Photography- Technology vs Old School - Answer first post 0

[bsshog40]

So I liked hearing @RWB comments about phone cameras. So I decided to see who can tell what technology was used in these pics. One I took a few years ago with my Canon Rebel EOS T4i, with OTT lights and camera stabilized on a copy stand. I know there are better cameras now but is still a very good camera. The other was just taken with my samsung s22+. The only thing I did was crop them. So what is your answer. Done with camera or done with phone? Btw, both were taken thru the slab.

#1. Canon Rebel

#2. Sumsung S22+

Edited January 24, 2023 by bsshog40

[Walkerfan]

I don't know BUT....

I'm GUESSING that #1 was done with the phone.

Both are good.  

Interesting...the color variation of the two different styles.  Number 1 looks more YELLOW.  

Number 2 is definitely sharper.  

Edited January 24, 2023 by Walkerfan

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/24/2023 at 1:36 PM, Walkerfan said:

I don't know BUT.... I'm GUESSING that #1 was done with the phone. Both are good.  Interesting...the color variation of the two different styles.  Number 1 looks more YELLOW.  Number 2 is definitely sharper.  

Agree with WF. 

[Coinbuf]

I think 1 as well.

[USAuPzlBxBob]

I'll guess #1, too.

One thing I've found is that if you pull up your coin photo stored in Photos on your computer (Apple 13" MacBook Pro, in my case) and compare that photo to what is seen when viewing your same Registry photo, the Registry "version" is dumbed down in sharpness.  Considerably so.  And this is especially the case when you enlarge both photos side-by-side.

For this reason I'm very pleased with my Registry "version" since it can only look so good, if I want to show the whole slab.

The single piece of advice I can offer for taking cell phone pics of coins is:  work on your lighting.  All of my cell phone pics were done in the kitchen on the kitchen island and the recessed large bulbs in the ceiling — 4 of them; Philips Indoor Flood BR30 — contribute 65 W each, there is one of those pendant lights that comes right down to 20" above where my coins were imaged, and it had a 40W crystal clear bulb in it.

Then I also used, in conjunction with all of this, a Euro Tool 5x Magnifying Lamp (currently $35.19 Amazon) that has an 11 W fluorescent circular ring-bulb and the light has a gooseneck stand for positioning the 5x lens/ring-bulb to the coin, and two stacks of books, one on each side of the coin so that I could make a platform of whatever height I needed to get things to "work."  (wrong height… add or remove books)

The cell phone then took the photos from above everything, looking through the 5x magnifying lamp.  To get things to gloss up a little further I may have incorporated a Mini MagLight and experimented with it from an extreme oblique-angle.

If you fool around like this, you're going to find just the right "everything" to get some attractive photos… and then you "warm" them just a touch in your Photos Editor.

[VKurtB]

On 1/24/2023 at 2:12 PM, USAuPzlBxBob said:

I'll guess #1, too.

One thing I've found is that if you pull up your coin photo stored in Photos on your computer (Apple 13" MacBook Pro, in my case) and compare that photo to what is seen when viewing your same Registry photo, the Registry "version" is dumbed down in sharpness.  Considerably so.  And this is especially the case when you enlarge both photos side-by-side.

For this reason I'm very pleased with my Registry "version" since it can only look so good, if I want to show the whole slab.

The single piece of advice I can offer for taking cell phone pics of coins is:  work on your lighting.  All of my cell phone pics were done in the kitchen on the kitchen island and the recessed large bulbs in the ceiling — 4 of them; Philips Indoor Flood BR30 — contribute 65 W each, there is one of those pendant lights that comes right down to 20" above where my coins were imaged, and it had a 40W crystal clear bulb in it.

Then I also used, in conjunction with all of this, a Euro Tool 5x Magnifying Lamp (currently $35.19 Amazon) that has an 11 W fluorescent circular ring-bulb and the light has a gooseneck stand for positioning the 5x lens/ring-bulb to the coin, and two stacks of books, one on each side of the coin so that I could make a platform of whatever height I needed to get things to "work."  (wrong height… add or remove books)

The cell phone then took the photos from above everything, looking through the 5x magnifying lamp.  To get things to gloss up a little further I may have incorporated a Mini MagLight and experimented with it from an extreme oblique-angle.

If you fool around like this, you're going to find just the right "everything" to get some attractive photos… and then you "warm" them just a touch in your Photos Editor.

