Changing Photos

[LD]

Ok - this is for Chris and to carry on a discussion.

I've got to preface this by saying that I NEVER use this facility to change photos and you'll see why when I show you the results but what's interesting is you can see how unscrupulous vendors do manipulate photos. This is simply using Microsoft Paint which is incredibly unsophisticated (it has to be if I can get to grips with it)!

Photo 1 - this is my photo. I took it on a window sill so natural light. The felt inside the box is a pale cream.

Photo 2 - I've now sharpened the image - I think this is commonly used by Ebay vendors and it makes the whole photo look unreal.

Photo 3 - I've changed something called RGB (which I think means Red, Green, Blue) and added red - look at the background. I only did this a bit but you can see the stone colour has changed slightly. I could add more red and it changes even more.

Photo 4 - I've changed it and added blue - same comments as above.

 

[LD]

So now I've done the following:

Photo 1 - used auto adjust - not sure what that does

Photo 2 - have increased saturation and contrast. This I think is one that vendors use as look at how much better the stone looks! What we might think if we saw this photo is that it's just a rubbish photo but whoa look at the colour. The reality of course is that the stone doesn't look like this!

Photo 3 - this is a normal photo without any hanky panky

Photo 4 - I increased the sharpness on this. I suspect many vendors use this (although not in bucket loads like I've just done).

 

[ChrisA222]

LD, that is interesting, but I've never adjusted any settings on my camera. It is on automatic.

I started another thread with everyting else I wanted to reply to. I dont care if you talk here or there. I dont know how to delete threads.

 

[fabulousfindk]

I don't have any colored stone knowledge at all, but - my impressions are - WOW! You can definitely vastly manipulate the appearance of the stone with these photo effects, and also - some of the effects make the ring look less appealing in my opinion!

Thanks for sharing, this was definitely interesting. Also, beautiful ring!

 

[LD]

Chris - please understand I AM NOT SAYING YOU'RE MANIPULATING PHOTOS. I'm showing you how subtle changes (even if the camera/phone do it automatically) make a vast difference to what we see in a photo.

I'm just trying to do a fuzzy one now. I did it once by accident and can't remember how to do it so please bear with me.

 

[LD]

Here's another and this is what I saw in your photos (although this one is extreme).

This is the blue contrast one from above. I've then decreased brightness and ramped up the contrast. Do you see the background? So if your phone is on automatic then it's adjusting somehow to be like this.

 

[LD]

Oh dear the programme has crashed on me and won't do anything now! I'll play tomorrow and see what I can come up with. If anybody else has some examples that'd be great because I am a numpty with this. I simply know when a photo doesn't look right!!!!!

 

[LD]

I don't have any colored stone knowledge at all, but - my impressions are - WOW! You can definitely vastly manipulate the appearance of the stone with these photo effects, and also - some of the effects make the ring look less appealing in my opinion!

Thanks for sharing, this was definitely interesting. Also, beautiful ring!

You're welcome. Unfortunately many vendor photos are like this and are done on purpose. Did you know that videos can be manipulated as well??????? I bought a stone once and it had a photo AND video that looked the same and IRL it was nothing like either! I posted photos on here before and I think they're in the comparison thread.

 

[minousbijoux]

I'm back and responding here as well.

This is what I wrote:

"Chris, be careful when taking your photos that you don't overstate color. By the looks of going on with the white cotton, the way the shadow on the immediate left side is bluish, means it is oversaturated for color and the color of your stone is likely oversaturated as well, showing more intensity of color than is likely there in hand. OP, if you want help, please feel free to ask questions of your potential new stones before you purchase Just make sure to mask the stone/vendor to avoid lurkage."

And then when I saw other, slightly different photos from you, I wrote this:

"There you go, Chris. These pics are better. I don't frankly understand what the camera is doing when it decides to overrexpose a picture so the whites are so blinding or heighten colors so things appear oversaturated, but it happens. Its funny, but I find that when it happens, I end up correcting it down, doing the opposite of what so many ebay vendors do! In your latest photos, it looks darker but the white looks correct, so I assume that is closer to the true color of your stone - sort of a burgundy or wine red."

