Are there any photos documenting the negative aspects of a "Steep Deep"

[Rockdiamond]

BTW - I act as kind of a "lightening rod" here on PS.
I''m not afraid to challenge certain concepts.

I would never put any of our clients in the middle of such a contentious discussion to come to my defense.

Many of them are PS members and posters.
But rest assured, if there were people out there who''d actually bought from us, and felt the photos were in any way "deceptive" they''d have no problem joining
"your" side.
But I really don''t want to make this about "your photos or my photos"
Kenny, let''s see a photo that shows the diamond the way you feel it should be shown.
No light in the pavilion

 

[Rockdiamond]

Kenny, I'd request that YOU stop dancing around, and show us a photo with no light in the pavilion.

 

[kenny]

Dancing.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Is it because a diamond allows the light to flow though it?
Even if you totally blocked the back of the stone, light would enter the pavilion through the table.

If you feel blocking the paviilion should be done, please provide examples.

 

[kenny]

This pic from www.diamondsbylauren.com was taken with bright lights shining light into the pavilion.

The regular pics (not the darkfield ones intend to show inclusions) at WF and GOG do not have bright lights shining into the pavilion.

Sure some residual ambient light may happen to reflect into the pavilion.
(The only way to prevent all light from entering the pavilion would be to cut out a hole in an opaque surface slightly smaller than the diameter of the diamond and place the diamond over the hole and light it form above.
(I guess I could do that and suck up a few hours of my time, but it seems like no more than an annoying diversion.)

The fact is www.diamondsbylauren.com actually is shinning intense light directly at the pavilion, so all diamonds look. . . well . . . see below.

Again, I believe the reason you are insisting I come up with a diamond pic in which I claim that no light enters the pavilion is to argue that some light always enters the pavilion and that somehow makes what you do (shining bright lights directly into the pavilion) okay.

 

[Kaleigh]

Is anything constructive happening here?? Let me know when it does. So far it''s a snooze fest....

 

[kenny]

Date: 11/23/2009 5:56:58 PM
Author: Kaleigh
Is anything constructive happening here??

Absolutely.
When buying online people use pics to judge a diamond.
The same diamond (whether well-cut or poorly-cut) can look horrible or heavenly, depending on the lighting technique used.
I think online buyers are seldom of aware of how profoundly they are influenced by creative photography and the lighting of diamonds.

Knowing some of the causes and effects of lighting that influence your perception of cut is an essential part of diamond education for buying online.
Shinning light into the the pavilion makes badly-cut, and even well-cut, diamonds look better.

Protect yourself with knowledge.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wow Kenny, you must be really small!

I did not see you behind me when I took the photos.

Given no evidence whatsoever, how can you claim a "fact"?
The FACT is that you refuse to post a vendor photo you DO feel is representative.
The FACT is we've sold many thousands of diamonds based on my photos- they've been extremely representative based on our low return rate- and by what people tell us.
The FACT us we NEVER shine bright lights into the back of diamonds to photograph them.
We also agree that it's possible to manipulate the way a diamond looks in photos. this can be done through lighting, photoshop, or even through photo selection. A big part of my job is picking the photos that best represent the diamond. Not the ones that look the best, the most representative.
It took a lot of work to get the diamond to look as dark as it did in the "dark" photo.

I agree Kaleigh, let's move back to discussing what to look for to see issues referred to here as "steep Deep"



The diamond I'm using for this demonstration is a good one for these purposes.
Its badly cut. The table is too large (63%) and the symmetry has significant issues..

However it does not look all that bad in normal room lighting.

Here's a shot taken under a diamond light- the stone was completely bathed in the light- front and back.
This particular diamond's color would be near impossible to capture due to it's unique nature- and the medium blue fluorescence.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 11/22/2009 6:29:52 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
AS I mentioned, it was difficult to coax the darkened center out of the diamond.
Basically, I pinched the diamond in the white paper so that there was no light allowed into the pavilion.
This photo was take a second later after i loosen the pinch, allowing light to some light into the pavilion.
Still a dark center but not nearly as dramatic.
Agreed that a nice photos of the diamond showing it under lighting for comparison is a good idea.

BTW, this round damond is NOT on our site. I found the phtos of it useful for the demonstration.

It''s a Fancy Colored Diamond Grading rpeort- - I can have a sarin run to get ca/pa

RD,

How about you simply take a photograph of the colored round diamond ^^ in the EXACT same conditions as you did in the diamond with 63% table. As in without pinching the paper let what you call a "normal" amount of light into the pavillion by holding the diamond up in the air with tweezers and using the same light source and positioning as you did for the diamond 63% table one.

On this thread I willl have an open mind and will give your argument a chance if you can back it up by taking the photograph othe same way you did for the 63% table diamond. Same source, same light position, up in the air with tweezers.

Thanks,
CCL

 

[Karl_K]

try this...
The diamond close to the backdrop is important.
Vary the angle a bit and take a few shots.
Just doing it this way you can change the effects of it being steep deep to a large degree so post a few.
Ideal would be a ring light around the lens of the camera and right over the diamond because otherwise with no angle to the light you get way to much head shadow aka a lot of vendors photos.
Otherwise just put the diamond in the V-between 2 fingers and shoot away.

 

[kenny]

RD thanks for posting all 3 pics of that steep deep.

The back lighting in the third pic sure fixes that darkness!

 

[tonyc2387]

Date: 11/23/2009 4:34:39 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I did take more photos of the diamond in question, and I will post them.


Before I do: Kenny and CCL- seeing as how you''re both very open minded, unfailingly polite and easy to discuss these matters with, let me ask you both to first to show me a photo of a diamond taken the way you like.

+1 to CCL.

