Which picture do you like better? (Coin photography)

[Ursus]

While taking pictures of a Republican denarius I recently bought, I decided to try out a few different things. The results are below.

I will post an explanation after a couple of people have participated in the poll and/or answered, but I don't want to create any bias now. Therefore I will for now only ask the following question: Which of the two pictures below do you prefer, and why?

#1

 

#2

[Kaleun96]

I think there's quite a difference in the quality between the two photos, so while you might be asking more about the aesthetic preference, I would choose the bottom photo first and foremost because it's a much higher quality image.

For instance, the top photo isn't sharp anywhere on the coin as far as I can see. I also get the impression that the depth of field is smaller as the edges are very out of focus, compared to only slightly out of focus in the bottom image. The top photo also has a lot of chromatic aberrations, which is causing the purple fringing you can see quite noticeably around parts of the portrait (and some green fringing on the edges).

In terms of the aesthetics, I think the warm light used in the top photo is quite distracting as you can see it reflect off of different parts of the portrait. For example, the highlights around the hair are very yellow while the highlights on the front of the face like the nose and chin are white. You can still see the yellow in the bottom image but it's less noticeable.

Because the bottom image is much sharper and in-focus, the surfaces seem quite harsh compared to the top photo. This might be a combination of the angle of the light you're using as well as how strong the light is. You might find diffusing the light with some baking paper or even a thin white piece of material (e.g. an old sheet, some paper towels, etc) may help reduce the harshness of the surfaces and better hide the tiny hairline scratches which are currently capturing bright specular reflections and drawing the eye's attention to them.

So my preference is to stick with the method you used for the bottom photo but play around a bit more with the light to see if you can soften it a touch. You may find that you need two lights: one to provide the main illumination, the second to produce some light shadows or illuminate a specific area of the coin better.

Edited April 17, 2023 by Kaleun96

[Curtisimo]

I agree. The bottom photo is much sharper and shows better detail. As suggested above it may be worth experimenting with the lighting using the bottom photo method to see if you like the results. Either way they are both nice photos. I’ll be interested to hear what the difference in method was.

[Heliodromus]

I prefer bottom one too - better lighting and focus. Lighting in top one is a bit too diffuse and non-directional. Top one could be improved a bit by increasing contrast.

Bottom one looks a bit harsh though. I'd keep lighting source around 2 o'clock position where you seem to have it, but more diffuse (maybe larger too) to avoid blown-out highlights. Could experiment with height/vertical angle of light source as well - may help stop those tiny scratches from reflecting back into camera lens.

 

[expat]

I voted #2 purely because it is better focussed. But also because the orange (hot)? light has been moved further away or diffused for the second image. JMO as you can probably tell from my terminology I am no expert at photography.

[sand]

I definitely prefer photo # 2. It is much sharper. Photo # 1 looks blurry, compared to photo # 2. I like to be able to see the scratches, and other wear, on the surface of the coin.

[CPK]

Photo #2 is much better IMO. Not only is the coin in better focus, but the lighting appears more natural as well.

[Severus Alexander]

@Kaleun96 nailed it! The harshness of the better (bottom) photo could also be addressed somewhat in software, by dialing down the highlights. (I would suggest raising the coin off the background too, but that’s a matter of taste.)

Great coin, btw!

[Ursus]

Thanks for all your answers and votes!

The background of my post was as follows: I own a couple of pre-digital M42 screw mount lenses. With the help of an adapter, I mainly use them on an D-SLR camera body (Canon EOS Rebel T6s). Especially when it comes to landscape or portrait photography, they often produce aesthetically pleasing results and in some cases beat my "modern" Canon lenses.

In the pictures in the original post, I juxtaposed pictures taken with a vintage 1970s lens and a modern lens. Lighting conditions (natural dalight from nearby window) were the same, and the abovementioned camera body was mounted on a simple tripod. I used a 13mm macro tube adapter on both lenses. In order to not distort the results, I posted as the pictures as they came from the camera and did not do digital alterations apart form cropping.

Here are the details for those interested:

#1: Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm f/1.8 (built 1971–1975, often cited as a good vintage lens for digital photography). Shot in AV mode at ISO 400: f/16, 1/250 s. Manual focus.

#2: Canon EFS 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 IS USM (one of Canon's current upper mid-range lenses). Shot in AV mode at ISO 400: f/18, 0.30 s. Autofocus and stabilizer turned on.

In my eyes, the modern lens clearly won in comparison, and the poll confirms this.

Still, I am somewhat impressed how well the vintage Takumar performed, especially when it comes to contrast, highlights and color (though these points could be addressed using photo software). Some of the flaws of the first picture have more to do with me than with the lens. For example, I found it hard to get the coin fully into focus. Yet other points, for example poor depth of field at maximum aperture and the blurred edges, are probably not just my fault.

Also keep in mind that both lenses were not really made for macro potography. The modern lens, at least in my eyes, still produces good enough results when using a macro adapter. With the vintage lens, edge sharpness and manual focus become difficult. I guess the lesson from this experiment is that vintage lenses, albeit interesting for other types of digital photography, don't work comparaply well for coin pictures.

I would be interested to see how a good pre-digital macro lens performs in comparison to a modern lens. Yet, I don't have one and probably won't buy one just to find out...

Edited April 18, 2023 by Ursus

[Heliodromus]

Interesting - would never have guessed that the light source was the same for both!

The obverse is slightly rotated in 2nd pic relative to 1st which may account for some of it - more highlights on bridge of nose, hair curls, and seemingly rim of coin at 2 o'clock.

Interesting too that the different lenses seem to have resulted in slight color shift, with top pic being more warm (red/yellow shift) compared to second.

You mention having stabilizer enabled with the Canon lens - were these both manual shutter release (vs timer/remote) ?

 

[Kaleun96]

4 hours ago, Ursus said:

Thanks for all your answers and votes!

The background of my post was as follows: I own a couple of pre-digital M42 screw mount lenses. With the help of an adapter, I mainly use them on an D-SLR camera body (Canon EOS Rebel T6s). Especially when it comes to landscape or portrait photography, they often produce aesthetically pleasing results and in some cases beat my "modern" Canon lenses.

In the pictures in the original post, I juxtaposed pictures taken with a vintage 1970s lens and a modern lens. Lighting conditions (natural dalight from nearby window) were the same, and the abovementioned camera body was mounted on a simple tripod. I used a 13mm macro tube adapter on both lenses. In order to not distort the results, I posted as the pictures as they came from the camera and did not do digital alterations apart form cropping.

Here are the details for those interested:

#1: Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm f/1.8 (built 1971–1975, often cited as a good vintage lens for digital photography). Shot in AV mode at ISO 400: f/16, 1/250 s. Manual focus.

#2: Canon EFS 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 IS USM (one of Canon's current upper mid-range lenses). Shot in AV mode at ISO 400: f/18, 0.30 s. Autofocus and stabilizer turned on.

In my eyes, the modern lens clearly won in comparison, and the poll confirms this.

Still, I am somewhat impressed how well the vintage Takumar performed, especially when it comes to contrast, highlights and color (though these points could be addressed using photo software). Some of the flaws of the first picture have more to do with me than with the lens. For example, I found it hard to get the coin fully into focus. Yet other points, for example poor depth of field at maximum aperture and the blurred edges, are probably not just my fault.

Also keep in mind that both lenses were not really made for macro potography. The modern lens, at least in my eyes, still produces good enough results when using a macro adapter. With the vintage lens, edge sharpness and manual focus become difficult. I guess the lesson from this experiment is that vintage lenses, albeit interesting for other types of digital photography, don't work comparaply well for coin pictures.

I would be interested to see how a good pre-digital macro lens performs in comparison to a modern lens. Yet, I don't have one and probably won't buy one just to find out...

You should have another go with the Takumar and maybe take multiple photos to ensure you get the coin in focus properly in one of them. Until then I wouldn't draw too many conclusions between the lenses as pre-digital lenses can be amazing, and even out-perform digital-era lenses, but you do need to test them in more controlled conditions to make sure the comparisons are equal.

For example, old "enlarger lenses" from the 70s and 80s are very popular with macro photographers because while they're often cheap and easy to find secondhand, the image quality from them can also be stellar. Robert from closeuphotography.com probably does the best lens tests on the internet when it comes to "alternative" lenses such as enlarger or scanning lenses.

Did you shoot the Canon at the same focal length? I note that the camera settings for exposure are a bit different between the two, f/16 and 1/250s for the Takumar but f/18 and 1/3s for the Canon. It seems like the Canon was shot with much less light and the extra stop probably doesn't account for that.

For a comparison, I shot the below coin 4 years ago on a Sony A6000 with a Rodenstock Apo Componon HM 6.7/60 that I bought for $100 or so on eBay. If I recall correctly, it's not an enlarger lens but a line-scanning lens, and probably manufactured in the 90s or early 2000s. The image is focus stacked. I have a bunch of these kinds of lenses lying around but I never use them anymore even though they could match up to my dedicated macro lens in some circumstances.

[akeady]

I agree with all above - the first photos are out of focus more than anything.

f/16 and f/18 are fine for getting a wide depth of field but are likely to likely to result in the image being soft due to diffraction.   Focus stacking, maybe available in the camera or else in post processing may be a better bet for getting a sharp deep depth of field.   (That said, I rarely bother with it!).

I took a series of photos from f/2.8 to f/22 of the same coin last year and could see the image get sharper as more was in focus and then more blurred as the aperture changed.

If you're using a tripod or copystand for holding the camera, it may be better to switch off image stabilisation, certainly if you can trigger the camera remotely and have an electronic shutter which eliminates any shuddering due to the shutter firing.

ATB,

Aidan.

[Kali]

Gotta go with #2.

[Qcumbor]

#2 here too as it better focused

Q

[Ursus]

Thanks for all your helpful comments and pieces of photography advice! Although it took me a while due to a lot of work and a lack of time, I have now given it a second try. The results can be seen at the end of this post.

On 4/18/2023 at 5:52 PM, Kaleun96 said:

You should have another go with the Takumar and maybe take multiple photos to ensure you get the coin in focus properly in one of them. Until then I wouldn't draw too many conclusions between the lenses as pre-digital lenses can be amazing, and even out-perform digital-era lenses, but you do need to test them in more controlled conditions to make sure the comparisons are equal.

I did so, see below. Still, getting the coin fully into focus with the Takumar turned out to be tricky. Part of the problem is that the focus ring on the adapted Takumar is not made for macro photography and turning it only a millimeter thus makes a huge difference in this setup.

 

On 4/18/2023 at 9:18 PM, akeady said:

f/16 and f/18 are fine for getting a wide depth of field but are likely to likely to result in the image being soft due to diffraction.   Focus stacking, maybe available in the camera or else in post processing may be a better bet for getting a sharp deep depth of field.   (That said, I rarely bother with it!).

I turned the aperture down to f/8 in both images below in order to get less diffraction. I think that worked relatively well. Focus stacking is not something my camera can do automatically, and would also require more post processing time than I am happy to take for "normal coin images." I might start to experiment with it one day, though.

On 4/18/2023 at 9:18 PM, akeady said:

If you're using a tripod or copystand for holding the camera, it may be better to switch off image stabilisation, certainly if you can trigger the camera remotely and have an electronic shutter which eliminates any shuddering due to the shutter firing.

Did so. Image stabilization was now turned off for the picture below that was taken with the modern lens.

 

On 4/18/2023 at 2:28 PM, Heliodromus said:

You mention having stabilizer enabled with the Canon lens - were these both manual shutter release (vs timer/remote) ?

I use the timer in combination with the camera's touchscreen shutter release function.

 

Here is the second round of pictures. I think that the new Takumar picture is fairly nice:

#1: Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 55mm:

 

#2: Canon EFS 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 IS USM: