Clear Cut Gems: Experiences?

[Alnitak]

RTFrog, I think this software is not very accurate. I tried a bunch of my images, that have had absolutely no manipulation, other than resizing, and they all lit up like Christmas. Since I shoot everything in RAW mode, every image needs to be converted to a JPG file to be put up on the web and resized. I think this is useless for what you are trying to display.

Gene is correct, this software is pretty much useless and most certainly does not demonstrate what you think it does. It basically is detecting areas of edge contrast and compression differences, with the intent of finding images that have been faked by cutting and pasting elements from different images together. However, it also lights up on areas of true differences in image contrast where jpeg compression algorithms tend to be most adaptive, so of course its highlighting a lot of the edges and contrast changes in the gems.

Jeff

 

[Edward Bristol]

THANKS for that. I was just going to get a cardiac arrest...

 

[digdeep]

RTFrog, I think this software is not very accurate. I tried a bunch of my images, that have had absolutely no manipulation, other than resizing, and they all lit up like Christmas. Since I shoot everything in RAW mode, every image needs to be converted to a JPG file to be put up on the web and resized. I think this is useless for what you are trying to display.

Gene is correct, this software is pretty much useless and most certainly does not demonstrate what you think it does. It basically is detecting areas of edge contrast and compression differences, with the intent of finding images that have been faked by cutting and pasting elements from different images together. However, it also lights up on areas of true differences in image contrast where jpeg compression algorithms tend to be most adaptive, so of course its highlighting a lot of the edges and contrast changes in the gems.

Jeff

Agreed!! This software isn't a "detection" system for photo manipulation because it cannot discriminate between real and manipulated photos. Jeff described it well....thanks!!

 

[pregcurious]

A few things stood out to me:
1. Always buy with a 100% return and refund policy, no questions asked.
2. Always ask for a description to back up the photography because we know that pictures are not always accurate.
3. Give the vendor a chance to address your concerns offline before airing your complaints publicly. There are always 2 sides to the story.
4. Harsh words and threats rarely works in one's favour, causing more tension and escalating bad feelings between the vendor and client.
5. Just because one picture is "off" does not mean that pictures of the rest of a vendor's inventory are also "off".

Lastly, although Lloyd may not return to post in this thread, we should respect his request to stop posting pictures of his gems here solely for the purpose of dissection his photography methods.

+1

I would add 2 things:

1) If you are not experienced, and are unsure if something is off with a setting or stone, you can post here without outing the name of the vendor to talk it out with us first. Then you can go to the vendor without outing them, and try to work it out. If they remedy the situation, I think that's a sign of good customer service.

2) I would go further to say, buy with a 30 day refund period and be assertive if you are unhappy. I personally think that 10 days is too short. I bought a semi-custom setting a few years ago, and it had a 10 day return policy. I did not like the setting, but thought it would grow on me. Well, it took me longer than 10 days to be sure I disliked it because I was indecisive, and worried about sending it back. It never grew on me, and as a result, I am out about $2K.

Now, if something bothers me initially, I address it right away. Who was "wrong" in this case? The workmanship was poor on the part of vendor; on my part, I should have realized it immediately, but I was inexperienced with quality jewelry and believe the vendor that it was "just done that way". I should been more assertive. As a result, that vendor has also lost my business, which is going to be at least 5-6 more settings.

3) Anyone can be added to the respected vendor list. Please see the stickied thread comparing vendor and PS forum member pictures. This will help you "read" the vendor's pictures. I have a comment about a stone I bought; the stone is better than the vendor pictures, and the vendor's description was spot on.

 

[LoversKites]

Great advice Chrono and Preg.

 

[RTFrog]

Mico: I’ll try to explain throughout this post while addressing other concerns. One of the great things about using that site is the amount of information it shows about the pictures. It’s a lot of work initially to figure out if the photographer is portraying the truth. The first three pictures are perfect examples of it. It seems that quite a few photographers or vendors alter their pictures, and usually this is fine and acceptable. People generally prefer nice photos to ones with flaws, such as a Wedding Photographer touching up skin tones or other blemishes and providing a perfect product.

However, this is a colored stones forum, and on a weekly basis, customers receive stones that are not as accurate with colors/hues/saturations as they are led to believe. This is not a Photoshopped Colored Stones Forum. The consumer is buying the stone and often hunting for a particular saturation/hue based on this photo. Add in the Pricescope rush of buying from Vendors as soon as they drop their new creations, and this is often the main criterion used to purchase a stone. Pretty stone – buy!