Chris, you wrote:

"Minou, I really don't care to see any more of my stones picked apart for being over saturated, so I'd like to end this dialogue. I appreciate you saying what I've learned. But I never thought of myself as bragging-ever. If you don't agree with my stones being "killer" thats fine, we all don't always agree. I just don't like it when because of the way the cotton looks, my stone must not look as saturated in person. Its not the first time that you specifically have called me out for that. Im not a dealer selling stones, nor am I a consumer posting vendor pics that I want advice for. I am posting pics of my own stones to show. What is the point of telling me that I am wrong in describing how my own stone (not for sale!) looks??"

You misunderstood me. I never said you manipulated your photos. I was saying that when we take photos, sometimes the camera, set on auto or whatever, makes up its own mind how to take the best photo. Sometimes, like in the case of the first photo of yours, it is overexposed, meaning too much light has been allowed in, making everything appear lighter/brighter/more saturated. This happens to all of us from time to time. When that happens, the color of the stone will be affected too. In this case, it makes the stone brighter/more saturated as well. When this happens to me, while it may make my stone look great, I don't use these photos because they are not accurate, amplifying the hue, tone and saturation level of the stone. When, in your initial photo, I saw the white background overexposed to the point of being tinted blue in areas, I knew that that would also be affecting the color of the stone, pure and simple. Your stone would necessarily be reading as lighter and more saturated. And, judging by the next few photos you showed, my assessment was correct.

As to whether we agree or not as to what is a fine stone, you are correct, "people vary" as a wise PSer once said. But there is a market ideal. You are absolutely entitled to your opinion as to what is a killer stone, and I am absolutely allowed to correct that assumption if I believe it has missed the mark, just as you are allowed to correct me any time I post a stone that I think is "phenomenal" or "amazing" and you don't. I don't do it to "take you on" or "call you out" (and clearly didn't even know that you were bothered by my comments); I do it to clarify for others who may be reading, to show that there is not uniform consensus, and to make it clear, if I think it will help others, that what you are showing is not the trade ideal. It appears by your tone that you have taken my comments personally and been offended - that is unfortunate.

 

[minousbijoux]

Oh, and LD did what I would've done with the photography - only I would do it in iPhoto and Preview and I would not have done as thorough a job documenting all the different manipulations possible. LD, thanks for doing my heavy lifting You made exactly the point I wanted to make about overexposure and the resultant effect on color.

 

[LD]

Oh, and LD did what I would've done with the photography - only I would do it in iPhoto and Preview and I would not have done as thorough a job documenting all the different manipulations possible. LD, thanks for doing my heavy lifting You made exactly the point I wanted to make about overexposure and the resultant effect on color.

You're welcome. TBH I never know what it is I'm looking at - just that it's off! I learned something by doing this exercise!

 

[kenny]

Post processing can bring a pic closer to accuracy or further from it.
The tools them selves are inherently neutral, and not all good or bad.
It is the ethics of the photographer that matters, just like a telephone or a car can be used for good or evil purposes.

Changing photos in post production, aka post, to make them look more like what I know to be accurate is something I try to do with EVERY pic I take.
Is is not sinful.
It is an essential part of the process if you want to take good pics.
There is nothing sacred, pure, chaste, preferable or even 'honest' about what comes directly out of even the finest camera in the world, operated by the finest photographer in the world.

Software tools vary.
Some do a better job than others.
Photoshop is probably one of the best.
Microsoft paint is probably one of the worst.

What each software names stuff varies.
There are many qualities that can be varied and what each property is labeled, and how many properties are named and controllable, varies widely.
Pushing any parameter too far makes the image look yucky. Go lightly with those controls.

I recently bought a state of the art $2,000 DSLR Nikon camera body.
IN THE CAMERA I can set it to make images more or less 'bright' and can preset the camera to make the color more or less 'vivid'.

Also, if your camera can, shoot in RAW mode.
It captures MUCH more detail so when you are changing things in post you have MUCH more range and latitude before things go wonky compared to shooting pics in JPEG.

 

[LD]

Kenny in a safe pair of knowledgeable hands with no ulterior motive there is absolutely nothing sinister. What is sinister and what I object to seeing is vendor's photos that are manipulated to make a stone look better for the purposes of securing a sale. For many of us, all we have to judge a stone on (pre purchase) is a photo.

It's funny because doing this exercise made me realise that my original photo was hideously out of focus and I'm sure has tons of other flaws. My intention with this thread was to demonstrate how easily it can be done and also the different looks achieved. I seriously don't know how to use the software but if I can (very crudely) manipulate it then it's easy to see how some Ebay vendors using proper software can REALLY be deceptive!

 

[kenny]

I absolutely agree.
It's easy to use the software to make a gem look better than in person and some vendors do this.

But, a common comment here on PS is ... "Oh that vendor Photoshops!" implying that the vendor is sinning, lying, and cheating because what comes right out of the camera is pure and accurate and is the only thing that should be posted if a vendor was honest.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I fully suspect EVERY pic from every vendor gets some post processing.

I wish people would say, "that vendor photoshops in a dishonest or deceptive way".
I know a vendor who lights in a deceptive and dishonest way that conceals poor cut, so it's not just in post production processing that ethical sins can occur.

Yes when a vendor or a civilian pumps up the color it's dishonest.
I confess I accidentally have done that when posting from my laptop, since the monitor washes out color.
When I have later view a couple of my posted pics on my good computer the color is obviously too saturated.
This is very embarrassing for me now that I understand what I did wrong, especially since PS's software does not editing after 45 minutes.

So even honest people not selling anything can screw up too.

 

[LD]

I absolutely agree again Kenny. I think taking photos is a skill/art and very few master it.

In defence of our comments regarding vendor's photos, I can think of at least 5 of our "recommended" vendors whose photos are NOT accurate. Whether this is done intentionally (I sincerely hope not) or just what happens or how they like their stones to look I don't know. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt. What you will see is comments, particularly from me, where I'll say (for example with AJS) look at the photo and then in your mind make the stone less vibrant and less glamorous and you've probably got an idea of what you'll see IRL. I'm not suggesting anything sinister, but based on buying stones with a particular vendor over and over again you get to the point where you sort of know what to expect from looking at the amped up photos.

 

[erinl]

LD--

That second shot of your first batch of photos looks a lot like some of the pictures I have taken on my blackberry...

 

[minousbijoux]

I'd like to learn that "sharpen" trick - how do you do that one? I want all my pics to look like that, sharp, in focus, especially with the pool in the background. Can you teach me how to have a pool in the background?

 

[kenny]

I'd like to learn that "sharpen" trick - how do you do that one? I want all my pics to look like that, sharp, in focus, especially with the pool in the background. Can you teach me how to have a pool in the background?

It only works to a very small degree.
If you push it beyond that it starts to make the pic look like it got too much cosmetic surgery.
If a pic is very out of focus no sharpening tool can help.

Even then sharpening will work best if you shoot in RAW.
If you shoot in JPEG there is very very little software can sharpen up since JPEG files are compressed and much of the data is simply lost forever.
Even the best software in the world can turn 2-Buck Chuck in to Dom Perignon.

Sharpening may be called different things in different softwares.

The best thing you can do is mess around with whatever software you have.
Some kind of post processing software may have come on a DVD with your camera.
Most people don't ever even open the package for that DVD.

 

[emmmme]

Pixlr is a powerful photo editor given that it's a web-based tool. Not sure which platforms/browsers it supports but I'm using Chrome on a Mac and it works extremely well. I use it on the go all the time. It's very useful for playing around without the hassle of downloading software that you might not use frequently!

http://pixlr.com/

*Edited/deleted duplicate post*

 

[pregcurious]

Hi Chris. I don't understand exactly what is going on, but I hope that this has not soured you on PS. I appreciate your photos, and your comments. I've posted pictures of my stones in the past, and I am guessing that like you, I just wanted to share and contribute. My pictures are not very good, and it's been pointed out to me, but that's all I can do. I hope to see your posts in the future.

 

[OTL]

wow, I just realized I really have developed a tolerance! Of all the pictures that LD posted, I would be OK with the real stone with any of those photoshopped images. Maybe not the last one because it looks too bluish, but as long as the saturation is similar, I would keep that stone...Silly me?

