Manufactured Gold

[FFB]

I just assumed it was dry cleaned, which isn't uncommon with a re-press, from looking at the large scans. At the top edge there are tiny dark specks that seem to be...gone.

 

 

No cleaning, but definitely scan manipulation - the second scan has been brightened.

 

Scan manipulation?

 

Boy does that behavior sounds sinister and deceptive -- more so than physical book manipulation.

 

I imagine that the intentional misrepresentation of a collectable's visual appearance by an auctioning venue would be against the law, would it not?

 

I "manipulate" all of my scans. Why? Because my HP scanner adds too much yellow and muddies the cover colors. If I left it un-"manipulated," it would be "misleading." So let us not "assume" that "manipulating" scans is "sinister," "deceptive," or "against the law," ok?

 

In MC's defense, manipulating scans can be done in a manner to deceive. I was just pointing out that it would be hard to prove and, as you note, can be done for the right reasons.

 

OK, maybe I was a bit touchy in my reply. I just read his post as suggesting that ANY manipulation of a scan was sinister and deceptive. The man just does not understand that my prettiest books look like CACA when I don't monkey with the scans and it drives me batty!

[Red Hook]

When I get a chance tomorrow....I'm going to post a scan of one of my books as my scanner presents it on the first pass, along with one that I've adjusted for comparison.

 

My scanner also overloads on yellow and I have to adjust color balance, brightness and contrast...and then I sharpen it so all the details show nicely. My finished product is alot more faithful than what the scanner produces on the first pass.

[Aman619]

a scan is just that, subject to all manner of distortion and color tinting depending on the hardware. All scans need tweaking. All images need retouching. (Even the best images by Ansel Adams et al were all dodged and burned to enhance the 'caught light' in the neg) The issue is really whether the "manipulation" of the captured pixels is done to more accurately represent how the book looks to the eye in hand, or to enhance its appearance beyond its actual grade. Comes down to intent. But just as pressing seems to be okay nowadays but no trimming, the analogy is apt: correct the colors but NO CLONING (or any other illustrative tools) may be utilized...including cropping and selection tools.

[THE_BEYONDER]

I don't 'tweak' my scans at all.

[adamstrange]

When I get a chance tomorrow....I'm going to post a scan of one of my books as my scanner presents it on the first pass, along with one that I've adjusted for comparison.

 

My scanner also overloads on yellow and I have to adjust color balance, brightness and contrast...and then I sharpen it so all the details show nicely. My finished product is alot more faithful than what the scanner produces on the first pass.

 

I'll be interested in seeing it.

 

I've tried two scanners (Epson Perfection 1650 and Microtek i800) and don't really like what either one does to my books. I'm unsatisfied with almost all of my scans as far as accurately representing the books. Tthere are quite a few comics that I won't post scans for because of how sour they look compared to the beauty of the books in my hands.

[adamstrange]

OK, maybe I was a bit touchy in my reply. I just read his post as suggesting that ANY manipulation of a scan was sinister and deceptive. The man just does not understand that my prettiest books look like CACA when I don't monkey with the scans and it drives me batty!

 

If I knew how to tweak my scans to get them accurate I'd do it. Color fidelity is my main gripe -- see post above.

[FFB]

OK, maybe I was a bit touchy in my reply. I just read his post as suggesting that ANY manipulation of a scan was sinister and deceptive. The man just does not understand that my prettiest books look like CACA when I don't monkey with the scans and it drives me batty!

 

If I knew how to tweak my scans to get them accurate I'd do it. Color fidelity is my main gripe -- see post above.

 

You know what works well? Digital camera in indirect natural light.

[esquirecomics]

Scan "manipulation" is a definite issue to be concerned with, but as has been stated its existence alone does not infer anything sinister.

 

I manipulate every scan I take because, as some have stated, the scanners don't properly incorporate or reflect the colors accurately. I then take each scan with the book next to me and make sure everything matches.

