• 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.

The difference a good picture makes...

Started by JOBESSI,

30 posts in this topic

JOBESSI

JOBESSI

Posted
Posted

Here is two pics of the same coin. I'm amazed at the difference a professional photographer makes! They don't even look like the same coin!

 

1887_zps7c54ce1c.png

27573088_ExtraLarge_zps3ebff175.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

I suppose it is all dependent on how one defines a "good picture." I define a "good picture" by one that is true or close to what the coin looks like in hand. I envision that the coin does not look like the second image (which hides hairlines) nor does it look like the first image which makes it difficult to determine what the surfaces look like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lehigh96

lehigh96

Posted
Posted

The PCGS Truview was most certainly taken using diffused lighting. I always like to take two sets of photos with coins that need a diffused lighting to show the color. And while the Truview is a very pretty picture, I bet the coin looks much more like the top photo.

 

PS. I just found Phil's direct lighting photo on the PCGS forum and this is probably and accurate representation of what the coin looks like in hand.

 

350nlp5.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted

The first "picture" is not a picture at all. It is a scan for the SecurePlus fingerprinting at PCGS. The second PCGS TrueView image is pretty, but the coin only looks like that in hand when tilted directly into a light source. Any presence of cameo contrast is lost with this kind of lighting.

 

I would agree with Lehigh that I much prefer the picture he posted to either the SecurePlus scan or the TrueView one.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted

I actually think the first image is decent, but the second one is absolutely horrible. I really don't understand why anyone would waste time to shoot such useless images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hard Times

Hard Times

Posted
Posted

I would have to see in the coin in hand, under different types of light, before I could voice an opinion on which of the 3 images are more accurate.

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted
I actually think the first image is decent, but the second one is absolutely horrible. I really don't understand why anyone would waste time to shoot such useless images.

 

Neither of the pictures in the OP are useful at all. The first is a terrible scan - and the second makes it look like a PF-70. Absolutely useless, and typical of the PCGS Truview images.

 

Sorry to the OP, I'm sure the coin is nice, but I can't tell at all from those pictures. I really hope you didn't spend any money on them, because if you did it was wasted. Next time, send the coin to a good photographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
I actually think the first image is decent, but the second one is absolutely horrible. I really don't understand why anyone would waste time to shoot such useless images.

 

Neither of the pictures in the OP are useful at all. The first is a terrible scan - and the second makes it look like a PF-70. Absolutely useless, and typical of the PCGS Truview images.

 

Sorry to the OP, I'm sure the coin is nice, but I can't tell at all from those pictures. I really hope you didn't spend any money on them, because if you did it was wasted. Next time, send the coin to a good photographer.

 

You might not like the images or the style, but I believe the photographer is plenty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
$ilverHawk

$ilverHawk

Posted
Posted
I actually think the first image is decent, but the second one is absolutely horrible. I really don't understand why anyone would waste time to shoot such useless images.

 

Neither of the pictures in the OP are useful at all. The first is a terrible scan - and the second makes it look like a PF-70. Absolutely useless, and typical of the PCGS Truview images.

 

Sorry to the OP, I'm sure the coin is nice, but I can't tell at all from those pictures. I really hope you didn't spend any money on them, because if you did it was wasted. Next time, send the coin to a good photographer.

 

You might not like the images or the style, but I believe the photographer is plenty good.

 

If the photograph accurately represents what the coin looks like in hand, then the photographer is plenty good. Unfortunately, far too many times a photograph is presented in the most attractive light---pun intended. There have been a few presentations in other threads where various angles of a coin were shown statically and in short videos that rotated the coin through various viewing angles. IMO that is the truest representation of the true "look" of the coin without having the coin in hand.

 

The second photo in the OP s posting IMO is a glamorized, enhanced, version of the most appealing viewing angle. The coin may be outstanding when viewed in hand, but when the OP s photographs are compared, something just isn't right. That second pic is just too clean.

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
$ilverHawk

$ilverHawk

Posted
Posted
OP- lots Truview haters here!!! I love the Truviews! Looks like an attractive coin!

