Show off the card scans that you've modified...

[leftygrove10]

In light of the other thread about the ethics of card repairs, I thought it might be fun to show off some SCANS of cards that you've modified. I'm not talking about showing off CARDS that you've modified, but rather scans that you've modified using computer software like Paint, Adobe Photodeluxe, Gimp, etc.

Here are two of my modifications.

[V117collector]

Is computer “card doctoring” modification a known common practice among other collectors, If so how could we as collectors safeguard from this types of attempts?

What is considered computer card modification??

Would trying to maximize clarity or detail froma lower quality scanner be considered “computer card modification”, or would it be consider a usable tool in the event of low quality scans?

[Ladder7]

Clean work Brad. I have more than a few that need a virtual makeover.

[leftygrove10]

Brad:

As I recall from a post several years ago, there have been cases of on-line sellers "sharpening" the scans of cards that they are selling. The intent was to make the card look brighter than it really was, making it appear more desirable than it was otherwise. That's why you may see some sellers on eBay claim that they do not modify scans to improve the appearance of the card.

If someone wanted to scam you, they certainly could attempt to remove tack holes, creases, writing, etc from the scans and make the card appear to be in better condition than it really is. How do you prevent getting burned by this? I would say that tilting your computer screen and viewing the scan from different angles may help to reveal some modifications to the card. For example, tilt your computer screen and view my first scan above. With the screen tilted, you can clearly see that I have removed the writing on the bottom border of the card. On the other hand, if you tilt the computer screen and view the scan of the four-on-one, it is much more difficult to see anything wrong with the card -- although it has been modified.

Brad

[Brian Van Horn]

If you split hairs on matters, every card I have ever scanned has been altered. The scanner that I use shows red more in the original scan. I also have to fetter out any imperfection in the surface of the scan such a small speck of dust. E126s are particularly hard for me to scan because picking up the whiteness of the border and still maintain the balance inside the picture border is difficult.

As for removing imperfections in the card itself, that I do not do and, obviously, do not condone.

[V117collector]

I don’t think it's wise to make accusations regarding how or/if a photo has been modified (enhanced). For instants the pic on the left is from a digital camera and the one on the right is from a (low quality) scanner which has been sharpened to show viewer unseen detail.

So Brad is this consider in your view computer modification?

[leftygrove10]

The difference between the picture from the digital camera and the scanner is interesting. You certainly can't see all of the detail from the camera image.

I think modifying the scan (or tuning the scanner) to show off the imperfections of the card in preparation for sale is fine, especially when viewing the choice of selling the card based on the camera image and selling the card based on the scan on the right.

If things were reversed and you had tuned your scanner to remove the creases, then tried to sell the card based on that "improved" scan, that would be wrong.

As far as computer modifications of scans, I had in mind more than "tuning" software to make scans brighter or darker. I was thinking more along the lines of using brushes within software programs to cover up writing, creases, etc. I know there are others on the board who have messed around with using software to hide missing corners or holes on the card.

I should say that the images of my cards above were modified only for use on my website and not with the intent of scamming anyone.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by V117collector

the one on the right is from a (low quality) scanner which has been sharpened to show viewer unseen detail.

That's a little tricky; technically, digitally sharpening an image is adding edges to the image that don't actually exist in the image, not exposing things that are hidden in the scan.

Generally speaking most scans nowadays are "doctored" somewhat as by default, most software does some adjusting.

I think the bottom line on this issue is that if the scan is changed to look more like the card actually looks in person then it's kosher; if it's done to make the card look better then it does, then it's problematic.

[baseballart]

I wouldn't even begin to know how to modify a card using software

[V117collector]

Originally Posted by Matt

That's a little tricky; technically, digitally sharpening an image is adding edges to the image that don't actually exist in the image, not exposing things that are hidden in the scan.

Generally speaking most scans nowadays are "doctored" somewhat as by default, most software does some adjusting.

I think the bottom line on this issue is that if the scan is changed to look more like the card actually looks in person then it's kosher; if it's done to make the card look better then it does, then it's problematic.

Originally the scan (on the right) was blurred due to being encapsulated then sharpened to clear up the Fogginess, which worked. Nothing was adding or replaced in this process. Simply done for unseen detail!

The scan on the left was from a digital camera w/ the flash on. This was used so the background reflection wouldn’t be present in the pic. No sharpening tool was used.

As for your statement “digitally sharpening an image is adding edges to the image that don't actually exist in the image, not exposing things that are hidden in the scan.” Like Max said, I wouldn't even begin to know how to modify a card using software.

[onlychild]

Not a sports card but a CDV...same process though. Stains removed throughout, holes removed at top, color added and picture enhanced. Took about 3 hours or so. There were also tons of spots removed not really visible to the naked eye. The stains on top were left because I decided to crop the entire picture from the borders for a better digital display.






Kevin

[leftygrove10]

Brad:

I think Max was being sarcastic when he said that he doesn't know how to use software to enhance cards. I think Max used software on his Cracker Jack to make it appear much better than it actually is.

Max:

Please show us a scan of the actual card...

[Matt]

Originally Posted by V117collector

As for your statement “digitally sharpening an image is adding edges to the image that don't actually exist in the image, not exposing things that are hidden in the scan.” Like Max said, I wouldn't even begin to know how to modify a card using software.

Brad - I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong as your sharpening was to make the card look more like it does in person; I was just explaining that technically, when you apply sharpening, you are adding data to the scan that isn't actually there. On top of that, even if you don't know how to modify the scan in other ways, I bet the software is already doing it for you automatically.

[baseballart]

The Bob Brown Vancouver Cracker Jack is a purely imaginary card, combined from 2 others, a cj card and Bob Brown's Obak card.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by baseballart

The Bob Brown Vancouver Cracker Jack is a purely imaginary card, combined from 2 others, a cj card and Bob Brown's Obak card.

Oh, so what you're saying is that you didn't mess with the scan.

[Kawika]

I buffed up my T210 Stengel a tad and gave it a grade bump as well in order to yank Jim Crandall's chain a year or two ago.