Soviet Just a photo....

[Gerd Becker]

I was testing some new lamps and backgrounds for photographing my items and made this photo of a recent addition. I really like this piece, as its in nice condition different to my other two, which have repairs or damage (love them too though!)

I think, the OPW is one of the top three of the nicest desinged orders.

I hope, you enjoy.

Gerd

Edited June 12, 2006 by Gerd Becker

[Gerd Becker]

514183 is the number. I hope, we will soon find out, who this beauty was awarded to.

Thanks for looking

Gerd

Edited June 12, 2006 by Gerd Becker

[Wild Card]

Well done Gerd!

I would never have considered using a red background for a piece where red is so prevalent; but you have pulled it off very well. Very creative and very effective.

Best wishes,

Wild Card

[Gerd Becker]

Thank you Glad, you like it.

I was surprised myself, how well this worked with a red background. Here is another one of my Homeland:

[Gerd Becker]

Reverse

[order_of_victory]

Very nice photos

How doy get them so sharp?

Order Of Victory

[Gerd Becker]

I have an old Olympus 3.3 Megapixel Camera and i use a tripod, good light and the Macro Function. I place the camera 15-20 cm?s away and use the zoom. Works good so far, but i am sure, i could do it much better with a better camera. But thats my next purchase

Gerd

[order_of_victory]

Gerd,

I must realy update my camara i bought my digital before Megapixels , but it holds a lot of good memorys for me (bought it when I started college in 2001), so its seen a lot of intresting things and its been around the world.

But if my pics were as good as that I would not try any better, i would be framing them

Order of Victory

Edited June 12, 2006 by order_of_victory

[Alfred]

prodigious photos Gerd

I thought a dark background looks better, but the red one is also very delightful

[Gerd Becker]

Thanks, Andreas

Thats a sharp photo too and the Hero-Mother looks good on black background

[NavyFCO]

So long as we're posting test photos... I just got a new camera and tried taking some with it. This was one of my first attempts... Inputs are definately appreciated!

Dave

[Mondvor]

Just found that conversation about cameras. Cameras are OK, but scanner is much better. You would never get that degree of magnification and small details with a camera, that you can provide with a scanner. Cameras necessary if you want to take pictures of orders on military shows, exibitions and other places were you can not use scanner. But for your own collection there is no better source of images than high-resolution scanner (not less than 1200 dpi).

I would like to post the images made by a scanner to compare, but they are too big. I can post fragments instead if anybody interested.

Still, it is just my own opinion. Maybe I'm wrong...

Edited June 12, 2006 by MONDVOR

[Gerd Becker]

Andrew, i absolutely agree with you, except these screwback orders are very hard to scan. I prefer to make a photo of mine. I don?t want to drill a hole in my scanner

Dave, thats a very clear photo for a first attempt. I am looking at the Sony DSC-H2 currently, it got very good critics has a good lense and steady shot. AND i have a good offer. Anyone using this camera?

[Guest Rick Research]

OK, new camera people:

now try the same with plain white backgrounds!

I don't like dark backgrounds:

1) they increase KB size of the image for no gain in size for the actual object

2) the darkness "creeps over" the edges, especially on tarnished or dirty pieces.

Now there MAY be a good light colored background-- I still get grief over my Early Yellow Naugahyde Period -- but for me white is best because it adds nothing to the image and what you see is nothing BUT the wahtever is being scanned/photographed.

PS Uniform material background is also very nice.

[Mondvor]

As I said before - it's all about the scanner. You can get excellent sharp images of screwback's reverses if you choose right model of the scanner. Take a look at the picture attached to this post. Pretty good, huh? Made with a scanner I even reduced the quality to fit attachments requirements.

[Mondvor]

And this is a fragment of GPW obverse. However, it is not the highest possible resolution. This is 1200, but you can make it 2400 with new Epson scanner.

Wery useful for "watermark" researching of expensive orders like Suvorov or Kutuzov.

I dont think digital cameras can provide this level of quality.

[NavyFCO]

I think there's a place for both... I like the scanner for some things, and the camera for others. Unfortunately, I am operating off what files I could put in my thumb drive, so I may have better ones still at home, but this is about as good as you can get for a closeup with a camera (after editing and compressing to fit within the website limits as well). Still not bad, but I think a scanner is better for this... After all, one tiny jiggle of the camera and that close-up is... for lack of a better word... "shot"...

Dave

[NavyFCO]

The nice thing about cameras is when the photos are scaled down a bit (as for the web) they do look quite nice (I think) and the colors and overall "texture" looks a bit more like the real thing rather than a "flat" scan.

Dave

[Chris Boonzaier]

All results so far look great. I prefer a scanner myself, but as long as the result is good either ones is fine.

What we can achieve today... folks 10 years ago could only dream of !

[Mondvor]

Bingo! Both cameras and scanners have their "pluses" and "minuses". The truth is somewhere in between

BTW, for high-quality book illustrations digital pictures (even those with high resolution) are not good enough. Paul used professional photographer with film camera to get the pictures for his book.

[Wild Card]

Gentlemen,

Count me in the camp of camera for some things and scanner for others; although I must admit that I would probably do more with my scanner if I had a better one and knew how to really use it.

Frankly, I enjoy working with the photos; but I do have a question for some of the obviously very knowledgeable and talented photographers here present. One of the most critical elements in getting good photos is the lighting. Do any of you have any hints or suggestions that you would care to pass on regarding this aspect?

Thanking you in advance,

Wild Card

[Mondvor]

Gentlemen,

Count me in the camp of camera for some things and scanner for others; although I must admit that I would probably do more with my scanner if I had a better one and knew how to really use it.

Frankly, I enjoy working with the photos; but I do have a question for some of the obviously very knowledgeable and talented photographers here present. One of the most critical elements in getting good photos is the lighting. Do any of you have any hints or suggestions that you would care to pass on regarding this aspect?

Thanking you in advance,

Wild Card

I'm not a professional, but I guess that the main issue is to eliminate the shadow. So it should be three-points source of light. Like a triangle with the order in the middle.

[Guest Darrell]

I'm not a professional, but I guess that the main issue is to eliminate the shadow. So it should be three-points source of light. Like a triangle with the order in the middle.

This IS the key. You have some good lighting, it makes all the difference in the world. I used to rely on the flash inside. That created too much glare and distortion as well as improper focus.

The below example was taken outside with my Canon 7.2 MP camera with tripod at about 10 inches away and zooming in. Like Dave's example, I had to crop and reduce picture size to fit on the forum or it would have been much better.

This is the stamped name on a South African Defence Medal

Example:

Edited June 13, 2006 by Darrell

[Mondvor]

Another example made with a scanner. Good thing - you don't have to worry about shadows

[Gerd Becker]

As I said before - it's all about the scanner. You can get excellent sharp images of screwback's reverses if you choose right model of the scanner. Take a look at the picture attached to this post. Pretty good, huh? Made with a scanner I even reduced the quality to fit attachments requirements.

Well, that are indeed fantastic scans. Unbelievable, how sharp the details are.

Edited June 13, 2006 by Gerd Becker