Site Forum

There have, of course, been a number of threads discussing image quality on this site (of the cards, not the members). I don't know if there was ever a "decision," per se, but the concensus did seem to be that a mediocre image is better than no image. I'm not a huge contributor to the site, but I upload an image every rare occasion I have a card that isn't in the database. And the last one I uploaded, I confess, was a scan of a graded card. http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/4/cid/3759553/1916-M101-5-Sporting-News-60-Max-Flack

It's by no means ideal, and I wrote a comment apologizing for the quality of the picture. But I still think it's better than no picture at all. And I do not feel comfortable just downloading some picture from the internet and uploading it here. I defer to the Admin, but, for some cards, it is what it is.

As for the eTopps cards, which I do not collect, it sounds like people are literally taking pictures of wrapping, similar to the protective film on some cards. I don't get it, but to each her own.

v3

Fine line being walked here, so bear with me.

Most complaints about junky scans stem from sets that are readily available in many collections, and the cards could easily be scanned and any corrections (crooked, color, fade) could be addressed before uploading. Take  set like 1991 Upper Deck. Many baseball collectors have a set of those - and if you take a random card like this one, scans like this are not accepted these days and should not be acceptable. In this case a terrible scan isn't better than no scan, because there are about 100 members who own this card and could scan it better.

Now, cards where no one else has them, or the possiblility of no one else having them is a different story. This is where even if the scan doesn't meet the guidelines, (like this one because it is autographed after release), an unpoalded scan (appropriately tagged "Scan Needs Replacing" by the submitter) is better than no scan at all. If someone was to obtain one of these, Admin can be contacted and the appropriate scan could be submitted with the proper credit being given.

These examples are very different in their nature.

In the case of the original question about scanning graded cards - if the card alone can be scanned clearly, then it should be uploaded. If you can reproduce how the card looks out of the case, then upload it. If you can't, then it may be better not to bother. If the card is a 1/1 (or /2 or /3), maybe we accept a scan that's less than perfect. My scanner doesn't handle the depth, so I've had to pass on uploading a couple items I don't want to bust out of the sealed holder. If you are uploading the current year's flagship set, if you can't get the cards straight or clear, maybe you should let someone else do the scanning.

Yeah, I have a really cool Barry Sanders card from Topps in a sealed case, that I've never scanned because I won't remove it. This card is an unusual case where it is so thick, it won't fit in any other holder I have, and ripping the Topps seal off will make its current holder look trashy. So there it sits.

Thanks for the responses! I think I might hold off on submitting the scans as they are quite blurry and I only have a CIS scanner.

I've had some pretty good success using an app on my phone called Office Lens to take take a photo of my graded cards.  It allows you to take a photo at an angle to avoid glare/reflections but then you can manually pick the four corners of the case and the app will fix the skewed image so it looks perfectly square.  It has a greater depth of view range so both the card and the label appear in focus.  My only advice when using the app are to find a location to take the picture that has good indirect natural light, like near a northern facing window during the daytime.  And use the photo setting and manually correct the skew as opposed to the document setting which tries to do it automatically.  Here's an example I've uploaded to the site from the 2000-01 Fleer Authority Prominance Graded Insert set (where cards were distributed pre-graded by Beckett):

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/26690/cid/3065234/2000-01-Fleer-Authority---Prominence-75/25-104-Rodney-Rogers?PageIndex=2

Hope that helps.

First, a photo is a photo. Images are not to include the slab, just the card.  If they are cropped now the dimensions will be below the minimum requirements, 250 x 350.

meeker99 wrote:

I've had some pretty good success using an app on my phone called Office Lens to take take a photo of my graded cards.  It allows you to take a photo at an angle to avoid glare/reflections but then you can manually pick the four corners of the case and the app will fix the skewed image so it looks perfectly square.  It has a greater depth of view range so both the card and the label appear in focus.  My only advice when using the app are to find a location to take the picture that has good indirect natural light, like near a northern facing window during the daytime.  And use the photo setting and manually correct the skew as opposed to the document setting which tries to do it automatically.  Here's an example I've uploaded to the site from the 2000-01 Fleer Authority Prominance Graded Insert set (where cards were distributed pre-graded by Beckett):

http://www.tradingcarddb.com/ViewCard.cfm/sid/26690/cid/3065234/2000-01-Fleer-Authority---Prominence-75/25-104-Rodney-Rogers?PageIndex=2

Hope that helps.

Additionally, every page where a card image is to be submitted has the following information (Please note item #6):

When submitting images to include on the site, please follow the following guidelines.

Images should be:

1. In .jpg format
2. At least 250x350 pixels (for standard-sized cards)
3. Less than 1MB in size
4. Properly cropped
5. Rotated to the proper orientation
6. Scanned, not photographed
7. Without any signatures, writing, or watermarks (unless released that way by the manufacturer)

My apologies.  I was attempting to adhear to the intent of the guidelines while producing the best possible image for the database.  I didn't realize the rules were so absolute.  I thought an image produced using a scanning phone app that corrects the problems of taking a regular photo was better than a blurry scan.  I guess I was wrong.  I will gladly self-report those images I've submitted using my scanning app and leave those cards as blank on the database.  I don't have the money/desire to purchase a new scanner that captures depth of field.  And I'm not going to upload a blurry picture to the database.

Secondly, I thought I read in one of the forums about posting graded card to the site that cards that were distributed from the manufacturer as graded cards were supposed to be uploaded in the graded state.  Aftermarket graded cards should be cropped to exclude the case.  The card I was referring to was distributed by Fleer as a graded card so I thought it was appropriate to included the Beckett case.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  I will gladly upload a new photo that meets the resolution guidelines, if neccessary.

This is just me theorizing here but since all cards can be broken free from their case, whether issued like that or aftermarket, it's best to have an image of just the card itself.   That way if someone has a raw card they won't get confused if they see the scan with a case.  I know some people like to have cards free from a case, even if the manufacture distributed it like that. You could always put in Note 2 that the card came issued in a case by the manufacturer.

The plastic slab is just a form of packaging the card. The plastic is not part of the card. It didn't come off the presses encased in plastic.  Using that logic we should only upload images of pack wrappers because that's they way the cards were released by the companies.