I’ve been trying to help figure out or provide a way to determine more precise color accuracy. Some vendors use tools such as Pantone color cards to help the consumer understand the color more thoroughly.

The images can reveal a lot about the picture, however, the meta data attached to it shows quite a bit more.

PrecisionGem: Gene, using your pictures is like comparing Apples versus Oranges, especially with that great Macro lens. You also carefully use different focal lengths to show the facets of each gemstone. This is achieved ethically without boosting an image outside your camera and lens equipment. Shooting with a D700 compared to a D7000 is also quite a bit of difference, and you use RAW as compared to an already compressed image type.

About your photo’s lighting up as Christmas trees – this is expected! Check out your histograms – they match with what the algorithm is showing. Your RBG values align with what is shown.

Chrono: Part of the problem here is that some vendors use software manipulation to try to showcase their products – or make them appear the same as those that actually take accurate pictures of their products. While this thread with this experience may not have been the perfect place to discuss this, if we cannot discuss those that take a more “artistic” approach to their photos and stones here in this forum, then I do not know where else we can. The only other place I’ve seen consistent pictures but not much discussion has been in the vendor and buyer picture thread.

The policies you discussed should be used by all colored stone vendors online. One picture – often cropped and reduced in size for quick web viewing cannot tell the whole story, a theme shared by many here. But that is usually what Vendor’s list – several photos. A no-questions return policy and examination period should take care of this, balancing the amount of photos and time spent to accepting a return and having someone else examine it.

Alnitak: Jeff, the algorithm has limitations, and has been used a demonstration to do a quick check of an image. Histograms can also be used to show certain levels/conditions/RGB saturation. Together, it provides a strong view of an image. But it also shows a bunch of people many more details then they most likely can find on their own without purchasing expensive or unneeded software. There’s a lot more to each image then we can visually inspect. EXIF and other metadata is anything but useless.

Algorithm’s are not software. The method used for demonstration on here is supposed to be a quick and easy way for everyone to use something that reveals when people are editing their pictures. The images alone are not perfect for everyone, but the additional information sure helps.

You cannot get the same results from photography using different lenses. Gene uses one of the top of the line Macro lenses when shooting gemstones – his latest updates using a consistent shutter speed of .5 and apertures ranging from 22 – 29, with pretty close light values.

The algorithm does a good job of showing the intensity of colors. Looking through the Precision Gem histograms compared to the Clear Cut Gems ones show quite a difference. The same can be said about any other vendor/photographer. There’s going to be variation.

Lloyd in those images uses a Sigma macro 50mm F2.8 with apertures of 5.3 6 and 9. Those pictures were also shot with a 100 ISO. The problem is, as the light decreased in the photos, the images got brighter and the stone’s faceting and colors “popped”. How can this happen? This shows image manipulation.

Ed: Your images are pretty consistent too and I think it helps you include the color description and saturation level. The more images option is also very helpful to view other gemstone displays.

Pregcurious: Everything makes sense – but the 30 day return policy may be too long. Vendors can lose quite a bit of business over 30 days, and if someone were to wait till day 29 and ask for a return, 5-6 weeks could easily occur from the time of purchase to return is accepted and relisted. I wouldn’t want to be outside of that 10 day return policy and realize that the stone wasn’t exactly what I wanted or the photo did not portray. This becomes even more concerning as the price increases.

Your eyes are generally the best judges of whether a photo and gemstone looks normal. However, they can be tricked or misled pretty easily. Add in our own cone and rod perception, and it gets pretty complicated. Unlike a GIA master diamond set, colored stones are extremely hard to standardize visual depiction, expectations, and grading.

 

[selous]

Hi Lloyd, Freke, and everyone else. I do not believe this issue is completely resolved, as there seems to be some photo elements on the stone in question, along with ones currently listed on the CCG website that have inconsistencies.

Rtfrog
The fervor of this thread was dying down and then you came along with this obviously flawed software to try and prove a point or gain points by taking images which were not even part of the discussion and posting them here.It's strange how whenever another cutter's gems are mentioned "lighting up like Christmas" you equate that to the lens used or some other phenomenon and even give them and also give Kudos to the pictures of the person who started this thread but when it comes to my images they are somehow 'suspect' although you claim to be 'neutral'.
Numerous people who are good photographers and well versed in editing software have come out and said this software simply doesn't work and yet you still try to justify your statements.

