Looking For Feedback And Suggestions For Capturing Flyspecking Images

@Rev, what struck me is how the photographs reveal ink depth/thickness. That kind of dimensionality is usually lost with scanning.

I use the Epson V500 as well but never go beyond 1200 dpi. I think someone told me that above that the computer interprets the scan. I can say that the Smithsonian scans of proof sheets are no where the quality of the photos they used to provide. ie the R70 foreign entry appears as a solid line on the photo and only as a string of dots on the scan. Obviously I don't understand any of the workings here, Dick Celler came over one day and told me what buttons to push but it works for me.

Some refinement. The circular polarizing filter didn't do diddly squat, so I went out and bought me a poor man's diffuser: a white fabric lamp shade from Goodwill for $2.99. It definitely changes the nature of the image, but I'm not entirely sure it's for the better. It eliminates the reflectivity from the surfaces and makes it a more 2D image, but there's also a bit of lost detail in my opinion.

While I aesthetically prefer the non-diffused images, I think that when it comes to pointing out plate varieties the diffused images may be easier to dissect; fewer distractions.

No differences in camera position, settings, or focus; the only difference is placement of the lamp shade around the stamp.

Which surface characteristics do you prefer and why?

Note: Different stamp from the above images.


Non-diffused (no lamp shade). Full image (will need to click to view full size):





Diffused (lamp shade around stamp).





Crop 1 not diffused (no lamp shade):





Crop 1 diffused (with lamp shade):





Crop 2 not diffused (no lamp shade):





Crop 2 diffused (with lamp shade):

Rev. Crop 2 no lamp shade clearly shows doubling of lines above and below the word "TWO" , not so much with the lamp shade.