|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
When I did auctions my goal was to have the card look on the screen the way it did in hand. You would think it's difficult by looking at some auctions. Something has been done here, I believe..
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1933-Goudey...0AAOSwaf1boaAr .
__________________
Leon Luckey Last edited by Leon; 09-23-2018 at 02:56 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
An$on Lyt!e |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Once I was told about the dark room lid up/open option, and with no plans to sell my cards, I never played anymore with my settings. Looking back now in the thread, I am glad I decided to write my settings down at least. http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=224696 Just the other night I received this card. After I scanned it I thought WTH? The scan/pic the seller used was clearly manipulated imo. I went back and looked and sure enough, if I had of looked more closely, I would have seen something but the scan they took/used looked nothing like the card I received. Needless to say, I highly doubt I will be purchasing from them anymore.
__________________
52 Topps cards. https://www.flickr.com/photos/144160280@N05/ http://www.net54baseball.com/album.php?albumid=922 Last edited by irv; 09-23-2018 at 08:00 PM. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
That is a huge peeve, when I get a card and it has issues that can't be seen in a pic when buying. Sellers need to disclose things that can't be seen on the screen but can be seen in hand.
Quote:
__________________
Leon Luckey |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
I have noticed the opposite with my scanner. It makes the cards look actually WORSE than they do in hand.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
We must have the same scanner. It is really bad on bright colored cards. I have a Clemente that in hand is amazing and my scanner makes it look dull and ugly.
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Mine is an Epson V something .......It does horrible on SGC slabs...even with the dust filter on it shows a ton of lint in the background.....and the raw cards, it makes the corners look all fuzzy on the old Leafs and Bowmans and in hand they don't look bad at all.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Mine is an Epson (without that component for scanning slabbed cards), too. I bought this Seaver with a qualifier, because it was pretty cheap and gum residue doesn't bother me much at all. In person it looks beautiful, to the point that you wouldn't even know it had a 'stain' (in and around his last name on back) if there wasn't an ST on the label. But, man, my scanner makes it look like the card has gangrene (no offense to any gangrenous people out there). I think the folks at Epson program their scanners to find flaws and make them the focal point of the scan.
1970seaver300st.jpg
__________________
All the cool kids love my YouTube Channel:
Elm's Adventures in Cardboard Land https://www.youtube.com/@TheJollyElm Looking to trade? Here's my bucket: https://www.flickr.com/photos/152396...57685904801706 “I was such a dangerous hitter I even got intentional walks during batting practice.” Casey Stengel Spelling "Yastrzemski" correctly without needing to look it up since the 1980s. Overpaying yesterday is simply underpaying tomorrow. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
then buy a new scanner
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
__________________
Leon Luckey |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Performance Enhancing Drugs – In 1894? | irishdenny | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 3 | 01-25-2015 07:19 AM |
Performance Enhancing Drugs - How Those Implicated Have Impacted Card Collecting | iwantitiwinit | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 05-02-2011 12:04 AM |
Help with enhancing a photo | tlwise12 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 16 | 05-30-2010 08:40 PM |
Selling: 1958 Topps 60 Different EX/EX+ --> SCANS ADDED | Archive | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 2 | 04-17-2009 07:48 PM |