Are "boosted" images clever marketing or outright deception?

[Bruce]

I received this e-mail from a customer yesterday:

"The  lobby card which I bought in the Tuesday February 14 auction arrived today in perfect condition, thanks to your superlative packing. I am delighted with the card, which is my favorite of all lobby cards. In fact, it actually looks even better in reality than in your scans, as the supersize image brings up even the tiniest imperfection very clearly. I know nobody else who provides this enlargement service so you can see exactly what you are buying."

I replied as follows:

"Thank you very much for your kind words! I have been buying through the mail for over 40 years, and I have always been amazed how many sellers would try to deceive you with poor quality photos that hide defects. Now, with modern day scanners, you can make scans that "burn away" defects (including even foldlines and pinholes), and people also use them to "boost" the colors of the item!

Some people seem to feel this is just wise salesmanship, but to me it is both deceptive and thinking for the short term, because you may get the person to pay more THIS time, but you are likely to lose a customer when they see how they were deceived. The way I do things with honest images that show 'even the tiniest imperfection very clearly', as you put it, I know that I gain the customer's trust, and that they are likely to order again and again, so I think those auctions that have the other philosophy are being 'penny wise and pound foolish'."

What is YOUR view on this?

[Louie D.]

Well, it's only honest to show all the imperfections, right?  I got a lobby card from Heritage a few years ago that I paid a lot for, when it came in the mail it was packaged perfectly but the card itself had some internal bends which did not show up in the photo they had posted for the auction.  I emailed them about it and they said return it for a refund but it was a card I REALLY needed for my collection and the reality was I would probably not find another one for a long time if ever.  I kept it, but I wasn't happy about it.

[jayn_j]

We have been having the HA boosted images for some time.  I hate to say it is deliberate when it can just be either laziness or lack of skills.

I can take any one of Bruce's or Rich's photos, and either open them in the Microsoft photo editor or import them into iPhoto on my mac.  If I then choose to edit them and select autocorrect, I will usually get an image very similar to Heritage's.  The default autocorrect settings on both programs boost both color level and contrast.  Microsoft and Apple would like you to believe this is 'natural' and correct.

Try it yourself.

[Bruce]

Jay, I know you are right. Back in the "old days" restorers who were ethically challenged, like the late Joe Hernandez, would "punch up" the colors of posters while they were restoring them! I recall him showing me a silent Thief of Bagdad half-sheet that had been practically duotone, and he added brilliant colors all over it, and it WAS a thing of beauty, but it WASN'T the poster that had been created (and of course there is almost surely a collector out there with this poster on their wall, having no clue what happened).

Now through the wonders of iPhoto and similar programs, they skip that expensive restoration and simply "restore" their images, and when they are caught red-handed, they offer to refund (as Louie says) but that means the buyer still has to pack it up and return it, and they are still disappointed. And you know many buyers (especially the type of rich person who is buying a movie poster for the first time) don't "put it together" and they simply accept their purchase (but I wonder how many of those people ever return to be stung a second time)?

Bruce

[CSM]

See: Auctions, Heritage

[ozcinemagic]

I started advertising some 1930s lobby cards on ebay and was using the auto-correct feature in the picture uploads. When I later viewed the listings I saw how white the borders appeared compared to the actual cards. I stopped using the enhance features from then on. That is a form of deception.

[Charlie]

You know I did notice the poster I was thinking about bidding on looked quite different in the catalog versus on the screen.  My wife and I are going up to Dallas and I am going to really get an idea of how boosted these guys are...

[Bruce]

Thank you ozcinemagic! My original question only concerned those who enhance their images, like eBay sellers who use the auto-correct feature in the picture uploads, or any other sellers who do the same through Paintshop type programs.

I did not name anyone, and will not. Those who DON'T enhance their images or "boost" the color have nothing to feel bad about, and no one is accusing them of anything. Those who do, know who they are, and they have to live with themselves. No matter how much money they make with their devious methods, they still have to do that.

Bruce

[Harry Caul]

What if I put a white card in my photos and use that to correct the white balance?  Is that still devious?

[Bruce]

Oddly enough, using a white card is not a "grey area". You know what is right and what is wrong, and if you make the right choice I applaud you. Those who make the wrong choice are not thinking it is "no big deal". They are choosing to cheat people. They may never get punished for what they do, but they do still have to live with themselves.

Bruce

P.S. The fact that you ask this tells me you know the answer. There is an expression that covers this: "Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t."

[Harry Caul]

P.S. The fact that you ask this tells me you know the answer. There is an expression that covers this: "Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t."

Ha ha!!  So says the person who started this thread!

[Charlie]

Ha ha!!  So says the person who started this thread!

 

[Bruce]

"Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t."

"Ha ha!!  So says the person who started this thread!"

It was a rhetorical question

[jayn_j]

Sorry Bruce, but this is BS.  As has already been posted, it depends so much on lighting, on display settings, on color balance, etc.  Unless you are a professional, it is unlikely you will get it "right" and even then, it won't be "right" on the customer's uncorrected monitor.

The image editors programs actually get it wrong, simply for the sake of convenience.  There is no true white, at least not one that can be reproduced on paper.  The pros will use a 50% neutral grey card as a reference in film photography and correct to that, but that would be difficult to do in a 1 button solution for correcting the photos of Aunt Mildred holding the grandkids.

Let it go.  There is no deception here, just an attempt to present in a positive manner.  If you don't like it, feel free to take the image and correct it to your tastes, or better still, go view that $300k poster in person.  But you better also insist on seeing it under 500W of color corrected 6500k lighting.

[Bruce]

When I view my auction images, I know I am looking at what the poster really looks like in person. And the super-size photos show pinholes, tiny tears, etc.

When I look at some sellers' images I see the same. When I look at some others (and I am not naming any names) then I see images where I feel sure that both I am not seeing the item as it appears in real life, and also I can't go in close enough to see tiny flaws.

I could post images of such items, but then I would be accused of attacking those sellers. And 99% of collectors know EXACTLY what I am talking about anyway.

We have to agree to disagree on this one.

Bruce

[CSM]

And 99% of collectors know EXACTLY what I am talking about anyway.

Count me in the 99% Bruce...

[jayn_j]

Understood, and yes I do know what you are talking about.  But it is kind of the Justice Potter Stewart argument on pornography: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

[Der Januskopf]

This topic will go round and round, it seems like. It makes for some good discussion and debate.

First, I agree with jay, that yes, there will be differences in the way a poster looks in a photo, based on lighting setup, the kind of lights used, type of camera used, and how the digital image is then loaded and handled in whatever photo program is used.

Hi resolution pictures that can be zoomed in on, to show flaws, tiny pin holes, faint creases or even subtle printing errors at the time of the poster's creation are all great and important to show- there is no doubt about that.

But what it being discussed is the artificial enhancement  and saturation of colors to a poster's digital image, in order to make it look more vibrant and "pretty." When someone chooses to perform this function, it is done so with that purpose. (I am not even going to use the word "deceptive" here as that can get tempers and emotions going).

But, if a seller decides, before listing a poster, to play with the contrast and saturation settings on a particular poster, in order to make it artificially "pop," when in reality, the colors are more muted or subdued, he or she is then, not showing a true representation of that particular poster to potential buyers or bidders.

Again, I know variables can be taken into account as reasons to adjust these components. That is not what Bruce, myself and others are talking about. It is the 'over the top' adjustments that make aged/tanned borders look whiter, (and obliterating small flaws from view) or adjusting a setting that makes colorful titles almost vibrate and glow on the paper. That, IMO, is a no no.

As a quick experiment, I grabbed a random poster image of Bruce's from an auction last week. I loaded it into my photo program and only boosted the saturation setting, and did a slight adjust on the contrast. As we know, Bruce prides himself on his images being true representations, showing accurate color, flaws and dings (if any exist).  

Here is a side by side comparison of that same poster. The adjustment I made had Nothing to do with my monitor settings, lighting or camera used. It is about playing with the image's saturation to make it look more appealing. I think most, if not all, (who were interested in this poster) would choose to own the poster on the right:

[Bruce]

Yes Jay, this IS just like the pornography definition. It may be hard to put into exact words, but we all DO know it when we see it.

And of course, the Dick Whittington example is PERFECT! One image looks like what you see when you open the package, and the other doesn't.

Is it good marketing, and does it get higher bids? Maybe one time, but it causes bidders to strongly distrust you in the future (but if you are seller to endless newbies, then maybe that isn't a problem).

My problem is not whether or not it is good for my business. My problem is that it IS deceptive and dishonest. If I wanted to make a living that way, I would be a used car salesman (or a politician)!

Bruce

[MoviePosterBid.com]

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

[MoviePosterBid.com]

*blah

[Louie D.]

Rich, can you clarify your statement?

[Bruce]

Those who can't find anything wrong in what I say try desperately to deflect my words with obfuscation.

I doubt anyone here is sidetracked by such shenanigans.

Bruce

[paul waines]

I do think that Dick Whittington is a bad example, as the couple I have of it all look more like the one on the right.....

[MoviePosterBid.com]

Rich, can you clarify your statement?

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah