Do we really still need flatbed scanners for comic scans? 4 4

[ADAMANTIUM]

4 minutes ago, awakeintheashes said:

It’s a nice pic, but the scans definitely help to to show details and any defects. For as old as they are, I don’t think anything compares to the legal flatbed scanners...yet. 

Thanks! ya that is better!

I agree and can tell a difference for sure, just haven't got one yet..... seemingly don't sell that much at the moment, but when I do it is usually slabs so scanner isn't "totally" necessary, will debate for the future...

Thanks  

Edited July 28, 2019 by ADAMANTIUM

[badback83]

I don’t have a computer.  So a scanner is out for me.  I only use my phone.  For raw books I can take decent enough pictures.  But slabbed books are a pain.  Any ideas?  I have an iPhone if that makes a difference.  I wasn’t sure if there was an app or something.

[adampasz]

I use Google PhotoScan. It's free.

https://www.google.com/photos/scan/

It has a Glare Removal feature, but if you set up some good lighting, you don't even need it. Glare Removal does come in handy for some reflective covers, like this ASM 375.

I also really like the integration with GooglePhotos, so it's easy to get your pics up on the cloud, organize them in Albums, and share. It is available for iOS and Android, but the integration on the Android version is a little smoother. 

I'm sure there are other nice paid apps. out there that do the same thing.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by adampasz
hi-res

[Aman619]

I don’t know if it’s cause the posted scans here are low res to fit the Boards file size limit, but overall, if a scan doesn’t show the individual printed ink dots, it’s really not sharp enough to see details. So for me a scanner is a time sucker but the quality of the results is a must.

[adampasz]

For slabs, I don't use PhotoScan. It creates some weird artifacts. I just shoot them in camera, and try to frame and crop the picture to avoid reflections.

Good lighting is crucial.

It is not optimal, but I don't sell that many slabs to justify and investment in a dedicated scanner.

(BTW, there is a reflection under the DC logo. I have a little statue a duck, and I forgot to move it before I took the picture.)

Edited July 28, 2019 by adampasz
Better pic.

[adampasz]

12 minutes ago, Aman619 said:

I don’t know if it’s cause the posted scans here are low res to fit the Boards file size limit, but overall, if a scan doesn’t show the individual printed ink dots, it’s really not sharp enough to see details. So for me a scanner is a time sucker but the quality of the results is a must.

Yeah, those were medium-res pics above, but I think they do an adequate job showing general condition. If the book merits a high level of detail, I'll shoot close-ups in-camera.

I used a scanner for a while, but it was just too labor-intensive. Also, I felt like it increased the risk I would damage books.

Edited July 28, 2019 by adampasz

[adampasz]

Yes the board software is adding compression when I upload.

I've replaced my pics above with higher-res versions. Click the images to zoom in.

[Aman619]

I agree with both your points...  depends I guess on the needs of the book and the scans.  Close ups would solve the details problem.  And most books , camera scans ar adequate. And quick!  But high value books buyers I think will prefer a hi res scan they can scroll around.  A camera station would be ideal, but, still in the end positioning books and swapping them in and out takes time and risks damage.  I also crop the images and clean up the colors to reflect the actual books in photoshop which adds more time, but I can usually finish before the next scans s done... and I enjoy that part. 

[adampasz]

16 minutes ago, Aman619 said:

I agree with both your points...  depends I guess on the needs of the book and the scans.  Close ups would solve the details problem.  And most books , camera scans ar adequate. And quick!  But high value books buyers I think will prefer a hi res scan they can scroll around.  A camera station would be ideal, but, still in the end positioning books and swapping them in and out takes time and risks damage.  I also crop the images and clean up the colors to reflect the actual books in photoshop which adds more time, but I can usually finish before the next scans s done... and I enjoy that part. 

I appreciate the feedback @Aman619 

You *can* click my pics above and scroll around. Go check out the ink dots, and all those awesome dirt smudges on the Batman. 

Some other benefits with PhotoScan is you can take pics of your books *anywhere*.  And you can crop & adjust color directly in Google Photos in any web browser. No need to fire up PhotoShop.  You can do the whole process just on a decent phone or table.

Obviously, everyone develops their own system that works for them. But I recommend people at least check out PhotoScan. I see so many garbage pictures out there, and there's no need for it!

Edited July 28, 2019 by adampasz

[fantastic_four]

18 hours ago, Artboy99 said:

I say if you have a functioning scanner why not just use it?

Yep, but I don't have one.  I was looking at new legal-sized scanners for a half-hour when I realized digital cameras are so much better since the last legal scanner I bought that I probably don't need one.

[fantastic_four]

19 hours ago, wombat said:

I have no idea how to take a photo of a CGC comic without glare. I've given up and just expect bad pics. 

I need to develop that as well.  I took a few test photos with glare, then realized that if I don't have lights shining directly at the plastic and just use ambient light there's no glare.  But ambient light isn't as bright as I'd like, so I need to figure out how to maximize brightness if that's what I end up using.  Ambient light was mostly fine though, just about as good as my old scanner photos.

Edited July 28, 2019 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

17 hours ago, comicwiz said:

Scanner for me.

If yours died tomorrow, would you buy another?  If so, why?  The reason I started the thread is I'm not sure if scanners really do still produce the best results.  It was definitely the best way to go twenty years ago when digital cameras were bad and you didn't want to have to develop photos, but with great digital cameras that upload straight to the cloud, I'm not sure scanners aren't now obsolete for most purposes.

[namisgr]

I agree with those who've posted that scans give a much more detailed view of condition and flaws than photos, especially for slabbed comics.  But nothing beats a detailed description from an owner of every edge, corner, surface, staple, cover wrap, cover paper tone, cover dirt, interior cover whiteness, page quality, color strike, gloss, and overall flatness.  Grader's notes on steroids.

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by namisgr

[fantastic_four]

15 hours ago, the blob said:

Most phone photos suck. So yes, a scan is better. 

Why do they suck?  The resolution on digital cameras used to be far worse than scanners, but now they're not unless you're creating 600 dpi or higher images that are far too big for eBay to let you put into auctions.

If you're saying that most people don't take good digital pictures and scanners help to simplify the process of taking a picture I would tend to agree.  But like I stated in my original post I'm already aware that a photo station with a background and controlled lighting would be necessary, and those are both cheaper and far more dynamic in terms of using space than a big legal scanner that has a fixed amount of space it requires.  The elements of a photography station can be put up and stored away in a compact space, and they're also useful for far more than just comics, they can be used for photographing virtually any type of object.

So that takes me to what I'm not sure of--are there qualitative elements of a scanner that I'm overlooking that makes scanners inherently superior to a digital camera picture?  Maybe.  That's why I started the thread, to see if anyone has enough experience with digital photography and scanning to know what the pros of scanning are.  Right now the only two pros I know of are extremely high resolution and simplicity of taking the image, but I don't need super-high resolution (and have never used it even when I had it), and I'd rather learn photographic techniques for taking pictures of other types of objects besides comics, so the simplicity of a scanner doesn't appeal to me either.

Edited July 28, 2019 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

16 hours ago, ADAMANTIUM said:

To point out a few problems:

• The lighting is dim.
• The background objects visible along the sides are distracting.
• The resolution is fairly low, but maybe the one you posted online is lower than the original picture.
• It's a bit blurry.  I can't even read the words "WHITE Pages" under the 9.4 grade, but I know what they look like so I knew what they were without reading them based upon the dimensions of the letters.

But these are all solvable problems with digital cameras, so I wouldn't list any of these as inherent advantages of a scanner aside from scanners make these problems far easier to deal with by automatically solving them for you.

Edited July 28, 2019 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

2 hours ago, Aman619 said:

I don’t know if it’s cause the posted scans here are low res to fit the Boards file size limit, but overall, if a scan doesn’t show the individual printed ink dots, it’s really not sharp enough to see details. So for me a scanner is a time sucker but the quality of the results is a must.

You have to scan at 600 dpi or higher to see the printing dots though don't you?  What's your default scanning size?

[fantastic_four]

9 minutes ago, namisgr said:

I agree with those who've posted that scans give a much more detailed view of condition and flaws than photos, especially for slabbed comics.  But nothing beats a detailed description from an owner of every edge, corner, surface, staple, cover wrap, cover paper tone, cover dirt, interior cover whiteness, page quality, color strike, gloss, and overall flatness.  Grader's notes on steroids.

What element of the photograph makes scanners inherently better?  Is it resolution or something else?

[Bat34]

I recently bought a used HP 8300 on Ebay for under $100 and it works great!  Definitely need scanned shots to be more comfortable as a buyer IMO.  When selling  I do scans of fc/bc and augment with phone photos of specific areas.  More info the better for buyers as I want them to know every aspect of the book so no surprises and ensure they are happy.

[namisgr]

31 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

What element of the photograph makes scanners inherently better?  Is it resolution or something else?

Consider the size of the sensors, which are responsible for capturing the reflected light.

Typical cellphone: ~0.7 cm diameter (a little over a quarter of an inch).

Typical high quality digital camera: ~3 cm across (about an inch and a quarter).

Typical 11x14 scanner: 11 inches by 14 inches (as multiple image lines are captured sequentially and assembled into a full size image).  See below.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2019 by namisgr

[Silver_Couch_Surfer]

I made a custom lightbox for about 25 bucks that I use to take photos of my raws (for ebay) since the scanner has a tendency to not show all the defects and bends. 

I still use the scanner though for my slabs and or high res scans of raw etc.