'tis true... although they're both paper items, comparing photos of ads to postcards is like comparing apples and oranges. They are definately different items, and there isn't anything wrong with taking different approaches. (although, with a little practice and the right equipment, I bet you could get some acceptable results with a big improvement in speed)
Fluffy,
LOL... If you think my pictures look like crap... you ought to look at the type of pictures that usually show up in the Advertising section! Trust me... mine are good... and they get the job done! Many sellers are using scanners that are too small for their ads. Their solution? Put a disclaimer in the listing saying the ad was too big for their scanner, and the edges aren't shown. Not a good solution, in my mind! Then there are the ones that don't use copy stands or lighting set ups. They get the big bright hot-spots where the flash reflects off of the glossy paper. And don't get me started on the fuzzy ones that you see because people can't hold the camera steady, or don't use their macro settings. Not to mention that my color is far more accurate to a true representation (as nicely illustrated by mikes example).
All-in-all... considering that I can get two-three times as many pictures ready in the same time... I'll stick with the photos!
posted on February 6, 2006 02:32:03 PM
I was mean. I admit it. I just get a little honked off when anyone insists repeatedly that their way is the only way, particularly when the proofs don't justify it.
(It is a trait I particularly despise in men. Memo to guys: Arrogance is NOT attractive and seldom gets you laid.)
Here is why the pictures are crap:
Your edges are curved. No bidder's going to complain about that, but the eye doesn't like it. The eye expects straight, clean lines and prefers them to be parallel with the closest edge.
White paper is coming out a dingy gray. Claude had a good suggestion about this: Use a piece of white paper in the shot as a reference for your color correction. This will take more than 10 seconds.
All but the largest type is out of focus and unreadable.
Ads aren't lit uniformly.
I do understand, as well as anyone, that when one is listing a large number of auctions and expect a relatively paltry return, one cannot lavish extreme amounts of time on any one item without sacrificing profitability.
But your proof of the camera's superiority is unconvincing.
posted on February 6, 2006 02:40:58 PM
OK Neglus, you picked the picture! I have a similar one scanned. My auto-crop/auto-name/auto-color correct may crop a bit too tight but it is fast and I think the color is more true. Now if I can just remember how to insert images without calling you,
<IMG SRC="http://imagehost.vendio.com/bin/imageserver.x/00000000/pixiamom/macalaster513.JPG"><br />
<br />
Guess I still don't get it!!
[ edited by pixiamom on Feb 6, 2006 02:43 PM ]
[ edited by pixiamom on Feb 6, 2006 02:45 PM ]
[ edited by pixiamom on Feb 6, 2006 02:45 PM ]
[ edited by pixiamom on Feb 6, 2006 02:47 PM ]
posted on February 6, 2006 02:44:44 PM
neglus - A cheap way to mount a camera overhead is to use one of those clamp on swing arm light's or magnifying glass lights. Just remove the light head and make a mount to stick on the end of it that you can attach your camera to. Walla, instant fully adjustable overhead camera mount. Where I am at there are numerous used office furniture stores that usually have a couple used high quality ones for cheap (government surplus). You could also just use a adjustable tripod. Most tripod's have heads that pivot 90 degree's down. Just shorten the leg length to the appropriate height, place it on the table and set your card template directly below it between the legs. Once you zoom in the leg's won't be in the picture.
They say your memory's the second thing to go, I just can't remember what the first thing is.
posted on February 6, 2006 02:47:27 PM
pixiasis - it's simpler to post to Vendio -
just use this: [*img]yoururl[*/img] Take out the asterix
-------------------------------------
posted on February 6, 2006 02:58:48 PM
I guess you proved my point - your scan chopped off all 4 edges - that's the problem with your auto-crop method unless you place the items exactly right on the scanner. And mine is EXACTLY the same color as the postcard and yours is color enhanced:
MINE
YOURS (i scaled it so they are the same size):
Yours might LOOK better but it's not as accurate.
-------------------------------------
I don't disagree that in an ideal world, the pictures shouldn't have curvature. However, I really haven't gotten any complaints. It's a small price to pay for speed... plus, it's a lot better than some sellers who take their pictures at an angle (where you get a total difference of perspective).
You're dead wrong about the color! If you're seeing them as a dingy grey... that's good... 'cause that's what they are! Lots of scanners automatically color correct whites to pure whites, which is rarely the case in vintage paper. I've got to say, the way my monitor is calibrated (which is a whole other issue with portraying photos on eBay), these colors are pretty much on the money.
As for the text, that's a conscious decision on my part. I prefer to keep the file size of my photos relatively low, so that my auctions can be easily viewed by low speed dial up users (who still are in the majority over high-speed users). As such, I use a slightly higher JPEG compression, which does affect the text sharpness. This in no way is related to the method used to take the picture, however. If I wanted to use up the file size... I could easily get sharper results (my macro is good!).
As for the lighting... the background may not appear to be lit uniformly but the ads, for the most part, are. When you photograph ads, the paper acts sort of as a reflector, dispersing light. I can usually quickly adjust the side lights to remove any hotspots, if necessary. I choose to light for the subject (the ad) not the background.
Anyhow... I understand your points... but I did want to clarify them a little.
posted on February 6, 2006 03:19:20 PM
??? It's the same URL as the other scan I posted and that is the true color of my version of the postcard (maybe you have a darker version?). Look at the grass in the foreground - yours is cut off at the tree and mine has another inch of green below it - maybe another version of the card or you auto-cropped it out.
Anyhow - you aren't changing your method and I am not changing mine and Vintage isn't changing hers and eauction isn't changing his/hers and that's that LOL Roadsmith - do it however you like - we can't arrive at a consensus.
-------------------------------------
posted on February 6, 2006 05:10:14 PM
Thanks, everybody. I must say you have my head spinning--but I think I've learned a few things from your posts. I'm going to try it both ways and see how I like the results.
______________________________
posted on February 6, 2006 09:50:50 PM
has any one ever found a sheet feeder or hopper feeder solution for automatically scanning very large amounts of post cards? maybe even a robotic arm type solution?
posted on February 6, 2006 11:17:10 PM
Neglus, it wasn't me, its Mike's images that's making the first page of this thread hard to read. Then he posted Pixia's link
**Note to Mike (and Pixia), it is best to keep image sizes at or below 650 pixel width for both boards and auctions. We lazy people hate to scroll left to right while reading.**
But Neglus, I did get a good laugh from your reprimand. I was frustrated by the time I got to the bottom of the first page, scrolling back and forth. then I see my name and honestly thought I was the culprit. Just "tinied" my url, but it did not help.
So, I'm back to watching discussion. Good stuff here folks, even if it does get a little redundant between the "mine is better than yours"...
Wait! I get it now!!! Mike is playing "mine is bigger than yours".
posted on February 7, 2006 08:38:43 AM
LtRay - Sorry, I didn't realize the picture size was screwing up peoples view's. I use a laptop with a widescreen monitor so it does not cause problems for me. 1024 x 768 is the size I upload all my pictures at. I'll have to make a mental note to downsize pictures for posting here on the community board in the future.
They say your memory's the second thing to go, I just can't remember what the first thing is.
posted on February 7, 2006 08:45:50 AM
LT RAY - You WERE the worst culprit LOL - it is better now. It was huge before Mike posted his big images - now he's the bad guy on the first page and pixiamom on the second page.
I think this thread has served its porpose and beyond anyway - let's let it DIE!
-------------------------------------
