Scanning And Photography

[Accumulator 52]

Great stuff Brandon, what types of lamps do you prefer (or does this vary enormously also?)

The lamps I've been using for about the last 2 years are the IKEA sourced "Jansjo" LED lamps. They require a little bit of diffusion (not a lot), but they have an incredibly small footprint, so you can even get them into tight working distance spaces. Here in the states they are $9.99 each -- looks like they are £10 each on your side of the pond.

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00169659/

This is great Brandon. To date all my photos have been taken in daylight, but that does limit me. I may well give your set up a go using my simple compact camera (with macro mode), but one question comes to mind. Why do you only light the coin from the top/sides, albeit with 2 or 3 sources? Is that simply due to the practicality of being unable to place a source in the space taken by the tripod? If the camera was mounted from above would you also choose to have a light source at 6 o'clock?

Regarding the IKEA lamps, do you know what colour temperature they provide? Presumably you could fit your own bulbs anyway. Around the house I've standardised on a warm white (2700K, I believe) but for photos a cooler (higher temperature) may look better?

Edited November 18, 2013 by Accumulator

[Accumulator 52]

Nice illustrated tutorial, Brandon. Your setup is very similar to mine, although I use a single daylight CFT bulb mounted horizontally (so that using the clock analogy, it covers 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock).

Nick, do you have a couple of comparative photos to post, using your set up? I'm sure they've been posted previously, so a link will do.

Also, what is a CFT bulb? I can only find CFL in Google.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Accumulator

[ChKy 61]

Wow!!!

You analyzed and optimized your method in a scientific manner!!

Now wonder you spend years in that kind of project! I have tried something similar (with scanning) and made thousands of images over the years already.

Edited November 18, 2013 by ChKy

[Nick 325]

Nice illustrated tutorial, Brandon. Your setup is very similar to mine, although I use a single daylight CFT bulb mounted horizontally (so that using the clock analogy, it covers 11 o'clock to 1 o'clock).

Nick, do you have a couple of comparative photos to post, using your set up? I'm sure they've been posted previously, so a link will do.

Also, what is a CFT bulb? I can only find CFL in Google.

They do seem to use CFL as the acronym now (CFT was compact fluorescent tube). The bulb I use is this one, but actually it's very bright (equivalent to 150W). I think that if I were to replace it, I would go for a lower wattage.

All of the pictures I have posted are using the setup mentioned. There are several of mine posted in the toned coins thread (example).

[Peckris 579]

I posted this thread on another coin forum about 6 months ago, and I thought a few here might also find it helpful/useful.

I have been photographing my coins for the past 4.5 or so years, and I have found that coin photography is a way to meld together two hobbies that I love. The first 2 to 2.5 years of the process were essentially experimental. I started with a Point and Shoot small Canon camera, and a couple desk lamps with incandescent bulbs. Early on, I also experimented with a light tent (also sometimes called a light box). I noticed improvement over the first 2 years, but I was still not happy with my final images after months of playing around.

About 2 years ago I was fed up, and wanted to figure out how to get professional quality coin images, but didnt really want to purchase a $1500 macro lens or a new camera. I stumbled upon a coin forum with its own Coin Photography sub-forum (this is quite rare among coin forums), and for the first 3-4 months I read every historical thread there related to set-ups, lighting, cameras, copy stands, etc. I finally jumped in and asked some questions, and soon thereafter I had a new way of imaging coins. I purchased a bellows and a couple enlarger lenses (about $90 and $40, respectively) and 3 little lamps from IKEA for $9.99 each (Jansjo lamps). I was seeing big strides in quality, and within 4 months of having this new set-up I was finally at a stage where I was happy with the images I was taking.

Ironically, one of the most frustrating and difficult components of coin photography for me (and I think for others) was lighting. I say ironically because this also happened to be the least expensive ingredient of the recipe. In my many months of experimentation, I had been doing a lot of things that seemed intuitive but were actually the opposite of what I should have been doing. While there is no magical advice I can give, and there is no replacement for trial and error (i.e., thousands of practice coin shots), I hope this little bit of advice is at least helpful to a few.

Firstly, I want to talk about diffusion of your light source. In essence, I encourage you to minimize diffused light or to avoid diffusion of your light source all together. Related to diffusion of light is the idea of angle of light source as compared to the coin. In the following schematic, I have defined the angle of the lamp with the pink arc on the left.

