pwcc

[steve B]

For what it's worth my scanner - Epson perfection 2400, with the updated version of the twain driver/scanning software - Auto corrects brightness depending on the object and background. It usually comes out accurate to what I see. The only thing I adjust is the DPI, but using different settings like document or and I'm probably off on the numbers, 16 or 24 bit color will produce slightly different results.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

For what it's worth my scanner - Epson perfection 2400, with the updated version of the twain driver/scanning software - Auto corrects brightness depending on the object and background. It usually comes out accurate to what I see. The only thing I adjust is the DPI, but using different settings like document or and I'm probably off on the numbers, 16 or 24 bit color will produce slightly different results.

Steve B

Steve, some people don't seem to understand technology. If you take a photo and it doesn't look like what you saw, you 'fix' it to be more accurate - you are trying to capture an image of real life, not of what the technology thinks it looks like. Scanners can be the same way. If the resulting contrast or color is not representative of what the item actually looks like, then you should change it.

I've heard people state that an item "looks even better than it did in the auction scan". My thinking is that the auction scan should have been modified to more accurately reflect the item's image.

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

[1880nonsports]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Steve, some people don't seem to understand technology. If you take a photo and it doesn't look like what you saw, you 'fix' it to be more accurate - you are trying to capture an image of real life, not of what the technology thinks it looks like. Scanners can be the same way. If the resulting contrast or color is not representative of what the item actually looks like, then you should change it.

I've heard people state that an item "looks even better than it did in the auction scan". My thinking is that the auction scan should have been modified to more accurately reflect the item's image.

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

I agree wholeheartedly with that. BTW I wanted to note my appreciation for your postings - they are always well written (well unless you haven't had your coffee or beer) and I most often find them to be on point or interesting........

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Runscott

The answer is not to say that a seller must deal with the technology he is given, without using it's settings - the answer is for sellers to be honest.

But what about those who have a financial interest in the seller or his fraud -- how will they manage to eat?

[cyseymour]

Personally, I really don't like the idea of changing the scanner settings. A photograph is a work of art - the photographer is the artist and entitled to fix it however they wish. But a scan is really something that is a matter of record in the sense that it is representing something else, which itself is a work of art (or memorabilia). It's a subtle difference, but it's a major difference. Auctioneers aren't artists whom ought to be figuring their own interpretation of a card.

Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner. Scanners these days do extraordinary work at capturing an image, especially with the new technology available. Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.

[jhs5120]

Can someone please post a misrepresented scan from their most recent auction? I have been under the impression the problem was fixed.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Can someone please post a misrepresented scan from their most recent auction? I have been under the impression the problem was fixed.

How can the problem be fixed? He just found out about the problem AFTER the auction, remember?

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Personally, I really don't like the idea of changing the scanner settings. A photograph is a work of art - the photographer is the artist and entitled to fix it however they wish. But a scan is really something that is a matter of record in the sense that it is representing something else, which itself is a work of art (or memorabilia). It's a subtle difference, but it's a major difference. Auctioneers aren't artists whom ought to be figuring their own interpretation of a card.

Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner. Scanners these days do extraordinary work at capturing an image, especially with the new technology available. Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.

Are you saying it's best to just use the standard factory setting on every scan you make?

If so, I disagree pretty strongly.

Maybe you have some super-intuitive scanner in your possession but most don't. Most scanners I have ever owned, and I have owned many, need to be tweaked in the professional setting in order to reflect what type of item you are scanning whether it be a real photo, lithograph, printed photo, old paper stock, new paper stock. They are all scanned somewhat differently in order to look as close to the approximation they look in real life.

A scanner will play all kinds of havoc with off white's, just depending on where you crop it sometimes, and you have to adjust to either remove or keep the brightness factor the automatic settings apply.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Are you saying it's best to just use the standard factory setting on every scan you make?

If so, I disagree pretty strongly.

Maybe you have some super-intuitive scanner in your possession but most don't. Most scanners I have ever owned, and I have owned many, need to be tweaked in the professional setting in order to reflect what type of item you are scanning whether it be a real photo, lithograph, printed photo, old paper stock, new paper stock. They are all scanned somewhat differently in order to look as close to the approximation they look in real life.

A scanner will play all kinds of havoc with off white's, just depending on where you crop it sometimes, and you have to adjust to either remove or keep the brightness factor the automatic settings apply.

I disagree pretty strongly as well. I haven't read this entire thread, but I can say sometimes you have to tweak the scanner settings. I know when I scan a card at home, it looks much different than when I scan it at work (each before any adjustment). I'll post images tonight to show this w/o any adjustments on either scan. Even cameras have different settings based on the background and conditions of the object being photographed. Scanners are the same way based on what you are scanning.

All that said, I don't know much about PWCC (I choose to overlook his auctions as the prices are too high for me), but if he is tweaking scans to hide a card's flaws, then that's another story and I'm certainly not defending that.

[cyseymour]

Guys, the argument can be made either way - that it is more or less realistic if the settings are adjusted. But the bottom line is that three separate entities - Legendary, Goodwin, and PWCC, have had threads created about them in which they are accused of juicing their scans, and there wasn't a whole lot of dissent about whether it was occurring in any of those threads. The proof is in the pudding - look at the cards, and you will see the difference. You can see that the scans are coming out brighter than they really are. Meanwhile, we have auction houses like B&L who don't change the settings from default on their scanner. You haven't heard a lot of complaints about B&L's scans, have you?

So the question is, how do you know when there's funny business going on, when something isn't quite right with a scan? It's because you can see it, you know that that's not what the card looks like, that that's not what the card really is. We can argue the details of scanners and settings till the end of time, but when a scan is being juiced, you just know, because you know it when you see it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.

You are wrong.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are wrong.

You are from outer space. Just ask the Saco River guy.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

You are from outer space. Just ask the Saco River guy.

You have repeated your scan thoughts probably 6-7 times in this thread. You are still wrong. If taking your argument outside of the earth's gravity clears your head a little, then go for it.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

Personally, I really don't like the idea of changing the scanner settings. A photograph is a work of art - the photographer is the artist and entitled to fix it however they wish. But a scan is really something that is a matter of record in the sense that it is representing something else, which itself is a work of art (or memorabilia). It's a subtle difference, but it's a major difference. Auctioneers aren't artists whom ought to be figuring their own interpretation of a card.

Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner. Scanners these days do extraordinary work at capturing an image, especially with the new technology available. Anyone with a strong knowledge of technology will realize that there is no need to adjust the scanner settings at all.

Look at Just Collect, for instance. They have very nice scans of their OJ's on ebay right now, and you can tell that the hue is not adjusted, because if you look at the sgc flips, they show as a rich, dark green that they are in real life. That's one barometer for telling that the scanner settings have not been adjusted to enhance the image of the card. In some other auction houses, those very same flips would show up a light, bright green.

So it doesn't really have to do with any attempt realism - it has to do with enhancing an image to make a bidder believe that the card is brighter, cleaner, and more attractive than it is in real life in order to proffer a better price on the card.

Here is the initial post I wrote. As you can see, I wrote in that same post -(the very same post) - "Sometimes cards do look better in real life than in a scan, but if an auction house is having that issue, they really ought to replace their scanner."

How hard is it to understand? It's all put right there for you!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by cyseymour

How hard is it to understand? It's all put right there for you!

Not hard at all to understand. You are inferring that the settings on a scanner should never be adjusted when scanning a card. Pretty simple to understand.

How hard are these comments to understand...

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Are you saying it's best to just use the standard factory setting on every scan you make?

If so, I disagree pretty strongly.

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are wrong.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It seems Scott's only point is that, with some scanners and some items, the factory settings will not provide an accurate representation and therefore some adjustments may be necessary. That seems pretty straightforward to me and it makes sense because my own scanner (part of an all in one) can be very inaccurate on certain colors.

I don't mean to speak for Peter, but I belive he's agreeing that it's sometimes necessary to adjust the settings to get an accurate representation of a card.

Originally Posted by Leon

I will add my half cent to the scanner setting debate. I have probably done 2000 scans in the last 3-4 yrs. On about 2-3 cards I HAD to adjust settings so the card would look correct in hand, as seen from the scan.

I think Leon is saying the same thing as well (but I don't mean to speak for him either).

[Peter_Spaeth]

The odd thing about this argument is that there is complete consensus on the fundamental points.

[cyseymour]

You said yourself in post #210 that the new scanners shouldn't need adjusting. Leon said that he needed to adjust his scans 0.1% of the time for a scanner that he's used 2000 times over the last 3-4 years, meaning it isn't even the newest of scanners. My initial post, which you keep arguing, is only referring to what the auction houses ought to do, and I have given my reasons countless times. Your arguments have been proven baseless.