Kaleun96

I still don't think only having top-down lighting is inherently bad, I've photographed plenty of coins like that. A bigger concern, IMO, is the light reflecting off the three walls and resulting in too much indirect light hitting the coin rather than direct light. It also seems that from the Amazon link Prieure posted, you always have the "front" wall open so if he needed a bit of directional lighting he could have a light placed here. Just as an example, I think I photographed this coin only with a ring light and no off-axis directional lighting. You can see how most of the devices have contrast on both sides, rather than just on one side if you used off-axis lighting at an angle. Just remembered I forgot to comment on your photos before! I think they're great and the setup you're using is clearly working for you. They remind me a lot of Roma Numismatics' "alternative" photos that they use for the nicer coins they auction (for example).

I disagree. Any lighting setup can work poorly for coin photography, it depends how you use it. It also depends on your style and tastes. Some people prefer a lot of directionality to their lighting (as in your photos for example) but directionality means asymmetry, so that you have some parts of the coin well-exposed and others parts not. This is of course by design with using a directional lighting setup but I find it can be distracting on high relief coins. A ring light can be used in a pseudo-axial way to provide my symmetrical lighting and producing contrast not by way of shadows but by using reflection. Light that hits angled surfaces will reflect less light back to the camera than light that hits flat surfaces. This can work quite well for coins as you get contrast around the edges of all devices, not just some, and you tend to have less detail lost since you don't have areas of the coin receiving no direct light, instead just areas that reflect back less light than other areas. There are pros and cons to both "styles" of lighting though and I don't think either of them is right or wrong, and I personally often use a combination with the main light coming pseudo-axially while I use directional lighting as a "fill" light. I just want to point out that ring lights are perfectly fine for coin photography and have some advantages, it's just difficult to get it right and most people give up after trying to use any random ring light that often produces average photos. edit: Actually this is a good time to mention one of the disadvantages of pseudo-axial lighting, which is this effect that can be seen on Gordian's cheek as mentioned by shanxi. It's not actually a shadow, I think instead it might be a combination of things that causes a relative lack of light reflecting back to the camera. I haven't totally worked out exactly what produces it by my thinking is that it's partly related to the inner diameter of the ring light and the difficulty of having light hit the centre of the coin when the ring light doesn't have any lights in the centre itself (because the camera needs to shoot through it). The second main factor I think is flat surfaces: any light that doesn't hit the flat surface from an angle axial to the lens (i.e. perpendicularly), is going to bounce off and go in some other direction - not towards the lens. This means, combined with the issue of getting light to hit the very centre of the coin, you end up with a relative lack of direct light being able to hit this point and thus it appears both darker and somewhat flat/even. The non-flat areas of the coin near the centre may be getting illuminated by stray light that isn't hitting it directly from a perpendicular angle and is able to reflect some of that back towards the lens. At least, that's my working hypothesis to try and explain why you see it only on some areas in the centre of the image. There's a few things you can do to help combat it, such as tilting the coin, using a ring light with a smaller inner diameter, moving the right light further back, using some diffusion to bounce light onto that part of the coin, etc.

Looking good! One thing you might find with the lightbox is that the lighting might be too diffused at times, though I think it's OK for the most part in these examples. My thinking is that the LED ring in the ceiling of the box is producing a pseudo-axial effect (similar to how I shoot my coins), meaning that most of the light is coming top-down and not from the sides, which can provide a lot of contrast without creating any shadows. You may find that when you add the diffuser, the contrast lessens as more light reaches the coin by reflecting of the walls of the lightbox. In general you do kind of want to avoid the "light coming from all sides" approach for coins due to the lack of contrast that will result in flat and soft looking photos but based on these photos that doesn't appear to be a concern yet. Though you may notice that change when adjusting the brightness (if possible) of the LED, using the diffuser, or changing the coin height relative to the LED light etc. What you could do if you begin to notice the photos are too diffused and soft is to put some black felt around the walls of the lightbox to reduce the reflections off the walls, or maybe even experiment with just "blocking" one or two walls to provide some directionality to the lighting. How are you editing out the background? If you're using Photoshop and using the select tool to isolate the background, you can modify the selection to contract it a few pixels more to help get rid of those white outlines around the coin. It doesn't matter if the selection goes a few pixels into the actual coin edge, it will be imperceptible but result in a cleaner looking photo. With the white balance, it does look a touch too purple in the first photo, but Photoshop's "Auto Colour" tool is pretty good at fixing it. I used to try and adjust the white balance by eye in Lightroom but I wouldn't really recommend trying this as the screen you use and the hue of the light your eyes are currently exposed to can bias things quite significantly.

