Dave said:While scans have to be edited otherwise, they would just look awful and be not far from image above.
A good Scans generally looks better than any actual screen shots I have seen Shonen Jump as the colour are more solid and less faded. Also with it been computer image its always going to have sharper look to it than the cheap paper quality used in Shonen Jump.
Given how vocal fans are about the most trivial things, e.g. Holo's name spelling in roomaji differing by a single letter between the illegal fan versions and the authourised adaptation (Spice & Wolf), and myriad quality issues, I'm genuinely moderately surprised that people are fine with a bunch of amateurs "touching up" the authentic art. I'm not sure why it surprises me any more.
A scaled down, badly artifacted picture should not be used as an example of how the actual Shounen Jump magazine looks in person. Snapshots, like scans, do not accurately represent the physical product. The fact is that if the source is bad, the scan will look bad, unless it is touched up digitally by a careful hand. Scans simply can't make extra detail and sharpness appear where none existed in the source material.
I personally strongly disagree that Shounen Jump's line up today is particularly stronger than it was 10 or 15 years ago but it's difficult to debate when opinions are stated so firmly as immutable fact. The fact that we have a few prominent, excellent series and a lot of very similar hangers on in the same genre doesn't necessarily make it better than when the genre mix included more variety. I only personally really rate Gintama, One Piece, Bakuman and Hunter x Hunter in the current line up; about the same proportion of classics as in previous years.
R