Nick

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).

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).

The information from Mark Goodman's web site was what I used as inspiration for my setup.

That is the kind of uncertainty I want to avoid. I need reproducable and stable results under constantly the same conditions in order to have the possibility to compare. The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is a scanner I only had to find a setup that I like once. I now use the same setup for all coin images and therefore have reproducible and comparable results. How do you cope with differences in toning? Some can be nearly black, whereas others have none. My only objective is to capture accurately how a coin looks, so a darkly toned coin should look darker than one that is not. But, having said that, the camera is still mostly in charge of exposure, so a darker coin will need a longer shutter time to gather the necessary amount of light and this will vary from coin to coin. I should also say, that there is no post-processing in any of my pictures, other than to remove the background.

That is the kind of uncertainty I want to avoid. I need reproducable and stable results under constantly the same conditions in order to have the possibility to compare. The easiest and cheapest way to achieve that is a scanner I only had to find a setup that I like once. I now use the same setup for all coin images and therefore have reproducible and comparable results.

That's tonally very nice, but you've got blown highlights below the parting and on the forehead, and on the wren's back. That could be avoided by underexposing, then bring up the shadow details. Even so, one advantage of scans is that the 'flatness' of tone also gives evenness of detail which can be lacking on a photo. I suppose the bottom line is that scans bring out that predictable evenness of detail you want to show up, where a photo gives the beauty of tone often at the expense of that evenness. You pays your money... There are some blown highlights, but that's easily fixed with a change to the camera exposure settings, or a diffuser between light and subject.

I still prefer a camera for imaging any type of coin. A scanner offers you no variables - it either takes a decent image or it doesn't, whereas with a camera it's just a case of experimentation with lighting, setup etc to arrive at an acceptable image. 1937 proof farthing:

I think this is the one you are referring to.

Shows that the black 'foam' inserts are far from chemically inert.

... and with a "there for" and a grocer's apostrophe thrown in for good measure.

Oh. It's just that at the other forum - which as I say, uses EXACTLY the same hosting software as this - you just type :wallbash: and it appears. I can't for the life of me understand why it doesn't work here too. I suspect the emoticons are configurable and admins will be able to modify the list of those available.

and I know you all like this How did you get :wallbash: to appear for you Peter? I typed the correct code, as cribbed from another forum which uses the same software as ours. It's just an animated gif that Peter linked to from the coin community forum.

Even the proof often does have that weak fleur de lys on the right hand side of the crown.

Other than because it is anti-money (groan).

Does anyone know when this is due out? Probably they have dished out the printing abroad again to insure they miss the Xmas market. Isn't it this year that the catalogue is going to split into two volumes?

Don't know whether it's genuine or not, but the obverse lettering doesn't look right especially the TT in BRITT. (Edit: Unless it's an optical illusion)

I'm not sure. What I did was to use the href to your PhotoBucket library and then copied the individual picture direct links and inserted them using the image button on the toolbar.

I think this is what you wanted:

If you log into your BT mail via the web interface you will probably find you have options regarding whether spam is downloaded by your email client or not.

Try this link. It shows how to configure the Junk email settings in Outlook 2010. You could try turning off the automatic filtering as an experiment. If you still get no junk mail, the issue will be with ISP spam filtering.

You can turn off Junk-mail handling in Outlook. This will stop Outlook from blocking access to links and messages that it considers spam, but you run the risk of being caught out by a dodgy but genuine looking message. However, you will probably find that your ISP also filters out dodgy looking messages so that your email client never even sees them. I use gmail and it regularly puts genuine emails into the online spam folder (which is automatically emptied after 30 days), so you have to check it regularly to ensure nothing is lost for no good reason.

No need to resize, just copy and paste a link to your PhotoBucket image(s) here.

I suspect that eBay will lose sales because of the change to feedback. If I find an eBay item listed by a user that I haven't bought from before, I look at their feedback first. Previously, I might have seen that, for example, Declan has bought from that person before and all was fine so I will go ahead and bid. Now, I probably won't.

I don't get what all this is about as it pertains specifically to feedback. Just checked in e bay, and all the names are fully intact from Windows. It depends where you are looking. All of the names are still visible via your own feedback score, but if you try and look at other people's feedback then the names are obscured.