Errrrrm, ring lighting can have disadvantages as well as advantages. It almost always eliminates detail. It’s why it’s so popular for “influencers” on video podcasts. It removes roughness, aka blemishes. There is no single best way to light coins. It’s an art, not a science. Just like there’s no single best way to light portraits. 

Edited January 24, 2023 by VKurtB

[bsshog40]

So I updated answer in first post. I do have to admit tho, my canon captured the color much better but the phone captured a more detailed shot. I can live with both tho'. 

[RWB]

The top photo is the better of the two except for poor focus.

Here's a photo taken with a ripe banana:

Here's a coin photo taken with said banana. (You have to ignore the funky background -- bananas have quite the ego!)

Edited January 24, 2023 by RWB

[bsshog40]

On 1/24/2023 at 3:12 PM, RWB said:

The top photo is the better of the two except for poor focus.

Here's a photo taken with a ripe banana:

You know, I've known you for yrs on this forum. You use to provide very good information and opinions. You seem to have gotten grumpier in your old age and changed your information from informative to sarcastic! Such a shame!!!!!

[USAuPzlBxBob]

Funny how we all got the question wrong.

VKurtB, blemishes do show up less, but when I look at photos by others that have seemingly infinitely-precise detail, the coins take on a "sterile" appearance; there's no "romance" in the photos.  It becomes an obsession of "is my coin more perfect than someone else's coin."

All of my coins are far from perfect, so I like to see them "through rose colored glasses.

[RWB]

On 1/24/2023 at 4:24 PM, bsshog40 said:

You know, I've known you for yrs on this forum. You use to provide very good information and opinions. You seem to have gotten grumpier in your old age and changed your information from informative to sarcastic! Such a shame!!!!!

Maybe you should smile a little and have fun with this stuff....

[VKurtB]

On 1/24/2023 at 3:29 PM, RWB said:

Maybe you should smile a little and have fun with this stuff....

Some people take themselves AND this hobby just a notch or two too seriously. Take a large step back and notice how ridiculous ALL OF THIS is to regular people. It’s amazing!

[Fenntucky Mike]

I would have guessed #1 was taken by the phone as well, it's a little blurry. Both are WAY better than I could do. Nice! 

[VKurtB]

On 1/24/2023 at 3:12 PM, RWB said:

The top photo is the better of the two except for poor focus.

Here's a photo taken with a ripe banana:

Here's a coin photo taken with said banana. (You have to ignore the funky background -- bananas have quite the ego!)

Ya know what? Bananas make a real nice background for that coin. That’s just, umm, … BANANAS!

[Hoghead515]

I like both pictures also. I like the color of #1 and the sharpness of #2. Both better than any picture Ive been able to capture so far. Soon Im going to start practicing with some of @VKurtB lighting tips hes shared over the past couple years. Im thinking about trying to get a professional camera you can change lenses on this summer when work picks up wide open again. Wonder what the best kind of lens is to use? I mean like the size and all that good stuff. Ive seen it shared on the forum before but its been awhile. 

[bsshog40]

Be careful @Hoghead515You can really get into a lot of money dealing with cameras and equipment. Definitely not worth the money for just taking coin pics. Unless you can make a living at it. Thats why I haven't had any interest in upgrading from my Canon t4i. It does what I want it to do and thats enough for me. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/24/2023 at 3:44 PM, VKurtB said:

Errrrrm, ring lighting can have disadvantages as well as advantages. It almost always eliminates detail. It’s why it’s so popular for “influencers” on video podcasts. It removes roughness, aka blemishes. There is no single best way to light coins. It’s an art, not a science. Just like there’s no single best way to light portraits. 

Not only that, but I believe that today's LCDs vs. CFLs vs. incandescents will all light a coin's surface area differently.  Even if you correct for wattage/lumens.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/24/2023 at 9:11 PM, Hoghead515 said:

I like both pictures also. I like the color of #1 and the sharpness of #2. Both better than any picture Ive been able to capture so far. Soon Im going to start practicing with some of @VKurtB lighting tips hes shared over the past couple years. Im thinking about trying to get a professional camera you can change lenses on this summer when work picks up wide open again. Wonder what the best kind of lens is to use? I mean like the size and all that good stuff. Ive seen it shared on the forum before but its been awhile. 