That's an unfair comparison, you're comparing buyers with different budgets 🤔 Keeping the budget the same, you're just as likely to be fleeced on eBay as you are on Vcoins in terms of over-paying, if not more so. If the person is buying a $25 fake on eBay, their budget is probably $25 and that's what they'll spend on Vcoins as well. If their budget is $500 and they decide to try eBay instead of Vcoins, they're going to be ripped off in all likelihood, either by over-paying or by buying a fake.

Elsen replied to my email and withdrew the coin before the auction started this morning 🙂

Usually I wouldn't post here about a forgery at an auction house as I prefer to give them time to withdraw the lot themselves. But given the auction is tomorrow, it's after business hours, and I haven't heard back from my email sent this afternoon, I thought best to post a warning here just in case. The current bid is also at 500 euro and Elsen really should know better given how common this fake is. The top coin is the coin from Elsen, the bottom is a known example of an IBSCC condemned forgery from forgerynetwork. top: https://elsen.bidinside.com/en/lot/15467/royaume-seleucide-sleucos-ier-nicator-/ bottom: http://www.forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=IR6wzRLJeq4= There's more examples to be found on forgerynetwork, such as the ones below, and you can even find the obverse die paired with an Alexander III Arados reverse. http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=l5Tiq/ZWXMc= http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=XY4XQVRZnAI= http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=Ptf9FPZ6mN0= http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=37anmOoOU/0= http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=Vz~x~pk2iegGI= http://forgerynetwork.com/asset.aspx?id=XWumFPjITd8=

Yeah I talk a lot about revealing surface issues in regards to some specific coins where rougher surfaces were revealed underneath. Part of it is a learning process so you can better predict how they will turn out, though I don't think there's any one coin in there that I regret cleaning entirely. Usually it's just a certain aspect of it where I could have done things differently. But the differences in how some photos were taken probably explains a lot of any "shadowing" differences. The Lysimachos, for example, has a tonne of contrast in the "after" image but a lot of that is due to the lighting setup. Other coins go the other way, where I reduced the contrast of the devices with diffused lighting. You can make a coin look entirely different with small changes to the lighting. Worth keeping in mind the photos don't always illustrate how they look in-hand normally. The Balas in particular, as well as the Antiochos VIII, had quite poor appeal in-hand. The Balas looked completely flat and dusty, while the Antiochos had the brightest surface I've ever seen, and not in a lustrous way. In those cases, I would prefer to start the toning again from scratch if the surface underneath is good and it means I can remove some light deposits that cover the toning or features. Some, like the Paphos stater, have already toned considerably since I took the "after" photo. I've been meaning to rephotograph it for that reason. Though I'm not a fan of a lot of toning either so hopefully it slows down a touch 😅

This can sometimes be a bit of a touchy subject, and usually for good reason, but being able to remove certain types of deposits can be a handy skill to have in a collector's toolbox. To that end, I've made a new page for my website focussing on 15 coins I've cleaned to various degrees over the past couple of years. I usually try to take a "before" photo prior to cleaning, not only so that I can see the difference afterwards, but also so I can ensure I haven't damaged the coin in any way that's not easily visible to the naked eye or through my loupe. I almost only clean silver coins, the exception is treating bronze coins for bronze diseases, so all the following examples are silver coins and some of the methods I mention may only apply to cleaning silver coins. That being said, this is not a guide or instruction on how to clean coins, merely a comparison that I hope is at least interesting, if not educational for some. I also briefly mention some of the reasons I decided to attempt cleaning of a coin and how I thought it turned out, i.e. is there something I would've changed with the benefit of hindsight. https://artemis-collection.com/showcase/cleaning-coins Screenshot example of one of the comparisons (it only works on my website). Drag the slider in the middle to the left or right to unveil more or less of the "after" photo. You can zoom with your mouse scrollwheel or by using the tools in the upper left corner. N.B. This is a new tool for my website, combing the "Ultra Zoom" viewer some of you may know with a slider to let you compare two images simultaneously. There may be bugs or other issues, please let me know if you spot any! N.B.2. Some of the "after" photos may have been taken months later with the coin since developing toning that wasn't previously there. I also didn't necessarily photograph the coin the same way for the before and after photos so it may also appear different due to reasons of lighting, angle, and editing.

Congrats on the pick-up! Though have you thought about turning on "easy mode" and not limiting yourself to just Vcoins? 😅 Seems like quite a few examples have gone up at auction in the past couple of years.

I bought a coin from a Via auction last year, no problems to report. Though I think they've had the occasional questionable coin, not as bad as say Solidus or such, but worth keeping an eye out.