I find it really hard to capture some stones even with my Canon Mark|| and 100/2.8 macro lens. A few PSers here mentioned iphone to be a good device to capture the real color, which for me does not work at all, it always make the hands look so red or so yellow, yet the stone somehow does not have enough saturation. With such an iphone picture, one may say it is doctored since the hands are so red, but actually the poor stone is less saturated in the picture. So I really understand the difficulty of capturing a stone especially when you are using just a cell phone. The results could be unreal, but not necessarily a good way.

But I don't do post processing, it is just too time consuming. I usually just took many many pictures, and delete those look too far away from real stone. Click the shutter button is just so much faster and easier

 

[pregcurious]

OTL, I agree about your comments about the iPhone and hands. Minous commented that it makes my hands looked purple in some. My stones still came out looking saturated, but maybe it was the light source--bright daylight with an overcast sky that gave me great diffused light. I love your shots in your other thread--they are definitely better than my iPhone pics. Alas, I will probably never buy proper camera equipement, so iPhone it is!

 

[LD]

I'm with you OTL - my iPhone doesn't take good photos and I just point, shoot and no post editing.

 

[yanaazul]

One note is that auto-setting calibrations are different across manufacturers, as well, before any kind of post-processing. For example, pictures from Sony point-and-shoot digital cameras have a slightly blue tint compared to Canon point-and-shoot digital cameras. This seemed to be consistent across cameral models/year of purchase/users -- there was a point some years ago when I had a Canon, and my husband had two Sonys, and everyone we knew had different models of either Sony or Canon -- pictures taken at the same event would be shared, and the "bluer" pictures were always Sony cameras. Not that the picture on its own was noticeably blue, it was only apparent when viewed next to a Canon picture of the same subject. They certainly didn't look fake -- skin looked like skin. For all I know other people would think the Sony setting looked "right" and the Canon setting looked "tinted" in some way. But they were different.

Don't know if this is still true of the current Sony cameras, by the way. We still have two Canons -- and end up using our iphones most of the time anyway.

 

[minousbijoux]

Yanaazul, that is very interesting to know that there is a consistent difference between the two - any idea where Nikon fell in there?

I also agree that nothing beats early morning or mid day natural diffuse light for photos. If you can brave the elements.

 

[Justin_Cutter]

Yanaazul, that is very interesting to know that there is a consistent difference between the two - any idea where Nikon fell in there?

I also agree that nothing beats early morning or mid day natural diffuse light for photos. If you can brave the elements.

This is definitely a great lighting environment! For some reason I have great success when I photograph right after it rains. I know it sounds weird but for some reason that is when I get the best colors. Maybe the moisture in the air does something?
~Justin

 

[minousbijoux]

Yanaazul, that is very interesting to know that there is a consistent difference between the two - any idea where Nikon fell in there?

I also agree that nothing beats early morning or mid day natural diffuse light for photos. If you can brave the elements.

This is definitely a great lighting environment! For some reason I have great success when I photograph right after it rains. I know it sounds weird but for some reason that is when I get the best colors. Maybe the moisture in the air does something?
~Justin

I would think that makes sense from clarity perspective, no? Particularly in Arizona? I know I'm in Tucson often now because my son is there and I find it dry and dusty (beautiful though). If that dust gets going in the atmosphere often, then wouldn't it make sense that rain would clear it out? That said Tucson and Phoenix is all the Arizona experience I have, lol!

 

[LD]

As I live in the UK, I should then take fantastic photos because it rains here all the time! I think it's more to do with the light to be honest. The most realistic photos I take are when I'm in the Med.

 

[chrono]

Light is too strong in AZ, so after it rains, the strength of the sunlight is tempered with the clouds diffusing the light source?

 

[pregcurious]

I agree that diffused outdoor light gives great pictures. The recent iPhone photos I took were on an overcast day (no rain, just overcast), and they are the best outdoor pictures I have ever taken. (They are still not great )

On a sunny day, I cannot overcome the glare and shadowing from the direct light. The issue with natural light, however, is that it changes throughout the day, so you have to determine if you want bluer or redder light (depending on the time of day), and what you want to bring out in your stone.

Gene and Kenny take great pictures, and the both use diffused/reflected light, albeit indoors. Gene has his lamp pointed at a white card that then reflects that light to the stone, while Kenny uses a light box that diffuses and reflects the light. At least this is what I understand from their write-ups.