Agree with BSS.....unless you are going to get lots of usage out of the (digital) camera...and can utilize all the advanced features....you can get 95% or more of that with a smartphone which is probably as good as professional digital cameras were only 5-7 years ago.   With the money saved, you can get yourself a super-nice coin ! 

You can buy a very inexpensive mini-tripod which makes taking the pictures easier and with hardly any shaking/vibrating. 

What I did was set my coin box up agains the back of my La-Z-Boy recliner....then I had the coin against the back of the chair resting on the coin box....then I pressed the smartphone flush against the forward part of the coin box to "brace" myself so I wasn't holding the phone in the air but against something.  Helped eliminate some shaky photos and increased the consistency.

Edited January 25, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/24/2023 at 4:00 PM, bsshog40 said:

So I updated answer in first post. I do have to admit tho, my canon captured the color much better but the phone captured a more detailed shot. I can live with both tho'. 

Is the Canon state-of-the-art and you had same resolution quality on both ?

The more vibrant color (realistic, IMO) of the smartphone is clear....and the increased sharpness and detail seen in the smartphone pics is very clear to me.  Look at the details on the smartphone pic on the neclace, the headdress coming over the left ear, or the feathers.

The Canon looks like VHS-quality or DVD-quality while the S22+ looks like a Blu-Ray or 4K.  

Edited January 25, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[bsshog40]

On 1/25/2023 at 12:42 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is the Canon state-of-the-art and you had same resolution quality on both ?

The more vibrant color (realistic, IMO) of the smartphone is clear....and the increased sharpness and detail seen in the smartphone pics is very clear to me.  Look at the details on the smartphone pic on the neclace, the headdress coming over the left ear, or the feathers.

The Canon looks like VHS-quality or DVD-quality while the S22+ looks like a Blu-Ray or 4K.

Well my camera is a Canon Rebel T4i. That picture is off of my phone which I had to steal from a former post of mine somewhere.  Lol All my coin pics are on my computer, which was packed away the last year while we moved, sold house and just bought another house. We don't have wifi out here right now either. Not sure if that pic may have degraded a little during the process of originally posting it, later copying it to phone and now cropping and reposting. Lol

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 12:30 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Not only that, but I believe that today's LCDs vs. CFLs vs. incandescents will all light a coin's surface area differently.  Even if you correct for wattage/lumens.

Completely true. 

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 12:42 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is the Canon state-of-the-art and you had same resolution quality on both ?

The more vibrant color (realistic, IMO) of the smartphone is clear....and the increased sharpness and detail seen in the smartphone pics is very clear to me.  Look at the details on the smartphone pic on the neclace, the headdress coming over the left ear, or the feathers.

The Canon looks like VHS-quality or DVD-quality while the S22+ looks like a Blu-Ray or 4K.  

The phone, ALL phones, create heavily digitally processed photos. They are designed to be pleasing to the eye, but NOT ACCURATE in any scientific sense. Accurate photos REQUIRE turning off ALL AUTOMATIC EVERYTHING, and making the camera act as if it had film in it. Yes, I know that’s a lot of trouble, and not very popular, but it is what it is. I see things in this board photographically that make me want to be sick, if I’m being honest. I worked over 35 years in the photo business and the reason I don’t post coin photos on this board is frankly because they all nauseate me, mine and everyone else’s. It’s not easy to do well, and doing it well is EXPENSIVE. And no, no LCD’s or compact fluorescent ANYTHING is worth a 💩. 

Edited January 25, 2023 by VKurtB

[RWB]

Kurt's comments are on the nose!

Additionally, film has a much greater dynamic range that digital, and it is analog down to the molecular level meaning much smoother transitions between tones.

NASA had to create a special digital system to make photos of the lunar polar regions.

[FlyingAl]

On 1/24/2023 at 11:42 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Is the Canon state-of-the-art and you had same resolution quality on both ?

The more vibrant color (realistic, IMO) of the smartphone is clear....and the increased sharpness and detail seen in the smartphone pics is very clear to me.  Look at the details on the smartphone pic on the neclace, the headdress coming over the left ear, or the feathers.

The Canon looks like VHS-quality or DVD-quality while the S22+ looks like a Blu-Ray or 4K.  

