ASETs and fancy cuts

[Texas Leaguer]

Here is Octavia showing a much wider range of light draw.
The second image is a side view of the ETAS sphere.
Remember how I have been saying that "leakage" is for the most part the diamond drawing light from the pavilion and not leakage like a window? The dots in the red lined area are the pavilion are "leakage" in the second image.

Very cool

 

[Rockdiamond]

If you could provide ASET to go along with it, that would make it complete.

I also think you have to do your best to push through some of the nonsense. That is always part of the rough and tumble of an open forum.

Okay here you go.





To avoid any confusion the right hand side is a photograph of the actual diamond.

How would you describe each of those diamonds in terms of visual effects and eye appeal in different lighting. (I'm really not trying to make work for you - I am just curious as I do not have as much experience with these shapes.)

I think for the purposes of this particular thread it would be interesting to understand the real life properties of the top one. The ASET would be considered weak by many people because of all the white. But it does appear to have a good distribution of red and green and the actual image of the stone looks like it would be pretty.

I'm hoping to be able to add new info this week.
I agree with Brian about the top stone.
As I mentioned, I do feel the actual photo is different than the photo of the stone below- but it does look as though it has possibilities in person.
Part of what I have stressed all along is that figuring out how the bottom stone will look based on ASET is far "easier" that trying to do so with the top stone. Interpretation of leakage (white) is a big part of why, IMO

 

[Karl_K]

If you could provide ASET to go along with it, that would make it complete.

I also think you have to do your best to push through some of the nonsense. That is always part of the rough and tumble of an open forum.

Okay here you go.





To avoid any confusion the right hand side is a photograph of the actual diamond.

How would you describe each of those diamonds in terms of visual effects and eye appeal in different lighting. (I'm really not trying to make work for you - I am just curious as I do not have as much experience with these shapes.)

I think for the purposes of this particular thread it would be interesting to understand the real life properties of the top one. The ASET would be considered weak by many people because of all the white. But it does appear to have a good distribution of red and green and the actual image of the stone looks like it would be pretty.

I'm hoping to be able to add new info this week.
I agree with Brian about the top stone.
As I mentioned, I do feel the actual photo is different than the photo of the stone below- but it does look as though it has possibilities in person.
Part of what I have stressed all along is that figuring out how the bottom stone will look based on ASET is far "easier" that trying to do so with the top stone. Interpretation of leakage (white) is a big part of why, IMO

Sorry I am not going to draw that conclusion from a badly taken photo that is both out of focus and has white balance issues in unknown lighting. Your right the photo is totally different.
Which I why I said this can only be done with any accuracy with stones in hand.
They can then be photographed side by side in the same lighting and in the same picture or at least in the same photo setup and lighting.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

If you could provide ASET to go along with it, that would make it complete.

I also think you have to do your best to push through some of the nonsense. That is always part of the rough and tumble of an open forum.

Okay here you go.

<a class="vglnk" title="Link added by VigLink" rel="nofollow" href="https://www.pricescope.com/forum/files/icp/orcthreeimages.jpg[/img"><span>http</span><span>://</span><span>www</span><span>.</span><span>pricescope</span><span>.</span><span>com</span><span>/</span><span>forum</span><span>/</span><span>files</span><span>/</span><span>icp</span><span>/</span><span>orcthreeimages</span><span>.</span><span>jpg</span><span>[/</span><span>img</span></a>]

[img]<a class="vglnk" title="Link added by VigLink" rel="nofollow" href="https://www.pricescope.com/forum/files/icp/isquaredthreeimages.jpg[/img"><span>http</span><span>://</span><span>www</span><span>.</span><span>pricescope</span><span>.</span><span>com</span><span>/</span><span>forum</span><span>/</span><span>files</span><span>/</span><span>icp</span><span>/</span><span>isquaredthreeimages</span><span>.</span><span>jpg</span><span>[/</span><span>img</span></a>]

To avoid any confusion the right hand side is a photograph of the actual diamond.[/quote]
How would you describe each of those diamonds in terms of visual effects and eye appeal in different lighting. (I'm really not trying to make work for you - I am just curious as I do not have as much experience with these shapes.)