In your first post you stated that images had not been manipulated out of camera but now you say that PS "Is a colored gem site and not a Photoshopped colored gem site"

I gave you ample opportunity to remove my website photos from this site not because I have anything to hide but because as mentioned I do not appreciate my property being used to try and discredit me but you chose to completely ignore that,even worse you escalated the rhetoric by posting your flawed results .

On another note I find it almost flattering but definitely creepy that you know what camera I was using more than four years ago and what shooting method I adopted about seven years or more ago,either you have been following me for seven plus years or you have researched me back seven years,either way that shows a lot of deliberation.

I'm not a vindictive person and I was going to leave this alone completely even though your presumptuous posts have caused me and my family a fair amount of stress and possibly damage to my livelihood based solely on flawed technology and to be quite honest I've really had enough.

I would have at least expected but now do expect an apology,using your real name if you're man or woman enough,only then would I feel as if I can put this behind me and move on.Failing this,I have explored other options and will have to seriously consider taking them.
Contrary to what you may believe a person cannot hide behind a pseudonym on the internet and say whatever they want when it is false and cannot be proven using technology which is flawed.

 

[RTFrog]

Selous: Lloyd, once a post has been made and someone posts a response, the posts cannot be edited.

I suggest if you would like this thread removed to contact a board administrator using the report concern button.

I have tried to explain how to determine if a photo has experienced post processing or image manipulation, well beyond the use of the algorithm linked in this thread.

 

[selous]

I have tried to explain how to determine if a photo has experienced post processing or image manipulation, well beyond the use of the algorithm linked in this thread.

I'm really not interested in anything being removed,in fact it's better that it stay exactly where it is,I'm also not interested in your lengthy self serving and bogus technical explanations!

What I would like to know is what your vested interest in this is? besides trying to come out smelling like roses,that is.

 

[Mico]

well that just got uncomfortable...

i'm going to report this to the moderators as this thread doesn't seem to be holding its educational tone. RT, thanks for answering my question, I'm sorry if it stirred up bad blood with one of the vendors. I may start another thread and you can show me how to interpret with images you've manipulated?

 

[LoversKites]

Good call Mico! Starting a new thread would be a good idea.

 

[minousbijoux]

Selous: Lloyd, once a post has been made and someone posts a response, the posts cannot be edited.

I suggest if you would like this thread removed to contact a board administrator using the report concern button.

RTF: I don't like this thread and have stayed out of the discussion as I agree that it has been overkill on insinuation - from both sides! But I'm jumping in to clarify your assumption: you can contact Ella or another moderator at any time and ask for any of your particular posts to be deleted, regardless of whether the thread is closed or not. Under the circumstances, you might want to seriously entertain that thought.

 

[selous]

i'm going to report this to the moderators as this thread doesn't seem to be holding its educational tone

I'm sorry Mico but this thread lost it's educational tone a very long time ago,anyone who can read between the lines can see that.

 

[Alnitak]

RTFrog,

I'd normally refrain from replying, but I really don't want anyone to be confused by what you are saying, as you are making an effort to put yourself out there as a photographic expert.

Let me start by stating that I have been an avid photographer for over 30 years--I started at a very young age. I have done professional shooting at times, and have used nearly every camera system type you can think of, and a few most people have never even heard of. I've had my work published in books, magazines, scientific journals and used online by the likes of MSNBC, CNN and others. I've participated in beta testing of new cameras and camera firmware for major systems manufacturers because of the expert feedback I can provide them. I'm saying this not to pat myself on the back--but to make the point that I am not just an "armchair expert" on the topic of photography, and particularly digital photography.

