Digital Manipulation of Cover Photos on Ebay?

[dad-migration]

Take a look at these two scans/photos of different copies of the same book.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2182241895

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2181794617&category=33816

 

The cover on the first book looks considerably faded....but the seller claims

the book has 100% full color intensity and gloss, and is like new.

 

The second book looks considerably brighter....has the image been

manipulated? Or is this perhaps an innocent artifact of two different

photography techniques?

 

What do you think?

[500Club]

It looks like the color intensity has been toggled a bit with the second auction's image.... the colors are almost fluorescent in places.

[Aman619]

none of the above: they appear to be different books entirely. Look at the wrap on the spines. the clearer scan has a much bigger miswrap. Its not inconceivable that he has two copies. Ive got three. I bet you do too.

 

anyway, I think thats the story.

 

edited: Sorry, I thought you were suggesting they were the same seller, same book, different auctions. Probably different settings. Any scan can be manipulated to look like either of these two...if you know how, Its all pixels.

[BachelorOfComix]

none of the above: they appear to be different books entirely. Look at the wrap on the spines. the clearer scan has a much bigger miswrap. Its not inconceivable that he has two copies. Ive got three. I bet you do too.

 

anyway, I think thats the story.

Original Post: "Take a look at these two scans/photos of different copies of the same book."

 

Whether they are the exact same book is not the issue, potential digital manipulation of the second copy to make it look brighter is the issue.

 

[500Club]

none of the above: they appear to be different books entirely. Look at the wrap on the spines. the clearer scan has a much bigger miswrap. Its not inconceivable that he has two copies. Ive got three. I bet you do too.

 

anyway, I think thats the story.

 

edited: Sorry, I thought you were suggesting they were the same seller, same book, different auctions. Probably different settings. Any scan can be manipulated to look like either of these two...if you know how, Its all pixels.

 

I'm afraid you'll have to hand in your badge, Detective Fuhrmann...

[aardvark88]

The color hues on the 1st scan are more accurate. Seems like the 2nd pic is adjusted brighter & u can see the humidity staining near the spine. Same issue # 141 but looks like a different copy.

[Aman619]

yeah..I gotcha now. I edited my earlier reply after re-reading CAREFULLY!

 

Im looked at them both in photoshop to see what I could find....then I spent a few minutes manipulating the bad scan. see the attatchment.

 

As you see, its pretty easy to fix scans,,,though it would have taken more time to clean up and recolor some areas individually to match the other better scan. But using overall tools an dfilters you can affect the colors and sharpen the lines to get close.

 

But do I think thats what the seller did? Maybe. But I lean towards the conclusion that he made a better scan to begin with, His was 50% bigger than the worse scan in addition to being sharper and having cleaner colors. He may also have made a cmyk scan, matching the inks used rather than convert to RGB in the scan rather than when finished.

 

I understand your concern about cheating by manipulating scans, But is it cheating if one's scanner or its settings are adjusted "better"? Is that manipulating in the same way as "after-scanning" corrections are commonly thought to be? SInce most people use cheap scanners, and very few know how to calibrate them well, how can we blame anyone? Where's the crime? (Other than over-manipulating to FOOL the buyer of course)

 

I dont see evidence of that here.

 

 

I just looked at my attachment and after I had to dumb it down a few times to fit under the 150K threshold, Im disapointed at how pixealted it got. I dont htink it really shows what I had intended anymore....

[MrNice-migration]

Based on this Hulk issue and the remainder of the seller's images, it seems obvious what manipulations are taking place. They are very minor adjustments but leave a decidedly telltale indicator on the mildly processed resulting image.

 

The seller appears to be using the "Heritage" technique to artificially brighten the colors of the book making the hues brighter and the whites much brighter. Like cleaning/bleaching the cover but without touching the comic itself.

 

This is being done on the scanner's software. He pumped up the brightness, contrast, and intensity values and the Hulk issue you see bears the results of doing so.

 

Now while this technique greatly enhances the appearance of the comic in the central areas, when too much value is dialed in as far as this seller and Heritage often do on their Ebay images, there is a reciprocal diminishing effect on the outer portions of the comic, like what you see occurring here. For some reason, and I'm not an electronic/scanner guru so I can't give you the technical reason, just cause and effect, the outer boundaries of the comic do not "cleanse" well as the central areas brighten (the same effect occurs when working with photos taken in less than ideal lighting conditions when you attempt to brighten them up on the software)!

 

You get this dirty effect that is definitely typical of an image that has been brightened artificially in that manner, and it's a consistent telltale indicator from comic to comic. It's a trade off at best. You can create an image that looks cleaner, whiter, and brighter but (and that's a b-i-g but) you've also added a toning or dirtying effect as well that is not noticeable on the comic itself, only the image.

[highlite23]

Looks like a simple case of adjusting the White/Black levels. Real obviuose when you look at how whit the speech bubbles are. Three clicks and no experience will do it. PhotoShop 101.

[Aman619]

the whites still had some color in them. If he had wanted to wash them out to pure white he could have.

 

To me, since all scans are going to be subject to the hardware and software at the time of the scan, whats most important is to only use them for evaluating damage, not brightness etc. Unless the seller is cloning out problem areas, you can use them to decide on purchasing the book from the scans supplied. You are nover going to REALLY be able to truly judge a book's coloring and whiteness from a scan due to the variations of sellers setup AND your monitor settings. There's just never going to be a color standard for all computers.

 

 

[MrNice-migration]

Very well stated!! Each individual is going to "tune" his monitor to produce the least amount of eye-strain as possible. I keep the contrast very low and the brightness slightly muted on mine as well as deepening the colors on the monitor's natural color adjustment system to make up for the loss of acuity by keeping the monitor muted.

 

If I run the monitor brighter and crisper, I have to literally run to the faucet and throw cold water on my eyes every hour that I spend on the computer. So in essence, I myself am mutating each scan that I view on Ebay, unintentionally, as a byproduct of having to adjust the macro-settings in a particular way to avoid undue eye-strain.