Help Requested – Scanning Coins

In article <nXdgf.270705$>,
wrote:

Hi Group, I need help/suggestions on how to produce a scan such as those shown in the links provided below. The scans are of coins.
Specifically the scans noted with the prefix

wrote:

Hi Group, I need help/suggestions on how to produce a scan such as those shown in the links provided below.

<http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c75/weescan/Desired-1.jpg>

These aren’t scans. These are photographs.

—
Gregor’s Motorradreisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

In article <nXdgf.270705$>,
wrote:

Hi Group, I need help/suggestions on how to produce a scan such as those shown in the links provided below. The scans are of coins.
Specifically the scans noted with the prefix "desired" are what I want to achieve. Those noted with the prefix "typical" are what I and nearly everyone else seem to produce. The "desired" scans have an almost photographic quality to them, with excellent detail depth and color.
I have tried 6 scanners as well as different types of software. Again the results always fall within the usual perimeters of inadequacy when compared
to the "desired" scans. This issue is more than just white balance, contrast, etc. There is something fundamentally different in the way these
scans are coming out.

The producer of the "desired" scans indicates he is using a HP 3500c and its
supplied software at default settings except the res, which he bumps to 600dpi. His model of scanner is very basic and the software is minimal at best.

Any direction would be appreciated and thank you in advance to anyone responding.

It seems a problem with reflected light.

Removing from the plastic jacket may help a lot.

I scanned a few Sovereigns a few years back at around 800dpi – I wanted to include both head and reverse on a single jpeg.

Placing white paper behind the coin may improve things.

Which photo editing software are you using?

Try reducing the highlights.

Thank you for the reply. The coin is encapsulated in the plastic are part of grading authencity so cannot be removed for scanning.

Scanning at anything over 1200 dpi offers no real adavantage.

I have played with different colored backgrounds as well as all other control factors.

Software used have been varied. With the differnet scanners I have used their repective software in and out of my photoshop elements 4.0. As well as vuescan and silverfast.

My "two cents".

I would Check eBay and get the same model scanner as the one used for your "desired" images.

Some of the older scanners use a longer optical pathway and have a larger depth of field than newer scanners. This, combined with differences in the lighting geometry, may make a particular scanner perform much better than others for coin images.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

In article <nXdgf.270705$>,
wrote:

I have tried 6 scanners as well as different types of software. Again the results always fall within the usual perimeters of inadequacy when compared to the

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:07:04 GMT, tacit wrote:

In article <nXdgf.270705$>,
wrote:

I have tried 6 scanners as well as different types of software. Again the results always fall within the usual perimeters of inadequacy when compared to the “desired” scans. This issue is more than just white balance, contrast, etc. There is something fundamentally different in the way these scans are coming out.

The best way to scan things which are shiny, metallic, or otherwise highly reflective is…

…not to scan them.

Photograph them instead, then scan the photograph (or use a digital camera). If at all possible, photograph them without the use of an on-camera flash.

Mike’s idea is a good one, but I’d try out tacit’s concept before spending any money. But then I enjoy taking pictures 😉

Put the item in direct sunlight, and put your digital camera on a tripod. Make sure the camera is aimed straight at the item. If you have a gray card, place it over the item, take a light reading, then lock the reading and remove the gray card. If this doesn’t work, you are out ten bucks for a gray card. If it does work, you can buy yourself a suitable digital camera and a copy stand, so you can crank these things out quickly day or night. Once it’s set up, you might find it faster and easier than scanning, as well as more flexible. (But setting up a copy stand can take a lot of fiddling!)

—
Jim Hargan
Freelance Photographer and Writer
www.harganonline.com

Thank you very much for the suggestions. I do use the digital camera for the coins which gives excellent results, but is more time consuming.

I think there might be something to the theory that the HP 3500c might just have the right type of light and angle to get the desired result. They are cheap on ebay so it would be worth the effort to give it a try.

Thanks Again for the help

"Jim Hargan" wrote in message

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:07:04 GMT, tacit wrote:

In article <nXdgf.270705$>,
wrote:

I have tried 6 scanners as well as different types of software. Again the
results always fall within the usual perimeters of inadequacy when compared
to the "desired" scans. This issue is more than just white balance, contrast, etc. There is something fundamentally different in the way these
scans are coming out.

The best way to scan things which are shiny, metallic, or otherwise highly reflective is…

…not to scan them.

Photograph them instead, then scan the photograph (or use a digital camera). If at all possible, photograph them without the use of an on-camera flash.

Mike’s idea is a good one, but I’d try out tacit’s concept before spending any money. But then I enjoy taking pictures 😉

Put the item in direct sunlight, and put your digital camera on a tripod. Make sure the camera is aimed straight at the item. If you have a gray card, place it over the item, take a light reading, then lock the reading and remove the gray card. If this doesn’t work, you are out ten bucks for a
gray card. If it does work, you can buy yourself a suitable digital camera and a copy stand, so you can crank these things out quickly day or night. Once it’s set up, you might find it faster and easier than scanning, as well as more flexible. (But setting up a copy stand can take a lot of fiddling!)

—
Jim Hargan
Freelance Photographer and Writer
www.harganonline.com

I recommend photographing them on a digital camera and NOT using direct sunlight , that will give helluva glare on the plastic and increase the contrast too much.
There are cheap softboxes available for eBay sellers or use a white sheet or shower curtain to diffuse the light and make it more even. A cloudy day could work for that too.
If the highlights are still blown out, set the camera at negative 1 f-stop. correct white bal in PS.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:02:56 -0500, KatWoman wrote:

I recommend photographing them on a digital camera and NOT using direct sunlight , that will give helluva glare on the plastic and increase the contrast too much.

You’re right about both, but I was suggesting a test shoot. Sunlight gives true color — all important, and hard to achieve otherwise. Blocking in with white linen would do the trick, IMHO. I was trying to keep it simple.

I think the OP has a good go of it with the ebay scanner. I’da done a copy stand, but I enjoy fooling with this stuff.

Jh