 

Truview hater, no. Is the Truview image an accurate depiction of the coin in hand, doubtful. Attractive coin, I have no way of knowing. The owner of the coin would have to report if the photograph accurately depicts the coin they own.

 

Carl

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted
It's accurate. Shows straight on look, and when the light hits the mirrors

 

It doesn't show the surfaces very well. Based on the second photo, the coin could grade as high as PF68 or PF69; however, the coin is in a genie for altered surfaces. This is very material. As you state, it doesn't even look like the same coin. The first photograph is likely more accurate. This doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a nice coin, it just means that the True View is very generous and forgiving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
messydesk

messydesk

Posted
Posted

I beleive the purchaser of a TrueView can specify how they want the coin to look. Another viewer may not have wanted it to look that way, and a buyer may not find the picture totally useful, but neither of those parties paid to have the picture taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted
I beleive the purchaser of a TrueView can specify how they want the coin to look. Another viewer may not have wanted it to look that way, and a buyer may not find the picture totally useful, but neither of those parties paid to have the picture taken.

 

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted
I actually think the first image is decent, but the second one is absolutely horrible. I really don't understand why anyone would waste time to shoot such useless images.

 

Neither of the pictures in the OP are useful at all. The first is a terrible scan - and the second makes it look like a PF-70. Absolutely useless, and typical of the PCGS Truview images.

 

Sorry to the OP, I'm sure the coin is nice, but I can't tell at all from those pictures. I really hope you didn't spend any money on them, because if you did it was wasted. Next time, send the coin to a good photographer.

 

You might not like the images or the style, but I believe the photographer is plenty good.

 

He has a very nice camera, and he has the ability to photograph the coins out of the slab. However, very, very few of his pictures can be described as good. Therefor, I would not say he's a good photographer. As we've discussed before, he always shows a cartoony, idealized, unrealistic view of the coin that is absolutely useless in determining the condition of the coin. Sorry, but we are going to disagree on this one (mostly, I think, because we disagree on our definition of a "good" photographer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BillJones

BillJones

Posted
Posted

The second picture looks like some of the photos the auction houses publish in catalogs and put on the web. They emphasize the good points, hide the problems and are generally traps set to catch the unwary. :mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted
OP- lots Truview haters here!!!

(thumbs u

 

You'd better believe it! I have seen numerous coins with their corresponding TrueViews, and practically never does the coin even resemble the image. The only time the TrueViews seem useful is for circulated non-toned coins. Otherwise, I virtually always find that the TrueViews present a ludicrous impression that conveys nothing of the true nature of the coin.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mommam17

mommam17

Posted
Posted

Some of the pictures of coins taken by experts do nothing for me. Some expert's, who are highly recommended, do not give me a feeling of what the coin looks like in hand and that's the most important part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hard Times

Hard Times

Posted
Posted
OP- lots Truview haters here!!!

(thumbs u

 

You'd better believe it! I have seen numerous coins with their corresponding TrueViews, and practically never does the coin even resemble the image. The only time the TrueViews seem useful is for circulated non-toned coins. Otherwise, I virtually always find that the TrueViews present a ludicrous impression that conveys nothing of the true nature of the coin.

 

Below is the one True View I have (came with the coin) and then my images below it. I don't find the True View that off, and you are right about the circulated ones being okay. True Views are made to capture the image of a coin in its very best light, and the photographer must be very skilled. I don't think this is a bad thing, it is just that we are used to either very poor images, or that many photographers are trying to capture the coin as it looks in most lighting conditions, not the most spectacular views as do the True Views. The True Views are also imaged raw, something that we can't do when we get the same coins in slabs without cracking them out, which I don't do in most cases.......

 

Best, HT

 

TrueViewMed_zps7fb089e6.jpg

 

1834hdPCGSAU58LM5_zps872c3af4.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brg5658

brg5658

Posted
Posted

With all due respect to Phil Arnold, HT I much prefer your picture to the TrueView.

 

I really dislike the mentality of the TrueView images. If you collect pretty pictures, they are fine. If you use pictures to evaluate the true condition of a coin, then they are not useful in most cases.

