Hoot Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 I've just updated all of my pics in my Jefferson nickel sets (I have 3 of these but the link takes you to the 1938-date set). All are now 640x480 resolution. I sometimes get asked how I take the pics, so here's how I do it. First, however, let me say that I do not regard these pics as being good, only fair, so have a look for yourself to rate them. They are all scanned. A scanner simply cannot do as well as a good camera setup, so this is the way I've discovered is best from my own methods and I encourage others to post here and also provide examples. One other note: the lower the relief of the coin, the worse the scans get. For some reason, the scans are pretty miserable from 1971 on. And after 1991, they are detestable. Every blemish of the coin is magnified many times over in the scans and any dust inside or out of the slab is greatly enhanced. What's more, the plastic itself somehow interferes more with the low-relief coins. Must be the way they reflect light. On that note... I use an HP scanner (6350cse). It's on the older side and its maximum resolution is 1200x1200 dpi. I always scan on the max res and I scan to a .bmp file, as there is no compression and the image quality is better. I scan only the coin. I then use a cheap piece of shareware - CompuPic (www.photodex.com) - to crop the picture to appropriate borders, and adjust the color balance to get the scan to look as much like the coin as possible. Usually, this involves increasing the contrast by adjusting the black and white, and/or increasing the saturation. I also have to shift the color balance either slightly from the red to the green or vice-versa. (The color of the slab can have a significant effect here). Next, I save the .bmp image, then resize it to 640x480 and save it as a .jpg image. I make this save at 100% image quality. This picture is still too big for what NGC will upload, so I simply open the picture with the native Windows utility Paint, and save it. This maintains a good image quality and shrinks the file size to about 50k, well within the size that the NGC boards or Registry will upload. It's ready to go! Sounds like a lot of trouble, and it is to some degree. However, this is the best method I've found for getting a decent looking picture up for the registry. Oh, the program CompuPic comes in different flavors; I use the basic pay-for version, which runs about $40. Great if you don't want to buy Photoshop or another good photo editor that will be substantially more. Enjoy! Hoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickelhead-migration Posted May 31, 2003 Share Posted May 31, 2003 Hoot.... Thanks for sharing this. I have asked you before how you did your pictures but didn't copy it. This time I did and will give it a try. Looks like it might take a while to do about 145 coins though!!!!! Thanks Again nickelhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leothelion Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Hi Hoot Very nice scans! I use a camera. Here are some pics. Hope this works. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leothelion Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Hey! It works! Here's another. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leothelion Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Here's a 1955 proof that I thought turned out real well. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot Posted June 11, 2003 Author Share Posted June 11, 2003 Hi Leo! I like the pictures far more than the scans. Somehow, the pictures capture more of the depth of the coin and also display the natural lustre better. Also, it seems like the scans pick up way more of the imperfections on the holder, rather than the coin! I hate that. I just purchased a Nikon coolpix camera and hope to create a good setup, then switch over to pictures. Nice pics you have! Please describe your setup! Hoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leothelion Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Hoot You are treading on my secrets of the trade. There's really nothing to it although a nice camera does help. I use incandesant, frosted and florescent lighting, whatever works. Depends if it's raw, white or clear slab, proof. It's not a sure-fire way but if the picture turns out, I'm happy. All I know for sure is it does take alot of patience. Here's one more. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leothelion Posted June 11, 2003 Share Posted June 11, 2003 Hoot, Which of your coins have the best strikes. I'm checking your pics. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot Posted June 11, 2003 Author Share Posted June 11, 2003 Check out the 39-D, 41-S, and 44-D for best strikes. Hoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leothelion Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Check out the 39-D, 41-S, and 44-D for best strikes. Hoot Those are very nice, I also liked the 41-D obverse. The rev. center looked a bit soft. Is the 1954 prooflike? Looks a little too marky for the grade. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot Posted June 12, 2003 Author Share Posted June 12, 2003 The 54 is prooflike. As for the marks, the coin simply does not show that degree in-hand. In-hand, the coin is quite lovely. True for most of my coins . As I mention above (I think ), the scanner seems to pick up the marks on the plastic and also exaggerate the marks on the coin. With the 2-dimensional quality of the scanner, the marks on the plastic look like marks on the coin. I dislike that immensely. I've tried polishing the plastic, but it seems to help little. Any suggestions (except getting new coins ) are welcome. Hoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot Posted June 12, 2003 Author Share Posted June 12, 2003 By the way, the more prooflike the coin and/or the flatter the devices (post-1976, but especially post-1991), the worse my scans are. The scanner simply cannot resolve 3-D and the less there is, the more things show up in the scan that aren't on the coin . This also is indicative of why my scans do not show the fine details in Monticello's porch well. Oh well, nothing is perfect, and a scanner may be the cheapest way for most folks to get an image, so I'd rather see more images up than none at all (as is the case for most sets now). Once I get a camera setup going, I'll post some pics and "how-tos" on that. Hope you'll do the same Leo! Hoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leothelion Posted June 12, 2003 Share Posted June 12, 2003 Hoot 2-3 years ago, at a best buy store while in search of a camera, they had this $400 rebate and a must subscribe to MSN internet for 3 years promotion. They had this $1000 display model Sony FD-91 Mavica with a 14x zoom on sale so I bought it for around $275. It takes pics with a floppy and the zoom is great. Whenever the time comes to shake that 54, let me know. Leo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
