![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() You'd really have to make that adjustment manually. I just took the original picture, and had to raise the contrast in Photoshop to nearly +50 for the entire dirt cluster above his glove to disappear, leaving the brightness at default. So, they might not have spent a lot of time at it, but the 'shop is still being used to make the card appear more presentable. Either that, or they have a dinosaur of a scanner, and it needs a serious calibration. Here's the original picture captured after a high contrast adjustment: ![]()
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I think we are actually agreeing with each other 100% here. I agree, an adjustment could have been made manually. What I am also saying though, is you can do this type of adjustment "in advance" by just adjusting the settings of the camera or scanner being used, so it captures that type of image in the first place. In any case, yes it does appear they could use a new scanner, or at least a look at the current scanner settings. I agree that the current scan shown on their site ought to be updated with a scan that appears more true-to-life. OK. Time for me to go to bed ![]() Last edited by honus94566; 08-14-2013 at 12:09 AM. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
Building these sets: T206, 1953 Bowman Color, 1975 Topps. Great transactions with: piedmont150, Cardboard Junkie, z28jd, t206blogcom, tinkertoeverstochance, trobba, Texxxx, marcdelpercio, t206hound, zachs, tolstoi, IronHorse 2130, AndyG09, BBT206, jtschantz, lug-nut, leaflover, Abravefan11, mpemulis, btcarfagno, BlueSky, and Frankbmd. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Looks like Legendary is doing their scanning in a Document setting (which will de-empahasize toning in whites and off-whites) and REA is doing their scans in a Photo setting with the "UnSharp Mask" turned up to high, which will tend to do the exact opposite but create a sharper looking picture. I'd guess the actual card is somewhere in between the two.
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I've known about this issue for over a year now, and it's frustrating because it's hard to know what the card will really look like when it shows up at your door. Anything is possible, but it's hard to believe that something hasn't been done to the scans - the settings changed, hues adjusted, whatever. I will reserve judgement, but let me just say that in my experience it has made it harder for me to bid. I have bid on a couple cards with them over the last year but often I am left wondering what the card really looks like. Some of their scans of OJ's in the past have been so bright that I just didn't know if I could bid, not knowing what the cards really looked like, since it was impossible for an OJ to really look like that. But it is all subjective.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I recently purchased a CJ card and when I went back to the original Legendary auction the scan was much brighter than the card. They clearly should make an adjustment to more accurately depict the card being auctioned, in my opinion. As we have seen from certain ebay auctions discussed here previously, scans do have the potential to mislead.
__________________
Net 54-- the discussion board where people resent discussions. ![]() My avatar is a sketch by my son who is an art school graduate. Some of his sketches and paintings are at https://www.jamesspaethartwork.com/ |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Funny how the victims of this fraud -- the bidders -- can trust their eyes not to lie to them but the shills who make money from the auctioneers (Bob) have eyes that see something else.
__________________
http://www.flickr.com/photos/calvindog/sets |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
When buying graded cards online, I always check the whiteness of the flip against some other white on my monitor/screen. A lot of times you can see that the SGC or PSA flip is a bit gray or shadowy. That would indicate to me that the card might be a bit brighter in person.
Conversely, if the SGC or PSA flip is gleaming white, you may have an issue, particularly if the text on the flip appears faded or diluted. Adjusting photos or video for advertisements is certainly nothing new and has been going on for as long as there have been photographs in advertising. Given the massive move in our hobby to online auctions over the past decade, this phenomena is potentially a growing problem. It will be helpful to know which auction sites do the best job in accurately capturing their cards on film. We have third party grading to help with the technical grade. Now apparently we need to police the card scanners...
__________________
Galleries and Articles about T206 Player Autographs www.SignedT206.com www.instagram.com/signedT206/ @SignedT206 |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
A little perspective and courtesy please | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 05-01-2006 10:28 PM |
1914 CJ Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 5 | 04-15-2006 04:17 PM |
The $1,300 bath - can someone explain this? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 11 | 11-07-2005 12:23 PM |
1914 Cracker Jack Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 1 | 11-13-2003 08:43 AM |
1914 Cracker Jack Mathewson | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 8 | 01-23-2002 11:31 AM |