How's the lighting?

[mikew148]

This nickel is graded 65 by PCGS. It has even toning that subdues the luster just a touch, although plenty remains.

 

How does this image look to you?

 

 

 

 

This image is with 3 lights, the aperture set at 8 and the shutter speed slowed to 1/80 to allow more light in. Because the luster is somewhat muted by the toning, I originally classified this as a low contrast coin and used only 1 light. My lesson from this coin is muted luster does not necessarily mean "low contrast". I think this image represents the coin well. Color is very close, luster is present (although as Bill Jones indicated it's not booming) and the focus looks pretty good.

 

 

Two lights, high angle, aperture at 8 and F-stop of 1/80

 

[MarkFeld]

The image looks as if it could use better light. But you know, far better than anyone else, whether the coin looks like the image.

[Raisethis2]

I kinda like it. The coin's not all "in your face" but as Mark Feld said, does the coin look like itself?

 

That's the measure I'd suggest works best.

[wdrob]

I happen to think that is about perfect. You took that or ..... ?

[Coindude]

It makes the coin look dull and lifeless. Maybe try a higher angle? But as Mark stated, if that's what the coin looks like in hand then you caught the right image of it.

[BillJones]

The image looks great to me. I've seen a lot of 1913 Type I Buffalo nickels that did not have booming luster. I think that the mint made an effort in these years not to make coins that were bright and shiny, and went for a more satin look on the business strikes. I found this to be true when I was looking at the early dates in the Walking Liberty half dollar series for a want list customer.

 

This is probably how the coin looks in real life.

[rmpsrpms]

Your histogram looks good, though I prefer the overall image to be a bit brighter, ie the peak of the histogram to be at a higher RGB level. Shadow detail looks good, and the devices are all well-defined, so your lighting angle is good. My only complaint might be that luster presentation is a bit weak, and if the coin is actually more lustrous then you are probably diffusing too much, spreading the light too much, or using too many lights.

[physics-fan3.14]

Its a little dark, but overall not bad.

[mikew148]

New image - 3 lights at a high angle, aperture set at 8, shutter speed set to 1/80. I added some addition information on the first page (OP) as well.

 

 

 

[rmpsrpms]

I'm a bit shocked to read that the first image is using only one light. It must be extremely diffuse to shine across the coin so evenly. I was actually expecting you would disclose that you were using a ring light...

 

I like the first image better, it's just a bit too dark and the low contrast is subduing the luster. Here's an adjustment that uses the good raw material of the first image...

 

 

The second image is technically a bit too bright and suffers from low contrast as well. Here's an adjustment of the second image.

 

 

Even after adjustments, I like the first better and it's starting to show a bit of the luster the coin probably has based on your description, but only you can say if it is anything close to accurate...Ray

[mikew148]

Thanks for the input Ray. My first images were with one light diffused, the second was with 3 not diffused. I am under the impression that the correct category for this toned, MS65 coin with color and somewhat muted luster would be medium contrast. Which should be imaged with two lights at a high angle.

 

This is two lights at a high angle, aperture at 8 and F-stop at 1/80 - no editing, other than cropping.

 

[rmpsrpms]

Mike...I still like the first one best, but the differences are pretty small. In general, the fewer lights you can get by with, the better to achieve the "in-hand" look. When viewing in-hand at a show or even at home, most folks use one light. Light comes in from other areas, like high overhead fluorescents or lights from other tables at a show, or ambient room light at home. This extra light is (sort of) represented by diffusion.

 

What I still don't understand is how you are getting away with using two lights, undiffused, and not showing strong highlights on the coin surface. Either the coin is extremely dull, which it doesn't appear to be, or the lights you are using are very large and thus already diffused. You can increase the luster presentation by making the lights appear "smaller". Do this simply by moving them farther away from the coin but at the same clock positions and angle to horizontal. Another way is to ensure the two lights are the only ones lighting the coin. Make the room dark, and if needed shield the coin from any reflections onto the coin. Your images are very evenly lit, so you can afford to concentrate the light a bit in order to show more luster.