I think for the purposes of this particular thread it would be interesting to understand the real life properties of the top one. [b]The ASET would be considered weak by many people because of all the white. But it does appear to have a good distribution of red and green and the actual image of the stone looks like it would be pretty.[/b][/quote]

I'm hoping to be able to add new info this week.
I agree with Brian about the top stone.
As I mentioned, I do feel the actual photo is different than the photo of the stone below- but it does look as though it has possibilities in person.
Part of what I have stressed all along is that figuring out how the bottom stone will look based on ASET is far "easier" that trying to do so with the top stone. Interpretation of leakage (white) is a big part of why, IMO[/quote]
Sorry I am not going to draw that conclusion from a badly taken photo that is both out of focus and has white balance issues in unknown lighting. Your right the photo is totally different.
Which I why I said this can only be done with any accuracy with stones in hand.
They can then be photographed side by side in the same lighting and in the same picture or at least in the same photo setup and lighting.[/quote]

Karl and Rockdiamond,

The photograph of the top stone has regions which line up well with its ASET and highlight key virtual facets. There should be no doubt the ASET image matches the photograph and that these are of the same stone. In my mind that is the only purpose for the photographs in this thread.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Okay here you go.





To avoid any confusion the right hand side is a photograph of the actual diamond.

How would you describe each of those diamonds in terms of visual effects and eye appeal in different lighting. (I'm really not trying to make work for you - I am just curious as I do not have as much experience with these shapes.)

The top one is ~25% more spready than the other.
The top one has faster scintillation than the other.
The top one is significantly cheaper than the other.

The one on the bottom is brighter and more brilliant than the other especially in diffuse overhead lighting and in less intensely lit areas.
The one on the bottom has more fire than the other especially in strong spot lighting.
The one on the bottom one has larger flashes than the other.

I'd prefer to stay away from subjective comments for or against either type as I am not marketing either of them.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The top one is ~25% more spready than the other.
The top one has faster scintillation than the other.
The top one is significantly cheaper than the other.

The one on the bottom is brighter and more brilliant than the other especially in diffuse overhead lighting and in less intensely lit areas.
The one on the bottom has more fire than the other especially in strong spot lighting.
The one on the bottom one has larger flashes than the other.

I'd prefer to stay away from subjective comments for or against either type as I am not marketing either of them.

I am not sure what this discussion may have accomplished. But I do question the 25% more spread?
I would imagine they are both around -20% of a Tolk RBC?

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

The top one is ~25% more spready than the other.
The top one has faster scintillation than the other.
The top one is significantly cheaper than the other.

The one on the bottom is brighter and more brilliant than the other especially in diffuse overhead lighting and in less intensely lit areas.
The one on the bottom has more fire than the other especially in strong spot lighting.
The one on the bottom one has larger flashes than the other.

I'd prefer to stay away from subjective comments for or against either type as I am not marketing either of them.

I am not sure what this discussion may have accomplished. But I do question the 25% more spread?
I would imagine they are both around -20% of a Tolk RBC?

Top one -7% from Tolk.
Bottom one -33% from Tolk

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great stuff.
Garry- I think that parts of this discussion about practical usage are still relevant and may bear more fruit.
MelisendeDiamonds - it was not my intention at all to question the validity of the photos.
As I see it the purpose of photos is to help people correlate ASET images.
Your real life description is extremely informative, and in line with a lot of what I see in stones that are seemingly cut like the top stone.

Going back to photos, given that we're having a discussion about judging diamonds using the ASET tool, photography of the actual diamonds is going to make a huge difference.
One thing the two photos make really clear is that a very different setup was used to photograph each.
I'm not criticizing, in fact IMO, it's necessary to have a variety of shooting methods if one is photographing a variety of cuts.

The information about loss from Tolk is also extremely interesting.

 

[teobdl]

Are the measurements that go into the -x% from tolk measured as 2d face-up area vs 2d area of equivalent weight tolk, or is it by comparing edge to edge diameter ratios?

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

I think for the purposes of this particular thread it would be interesting to understand the real life properties of the top one.

The top one is ~25% more spready than the other.
The top one has faster scintillation than the other.
The top one is significantly cheaper than the other.