 

Images I have seen of circulated and business strike coins are more realistic than the proof coin images. I think it's a matter of use-case. A lot of people who pay for the TrueView images want the glamorized, color-emphasized images; and as such, they display them proudly in their PCGS registry sets. I will admit, they are eye-candy to look at. (shrug)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
Posted

You simply can't tell whether a photo is "good" until you see the real coin in hand. Period.

 

Generally speaking though, I've noticed that TrueView photos look "too good". Proof coins are very difficult to photo though....

 

Admittedly, I am very poor at deciphering coin photos...so it is best for me to see the coin in hand OR...at the very least...get a few different photos of the coin using different styles. One why is to get a photo of the coin showing the whole slab as sometimes that helps a lot.

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted
I actually think the first image is decent, but the second one is absolutely horrible. I really don't understand why anyone would waste time to shoot such useless images.

 

Neither of the pictures in the OP are useful at all. The first is a terrible scan - and the second makes it look like a PF-70. Absolutely useless, and typical of the PCGS Truview images.

 

Sorry to the OP, I'm sure the coin is nice, but I can't tell at all from those pictures. I really hope you didn't spend any money on them, because if you did it was wasted. Next time, send the coin to a good photographer.

 

You might not like the images or the style, but I believe the photographer is plenty good.

 

He has a very nice camera, and he has the ability to photograph the coins out of the slab. However, very, very few of his pictures can be described as good. Therefor, I would not say he's a good photographer. As we've discussed before, he always shows a cartoony, idealized, unrealistic view of the coin that is absolutely useless in determining the condition of the coin. Sorry, but we are going to disagree on this one (mostly, I think, because we disagree on our definition of a "good" photographer).

 

Good photographers can take lousy photographs. Arnold definitely has the ability to take phenomenal photographs even though he chooses not to, at least in my opinion, with many true view photographs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
You simply can't tell whether a photo is "good" until you see the real coin in hand. Period..

 

jom

 

Precisely! And often, people act as if they don't know or don't believe that.

 

There is a huge difference between a "good" photo and one that looks good and/or is flattering to the coin. Unfortunately, those two things are confused quite frequently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James_OldeTowne

James_OldeTowne

Posted
Posted
HT I much prefer your picture to the TrueView.

(thumbs u

The worst offenses are when a cameo proof coin is imaged, and all you see is the frosted details... and BLACK fields, almost as if it were a cutout coin. It's like 75% of the image is missing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
Posted
and BLACK fields, almost as if it were a cutout coin. It's like 75% of the image is missing.

 

Then we you actually see it there are hairlines in the fields... :frustrated:

 

But like I said proof coins are difficult to photograph...especially ones with color. I also find they are hard to decipher as well...I'd never really know if I'd like the coin based on the photo. Fortunately, I'm not a fan of proof coins generally speaking so it isn't much of a problem for me.

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
messydesk

messydesk

Posted
Posted
and BLACK fields, almost as if it were a cutout coin. It's like 75% of the image is missing.

 

Then we you actually see it there are hairlines in the fields... :frustrated:

...

Maybe not. There is a threshold beyond which darkening the field will make the hairlines disappear. When viewing a proof coin with black fields, you don't know if this threshold was crossed, causing the "surface information" to become hidden. If the fields are almost black, you'll be able to see the hairlines, assuming they're not parallel to the direction of the light source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
Posted
and BLACK fields, almost as if it were a cutout coin. It's like 75% of the image is missing.

 

Then we you actually see it there are hairlines in the fields... :frustrated:

...

Maybe not. There is a threshold beyond which darkening the field will make the hairlines disappear. When viewing a proof coin with black fields, you don't know if this threshold was crossed, causing the "surface information" to become hidden. If the fields are almost black, you'll be able to see the hairlines, assuming they're not parallel to the direction of the light source.

 

Well, that's not what meant. There are no absolutes...I just meant that it COULD happen...I've seen it. However, I've also seen "very good" photos of MS coins that once you see the coin in hand it looked like they were rubbed with a Brillo pad. Another words it isn't just proof coins...it is as you say the lighting.

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing