Tagged under Eden Eternal
This thread is closed for posting.
page 1 of 1 5 total items
I just posted a scan Muchimaro-139 that was done by myself -- which was better than the scan that remains
in the gallery.
Thee scan in the gallary is faded from the original AND has noticeable screening artifacts. Mine did not.
Too bad you don't let members vote on on the best rendition....
Hi, Astara. To answer your query which was posed in the title of your thread, the scan moderators determine which scans remain in the gallery. Much more information regarding the process may be found here, in the Scan Tutorial Thread. Please be assured that your scan was not discarded without due scrutiny and without a very good reason. It is important that we, as scan moderators, treat all scans in a totally fair and objective way and by the same standards are applied in a very strict and consistent manner. The scan that you were hoping to replace in the gallery, although relatively raw (meaning little to no filtering had been applied to it) contained no lossy data (jpeg artifacts). However, it was evident that the scan did display some of the textural qualities of the printed material, which is not a problem and does not detract from the value of a scan unless compression artifacts that result during the scan process when the image is saved into an image file present themselves.
The key difference that gave your image a disadvantage was that a strong filter had been applied to the image. Some filtering may, indeed, be beneficial and will often remove some of the indications of dust, the evidence of texture of the printed page, and some other minor imperfections. However, in the case of your scan, much of the valuable visual data and detail created by it's artist was diminished or lost as a result of heavy filtering. Also, much of the color was altered from the original scan. For this reason the existing scan was retained over your intended replacement. Please note that in the future, you should always look for, and report (using the report feature) the scan you are submitting and indicated which scan you intend to replace. One more thing, if your scan had no duplicate in the gallery, yours would have been retained. Because the existing scan had the more intact visual data it was chosen over that of your own. I hope that you find this information helpful. Thanks for your intentions of adding a quality scan to the gallery here.
Speaking apart from the filtering and detail issue. Centering on color.
Do you own the source of the scan?
The author of the scan you kept said it was not their scan, nor was their scan stored with a color profile. I DO own the
source of the scan and can compare the colors of the original against the colors on my monitor. I can compare the source
under D65 lighting (reference standard), and have my monitor calibrated to 6500k. I store the color profile of my
monitor with the image allowing anyone who wants to convert it to a different viewing profile,
for accurate reproduction the ability to do so. Edit: I also did my scan in 48-bit color before reducing it in the final
jpg - retaining maximum fidelity possible.
But factually speaking you cannot claim that scan has better reproduction as it isn't tagged with color information. You **May** be lucky in that the source that was scanned somehow approximates the rendition on your monitor, but that is entirely subjective. The scan you claim has more visual data is also missing data the artist intended as it was overly doctored to remove items that the original artist placed in the scan (lights and shines).
If you or someone you know has the source image, you will see three light dots on her rear arm. They are halo'ed.
Those are removed in the scan
you claim to be better, yet they are part of the original and part of my scan that was deleted.
I could go on in more detail about the loss in color range by not correcting for going from an "on-paper" scan vs. a monitor and how this need to be corrected for (and wasn't) or the image will lose color detail.
Or I could go into how the presence of grain-material in a scan **hides** detail, because unlike a filter designed for
moire removal the human eye
cannot distinguished between false detail of the added dots, vs. real detail. But I'll leave that for another time.
The point here being that unless you own the source material (which the original scanner did not "not his
scan"), you cannot make the claim that his color is better. AND If you do have
access to the material, I have proof that the copy you kept has deleted detail that the original author
intended.
Do you have the original or know someone who does? Example the dots on her rt arm (behind her leg). They aren't in the MT gallery image, so to claim it preserves more detail than mine seems a bit subjective.
Astara, as Hooyaah already said, Scan Mods decide about the scans, if you need to contact one of us, you can see who we are: http://moderators.minitokyo.net/
Quote by AstaraSpeaking apart from the filtering and detail issue. Centering on color.
The main reason of the deletion of your scan is the over-filtering, as you can read here:
Quote by HooyaahThe key difference that gave your image a disadvantage was that a strong filter had been applied to the image. Some filtering may, indeed, be beneficial and will often remove some of the indications of dust, the evidence of texture of the printed page, and some other minor imperfections. However, in the case of your scan, much of the valuable visual data and detail created by it's artist was diminished or lost as a result of heavy filtering.
Over-filtered scans are considered lower quality compared to more detailed scans, because the details are part of the
original image. If you need a more filtered scan you can always do it using the detailed one, but you can't restore
the lost details from an over-filtered one.
The color is a secondary reason.
Astara,
You think 666857 quality is bad because its mostly look like a raw scan.
We prefer keeping raw scans then someone's own claims that they did better in whatever.
Details are more preserved in raw scans than filtered scans since nothing was done to them yet. If you keep filtering
scans over and over, details will eventually diminish and be blurred away.
With raw scans, if anyone wants a scan in a certain way, then its easier for them to filter and edit to however they
want it to be. Just like what you did in this case.
page 1 of 1 5 total items
Back to Deletion Appeals | Active Threads | Forum Index
Only members can post replies, please register.
