That was partly my intent, to be sarchastic, but I would disagree with the fact that it doesn't require any skill to get a good scan.

Take a look at the scans on eBay sometimes. It is not just putting a chip on and pushing a button and producing the scan. I see a lot of scans where the chips are cut off on the edges, out of focus, dark, off color.... Randy's scan was very good. Sharp, colorful, good contrast, The white was WHITE and the black VERY BLACK. It can be hit and miss if you don't care to put any effort in but you can improve your scans if you know what you are doing. Do you select the object and zoom in on it before you scan? Or, do you just let the scanner scan the whole 9x11(?) bed with your little 39mm chip and crop later. That can have a big difference on the quality of a scan. Sometimes putting a clean piece of paper over the chip before you close the scanner can make a dramatic difference. Then the issue, What color paper do you use. White might darken your chip, Black might lighten it up, Color papers may cause off color results, Neutral Gray will probably give you the truest results. Put a shiney paper or fabric over your chip and you might get unattractive glare. Put a matte texture and you might get a really pleasing background. Just putting the lid down, on my scanner often gives me ugly bakgrounds, rainbow colored glare and inconsistant color and tones to the chips. The color of your background and some of the settings in your preferences can make a dramatic difference. My point is that there is a lot more to digital imaging than you give credit. Scan your chip at actual size and enlarge it on your eBay auction and you will have problems. Scan it as a larger file and shrink it down and it can look really good.

As for the photograph, I don't think the comparison was as ludicrous as you say. My photo was simply pointing a camera at a subject and pushing a button. Did you say lay down a chip and push a button? What is the difference. I really don't see it. Yes, photographs can involve more thought, planning, composition etc. But so can scans. You say, "It takes a genuine effort, possibly even a skill to take a well composed photo. A well made photo could very well have a value associated with it. Many photos sell for significant sums of money." I would point out that, appearantly, as this whole subject points out, Scans can also be so desirable and have value. Technically they are a type of photograph. Your skill in getting the most out of your equipment is no different with scanning then with using a camera. Then there is the whole subject of how you process your scan. Do you size and crop it in Photoshop etc.? Do you know how to properly use the software? The copy of Randy's photo that was on the other guys eBay auction is a perfect example of my point. They are the same scan. Look at the quality difference. Let me try something here. I apologize for using others peoples work here but it is important.

OK, the offenders picture will not come up here so http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1097732019 CLICK HERE. and see the picture as it still appears on eBay. Compare them for yourself. This should show how a persons command for the technology can make a big difference. The eBay photo seems smaller and is clearly soft and out of focus. The crispness and resolution of Randy's scan is definately not in the eBay photo. I see obvious noise in the image and a splochy appearance. Also you will notice bleeding of the orange into the white in the design at about 8:00 11:00 and 1:00

I still believe that the value of a good scan is not as de minimus(?)as you state. Anyways, I will leave this now. I think I have made my points. We may not agree on this but I still believe that it is wrong that someone uses another persons images without their permission. Regardless of whether they are a photo, drawing, painting, OR a scan.