 

On 1/25/2023 at 8:03 AM, bsshog40 said:

Well my camera is a Canon Rebel T4i. That picture is off of my phone which I had to steal from a former post of mine somewhere.  Lol All my coin pics are on my computer, which was packed away the last year while we moved, sold house and just bought another house. We don't have wifi out here right now either. Not sure if that pic may have degraded a little during the process of originally posting it, later copying it to phone and now cropping and reposting. Lol

I'm very confused why the Canon images appear so weird. Here are some pics I took with my Canon Rebel XTi (which is an inferior camera to yours based on specs) and these blow the phone images away. Your camera should have done the same.

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:07 AM, RWB said:

Kurt's comments are on the nose!

Additionally, film has a much greater dynamic range that digital, and it is analog down to the molecular level meaning much smoother transitions between tones.

NASA had to create a special digital system to make photos of the lunar polar regions.

… to say nothing of the looney bipolar regions. They can be found in my first wife’s brain. 
 

Seriously though. If you aren’t photographing in RAW mode, you’re just playing around.  

Edited January 25, 2023 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:57 AM, VKurtB said:

The phone, ALL phones, create heavily digitally processed photos. They are designed to be pleasing to the eye, but NOT ACCURATE in any scientific sense. Accurate photos REQUIRE turning off ALL AUTOMATIC EVERYTHING, and making the camera act as if it had film in it. Yes, I know that’s a lot of trouble, and not very popular, but it is what it is. I see things in this board photographically that make me want to be sick, if I’m being honest. I worked over 35 years in the photo business and the reason I don’t post coin photos on this board is frankly because they all nauseate me, mine and everyone else’s. It’s not easy to do well, and doing it well is EXPENSIVE. And no, no LCD’s or compact fluorescent ANYTHING is worth a 💩. 

Why is FILM more "accurate" to the naked eye than a digital reproduction ?

BTW...I have a photo my father took when our house was being built in 1966....he probably used a Konica 35 mm....yet, the resolution is 3328x2216.  I would have thought it was at most 1/3rd that level of pixels/resolution.  I was watching TCM years ago and they said something like old film -- B&W or color -- had lots of "data" or information or bits contained that you really don't lose anything when you do a HD transfer.

I suspect my old Instamatic camera or one of those throw-awys probably had film with much less resolution than my dad's 1960's 35mm.  

[GoldFinger1969]

On 1/25/2023 at 12:07 PM, RWB said:

Additionally, film has a much greater dynamic range that digital, and it is analog down to the molecular level meaning much smoother transitions between tones. NASA had to create a special digital system to make photos of the lunar polar regions.

That "dynamic range" must be what old films have and those 35 mm photos/slides my father took when I was growing up.

I wasn't aware of NASA doing special cameras, I'll ask NASA folks next time they come to NEAF. 

We've been taught that digital is "better" than analog (4K > Blu-Ray > DVD > S-VHS > VHS > OTA TV).

[VKurtB]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:25 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Why is FILM more "accurate" to the naked eye than a digital reproduction ?

BTW...I have a photo my father took when our house was being built in 1966....he probably used a Konica 35 mm....yet, the resolution is 3328x2216.  I would have thought it was at most 1/3rd that level of pixels/resolution.  I was watching TCM years ago and they said something like old film -- B&W or color -- had lots of "data" or information or bits contained that you really don't lose anything when you do a HD transfer.

I suspect my old Instamatic camera or one of those throw-awys probably had film with much less resolution than my dad's 1960's 35mm.  

The difference was in the optics, not the film. Film frames can be digitized at whatever resolution the user wants to scan them at. It all depends how much data you want to sling around. 

[VKurtB]

A 126 film Instamatic creates a 28mm x 28mm frame of film on a film cartridge that had NO pressure plate to keep the film flat and which had fixed focus optics. A 35mm film frame is 24x36mm and could have been exposed in a plastic camera or a Leica M6 with a Summicron lens in the hands of an expert. The film is NOT the limiting factor; the photographer and optics are. For movie film, the technology used to do the transfer is the limiting factor. Look at modern Andy Griffith Show reruns. The original films have now been digitized and they beat anything we ever saw on TV. 

[bsshog40]

On 1/25/2023 at 11:08 AM, FlyingAl said:

 

I'm very confused why the Canon images appear so weird. Here are some pics I took with my Canon Rebel XTi (which is an inferior camera to yours based on specs) and these blow the phone images away. Your camera should have done the same.

I've had some decent pics with my t4i. Heres a couple. The enhanced eagle was in a slab and the toned eagle was raw.