This stone has pavilion mains of ~35 degrees and lower halves of 33 - 36 degrees.
These are combined with a steep step cut crown(UGFs at 45 - 50 degrees) and Crown Bezels of ~37 degrees.

What this shallow pavilion, and steep step cut crown achieve is good spread, a lot of internal bounces within the stone, long light path and loss of light through the pavilion.



and numerous small virtual facets.


Leading to the overall appearance of the stone shown below.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Are the measurements that go into the -x% from tolk measured as 2d face-up area vs 2d area of equivalent weight tolk, or is it by comparing edge to edge diameter ratios?

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ncy-shape.139459/page-2#post-2514878#p2514878

"firstly we project all facets in to girdle plan, then sum areas of all facets"

 

[Rockdiamond]

Are the measurements that go into the -x% from tolk measured as 2d face-up area vs 2d area of equivalent weight tolk, or is it by comparing edge to edge diameter ratios?

My knowledge of cutting is mostly from proximity- I've never cut a diamond, so hopefully others will correct my points, if they're totally off:
One way of assessing the difference in size would be to use one piece of rough as a model, then plot yield to be gained cuttinng to different shapes.
ie-a 7ct rough could be polished to either a 5ct radiant or a 4ct round.


Another consideration is viability.
We need to be able to assess certain diamonds that can't be compared with a round.
For example, if the rough is an ochtehedron a common strategy is to use a saw to cut the diamond leaving a lrger bottom piece, and much smaller top piece.
The top piece might not be viable to be cut to round- but it might be a viable radiant with shallow pavilion and crown angles.
Or there are oddly shaped pieces of rough where round is not even possible.
Like Heart Shapes, Trilliant, and Horse Head.
Figuring how to use ASET for stones that are "off the grid" so to speak would be a great goal.

Stan and I are still exploring workable solutions to the ASET image question.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

The one on the bottom is brighter and more brilliant than the other especially in diffuse overhead lighting and in less intensely lit areas.
The one on the bottom has more fire than the other especially in strong spot lighting.
The one on the bottom one has larger flashes than the other.

This stone has pavilion mains of 40.7 - 40.8 degrees and lower halves of 42 - 42.5 degrees.
These are combined with Crown Bezels of 34.5 - 35 degrees.
These are angles in the range of an Ideal Tolk Round Brilliant.

This cut has angles similar to an Ideal Tolk Round and has a small number of internal bounces within the stone, short light path, and minimal loss of brilliance through the pavilion.



The virtual facet size is balanced between large,medium, and small virtual facets providing many different size flashes overall.


The CA/PA angle and large/medium overall flashes allow for a greater observance of fire in this cut of diamond compared to most other radiants.

Overall this diamond has strong brilliance in most viewing environments, it also has the potential to display great fire in the appropriate lighting. Its detractors are that it faces up small due to its overall depth and is expensive to produce being priced similar to a fine make round rather than as a fancy cut.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

We need to be able to assess certain diamonds that can't be compared with a round.

Well here is a cut cornered square that has a pavilion like a 4 chevron princess, far from a round. There is no need to come up with a different set of rules or tolerances for interpreting the ASET for this diamond.

It rivals the brilliance of a round but has a totally different look and ASET illustrates this quite well.

To avoid confusion the third and fourth pictures are photographed images of the actual stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you for responding to my point.
You say

There is no need to come up with a different set of rules or tolerances for interpreting the ASET for this diamond.

Yet the diamond looks like it has a dark area in the center in the picture, not in the ASET.
Is there a dark area around the culet in real life?
This photo setup does appear to be the same one used for the cut cornered square H&A type stone you posted- which makes comparison easier.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Thank you for responding to my point.
You say

There is no need to come up with a different set of rules or tolerances for interpreting the ASET for this diamond.

Yet the diamond looks like it has a dark area in the center in the picture, not in the ASET.
Is there a dark area around the culet in real life?
This photo setup does appear to be the same one used for the cut cornered square H&A type stone you posted- which makes comparison easier.

No. The middle of the mains area which is dark in the photograph draws light around 44-47 degrees. They flash on and off much like the rest of the diamond.