I'm afraid most of what you wrote in your last post is just nonsense wrapped in some half-truths and misinterpreted facts. Yes, there is information in the EXIF data of most photo files. However, that data is very easily edited and manipulated, and only can tell you so much anyway. You make a number of claims about some of Lloyd's photos that are ignorant at best, and none of which can be supported by the facts--even the ones you claim to be citing. For example, looking at two of his images of the orange stone--presumably a square cushion topaz--they prove my earlier point of f-stop being the source of the differences in sharpness. Those two images were taken exactly 43 seconds apart from each other, as revealed by the EXIF data. That makes it easy to assume that they were taken under the exact same lighting conditions, etc. (although for all we know in that 43 seconds, the lights could have been moved, changed, etc.). The only substantive difference between them is that the one appears sharper and has greater DOF. This is to be expected--that image was shot at f/11, and the other at f/5.6. At f/11 we will see greater DOF and more sharpness--and indeed, the facets are more clearly defined in the f/11 shot. The ISO was 100 for both images, and as a result the shutter speed had to change or the one image would have been very underexposed. Indeed it did--by exactly the amount one would expect--the f/stop changed by two stops from f/5.6 to f/11, so the shutter speed had to go down by two stops from 1/4s to 1s. BTW, with this information we can safely assume that the lighting must have remained constant at least in terms of the total lux (the exposure data indicates about 320 lux).

Now, the one image does *appear* to be brighter. But that can be the result of the camera's internal jpeg algorithm, which makes its own determinations based on the way that software is written and the profile Nikon and or the camera user have chosen (some cameras let you choose between various jpeg profiles that apply different histogram curves and saturation adjustments, although the exact changes made are proprietary to the camera manufacturer). Your eye is also fooled by high contrast edges, and as sharpness and DOF increase, the apparent visual contrast increases as well. It could also be because the true light levels are never going to perfectly match exposure stops, and the exposure stops are not purely linear, so the image could have been closer to being accurately exposed at ISO 100, f/5.6/, 1/4s than at ISO 100, f/11, 1s. Without being there with a highly accurate light meter we just can't tell. And it doesn't really matter--both of those images look great and quite similar to each other with the exception of the apparent sharpness difference from depth of field.

To cut a long story short, most of this just a complete waste of time. Not everyone who photographs gems needs to know all of this about photography. Nor do those who buy gems. In addition, editing photos is NOT bad, unless the goal is to misrepresent and mislead. Indeed, my personal opinion is that its best to edit the photos to make them look as realistic as possible, and it's incredibly rare that I can take an image from my camera setup and have that happen. For the record, I use a Canon 5D Mark III with a variety of professional macro lenses. I have a professional studio lighting set up, and all of my photos are shot in raw format and then imported and edited in Adobe Lightroom 5. If anyone is interested in learning a bit more about photographing gems, I wrote up a blog post on this topic last November; its on my website.

I don't know Lloyd personally. I have chatted with him on Facebook where he is part of a network of well-known and well-regarded colored gem cutters. His work is very highly regarded by his peers and many of his fans and customers who post there. I personally find his photography--whether he does it or pays someone to do it--to be extremely well-done. I generally avoid threads like this, but I find it difficult to watch someone whom I respect be maligned for no good reason. He did everything right here. He disclosed that the color was not quite the same as the photo and that the gem was hard to photograph. He gave a full return policy and the potential buyer used that policy as it was intended. Many dealers in products of all types are far less gracious and offer far less favorable terms than this. That potential customer obviously was happy enough that they later went on to purchase another gem from Lloyd which they themselves have stated here on the forum is one they are very happy with.

Let's just stop looking for a problem where none exists.

Jeff

 

[corundum_conundrum]

Lloyd,

I am sorry as I am sure this thread was very upsetting and worrisome for you. To me, the tone of it was far too harsh. However, you did pull the most suspect photo, and have acknowledged that you have changed your packaging methods, so there was definitely a legitimate criticism being lodged, although perhaps it was unfair in its scope.

Unfortunately, you have met the shrill tone of this thread with one that is even more acrimonious. You threatened law suits, lobbed harsh words at the original (legitimately aggrieved) party, and vacillated between demanding your pictures be removed and saying they were fair game to use. For me, this aggressive and mercurial response would make me hesitate to buy stones from you, more than anything else.

I think you should pursue the high road and stop threatening people and making demands. Many people in this thread have defended you, so I would entertain trying to buy from you in the future on that basis. But if you continue to make threats, I will not. And, if you were to acknowledge that you will try to improve your business by incorporating some criticism of this thread (caution about overly-touched facebook handshots, packaging etc) I am sure others would take this as a magnanimous sign, a good business practice, and consider buying from you in the future as well. I wish you well.

 

[Mico]

i'm going to report this to the moderators as this thread doesn't seem to be holding its educational tone

I'm sorry Mico but this thread lost it's educational tone a very long time ago,anyone who can read between the lines can see that.