One of the keys to decent coin images is to keep this angle of your light source as high as possible (as close to 90 degrees, and as close to your lens as you can get without throwing reflection on the slab or coin). As the angle of your light source decreases, the more diffuse your light appears on the coin surface. You can see in the following set of images how the angle changes the look of the coin. I have shown the left light source, right light source, and both together. This shows how the two light sources at the standard 10-2 positions work together to light the coins surface.

.... continued in next post

In my opinion, your best result by far, is the mid-angle 50º shot (3rd, i.e. "Both"). It combines the evenness of detail of a scan, with the tonal values of a photograph - in other words it's the ideal compromise. Your 80º shot has too much unevenness of tone especially in the reflections, and over-emphasizes portions of the design as shown by the dark shadow to the right of the profile. Also, the signature has almost disappeared and there are unnatural reflections at the edge at 12, 4, and 8 o'clock. By contrast, the 50º shot seems closest to the HDR ideal that coin photography requires.

Of course, in the end it's all subjective, I'm sure you'll agree. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say in this post. Others here would I'm sure benefit from your valuable experimenting, but rather than accept your judgement as to the best result, should tweak the set-up to obtain what they feel are the best results.

[brg5658 111]

regarding brightness for the lights are they pretty bright or more a dull light? if that makes any sense whatsoever

I am not certain what the lumen output is. They are pretty bright given their small footprint, but they are just a single spot of phosphorescence.

[brg5658 111]

Great stuff Brandon, what types of lamps do you prefer (or does this vary enormously also?)

The lamps I've been using for about the last 2 years are the IKEA sourced "Jansjo" LED lamps. They require a little bit of diffusion (not a lot), but they have an incredibly small footprint, so you can even get them into tight working distance spaces. Here in the states they are $9.99 each -- looks like they are £10 each on your side of the pond.

http://www.ikea.com/gb/en/catalog/products/00169659/

This is great Brandon. To date all my photos have been taken in daylight, but that does limit me. I may well give your set up a go using my simple compact camera (with macro mode), but one question comes to mind. Why do you only light the coin from the top/sides, albeit with 2 or 3 sources? Is that simply due to the practicality of being unable to place a source in the space taken by the tripod? If the camera was mounted from above would you also choose to have a light source at 6 o'clock?

Regarding the IKEA lamps, do you know what colour temperature they provide? Presumably you could fit your own bulbs anyway. Around the house I've standardised on a warm white (2700K, I believe) but for photos a cooler (higher temperature) may look better?

Regarding the positioning of the lamps: I have for some images placed a light at 6 o-clock. I have about 6 inches of space between my copy stand and my bellows, so that is not an issue of space. If I want to light "from below" I usually opt for the equally spaced 4-8-12 lighting positions. In the end, as I emphasize in my write-up, the lighting positions are not set in stone. I vary them about to best illuminate the surface of each unique coin. I am able to see on a "LiveView" screen of my DSLR how the lighting moves look, so I can adjust real-time before I snap the image. The lighting positions are the most variable of the parameters.

Regarding the IKEA lamps: they consistently run around 3000-3100K. You can not fit your own bulbs into the lamp. The "bulbs" are not really bulbs -- they are a spot of phosphorescence on an electric plate (LED), and they are completely integrated into the lamp. They are non-replaceable, but as with many LED products, that means they will last for years and years. Given the price that IKEA sells these for, they are constructed with a "consumer" mentality -- meant to be consumed and then discarded. So, they aren't exactly what I would call "environmentally friendly" from that standpoint.

[brg5658 111]

In my opinion, your best result by far, is the mid-angle 50º shot (3rd, i.e. "Both"). It combines the evenness of detail of a scan, with the tonal values of a photograph - in other words it's the ideal compromise. Your 80º shot has too much unevenness of tone especially in the reflections, and over-emphasizes portions of the design as shown by the dark shadow to the right of the profile. Also, the signature has almost disappeared and there are unnatural reflections at the edge at 12, 4, and 8 o'clock. By contrast, the 50º shot seems closest to the HDR ideal that coin photography requires.

Of course, in the end it's all subjective, I'm sure you'll agree. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say in this post. Others here would I'm sure benefit from your valuable experimenting, but rather than accept your judgement as to the best result, should tweak the set-up to obtain what they feel are the best results.