That is why one must must be careful about judging brilliance from a photograph with unknown lighting. Once again I will reiterate that the photograph was placed there to confirm it is a real diamond which matches the ASET image and for no other purpose.

I could have just as easily have posted this one for this cut instead.

 

[Rockdiamond]

It seems to me that the purpose of ASET interpretation is for consumers- as well as others- to be able to use the ASET in a manner that's productive.
Since it's far easier to understand a photo, and every site that will provide ASET also provides photos I see a very clear connection between actual photos, and ASET images.

Your point about judging diamonds from photos is well taken- there's many different ways to take a photo.
I would suggest that if the diamond does not show a dark area around the culet in real life, the newest photo you posted is far more helpful if we want to judge the ASET.
My point is that each type of cut will respond differently to a given camera/lighting setup.
To take pictures that correlate to ASET one would need to be sensitive to that.

 

[Karl_K]

It seems to me that the purpose of ASET interpretation is for consumers- as well as others- to be able to use the ASET in a manner that's productive.
Since it's far easier to understand a photo, and every site that will provide ASET also provides photos I see a very clear connection between actual photos, and ASET images.

Your point about judging diamonds from photos is well taken- there's many different ways to take a photo.
I would suggest that if the diamond does not show a dark area around the culet in real life, the newest photo you posted is far more helpful if we want to judge the ASET.
My point is that each type of cut will respond differently to a given camera/lighting setup.
To take pictures that correlate to ASET one would need to be sensitive to that.

The problem is that getting gemological useful info from vendor photos is they range from deceptive to useless to so-so to fairly decent.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The problem is that getting gemological useful info from vendor photos is they range from deceptive to useless to so-so to fairly decent.

Yes and no.
First of all, as it relates to the thread, ASET should be able to be used to help clarify a vendor photo for a consumer.
Of course there's also different ASET setups which produce different results...

IN any event- I agree that a lot of the images posted online are designed to be get people to buy, as opposed to actually show the diamond.
But the "virtual" sites that now have pictures- there is information to be gleaned from these type of photos. Among other sites that have actual photos with useful info

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

My point is that each type of cut will respond differently to a given camera/lighting setup

Yes and that is why I don't see the value in entering a discussion about photographs in a thread about ASET. The ASET covers all potential scenarios not just one.

Photography setups used to sell diamonds and display diamonds are very subjective and are often used to sell and market a certain "look". If I want to sell a diamond which gathers light from the lower angles and not much from higher angles I'll photograph it with good lighting from the side and something dark from the higher angles.

Just like this photograph you shot and presented as a comparison in a previous thread.
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ions-bad.148696/page-14#post-2700094#p2700094


I would say Karl was quite on point in his observation.

Your sitting in the middle of your couch on both ends are a 150W end table reading lamp and looking at your diamond 6 inches from your eye. You just duplicated those pictures. How often do you sit that way and look at diamonds?

You really think most wearers of a 60/60 round brilliant see this much darkness when they look at their diamond?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Photographs are the only way we can correlate what we see to what the ASET image looks like.
Like the black circle in the middle of the diamond you posted earlier in this thread-

Does the stone have a dark circle at the culet or not?
And if not, what's wrong with the photo?
Is this second photo inaccurate? It certainly seems to more closely correlate to the ASET


You do love to dig up contentious threads of the past....a lot has changed on Pricescope in four years- as have my thoughts on these issues. My goal is a productive discussion without malice. Or we can go back to living in 2010

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Photographs are the only way we can correlate what we see to what the ASET image looks like.
Like the black circle in the middle of the diamond you posted earlier in this thread-

Does the stone have a dark circle at the culet or not?
And if not, what's wrong with the photo?
Is this second photo inaccurate? It certainly seems to more closely correlate to the ASET


You do love to dig up contentious threads of the past....a lot has changed on Pricescope in four years- as have my thoughts on these issues. My goal is a productive discussion without malice. Or we can go back to living in 2010

David as we have so many times in the past discussed the photo's you take, I imagine the lighting environment that produced the dark culet simply has no light coming from above that could make that region bright.
An example would be a ring fluoro desk light - the type that have a large magnifying lens in the center - and you can remove the lens and shoot thru the center with a camera. Its no big deal - as there is no one "correct" lighting - and what you use appears to favour diamonds that have a fair amount of green in their ASET's. If you used that set up I imagine you might prefer the light to be even closer to the level of the stone, which will also illuminate the background and the leakage areas can appear less dull / dark than when the stone is set.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...le-lamp-with%2F832351_1459239087.html;350;343

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Garry,
I was under the assumption the dark area was a reflection of the camera lens- however I certainly accede to your knowledge of light behavior.

