always look like nice business strikes as my lighting shows surface detail. What was the difference between these shots from lighting perspective?

 

The first shot I backed the lamps off till the fields went black in the display screen. It gives the appearance of a full blown DCAM/CAM which it's not.

 

The second pic I moved the lamps right on top of the coin, until the whole coin was white, giving it a typical contrastless look.

 

In hand the reverse has more contrast than the obverse, but the obverse does have contrast. It might go CAM, possibly. I don't believe it's worth the fees though.

[CoinPulsive PCM]

HOLY COW! Its a hit or miss when I photograph proofs. My Ipad takes the best photos but not for up close detailed shots.

 

For lighting what type of bulb do you recommend? I know natural sunlight is great but I can't get close to the window because I have shelves all near it in my office.

I've been using the Energy saver curly bulbs and they don't work for me.

 

-Dave

[lordmarcovan]

Looks great in both pix, but yeah, in the first one it has that DCAM "pop" fer sure.

[TomB]

This is one of the things folks have to keep in mind when viewing images online. Nearly every proof WLH that gets sent to me for images has a tendancy to look DCAM or at least CAM in the image even if the coin has no contrast at all. One has to work to get the surfaces to look correct. Unfortunately, many sellers will take the more dramatic image and use that when they list the coin.

[lehigh96]

Nice demo. I've never gotten the hang of shooting proofs well. Mine always look like nice business strikes as my lighting shows surface detail. What was the difference between these shots from lighting perspective?

 

The first shot I backed the lamps off till the fields went black in the display screen. It gives the appearance of a full blown DCAM/CAM which it's not.

 

The second pic I moved the lamps right on top of the coin, until the whole coin was white, giving it a typical contrastless look.

 

In hand the reverse has more contrast than the obverse, but the obverse does have contrast. It might go CAM, possibly. I don't believe it's worth the fees though.

 

The contrastless look of the second photo is very useful for toned proofs. The first method will not show much color while the second method will. Since your coin is untoned, the second method is unnecessary.

[morganguru]

HOLY COW! Its a hit or miss when I photograph proofs. My Ipad takes the best photos but not for up close detailed shots.

 

For lighting what type of bulb do you recommend? I know natural sunlight is great but I can't get close to the window because I have shelves all near it in my office.

I've been using the Energy saver curly bulbs and they don't work for me.

 

-Dave

 

Two sometimes three, GE compact florescent bulbs. 20watt equivalent to 75 watt, Daylight 6500K, 1200 lumens.