The higher the angle, the wider the dynamic range of the image (as you can see from the histograms I provided). As the angle decreases, the "flatter" the image looks (i.e., the histogram compresses into a narrow region of indistinguishable hues). Photographically, the optimal image is that produced with the highest angle of light. This doesn't guarantee that the image is optimal to the subjective tastes of each individual.

I never said my method was the best or any such thing. All things are subjective, and people should take the bits they find useful, and discard the others. I was only posting this as "some food for thought". There is no magical coin photography/imaging method. I have been "tweaking" for years, and will continue to do so.

[Peckris 579]

In my opinion, your best result by far, is the mid-angle 50º shot (3rd, i.e. "Both"). It combines the evenness of detail of a scan, with the tonal values of a photograph - in other words it's the ideal compromise. Your 80º shot has too much unevenness of tone especially in the reflections, and over-emphasizes portions of the design as shown by the dark shadow to the right of the profile. Also, the signature has almost disappeared and there are unnatural reflections at the edge at 12, 4, and 8 o'clock. By contrast, the 50º shot seems closest to the HDR ideal that coin photography requires.

Of course, in the end it's all subjective, I'm sure you'll agree. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say in this post. Others here would I'm sure benefit from your valuable experimenting, but rather than accept your judgement as to the best result, should tweak the set-up to obtain what they feel are the best results.

The higher the angle, the wider the dynamic range of the image (as you can see from the histograms I provided). As the angle decreases, the "flatter" the image looks (i.e., the histogram compresses into a narrow region of indistinguishable hues). Photographically, the optimal image is that produced with the highest angle of light. This doesn't guarantee that the image is optimal to the subjective tastes of each individual.

I never said my method was the best or any such thing. All things are subjective, and people should take the bits they find useful, and discard the others. I was only posting this as "some food for thought". There is no magical coin photography/imaging method. I have been "tweaking" for years, and will continue to do so.

That's exactly what I was saying. HDR photography is all about COMPRESSING the tonal extremes BECAUSE of the high range, by subduing highlights and bringing out detail in shadow areas (though much of what passes for "HDR" is actually nothing of the sort - it's tone mapping). That's why I said your row 2 shot 50º was what I thought the best for coins, in that it preserved full detail without over-emphasizing any part of it, but also giving a modest indication of lustre which scans entirely lack.

But to repeat what I said before, and which you acknowledged - it's all subjective. However, your 'food for thought' is most valuable, and if I was able to photograph coins, I would immediately set to and try your method out.

[brg5658 111]

In my opinion, your best result by far, is the mid-angle 50º shot (3rd, i.e. "Both"). It combines the evenness of detail of a scan, with the tonal values of a photograph - in other words it's the ideal compromise. Your 80º shot has too much unevenness of tone especially in the reflections, and over-emphasizes portions of the design as shown by the dark shadow to the right of the profile. Also, the signature has almost disappeared and there are unnatural reflections at the edge at 12, 4, and 8 o'clock. By contrast, the 50º shot seems closest to the HDR ideal that coin photography requires.

Of course, in the end it's all subjective, I'm sure you'll agree. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say in this post. Others here would I'm sure benefit from your valuable experimenting, but rather than accept your judgement as to the best result, should tweak the set-up to obtain what they feel are the best results.

The higher the angle, the wider the dynamic range of the image (as you can see from the histograms I provided). As the angle decreases, the "flatter" the image looks (i.e., the histogram compresses into a narrow region of indistinguishable hues). Photographically, the optimal image is that produced with the highest angle of light. This doesn't guarantee that the image is optimal to the subjective tastes of each individual.

I never said my method was the best or any such thing. All things are subjective, and people should take the bits they find useful, and discard the others. I was only posting this as "some food for thought". There is no magical coin photography/imaging method. I have been "tweaking" for years, and will continue to do so.

That's exactly what I was saying. HDR photography is all about COMPRESSING the tonal extremes BECAUSE of the high range, by subduing highlights and bringing out detail in shadow areas (though much of what passes for "HDR" is actually nothing of the sort - it's tone mapping). That's why I said your row 2 shot 50º was what I thought the best for coins, in that it preserved full detail without over-emphasizing any part of it, but also giving a modest indication of lustre which scans entirely lack.

But to repeat what I said before, and which you acknowledged - it's all subjective. However, your 'food for thought' is most valuable, and if I was able to photograph coins, I would immediately set to and try your method out.