Just added a new page to my site comparing JPG vs RAW and whether it's worth it to shoot in RAW (for me). In short, the issue I have with RAW is that when converted to TIFF, the file size is 10-20x that of a JPG and I'm usually storing 100 or more photos per coin since I focus stack. That quickly adds up in hard drive space so I'd rather shoot in JPG if the quality is about as good. My tests seem to indicate I'd get no real benefit from shooting in RAW for my purposes so it's nice to know for sure that I'm not missing out on anything and don't need to re-photograph my collection! That being said, if you're not focus stacking and are shooting in the field where you have less control over your environment (e.g. macro photography or wildlife photography) or are planning to make heavy edits to the photo afterwards, it's best to shoot in RAW if you have the space on your memory card as you'll be thankful for the extra flexibility you have in the editing suite. https://artemis-collection.com/photography/jpg-vs-raw/

Just cracked these two in under 3 minutes by placing them together in a hobby vice with rubber jaw covers and closing the vice just enough to stop them from moving and then I cut into a long edge on each slab with a stanley knife. Even with just a somewhat light cutting, the slab edge can be heard coming apart. I then removed them from the vice and was able to pull them apart with my hands. This is definitely the easiest go I've had at removing coins from a slab. Before this I've opened maybe 4 or 5 slabs and have spent at least 10-15min on them with hammer, pliers, and screwdriver, and the slabs always end up a mess in many pieces.

It's a bit hard to see here but back when my fancy setup was just a work-in-progress, I was using a small tripod and a focus rail in this configuration and was able to get the camera perpendicular to the surface without counterweights. I had to replace the ballhead on that tripod with this one since the original one it came with wasn't rated for the weight of my camera + lens.

Do you know the make/model of your tripod? Most with a ball head mount should allow the camera to be pointed directly down, the more common issues are whether the tripod can support the weight without tipping over and keeping the legs out of the way. On the "side" of the tripod you point the camera down over, you need to have the two legs of the tripod on this side otherwise if you have the "third" leg of the tripod on this side, it will be in the way of the camera. But by having the two legs on this side, there's very little support to stop the tripod tipping over so you may need to add a counterweight to the third leg behind the camera like this: But this of course takes up a lot of room. If you don't extend the legs out so far, so the footprint of the tripod is smaller, you need more counterweight to stop it from tipping over. Some smaller tripods can work without a counterweight if the camera is able to rotate further than 90 degrees to face down. Then, you setup the tripod so the two "front" legs are longer than the back leg, forcing the tripod to lean backwards, and then you rotate the ball head past 90 degrees facing down so the camera is perpendicular to the surface. If your ball head can't go further than 90 degrees past horizontal, then this method doesn't work as your camera will be on an angle relative to the surface.

For large-ish coins, bottle caps can work in a pinch. For smaller coins, you can use a 1/4" nut or two stacked together, though it's best to have some putty or blu tac so the coin isn't resting directly on the metal and won't slide around at the slightest bump. If you happen to have an o-ring of similar size laying about in the garage, that can work instead of putty as well.

Could you share a photo of a coin taken in the DNG format vs JPG format? Hopefully you can take an identical photo and just switch between the two formats to make comparing them easier. Normally, if you had to choose between 14 MP in RAW or 108 MP in JPG, holding everything else equal, I'd say go JPG every single time. What gives me a bit of pause is that mobile phones do a notorious amount of post-processing that can make images significantly worse when it comes to coins (IMO). If the RAW version doesn't have this post-processing, it may be the better option even if at fewer megapixels. But that's not to say more megapixels will necessarily help you here either, it would just be worth checking which gives you the best results. In general, for DSLR/mirrorless cameras, using RAW isn't going to give you any better quality once it's uploaded to the internet. The main benefits to using RAW in those circumstances is the greater ability to make white balance and other adjustments to the image during the editing process.

I have written a little bit on some settings you can try here under "Camera Settings" but it will mostly depend on your lighting setup. In general, I would aim for a shutter speed no "slower" than 1/60s, ideally something around 1/120s to 1/90s. If you're using LED lighting, you may find faster shutter speeds (e.g. 1/180s) are fast enough to capture the flicker of the LED and will cause vertical lines to appear in the photo. If this doesn't happen, feel free to use even faster shutter speeds if necessary. The other setting to balance is the ISO. You want this to be as low as possible but without a lot of light this would be difficult. Ideally something in the range of 100-400 should be fine. If you find it's too dark, you may need to decrease your shutter speed. But if your ISO is set to 800 and your shutter speed to 1/60s, I would take that as an indication that you need more light. If you can manage ISO 400 at 1/90s shutter speed, that's probably adequate. If you have an option to change the light metering mode, you want something that focuses on the centre of the image. If there's an option for "spot" metering, use that and ensure the spot is over the centre of the coin. Otherwise, "center-weight" metering is probably the next best. Essentially, you want the phone to ignore trying to expose for the background - we only want to worry about the exposure of the coin.