We have been going back and forth about photos ( and many other things) for more than 10 years- can you believe it old frenemy

One thing I've found is that different types of cutting styles in general, benefit from certain setups that will make other styles of cut look bad. Stones that may look great in real life, may show problem areas in a photo, based on the setup.
I do believe that's the case with the black hole in the photo below, it's just not a great camera setup to convey the personality of that stone.
I'll bet it's a nice looking stone, based on the overall shape. I can see the smallish table in the pics which can be very nice in stones cut in this manner. It's a bit deep , so likely to be a bit small for it's weight. The ASET confirms a nice balance of red and green- taking light from multiple sources. The stone probably has less, yet brighter flashes than a "pinfire" style radiant, such as an ORC.


This photo is way better for me.....it just seems to show more realistically what I can expect to see IRL...personal preference, and perception come into play of course. We can probably all agree that the second photo is more in line what ASET is showing


Again, the reason pictures matter is that the main utility of consumer ASET use is to level an internet playing field.
Therefore, pictures correlating ASET info is IMO essential.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

HI Garry,
I was under the assumption the dark area was a reflection of the camera lens- however I certainly accede to your knowledge of light behavior.

David you really need a 101 lesson before you can continue.
The section near the center of the stone shows red and green in the ASET.
It is totally and absolutely impossible for the camera lens to have any effect in that zone - the only areas the lens can show up as darkness must be from blue in the ASET.
That is such a fundamental thing and that you do not see it means you are either having an evening tipple, or maybe a young onset dementia?

do you understand? This is a non debatable concept.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Garry
Yes it was very late-
I understand where ASET Is showing light coming from in the center-yet the photo shows dark. Your explanation is that somehow that area wasn't receiving light. Makes sense.
Why do you think that might be?
The photo does seem to have been taken in a well-thought-out lighting set up. Just a bad one for that stone? What would prevent light from returning from the center?

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

The photo does seem to have been taken in a well-thought-out lighting set up. Just a bad one for that stone? What would prevent light from returning from the center?

I did not take this photo is was done 7 years ago and we agree it is not the most flattering for the stone.
To make it easier to visualize I will show you the scan generated ASET with the photo.

It isn't just the centre being dark, it isn't the camera lense being reflected(that is at much higher angles) it is the absence of light from lower angles. All all the light is coming from behind the camera or at the higher angles and none from reflections off other surfaces or from lower angles.

I have outlined the dark areas of the photo in green and you can see the ASET is predominantly green in these regions. As I mentioned before the middle region near the culet gathers like from 44 - 47 degrees right at the interface of the Red/Green boundary so a very slight tilt or movement of the stone can turn that region from green to red or vice versa in a photographed ASET. In this case the scan generated ASET is a better match to the photograph.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

HI Garry,
I was under the assumption the dark area was a reflection of the camera lens- however I certainly accede to your knowledge of light behavior.

David you really need a 101 lesson before you can continue.

I agree with this but the problem is not just with Rockdiamond I see so many incomplete or misleading interpretations of photographs by many members of this board. Interpreting photos can be tricky, interpreting an ASET is much easier.

Take a look at this thread:

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-from-blue-nile.193222/#post-3517820#p3517820


Two black spots, also a big black shadow on the prongs indicating something large, dark and close reflecting on the surface of the diamond.

The black regions right around the middle of the stone, very common in long rectangular stones which often show head shadow commonly referred to as the "bowtie" look in most stones with these rectangular proportions.


Look in this photo above one of the regions becomes much less dark, the camera is now a little further away and can't cast as large a shadow.

Look what the incorrect explanation given was.

"It's probably where light leaks out the back instead of being reflected back out the top as it would be in a well cut diamond.

Then further reinforcing this incorrect answer:

A well cut radiant has just enough black evenly disbursed throughout to create contrast without any concentrations of black and doesn't window out with a slight tilt

This isn't a window or leakage effect at all.

One trademember had the right idea. But it was seemingly ignored.

Before going into a panic, I have to ask one question--was the dark spot still visible when you took the ring out of the box? I'm asking because in all the pictures the ring is in the box and the box has a logo inside--could it be a reflection?

Well this customer was discouraged from buying this radiant and ended up with a shallow round and the rest is history.

A well taken ASET would have made it more clear that this was head shadow not leakage and a few more questions would have answered the question about if the darkness was just a big deal in photographs or in normal viewing as well.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

HI Garry,
I was under the assumption the dark area was a reflection of the camera lens- however I certainly accede to your knowledge of light behavior.

David you really need a 101 lesson before you can continue.
The section near the center of the stone shows red and green in the ASET.
It is totally and absolutely impossible for the camera lens to have any effect in that zone - the only areas the lens can show up as darkness must be from blue in the ASET.
That is such a fundamental thing and that you do not see it means you are either having an evening tipple, or maybe a young onset dementia?

do you understand? This is a non debatable concept.

David a few posts back I gave a link to the type of light source that I think could have been used. A ring light that illuminates from higher angles than 47 degrees that Milesende suggests could explain the lack of light coming from around 44-47 degrees which is very close to where the red green border would be on ASET structured lighting. A small ring light could do that.

 

[Karl_K]

I think an important point is being made.
When I look at any diamond photo I try to figure out the lighting before I make any judgements.

Remember the top 5 things that determine how a diamond appears are:
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting
lighting

This is much easier when you have seen many photos under the same setup and compared them to other images such as is/aset/h&a/other regular pictures.

When viewing ASET/IS images the first thing I look for is what is off in the setup, diamond tilted, to much or too little back light, alignment issues with the diamond, scope and or camera.
Then I compare them to the other images.
If I see something in one image I then try and verify it in another.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Milisende - I don't want to make too big a deal about this but it appears that you misunderstood my post from last year that you excerpted in a previous post. If you cite something I've written, either now or in the past, please try to make sure you characterize it correctly. I have posted here relatively infrequently over the years and always for the purpose of ensuring that information provided about radiant cuts was informative and accurate.

While you are certainly entitled to disagree with anything that I write, and to say so, at no time did I say (or imply) that a bowtie was the result of leakage, though I seriously doubt that those who don't like bowties care a whit about what causes it.

I was describing, in generic terms, how in my opinion a well cut radiant reflects light, both straight on and with some tilt, for the purpose of helping the poster better understand what he was looking at as he shopped, particularly because the poster was expressing a concern that the diamond he had bought did not look the way he expected it to when he received it. Since his concern was about assymetry of life, I also explained why it was possible to have assymetrical life in a diamond having VG symmetry by GIA.

The poster raised the concern about the assymetrical life that he saw live and in person with his own eyes (not in a photo) and posted the photo as an illustration so the "experts" would understand what he was talking about.

I have seen that issue (and re-cut diamonds having it) often enough that, with all due respect, I do not need an ASET to know what the poster was talking about.

My complete post was as follows:

"A well cut radiant has just enough black evenly disbursed throughout to create contrast without any concentrations of black and doesn't window out with a slight tilt. Unfortunately for internet shoppers there is no way to ascertain if this is the case without seeing the diamond so if you don't see it yourself you are trusting that the vendor has actually seen it, knows what to look for and is telling you the truth.

The asymmetry in your diamond is due to the way the diamond is proportioned on the bottom, and this can occur even in diamonds with symmetry graded VG or EX by GIA since they grade symmetry of certain aspects of cutting not all aspects of cutting and do not look at symmetry of life."

I stand by every word in my post, and find your assertion that I misled a consumer with incorrect information to be extremely unfortunate since my only goal in posting is to help consumers sort through the mountain of information and misinformation that they confront during the shopping process.

I also disagree that having an ASET image available makes it less likely that consumers will receive well intentioned bad advice, since just like photos, ASETs can and often are misinterpreted, or can be interpreted in a manner which introduces subjective bias.