I don't know of any reason why one would want to use HDR techniques or mentality for imaging a coin. That method was developed for photography where one doesn't control the lighting of various parts of the image (e.g., sun here, shadow there, etc). When controlling all parameters of a photo's lighting, the goal is to have as wide a dynamic range as possible in one shot. This ensures that you have the most flexibility for any post-processing or adjustments you wish to make post-hoc.

[ChKy 61]

That's why I said your row 2 shot 50º was what I thought the best for coins, in that it preserved full detail without over-emphasizing any part of it, but also giving a modest indication of lustre which scans entirely lack.

To be honest, I have to say that lustre can be shown by scanning as well...

[Peckris 579]

I don't know of any reason why one would want to use HDR techniques or mentality for imaging a coin. That method was developed for photography where one doesn't control the lighting of various parts of the image (e.g., sun here, shadow there, etc). When controlling all parameters of a photo's lighting, the goal is to have as wide a dynamic range as possible in one shot. This ensures that you have the most flexibility for any post-processing or adjustments you wish to make post-hoc.

I'm not sure I agree as far as coins are concerned. Unless it's a ghastly AT 'rainbow' coin, most coins have a narrow dynamic range - i.e., they are a single object where the desired effect is a flat even lighting rather than one which has introduced highlights and shadows beyond the minimum required to make out the design. That's exactly why a few 20th Century proofs were produced using 'sandblasted dies' - this was to flatten the tone for photographic purposes. Admittedly as coins, they aren't the prettiest, but for the purpose of showing every last bit of detail (the detail, the whole detail, and nothing but the detail), they did the job.

Now, if one is photographing coins as if jewellery, then fine - I'd go along with you 100%. But if recording a historical artefact, then I'd say a narrow dynamic range is the ideal. That's why I say that in my opinion, your middle right shot is better than the bottom right, which is where we began this whole debate.

That's why I said your row 2 shot 50º was what I thought the best for coins, in that it preserved full detail without over-emphasizing any part of it, but also giving a modest indication of lustre which scans entirely lack.

To be honest, I have to say that lustre can be shown by scanning as well...

You have an excellent scanner ChKy! (I'm pretty sure mine doesn't give results like that).

[brg5658 111]

I don't know of any reason why one would want to use HDR techniques or mentality for imaging a coin. That method was developed for photography where one doesn't control the lighting of various parts of the image (e.g., sun here, shadow there, etc). When controlling all parameters of a photo's lighting, the goal is to have as wide a dynamic range as possible in one shot. This ensures that you have the most flexibility for any post-processing or adjustments you wish to make post-hoc.

I'm not sure I agree as far as coins are concerned. Unless it's a ghastly AT 'rainbow' coin, most coins have a narrow dynamic range - i.e., they are a single object where the desired effect is a flat even lighting rather than one which has introduced highlights and shadows beyond the minimum required to make out the design. That's exactly why a few 20th Century proofs were produced using 'sandblasted dies' - this was to flatten the tone for photographic purposes. Admittedly as coins, they aren't the prettiest, but for the purpose of showing every last bit of detail (the detail, the whole detail, and nothing but the detail), they did the job.

Now, if one is photographing coins as if jewellery, then fine - I'd go along with you 100%. But if recording a historical artefact, then I'd say a narrow dynamic range is the ideal. That's why I say that in my opinion, your middle right shot is better than the bottom right, which is where we began this whole debate.

If you want to show only detail, and that's it, then a scanner, light-box, or completely diffused photographic approach will get you that. When I photograph a coin my goal is to show as much of the coin's character as possible, including luster bands, toning, metal flow lines, etc. Showing "frosted" texture surfaces (or matte surfaces) in a photograph is not the same as showing luster.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Alas, it seems clear from your semi-insulting reply that you've already made up your mind. At least your choice of words seems to insinuate that imaging a coin with a photographically optimal wide dynamic range is somehow misleading or untrue to the look of the coin in hand.

Cheers.

[Accumulator 52]

I called into town and bought 3 very cheap desk lamps which I fitted with 4.5w LED bulbs (cool white - 4100K). I positioned these at 9, 12 & 3 o'clock and took a photo with my canon compact digital camera in macro setting. The left hand photo shows the result. For comparison the right hand photo was taken in daylight yesterday. I need to spend more time fiddling with the set up, but at least I can take photos when the sun isn't shining!

[Accumulator 52]

A little more playing around with lighting angles does improve things: