Decks that look better as scans?
Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 05 Aug 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.
| Kittaine |
05 Aug 2004 |
|
Have you ever felt like the scans are much prettier than what the deck actually looks like? That's what I've been feeling with pretty much all the decks I saw online and then bought. When I hold the cards and look at them, they're not as breath-taking as when I looked at them on a computer screen. I've felt like this with the Osho Zen, the Tarot of Mermaids, Vargo's Gothic Tarot, the Enchanted Tarot by Zerner and Farber, and others. Don't get me wrong, they're all great reading decks, but I just wasn't all that thrilled when I actually held the cards in my hands and looked at the pictures directly. There was none of that "Oooh" and "Ahhh". That sort of lessened the thrill of reading with those decks, knowing that they look better as scans.
So I gotta ask, what decks are guaranteed to take your breath away when you actually see it for yourself "in person"?
|
| laura_borealis |
05 Aug 2004 |
|
I felt that way about the Aquarian. Which is why I'm about to trade it for a Beatles CD. :P
|
| jema |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
I am quite the opposit there and think I never seen a scan of a deck that looks better then the deck itself. Especially not the Zerner-Farber.
One deck I never seen good scans of at all is the Thoth tarot. There really is no way to make it justice without holding the cards in your hands.
One think I noticed though is that on many sites they only scan the "best" cards so when you buy it you may think all cards are like those. In that case I can understand the dissappointment.
|
| Rhiannon |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
I feel this way about the Spiral. I loved the High Priestess in the scans I saw, but then when I got up close and personal, I was highly disappointed. All the people's faces look smushy or something.... maybe it is the medium used? Or maybe it is their eyes. I dunno, but I liked the scans, that's why I bought it. I didn't like the cards, and that's why I gave them to Pollux. :*
R :)
|
| Aun |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
The scans can't show all the details of the cards since they are generated in 75 DPI which is the standard resolution for web graphics. Aside of that they are often displayed in a smaller size on the screen, unless you have a large monitor (21'' or bigger).
Furthermore the quality of the actual cards is compromised by the dotted offset pattern of the printing system, which stands out a lot when displaying painted images.
|
| Macavity |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
I think it depends on the scan(ner) and/or how your PC screen is set up etc. etc. ;)
My cheap-o scanner produces initial results that are really drab and (probably) quite low on contrast. In the (default) action of the particular software I use for processing the result, it "brightens up" considerably. But I think the "intelligence" used by software (depending on picture content) can lead to variable results, even within a single deck. In scans (for personal use!) I usually use constant settings and e.g. slightly "up" the contrast. The result is probably indeed a little artificially enhanced! :)
Ideally one should (probably) adjust the scanner/screen/software to reproduce the same effect as reality - Try the real card next to the screen image! But it can be quite FUN to artificially "improve" contrast, up the colour saturation etc. Even the Thoth can be given a bit of a boost and the Haindl becomes almost a "psychadelic experience" :D
Macavity
|
| ambermoon |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
The four color printing process has its limitations, and is always less sparkling than digital images, which are painted with light. Any artisan deck whose online images are taken from the originals is going to look much better online than in print. You can scan an image and subjectively downgrade it to give the same impression of its printed counterpart--but that's an art of sorts, and most scanned images have the opposite kind of corrections applied--to make them brighter than the originals.
I also wonder if the standard playing card stock is designed for many other good things, like flexibility, opacity, and durability, but not for color fidelity or for brightness? Most playing cards, after all, have a limited palette and little visual appeal.
|
| Lee |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
oops, please delete
-- Lee
|
| Lee |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
I thought the Kazanlar deck looked beautiful in scans:
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/kazanlar/
But when I got the deck I was very disappointed. What seemed to be detailed and textured in the scans turned out to be rough and amateurish. I traded it away.
-- Lee
|
| fyreflye |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
Like Kittaine, I've rarely seen a deck that looked as good in reality as its scans;
perhaps the one exception is the Osho Zen. The latest example of reality shock is the monstrously garish Gilded Tarot (surely no one disagrees:D). One deck that oushines its scans is the Universal Waite.
|
| Jeannette |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
I'm with you on the Tarot of Mermaids, Kittaine. I do love the deck, but for some reason, scanned versions of the images have always struck me as more "alive" and "vibrant." I can't explain it.
As far as decks that really "hit home" after being unimpressed with the scanned images I viewed, but then seeing the cards "in person" and having the old "jaw drop amazing" reaction: the Tarot de la Rea tops the list for me.
-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden
|
| baba-prague |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
Originally posted by Lee
I thought the Kazanlar deck looked beautiful in scans:
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/kazanlar/
But when I got the deck I was very disappointed. What seemed to be detailed and textured in the scans turned out to be rough and amateurish. I traded it away.
-- Lee
I didn't see the scans of the Kazanlar before I got the deck. In fact it's a deck I am fond of but I did take one look and thought that something went wrong in the printing somehow - these cards need to be larger. I wonder if the designer imagined them (or even intended them) at larger size?
|
| baba-prague |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
Originally posted by Jeannette
As far as decks that really "hit home" after being unimpressed with the scanned images I viewed, but then seeing the cards "in person" and having the old "jaw drop amazing" reaction: the Tarot de la Rea tops the list for me.
-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden
Oh - YES! I am so glad you said that. I was just so surprised and thrilled with Tarot de la Rea when I saw the real thing. Not sure why it is so much better in reality - the gold inks don't scan well perhaps?
Anyway, I bored some people RIGID in emails by going on about this deck when I first got it - it does have to be seen in print.
|
| baba-prague |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
Originally posted by ambermoon
I also wonder if the standard playing card stock is designed for many other good things, like flexibility, opacity, and durability, but not for color fidelity or for brightness? Most playing cards, after all, have a limited palette and little visual appeal.
The stock used is very important - different stock will react in different ways to the inks. Playing card stock is good in fact - it doesn't "suck" the ink too much - but most standard playing cards (tarot cards ARE usually done with more care) are not printed to very good quality and are then partially destroyed by overly glossy varnish - which in my opinion gives the impression of looking at the images through a thick glass window.
But perhaps most important of all is proof, proof, proof (for those who don't know the term a proof is a sort of "draft" of the print). We had stand-up rows over our proofs this time (nicely, in fact we are very fond of our printers in many ways, they really are craftsmen) but as one example - our first proofs were totally washed out, our second were too dark - and in between we had some where some cards worked and others didn't (it isn't just a matter of light or dark, it's also which colours you adjust). It is really, really important to sit with the printers during this process, as in the end it's what makes all the difference. Oddly enough, good printers will even respect you for hassling them - and this in itself can make them ensure a better result.
The problem is that if there is a disconnect between designer and printer it can be hard to match the originals in the intended way.
By the way, sorry to post so much on this, but it IS a real passion of ours.
|
| Calliope |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
Some (or maybe many, I'm not sure :) ) may laugh at me (because of how juvenile they seem), but Tarot of a Moon Garden. I was 14 or 15 when I discovered the wonders of eBay, and I saw some scans of the deck there. I immediately went "ooo!" Needless to say, when I got the deck I was a bit disappointed. The colors are more faded than they were in the scans. I now look at the cards, and while they aren't entirely me (I'm not so much a mermaids-fairies-unicorns type person), I don't think I would have the heart to trade them or sell them. They were my second deck. :)
|
| Kittaine |
06 Aug 2004 |
|
Originally posted by Jeannette
As far as decks that really "hit home" after being unimpressed with the scanned images I viewed, but then seeing the cards "in person" and having the old "jaw drop amazing" reaction: the Tarot de la Rea tops the list for me.
-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden
Hi, Jeannette. I'm looking at the Tarot de la rea scans right now, and...I can't see the "striking" part of it! lol! Hehehe, that's interesting, though.. A deck that looks ordinary in scans and stunning in person.
|
| Jeannette |
07 Aug 2004 |
|
Originally posted by Kittaine
I'm looking at the Tarot de la rea scans right now, and...I can't see the "striking" part of it!
Yup -- that was my reaction. And I really can't even explain why the deck feels so "right" to me in person. Maybe it's that good "gold" tones never do seem to scan very well, for any deck. But I don't think it's the gold accents in-and-of-themselves that make the deck so awesome. However, other than that, I can't explain what's all that different about it "live" vs. "scanned." It's completely mystifying -- but maybe that's part of the beauty of it. As soon as you can explain something mystical, I think it loses part of its appeal, so maybe it's better that way...
-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden
|
| Chronata |
07 Aug 2004 |
|
Tarot that looked better IN the scans...VISION
oh how I fell in love with the beautifully detailed photo collage...only to find that in the actual deck, the ugly black border takes up most of the card, making the image quite small.
Tarot that looked better THAN the scans...MANTEGNA
Gorgeous, rich luscious shiny silver cards, with wonderful illustrations that look like they are straight out of some illuminated text!
Now that I have seen them in person...I SO must have this deck!!!
|
| tmgrl2 |
07 Aug 2004 |
|
I agree...most of the scanned decks I have seen on commercial sites have looked better in the scans.
And when we upload here, we are limited by the file size. Even a card that I have scanned and enhanced and uploaded to my photo site is reduced in quality. Here is the Magician which I scanned and enhanced. It looked gorgeous. Here it is after uploading from my photoalbum website:
Oops...worked once then link broke...it looked terrible anyhow. Looks better in next post, even reduced in size for uploading here.
I just got the Golden Tarot. It's lovely, but I still felt the scanned pictures were more "eye-catching." The only ones so far, that I like better in "real" life form (I don't have more than 20 decks) are Gilded Tarot LE, Hadar's Tarot de Marseille, and Morgan-Greer.
Just my opinion...but I do agree....
terri
Yuck...just checked quality of that M-G....might look better if I reduced it to size I can upload here.....
|
| tmgrl2 |
07 Aug 2004 |
|
Here it is reduced to less than 300,000 bytes and uploaded through our post option:
So second picture is better....at least for the future, I will do what I see I more experience posters of cards doing...using our upload feature right here in the post. Much clearer.
terri
|
| Jeannette |
08 Aug 2004 |
|
Not that most folks here probably care too much about the "Chinese knockoff" anime "tarots" (and I use the term loosely; there isn't much of anything tarot-like in most of these decks other than the translated card titles), but here's one I just scanned that qualifies. I can't believe how much better the scans look than the actual cards. The cards themselves are completely fuzzy, with many exhibiting washed-out colors. But the scans look a lot sharper and more vibrant. The scans aren't super-beautiful, but I can't even begin to describe how superior they are to the actual cards. Weird.
http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/dbsearchengine.php?view_title=sailor+moon+78
Use the "More Samples" button displayed at the link above to see the half-dozen examples I pulled together.
-- Jeannette
The Tarot Garden
|
| blue_fusion |
09 Aug 2004 |
|
conversely, there are those decks too that the scans do not do justice to. :)
|
The Decks that look better as scans? thread was originally posted on 05 Aug 2004 in the Tarot Decks board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Tarot Decks, or read more archived threads.
|
