My new 1909 poltina arrived today!

[alexbq2]

How good are results for copper coins with this technique?

[altyn]

When buying coins which were photographed with this technique, I think you have to be very careful because it is easy to overexpose the fields, thus covering up any blemishes the coin might otherwise have. For AU/BU and proof coins, though, this technique definitely shows the coins to the best advantage.

 

I fully agree with this. The axial technique can make silver coins look very nice indeed. Even some AU coins appear as having a face lift (or botox) done. Look for example at this coin (NGC AU55). The left image was taken with axial method. The image on the right was taken after the coin was slabbed, using the same light source but the coin was simply lit from above (as bobh pointed out it is difficult to apply the axial technique to slabbed coins).

The worn areas are easier to detect on the right image. Yet, the left image better represents the actual visual impression by the coin which is not as ugly as the right image may suggest.

 

[bobh]

The worn areas are easier to detect on the right image. Yet, the left image better represents the actual visual impression by the coin which is not as ugly as the right image may suggest.

Nice shots! I like them both. The one on the right with normal lighting seems more 3-dimensional to me and shows a lot of luster. The one on the left is nicely in focus, looks brighter, but leaves a bit of a flat impression. I can't say that one is better than the other, actually.

 

Axial lighting might be better in a catalog situation where page after page of nice coins are shown next to each other. Then a darker image such as the one on the right would definitely be at a disadvantage.

[bobh]

So I got inspired and replaced the images of a lot of the nicer 50 kopeck coins I have on my web site using axial photographic lighting:

http://hairgrove-goldberg.com/Gallery/Russ...opeek-1895-1914

If some of the legends on these coins look a little out of focus, it is probably because of the glass plate used in the axial lighting. I am still working on that.

[altyn]

How good are results for copper coins with this technique?

 

So, here is my attempt at making a comparison. The axial method is on the left, and the regular lighting on the right. I still think that the axial image is more visually attractive (pls disregard the small white spot - do not know where it came from) but you can be the judge. However, the regular method definitely tells more about the actual condition of the coin's surface.

 

 

[altyn]

So I got inspired and replaced the images of a lot of the nicer 50 kopeck coins I have on my web site using axial photographic lighting:

http://hairgrove-goldberg.com/Gallery/Russ...opeek-1895-1914

If some of the legends on these coins look a little out of focus, it is probably because of the glass plate used in the axial lighting. I am still working on that.

 

A very impressive set. So, excluding the two next-to-impossible years (1898 and 1903), you only miss two years (1904 and 1906, challenging), and you are done!

[bobh]

A very impressive set. So, excluding the two next-to-impossible years (1898 and 1903), you only miss two years (1904 and 1906, challenging), and you are done!

Thanks ... I am still missing one mintmaster for 1899 (FZ) and will try to replace some of the coins which are in lower grades before considering it "complete". Two coins, one 1904 (in AU/MS!) and the other 1906 (in VF), were both offered in the last Gorny & Mosch sale -- the one where I bought my 1909 coin. So it IS possible!

 

If you decide not to collect proof coins, you can get away with not buying 1898 and 1903 which many believe were struck only as a proof issue.

[bobh]

This thing has me intrigued ... ... in the course of things, though, I am learning a lot about my camera (Nikon D60 w/ 105mm macro lens) and how the different settings work.

 

The focus problems stem partly from the fact that for coins, it seems that only the setting "closest object" works reliably. Putting the coin up on some kind of elevation vis-à-vis its background (such as a little bottle cap) is also important -- otherwise, the auto-focus lens might try to focus on the background instead of the coin. But the glass pane used for axial lighting poses additional problems: one is that the camera, if fastened to a tripod, will require the glass to fit between two of its legs. This means that there are certain constraints on how close you can get to the coin, and sometimes I find that the thickness of the glass impedes proper focussing. The diameter of the 50 kopeck coins, being 26.85mm according to Kazakov, allows me to fill the available space nicely. Working with anything smaller would mean that I am losing potential resolution because of this limitation.

 

Obviously, the thinner the glass the better, but I am stuck using a piece of glass which goes in one of our living room vitrines as a shelf (ca. 3mm thick ... fortunately, we have an extra one, otherwise my wife would be getting impatient for me to put it back into the vitrine ... ). I'm sure there are also color issues involved due to refraction of the light, but I can usually work around those on the computer once I have the image loaded.

 

Anyway, here are two sets of images of the same coin -- another 1913-EB poltina I had lying around. It has AU details, nice luster, but some rim dings which make it not so nice. Anyway, it is perfectly suited for coin experiments! The first set was taken with axial lighting; the second with two daylight bulbs positioned directly by the camera approximately where the flash is. The edge picture is the same for both. Camera distance and settings was the same in both cases. Can you tell the difference?

 

1. Taken with axial lighting:

 

2. Taken with direct lighting:

 

Larger images (1108x1108):

http://hairgrove-goldberg.com/Gallery/Polt...s-1913-EB-ex-UK.

[bobh]

So, here is my attempt at making a comparison. The axial method is on the left, and the regular lighting on the right. I still think that the axial image is more visually attractive (pls disregard the small white spot - do not know where it came from) but you can be the judge. However, the regular method definitely tells more about the actual condition of the coin's surface.

 

Also, it is more obvious from the image on the right that the date was struck incuse and the other parts of the legend raised. They both look the same with axial lighting (IMHO). Here, I prefer the image on the right with regular lighting.

[altyn]

Anyway, here are two sets of images of the same coin -- another 1913-EB poltina I had lying around. It has AU details, nice luster, but some rim dings which make it not so nice. Anyway, it is perfectly suited for coin experiments! The first set was taken with axial lighting; the second with two daylight bulbs positioned directly by the camera approximately where the flash is. The edge picture is the same for both. Camera distance and settings was the same in both cases. Can you tell the difference?

 

Both sets look pretty similar to me . I think the upper set (axial lighting) also shows some contribution of the light that is not actually axial but comes at various angles. Perhaps the room was not dark enough or the coin was not fully shielded from direct illumination by the light source?

[Maya]

So I got inspired and replaced the images of a lot of the nicer 50 kopeck coins I have on my web site using axial photographic lighting:

http://hairgrove-goldberg.com/Gallery/Russ...opeek-1895-1914

If some of the legends on these coins look a little out of focus, it is probably because of the glass plate used in the axial lighting. I am still working on that.

 

That really is a nice collection and some of the photos really look great.

[squirrel]

Very impressive coin photography! Great to see the various samples. keep em coming!

[bobh]

I've been improving (I think) on these photos ... went out & bought a Manfrotto stand (190XPROB) which lets me get in very close to the coin (that is, without throwing my back out big time! ) Major improvement in focusing, since the final image is now about 1800+ pixels square as opposed to 1150 or so.

 

First time I was actually able to see the engraver's initials here (hint: look right under the horse's hoof):

 

This is described very nicely on p. 90 of the little book "The Griliches Engravers, Father and Son" written by Zvi Griliches and E. S. Shchukina (publ. by the Russian Numismatic Society in 1999 -- purchased from Dmitry Markov).

 

Since this thread is about my 1909 poltina, here is my most recent effort:

 

Larger images here:

http://hairgrove-goldberg.com/Gallery/albu...1909_EB_obv.jpg

http://hairgrove-goldberg.com/Gallery/albu...1909_EB_rev.jpg

[bill]

I shoot virtually everything with axial lighting. Try varying the angle and position of the light source to achieve a picture that best represents how you see the coin. I use a hand held light source so I can move it around while I watch the effect in the view finder. It is not exactly how the image is captured, but it gives you a good idea of what it will look like. Sometimes I shoot several different versions so I can compare on the computer screen so I can select the most pleasing result after giving each some thought. On occasion, I blend two images to achieve the best effect. The latter means shooting each image without changing the setup then combining the two images in photoshop and blending them visually. After blending, I then make my crops and other changes to process the image.

[bobh]

I shoot virtually everything with axial lighting. Try varying the angle and position of the light source to achieve a picture that best represents how you see the coin. I use a hand held light source so I can move it around while I watch the effect in the view finder. It is not exactly how the image is captured, but it gives you a good idea of what it will look like. Sometimes I shoot several different versions so I can compare on the computer screen so I can select the most pleasing result after giving each some thought. On occasion, I blend two images to achieve the best effect. The latter means shooting each image without changing the setup then combining the two images in photoshop and blending them visually. After blending, I then make my crops and other changes to process the image.

Thanks for the suggestions! In the meantime, I have *almost* fallen in love with axial lighting. However, I have taken some pictures in the past using nothing but indirect sunlight, and depending on the coin (this is a major IF), they sometimes come out better.

 

Of course, I always take about 20x more shots than I need (isn't digital photography great?!?! ) But haven't tried the hand-held light source just yet. I think that with my present setup, it would be physically impossible for me to check the view finder and hold the light at the same time. However, I do move the glass plate up and down a few angles to achieve an optimal angle of lighting.

 

As to blending images, I'm a little skeptical here ... I know that there is a wide range of coin defects that can be minimized depending on the lighting, and also other advantages which can be gained upon varying the kind of lighting involved. Combining two images into one, each taken with different lighting, comes very close to manipulation IMHO. Do you have something handy to illustrate what you mean?