RD, I''ll give you that you''ve been challenging ideas and assumptions in this thread, and there is useful information to be had. But please, we''re all beyond the "no you first!!" argument. If you have pics, post them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/23/2009 8:30:16 PM
Author: Karl_K
try this...
The diamond close to the backdrop is important.
Vary the angle a bit and take a few shots.
Just doing it this way you can change the effects of it being steep deep to a large degree so post a few.
Ideal would be a ring light around the lens of the camera and right over the diamond because otherwise with no angle to the light you get way to much head shadow aka a lot of vendors photos.
Otherwise just put the diamond in the V-between 2 fingers and shoot away.

I actually did take one that way Karl.
I think this one shows the darkness pretty well too.
If you''re suggesting a series to show different effects of tilt, I''ll get some more tomorrow. The photo was taken in a room with a lot of natural light.

Kenny- in the last photo I posted before this one, the light is actually shown at the top of the photo- there is a lot of ambient light, as well as overhead fluorescent and we have very high ceilings here- no other lights focused on the diamond.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/23/2009 8:35:29 PM
Author: tonyc2387

Date: 11/23/2009 4:34:39 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I did take more photos of the diamond in question, and I will post them.


Before I do: Kenny and CCL- seeing as how you''re both very open minded, unfailingly polite and easy to discuss these matters with, let me ask you both to first to show me a photo of a diamond taken the way you like.

+1 to CCL.

RD, I''ll give you that you''ve been challenging ideas and assumptions in this thread, and there is useful information to be had. But please, we''re all beyond the ''no you first!!'' argument. If you have pics, post them.

+1
I apologize for not ignoring his attempts to pull the topic off course earlier today.
I''m only human after all.

All due respect, but it would also be important to point out that in return for coming here to bring a different, informed viewpoint to create an open exchange of ideas I get attacked repeatedly by Kenny.
In the interest of having an informative conversation, can we focus on the effects of deep diamonds, and stop with the attacks?

 

[kenny]

RD, I like you.
You are a nice guy.
No attacks.
I am staying on topic and not getting personal.
I can understand if you don't like all the light that is being shed on this subject, but you did start the tread after all.

 

[stone-cold11]

And that shows the difference of a steep/deep with light coming in from the pavilion and one without and you still think the diamond pics you usually takes is representative of what it will look when set and on the finger. I have nothing else to say.

 

[tonyc2387]

Date: 11/23/2009 8:46:10 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I apologize for not ignoring his attempts to pull the topic off course earlier today.

I''m only human after all.


All due respect, but it would also be important to point out that in return for coming here to bring a different, informed viewpoint to create an open exchange of ideas I get attacked repeatedly by Kenny.

In the interest of having an informative conversation, can we focus on the effects of deep diamonds, and stop with the attacks?

I apologize, I did not mean to seem ''attack''ish. I don''t want to harp on it, but in this very specific instance, I feel that posting your pics and saying "here, now please, explain how you take photos" would have been more constructive than the "no, you first". Again, just my perspective.

Also, I''m otherwise well aware of the exchanges in this thread, and I do not appreciate or condone the lower points either. I do, however, greatly appreciate different viewpoints. Having to explain one''s reasoning is extremely challenging and beneficial to all, even for the experts around here. At the end of the day, though, I just want to see the discussion continue!

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/23/2009 8:39:46 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/23/2009 8:30:16 PM

Author: Karl_K

try this...

The diamond close to the backdrop is important.

Vary the angle a bit and take a few shots.

Just doing it this way you can change the effects of it being steep deep to a large degree so post a few.

Ideal would be a ring light around the lens of the camera and right over the diamond because otherwise with no angle to the light you get way to much head shadow aka a lot of vendors photos.

Otherwise just put the diamond in the V-between 2 fingers and shoot away.

I actually did take one that way Karl.

I think this one shows the darkness pretty well too.

If you're suggesting a series to show different effects of tilt, I'll get some more tomorrow. The photo was taken in a room with a lot of natural light.

Getting there.
Do the same with a red and a black background and tilt the whole setup to get more light on the diamond.

 

[tonyc2387]

Just wanted to add that, as a relative diamond newbie, I find the fundamental question here *extremely* valuable, so I believe thanks are in order, RD. I''m not around diamonds all day, every day, and I certainly am not taking several trips out to B&M''s to view different rocks in different conditions (I''m already tired of the SA assaults); so photographs are the #1 method for me to learn more about the subject. I have enough trouble trying to learn how different cuts have different results, and how to attribute what my eyes tell me to said differences in cut; but the more fundamental questions are really "Is what the computer screen is showing my eyes a valid representation of the diamond? Assuming the computer screen is only as good as the camera, is what the camera picks up a valid representation of the ''in real life'' appearance?" And how can you really be sure, without threads such as this?

 

[whatmeworry]

Here are some photos of a GIA Very Good Cut, Table 58, CA 36, PA 41.2 in different lighting situations.

 

[whatmeworry]

through a modified H&A viewer. I removed the red and blue cellophane.

 

[whatmeworry]

close up, cropped.

 

[whatmeworry]

direct sunlight

 

[whatmeworry]

backlit by sunlight

 

[whatmeworry]

bedroom

 

[Karl_K]

why red and black?
Black simulates a bezel and red allows you to separate the effects of leakage and the effects of obstruction.
obstruction will stay black/grey and leakage will be red.

 

[whatmeworry]

bedroom, zoom and cropped

 

[whatmeworry]

kitchen, f5.6, 1/15 sec

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/23/2009 9:31:30 PM
Author: whatmeworry
close up, cropped.

bravo clearly shows leakage.

 

[whatmeworry]

kitchen, zoomed and cropped