Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/1914 Canadian $5 gold reverse

1914 Canadian $5 gold reverse
Voting period ends on 17 Nov 2014  at 03:33:35 (UTC)
 * Reason:This is a self nomination. I believe this image has very high encyclopedic value in that it depicts in great detail the appearance of a historic coin. It is high resolution(3,621 × 3,621 = 13.1 mega-pixels), sharp from corner to corner and has true to life colors. Fine details contrasted nicely due to my use of non-symmetrical flash lighting. It is very tightly cropped but that was unavoidable as the coin fills my whole frame at 1:1 magnification, the coin was right next to the top and bottom of the frame. Left and right have been cropped for symmetry. My sensor is 24mm tall and the coin is being projected at 1:1 is 21.59mm in diameter so it took steady hands and lots of tries. The subject itself is particularly interesting to numismatists such as myself due to its short run from 1912-1914 and the fact that many of them were never released into circulation until 2012 when a very large stash of them was discovered by the Royal Canadian Mint. Being one of the more visually appealing coins it has almost microscopic detail in the coat of arms, notice the water under the boat in the bottom right part of the shield. The century old coin is in very good condition rated at ms-65, ms-70 being perfect. It has some light scratches and some small dents but there is no wear to the image itself allowing all detail to be seen clearly. These flaws are sometimes called bag damage as it happens in the mint when the coins are stored in bags. Since the damage happens in the mint the coin is still considered "mint condition".
 * Articles in which this image appears:Canadian dollar, Arms of Canada
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Culture, entertainment, and lifestyle/Currency
 * Creator:Chillum


 * Support as nominator – Chillum 03:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I had this coin in very good condition(ms-65) so I figured I would document it for Wikipedia. I shot it hand held using a Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP A/M 1:1 macro lens at 1:1 on a Canon 5D Mark III body using a MR-14EX ring flash. It took me a lot of attempts but I finally got one that was clear end to end and actually in frame. I am new to this equipment and I was surprised at how well it turned out. Chillum 03:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note Does anyone think I should re-crop it to be exactly square? It is 1.2% off square right now. Chillum 03:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Definitely! The right side has a tiny bit more space than the left side. ///Euro Car  GT  04:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I will recrop, this time with precision! Chillum 04:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have recropped it. It is now square and even and I also managed to get better contrast and exposure from the raw file. Chillum 05:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't say much for colours yet (not at my normal computer) but to lessen the burden, you may be interested in using a tripod. It should hopefully lessen the burden. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't really focus this kind of lens, you just move the camera forwards and backwards. Until I get a nice set of focusing rails I need to go hand held. Thankfully the ring flash can stop motion at 1/4000th of a second so motion blur is not an issue. Framing and focusing it through a dark viewfinder is an issue. To focus I rock back and forth past the focal length and hit the shutter at just the right timing in the rocking motion. Chillum 3:17 pm, Today (UTC+7)
 * "You don't really focus this kind of lens"? But even Tamron should have both manual and auto focus. If you are aiming to shoot at exactly 1:1, yes, that's an issue, but we don't need 1:1... 0.9:1 works just as well. Not like there's much detail being lost — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * True, though changing focus does alter that size of the object which is annoying. Yes it is doable on a tripod and I am trying to get a stage set up. Even on a tripod I will prefer a focus rail as moving the camera actually alters the position of the target less than using the focus ring. I have a Canon MP-E on the way, for that I will need a tripod. Autofocus bugs me in close up work, I prefer using the focus confirmation beep. Chillum 08:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't recommend autofocus (I agree, it screws up too often for close work). Manual focus should be doable, though... but if you prefer a focus rail, so be it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The distance isn't importand, use f/16 with no flash, "long" exposure time, better light, the function "mirror lock-up" from your 5D Mark III, also my camera :-) and manual focusing. Best regards, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * At f16 I get diffraction effects reducing sharpness. F11 is my sweat spot for clarity vs DOF, the surface is thin anyways. Natural lighting will be nice when I get my focus rail. Chillum 08:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd stay away from F16. You may be interested in focus stacking at F2.8, but you'd need a tripod to do that. File:500 rupiah coin, reverse, focus stack of 11 images, 2014-10-31.jpg is an example (though the coin is in absolutely terrible condition; it was essentially just an experiment) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Take a look here too. The best sharpness will be at F/5.6 for your lens and a focus stack. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And please use a tripod, a light tent and the mirror lock-up function! This is very important!!! --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. Looks like my lens has similar specs; I'll remember that when I try to get some mealybug pictures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also try and keep more distance between the lens and the coin (not much, but some) since this will let you get better DOF. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The only way I can change my distance is by reducing magnification. I can do that but then there will be less detail. Are there any out of focus areas? <b style="color:Navy">Chillum</b> 08:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't had a chance to look at the full res, which is why I'm not opposing yet. However, since you mentioned having issues with needing to retake images, I suggested this to make it easier on you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. I am happy to re-take if that will improve it. I can't do much to improve the light, I did 75% from the right and 25% from the left for contrast. Lesser ratios left it flat and higher created too many highlights. When I get my focus rail I can play around with natural light but now I just have a flash I can set left/right from 8:1 to 1:8. <b style="color:Navy">Chillum</b> 08:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm missing the true "golden" color. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be because it is not true gold, it is 90% gold. I don't know what the alloy is but gold coins come in all kinds of tones. <b style="color:Navy">Chillum</b> 08:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit my monitor is not calibrated and neither is my camera screen but comparing them to the coin shows a fairly accurate representation. <b style="color:Navy">Chillum</b> 08:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So your image is simply to dark. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I developed it for high contrast of the details. I may have been too aggressive on the lower end of the tone curve but it really did bring out the details. It is late here but in the morning I can fiddle with the raw file. The original is brighter so there will be no problem making a brighter version. <b style="color:Navy">Chillum</b> 08:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And a last hint: please use a "neutral" black background, without strucktures. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC) P.S: please take a look to my macro images too ;-)
 * The coin is sealed in a container, taking it out would significantly effect the saleability of the coin. I only own these things for a short time before I have to sell them. <b style="color:Navy">Chillum</b> 08:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm really happy to see this nomination, as I'd love to see more coin FPs. If I can introduce another issue, though, I'd like to see more in the image description about why the design of the coin is not under copyright. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it should meet c:Template:PD-Canada-Crown. ///Euro Car  GT  16:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * My first assumption is that since it has been 100 years since being published it is okay, but the PD-Canada-Crown template seems to indicate that it is even further out of copyright. I will add the template to the image. Thanks. <b style="color:Navy">Chillum</b> 17:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 03:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)