 

This came up recently in a GA thread I started about the Rockford copy of Leading Comics #1. I questioned whether something had been done to the actual book or whether it was simply a scan issue, both of which raised potential concerns.

 

This is how the scanned image was portrayed in 2003:

 

 

This is how it looked when I owned it from 2004-2006 (and I can definitely attest to the accuracy of this image):

 

And this is how it appeared (in a new label, which is what initially led to my inquiry) in the Hakes auction last month:

 

 

A deliberate brightening? Something more? Just a scanning issue? Whatevever it might be that led to this occurrence, I would not be happy (the level of which would depend upon price of course) to have bought the book given the - at least to me - dramatic discrepancy in color quality.

[codfish]

This is an interesting debate. I fully realize that scans can misrepresent the actual appearance of a book. However, I do not like when a scan is over-manipulated either. Personally I have not manipulated any of the scans of books that I have sold. I have stated that certain artifacts are the result of scanning if I feel that it brought the books condition into question. I was always too scared to manipulate images because I know that the result could bring my character into question.

 

One of the things that bothers me the most when looking at books on Heritage and other sites is how images have been brightened up. I will not speak to whether or not there is some devious reasoning behind it or not but I just think it is misrepresentation. All I expect is a reasonable scan and from there it is up to me to inquire or decide if that books is what I want.

[Point Five]

I learned firsthand about the scan discrepancy issue (though in fairness, just as Mark says, there was nothing to suggest any misrepresentation was intentional or part of a pattern). Definitely something to watch out for. Here's my post from last October, when I won a Superman #6 in Comiclink's GA auction:

 

(original scan from the auction)

 

So....some of you probably remember me winning this Superman #6 in ComicLink's October GA auctions. One of my all-time grails...

 

...But unfortunately, when I received the actual book, the cover looked much dirtier & more “rumpled” than the auction scans led me to believe. I don’t think I’ve ever seen more of a discrepancy in eye appeal between auction scans and an actual book. In the scans, the yellow & white backgrounds look very bright and clean, with just a hint of surface wear. IMO, the auction scans were likely brightened/enhanced somewhat (which in fairness, could have been an honest mistake by whoever scanned the book, perhaps done to compensate for the initial scans coming out too dark).

 

Here's the book I received (hopefully the difference is as obvious on your screens as on mine)...

 

I've since returned the book. Really hated to do it, but the combination of the dirt and the obvious resto was just too much.

 

To ComicLink's credit, they were helpful, polite and professional when I gave them a call, and seemed to "get it" right away. Despite the disappointment, I would have no problem dealing with them again in the future.

 

So, onward... and hopefully there's another #6 out there for me somewhere.

 

 

Scanners seem to love those yellow covers, huh.....

[codfish]

What was the restoration on it? That book was certainly "misrepresented"

[MasterChief]

Scan "manipulation" is a definite issue to be concerned with, but as has been stated its existence alone does not infer anything sinister.

 

I manipulate every scan I take because, as some have stated, the scanners don't properly incorporate or reflect the colors accurately. I then take each scan with the book next to me and make sure everything matches.

 

This came up recently in a GA thread I started about the Rockford copy of Leading Comics #1. I questioned whether something had been done to the actual book or whether it was simply a scan issue, both of which raised potential concerns.

 

A deliberate brightening? Something more? Just a scanning issue? Whatevever it might be that led to this occurrence, I would not be happy (the level of which would depend upon price of course) to have bought the book given the - at least to me - dramatic discrepancy in color quality.

 

Perhaps the use of non-standard terminology is creating confusion here. Especially in a thread where the term "manipulation" is being used to discuss the undisclosed treatment of comic books.

 

To me, scan "manipulation" implies enhancing the visual output appearance of a scan (image file) for the purpose of creating a false esthetic appeal. That type of post-scan manipulation might be done using a scanner's adjustment controls and/or an image editing program like Photoshop.

 

Whereas scan "adjustment" means adjusting scanner controls (color, brightness, contrast, sharpness -- as Red pointed out) to a level that better reflects the actual appearance of the item being scanned.

[FFB]

What was the restoration on it? That book was certainly "misrepresented"

 

Just from the second scan you can see color touch, pieces added, and tear seals.

[Point Five]

Yep. I don't remember any pieces added, but in addition to the dirt the book had poorly-matched yellow color touch laid on thickly. (That description alone probably gives you a strong hint as to who did the work...)

[FFB]

Yep. I don't remember any pieces added, but in addition to the dirt the book had poorly-matched yellow color touch laid on thickly. (That description alone probably gives you a strong hint as to who did the work...)

 

The spine corners are too square for a book that beat up, and the color looks a bit off. I would bet money that the spine corners were recreated. There also is a piece along the bottom edge with obvious color touch that is either a torn flap that was sealed shut then color-touched over, or is a missing piece that was reattached.

[Point Five]

Oh, gotcha, I thought you meant big pieces added. Quite right about the corners.

 

(Again, to be fair, the auction did mention there was restoration, so I knew that much when bidding. But I didn't know how obvious it was, or that the book didn't look very good even after the resto.)

[esquirecomics]

Scan "manipulation" is a definite issue to be concerned with, but as has been stated its existence alone does not infer anything sinister.

 

I manipulate every scan I take because, as some have stated, the scanners don't properly incorporate or reflect the colors accurately. I then take each scan with the book next to me and make sure everything matches.

 

This came up recently in a GA thread I started about the Rockford copy of Leading Comics #1. I questioned whether something had been done to the actual book or whether it was simply a scan issue, both of which raised potential concerns.

 

A deliberate brightening? Something more? Just a scanning issue? Whatevever it might be that led to this occurrence, I would not be happy (the level of which would depend upon price of course) to have bought the book given the - at least to me - dramatic discrepancy in color quality.

 

Perhaps the use of non-standard terminology is creating confusion here. Especially in a thread where the term "manipulation" is being used to discuss the undisclosed treatment of comic books.

 

To me, scan "manipulation" implies enhancing the visual output appearance of a scan (image file) for the purpose of creating a false esthetic appeal. That type of post-scan manipulation might be done using a scanner's adjustment controls and/or an image editing program like Photoshop.

 

Whereas scan "adjustment" means adjusting scanner controls (color, brightness, contrast, sharpness -- as Red pointed out) to a level that better reflects the actual appearance of the item being scanned.

 

I agree 100%. The type of circumstance I am referring to is "adjustment" because the scanner has distorted the actual image, rather than to "manipulate" the scan to create a false one.

 

But this definitely demonstrates how semantics can impact a discussion favorably or negatively.

[codfish]

 

Just from the second scan you can see color touch, pieces added, and tear seals.

 

Thanks. The image is a bit small so it doesn't really jump out at me .. which is why I asked. (thats why I really don't like small images )

[codfish]

 

Perhaps the use of non-standard terminology is creating confusion here. Especially in a thread where the term "manipulation" is being used to discuss the undisclosed treatment of comic books.

 

To me, scan "manipulation" implies enhancing the visual output appearance of a scan (image file) for the purpose of creating a false esthetic appeal. That type of post-scan manipulation might be done using a scanner's adjustment controls and/or an image editing program like Photoshop.

 

Whereas scan "adjustment" means adjusting scanner controls (color, brightness, contrast, sharpness -- as Red pointed out) to a level that better reflects the actual appearance of the item being scanned.

 

I suppose. Manipulation can imply something "sinister" but I would guess "adjust" could have its negative connotations to in the right context. To me the word is only negative if it is used in a negative context.

 

I suppose though I should adjust my previous post on the matter

[adamstrange]

I have some color photo copies of a number of my books made back in the mid 90s. All of the colors on those look "prettier" than they do on the real comics. One of my scanners takes dull blues and turns them into bright blues and there's nothing I've been able to do about it without creating some really freakish looking colors because the red and the green are actually dulled.