Scans

[sreader3]

A lot of sellers (including Net54 members) have been attacked for scan "manipulation." There seems to be two schools of thought on scanning:

1. "Naturalist" View.

Whatever your scanner produces under factory settings -- just leave it alone. I will call this the "naturalist" or "preservationist" view. I happen to disagree with it, since the scans that my scanner produces often do not fairly represent the card I am selling.

2. "Best Representation" View.

Manipulate the "raw" scans that your scanner produces and attempt to make the card look as close to what it looks like to the naked eye as possible. This is what I try to do (although I am not a major seller, by any means).

I think these are both legitimate views. Which school do you ascribe to? (Or perhaps a third or fourth school?)

Thanks for the inputs.

Scot

Edited to add: This thread is NOT in response to any specific issue I have had with a seller or buyer; I just want to find out what seller and buyer expectations are.

Further edited to add: Maybe we can all agree on disclosure rules, like: factory settings = X; current settings = Y ??? Perhaps this is too complicated.

Further further edited to add: Would anyone be open to developing a set of comprehensive standards for vintage BB cards -- like IEEE for networking ??? So that everyone could just say VBC compliant? Perhaps too ambitious.

[brass_rat]

I appreciate the "best representation" version.

The most important thing to me is that scans are large enough -- and clear enough -- to understand the card and its grade. All too often scans are just small enough to hide issues with cards.

Best regards,
Steve

[ls7plus]

Originally Posted by brass_rat

I appreciate the "best representation" version.

The most important thing to me is that scans are large enough -- and clear enough -- to understand the card and its grade. All too often scans are just small enough to hide issues with cards.

Best regards,
Steve

Agree wholeheartedly. Also of interest in this regard was a recent contact I had concerning a card up for auction through PWCC/Brent. The scan depicted what appeared to be a very under-graded card, so I contacted Brent and asked why the card got the grade it did. He was quite candid in acknowledging that the scan was unable to pick up what I would consider some rather minor, yet cumulatively significant defects, and told me exactly what they were.

Kudos to the honest approach,

Larry

[Jobu]

I am in camp #2. I understand the thinking behind camp #1, but if your scanner doesn't produce an accurate representation of the card then I don't care if you used factory settings or not. That said, the goal of any tweaks must be to make the scan match the card rather than to make the scan look as sexy as possible even if it misrepresents the card. The temptation to do the latter is what makes option #2 dangerous (combined with people's varying photo editing skills and perceptions of the colors on their cards).

[Peter_Spaeth]

As long as it doesn't burn the eyes I am good.

Guess who?

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As long as it doesn't burn the eyes I am good.

Guess who?

Awesome scan Peter but I have no idea (I don't collect modern too much).

Edited to add: Zoilo Versalles is one of my favorites. A popular trivia answer among my son (baseball addict) and me (also baseball addict)!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scot, from the man who never enhanced a scan in his life, because it isn't in his DNA (see other thread), our good friend PWCC.

[sreader3]

Peter,

You gotta admit it's a great scan !!!

I get what you are intimating but I'm sure I would like that card in person.

Scot

Edited to add: Maybe that's why we should agree on standards?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Scot, so you don't feel left out.

Put on your sunglasses now.

[sreader3]

Good points guys about size and over-manipulation.

Thanks for the inputs.