Applyin' da jooce da 'Trueview' way

[Hard Times]

Hi Folks,

I bought a dime last year and imaged it. My image is right below. Only minor adjustments to the RAW format images uploaded from the camera into photoshop to make the composite. I believe these represent a fairly accurate visual of the coin in hand:

 

 

Today I discovered that someone had a Trueview image made when submitted. Image below. First impression, wowza, is that really my coin? Certification number don't lie it be my coin!

 

 

So I decided to try to replicate the 'Trueview' by taking the composite I shot above and tweaking it. Knowing all the tricks in photoshop, I figured a small tweak here and there would do the trick. Yikes, I had to crank on several PS functions and push them to extreme limits of the software and get into areas I had never gone before. With a few subtle changes with a new shoot I could fine tune the image above and turn into the exact TV above no problemo. Problemo is tho, the image is juiced and hyped and does not really look like my coin.

 

Here is my new 'Trueview' image:

 

 

Moral of the story. SEE THE COIN IN HAND, PHOTOS DON'T NECESSARILY SHOW YOU WHAT YOU ARE GETTING.

 

Best, HT

 

 

[KeyMan64]

What lights are you using to photograph with?

I believe PCGS uses Halogens.

 

I have Jansjo LEDs, Incandescent and Halogen Floods. If I do a custom White Balance in between switching out each lighting system, the photos and their colors WILL look very different!

 

Then, what camera body do you shoot with? If you compare Nikon to Canon you will know that one is much warmer than the other with their factory presets. Again, everything can be set the same and with custom white balance etc but you will end up with different results.

 

Then you have to take into consideration the amount of time taken when imaging a coin and carefully comparing the photos on the computer screen with the coin in hand under good lighting. How much time did you spend on this one coin? How much time do you think a member of the PCGS Photo Staff had to spend? Seconds?...maybe a full minute?

 

Then you have to take into consideration points of the coin that might be under exposed or over exposed to determine if a gross mistake was made. In looking at the True View image, it might be slightly over exposed but not too significantly to call it a huge mistake.

 

So, to insinuate that PCGS is JUICING their photos, I think that is a mistake. They do not have the time to do that and is probably a pretty severe accusation to make.

[CaptHenway]

Here's a challenge...take some colorful silver coin, say an 1881-S dollar with some nice rainbow on it, and have the ten best photographers in the coin biz plus PCGS plus NGC photograph it and publish the results.

 

[robec1347]

I took this shot in August and actually had to desaturate the photo during processing thinking I might be accused of juicing.

 

The TrueView just came in this past week. I will guarantee you Phil is not juicing the photo.

It makes a huge difference imaging raw compared to what you get through the slab.

 

 

[jpcienkus]

HT, I like your first picture the best.

[KeyMan64]

It would be interesting to look at the certification photos from NGC on Certs

3910444-003 through 3910444-012

 

You can start with this link as you go through them and let me know what you think

these coins actually look like. I have seen 5 of them, owned 2 of them at one time

and I currently own 1. One is currently listed on eBay. I can tell you that none of the

coins look remotely close black blobs.

 

http://www.ngccoin.com/certlookup/index.aspx?CertNumber=3910444-003

[orifdoc]

It's easier to show high-angle reflective surfaces when shooting raw coins, an advantage only the TPGs have. Lighting like that often shows more color in the fields.

 

I agree that differences in lighting, lenses, camera bodies, etc. can produce HUGE differences in how the coin looks.

 

Juiced? Possibly, but there are other, far more likely, possibilities.

[AHFreak]

I have relatively little experience photographing coins, and I can tell you that I could replicate the true view photos with lighting and camera settings.... no photo editing software needed.

[AHFreak]

It's all about the lighting, lighting, and also the lighting

[ldhair]

Pretty coin HT.

[Hard Times]

Well you guys make some good points, especially when shooting without a slab that reflects the light. You can angle the coin into the light that way and capture the surface colors better. So mebbe not quite as juiced as I thought..........

 

Best, HT

[brg5658]

I don't know what the exact process is for "TrueView" photography, but here are a few of my observations over the past few years of looking at many coins in hand that also have "TrueView" images:

 

1)

Proof coins (particularly those with color) are photographed in such a way as to make the images overemphasize the color and reflectivity, and blow out the actual coin surfaces. Sure, this method shows off pretty colors, but to the detriment of the photograph being useful for anything beyond getting the masses to go "oooh" and "ahhh"...Almost all surface issues like hairlines, cloudiness, and even hits are blown out and hidden by this "glamour shot" method. I'm not a fan.

 

2)

The images are almost always red-shifted. Even in the images Bob (robec) posted on the previous page, you can see that where Bob's images accurately reflect the areas of "gray" and "white" (untoned metal), the PCGS images cast a orange/red color. This effect is prevalent enough, that I don't recall ever seeing a TrueView without this red-shift in the color. This is likely either a function of improper white-balance at the time of photographing, or an effect of some post-processing "formula" that PCGS has implemented to "warm up" the images.

 

One of my recent purchases is pictured below. The "TrueView" images are very red shifted. Areas shown as quite intense red/orange in the PCGS images are actually a golden/yellow in hand.

 

 

3)

In general, TrueView images are most honest and useful (to me anyway) for coins without color and without mirrored proof or prooflike surfaces. I do own coins with PCGS photos that are very representative of the coin and its surfaces. I don't want to come across as "all complaints", as I do believe that PCGS offers a superb photographic service. I just have my own little pet-peeves and OCD-like annoyances. Phil is very talented, so much so that I have witnessed what I would call a few collectors who seem to be more worried about getting a TrueView than the coin itself! I'll leave you with an example of a TrueView image for my most recently purchased coin -- which is honest and indeed "True" to the coin's look in hand (it is still a bit red-shifted, but the surfaces are accurate).

 

 

 

[jerseycat10]

HT, I like your first picture the best.

 

100% agree. The Trueview looks out of focus and less detailed than yours.

[coinman1794]

PCGS takes their Trueviews when the coins are raw, which allows considerably more direct light onto the face of the coin than can be directed on slabbed coins.

 

Some of the earlier Trueviews tended to be over-saturated. However, I do not see a considerable difference between the two shots, in this case. A slight change in angle and lighting could be the difference here. The key area of the toning, the band of neon reverse color, looks almost identical in each shot. The perceived differences in detail are due to lighting angle and contrast.

[RWB]

Compare the RGB histograms for each pair of images using correlation analysis. That will tell you how closely the two conform.

[rmpsrpms]

It's all about the lighting, lighting, and also the lighting

 

And camera settings. Big swing factor.

 

But it's also clear that PCGS uses some % of axial lighting in the TV pics. Axial makes toned coin surfaces really pop with color and brightness, and is almost certainly the factor that gives their toned coins that extra zing. I'm not an advocate of axial lighting in general, but for toned coins it's useful for getting the most accurate "in hand" look.