Looking good! Love the toning on the third coin from the top. I've noticed with my Samsung that zooming in often makes it worse than taking a photo zoomed out and then cropping it. As you say, the digital zoom creates a lot of noise. You'll also have to watch out for the phone changing lens when you zoom, e.g. it may change from wide-angle to standard and then to telephoto. These different lenses will probably have different depths of field and apertures so you may find some work better than others.

Well that explains the photos! Goddamn that is a big lens 😵

Great photos! What lenses do you take on safari? Do you use a teleconverter for the telephoto as well?

Just to clarify, Lightroom isn't only for when you need to process a large collection of images. It's meant for processing individual images too and is a key step in many photographers edit process before moving on to Photoshop. But for many of us here, whether it's worth learning Lightroom depends on your needs. If you just want to tweak the brightness, contrast, and exposure, with a quick colour correction to finish up, then Photoshop is fine. If you want to play around a bit more and really dial in the settings for how the coin appears, you can't beat using Lightroom and Photoshop. I find the masking tools in Lightroom to be really useful compared to Photoshop for when you need to clean up the edges for background removal, or make some tweaks to areas where some light has reflected a particular colour onto the coin, or where part of the coin is darker/brighter than you would like and you want to balance it out with the rest of the coin etc. I basically only use Photoshop for removing the background, rotating the coins, placing them side-by-side, and exporting the final images. Though others here that have more complicated compositions (e.g. drop shadows or directional lighting effects) will probably spend more time in PS than Lightroom.

Lightroom is a bit weird in that it overlaps a lot with Photoshop but still needs to be used in-conjunction with it. Lightroom is best when it comes to modifying how the image looks without adding/removing pixels, e.g. correcting the colour, orientation, lens distortion, etc. Photoshop is better when it comes to adding/removing things, like using the select tool to remove the background or clone stamp to remove dust. So generally for background removal you will want to do that in Photoshop. It has several tools that can help but the easiest to use is the "Remove Background" tool under Quick Actions. Photoshop will have a bunch more tools to help refine that process if it isn't able to separate the background neatly. Lightroom can be used if you just want to paint your background a solid colour but it really only works if you want the background to be white or black. It's an option if you're not saving your photos as transparent PNGs (i.e. with no background). I used to do this before doing full background removal. I would shoot the coin on a black background and then just use Lightroom's masking tool to make the background solid black.

Nice photo! Definitely seems you're not wanting for resolution with that setup. Thanks for the questions and hypotheticals, it's been fun refreshing my memory on this stuff and breaking out the USAF resolution chart, which I have done exceedingly rarely 😅

Ah I see! I think I got confused because you mentioned the 20um pixel size so thought you were talking about another hypothetical camera. Pixel size for an image file on your computer is really only relevant for prints these days in terms of things like pixels per inch (e.g. 20um would be 25.4/0.02 = 1270 PPI). For uploading to the internet and viewing digitally I don't believe DPI/PPI matters, the pixel size will be dependent on the screen used to view it. But going back to your hypothetical, I could simply resize the USAF test I did earlier so that a portion of the chart from the FF example is scaled down to be the same size, and covering the same field of view, as the APS-C example. That way, we're reducing the number of pixels used to capture the detail of the FF photo so that it is the same as the number of pixels representing the same area in the APS-C example. What we find is close to what I hypothesised might happen in my previous post. The amount of detail resolvable is about the same, I think, but the FF image is sharper and seems to have less chromatic aberration. The FF image is also at a bit of a disadvantage since it has been compressed and that probably can introduce some image artefacts. APS-C (original size 781x628px) Full Frame (scaled down to 781x626px) And here's a closer view of the middle section with APS-C and Full Frame side-by-side. As you say though, if you're only ever going to view the photos at 1200px then upgrading to full frame is probably not worth while. Though I do think an image size of 1200px is perhaps a relic of 10-15 years ago and these days most websites should be supporting nearly double that at the very least. There may also be cases where you can only upload an image at 1200px but you want to highlight a particular part of the coin so you zoom in on the coin and then crop that to 1200px. That's a use case more similar to my previous test where you are taking advantage of the increased resolution of the full frame image and you end up with a fairly noticeable difference compared with the APS-C image.

Yeah good idea, a post-processing thread would be helpful. That's definitely my least preferred part of the process and the part I'm worst at!