Sorry selous, I didn't mean for this to in any way reflect your business. I just wanted to learn more about the analysis .

 

[Mico]

RTFrog,

I'd normally refrain from replying, but I really don't want anyone to be confused by what you are saying, as you are making an effort to put yourself out there as a photographic expert.

Let me start by stating that I have been an avid photographer for over 30 years--I started at a very young age. I have done professional shooting at times, and have used nearly every camera system type you can think of, and a few most people have never even heard of. I've had my work published in books, magazines, scientific journals and used online by the likes of MSNBC, CNN and others. I've participated in beta testing of new cameras and camera firmware for major systems manufacturers because of the expert feedback I can provide them. I'm saying this not to pat myself on the back--but to make the point that I am not just an "armchair expert" on the topic of photography, and particularly digital photography.

I'm afraid most of what you wrote in your last post is just nonsense wrapped in some half-truths and misinterpreted facts. Yes, there is information in the EXIF data of most photo files. However, that data is very easily edited and manipulated, and only can tell you so much anyway. You make a number of claims about some of Lloyd's photos that are ignorant at best, and none of which can be supported by the facts--even the ones you claim to be citing. For example, looking at two of his images of the orange stone--presumably a square cushion topaz--they prove my earlier point of f-stop being the source of the differences in sharpness. Those two images were taken exactly 43 seconds apart from each other, as revealed by the EXIF data. That makes it easy to assume that they were taken under the exact same lighting conditions, etc. (although for all we know in that 43 seconds, the lights could have been moved, changed, etc.). The only substantive difference between them is that the one appears sharper and has greater DOF. This is to be expected--that image was shot at f/11, and the other at f/5.6. At f/11 we will see greater DOF and more sharpness--and indeed, the facets are more clearly defined in the f/11 shot. The ISO was 100 for both images, and as a result the shutter speed had to change or the one image would have been very underexposed. Indeed it did--by exactly the amount one would expect--the f/stop changed by two stops from f/5.6 to f/11, so the shutter speed had to go down by two stops from 1/4s to 1s. BTW, with this information we can safely assume that the lighting must have remained constant at least in terms of the total lux (the exposure data indicates about 320 lux).

Now, the one image does *appear* to be brighter. But that can be the result of the camera's internal jpeg algorithm, which makes its own determinations based on the way that software is written and the profile Nikon and or the camera user have chosen (some cameras let you choose between various jpeg profiles that apply different histogram curves and saturation adjustments, although the exact changes made are proprietary to the camera manufacturer). Your eye is also fooled by high contrast edges, and as sharpness and DOF increase, the apparent visual contrast increases as well. It could also be because the true light levels are never going to perfectly match exposure stops, and the exposure stops are not purely linear, so the image could have been closer to being accurately exposed at ISO 100, f/5.6/, 1/4s than at ISO 100, f/11, 1s. Without being there with a highly accurate light meter we just can't tell. And it doesn't really matter--both of those images look great and quite similar to each other with the exception of the apparent sharpness difference from depth of field.

To cut a long story short, most of this just a complete waste of time. Not everyone who photographs gems needs to know all of this about photography. Nor do those who buy gems. In addition, editing photos is NOT bad, unless the goal is to misrepresent and mislead. Indeed, my personal opinion is that its best to edit the photos to make them look as realistic as possible, and it's incredibly rare that I can take an image from my camera setup and have that happen. For the record, I use a Canon 5D Mark III with a variety of professional macro lenses. I have a professional studio lighting set up, and all of my photos are shot in raw format and then imported and edited in Adobe Lightroom 5. If anyone is interested in learning a bit more about photographing gems, I wrote up a blog post on this topic last November; its on my website.

I don't know Lloyd personally. I have chatted with him on Facebook where he is part of a network of well-known and well-regarded colored gem cutters. His work is very highly regarded by his peers and many of his fans and customers who post there. I personally find his photography--whether he does it or pays someone to do it--to be extremely well-done. I generally avoid threads like this, but I find it difficult to watch someone whom I respect be maligned for no good reason. He did everything right here. He disclosed that the color was not quite the same as the photo and that the gem was hard to photograph. He gave a full return policy and the potential buyer used that policy as it was intended. Many dealers in products of all types are far less gracious and offer far less favorable terms than this. That potential customer obviously was happy enough that they later went on to purchase another gem from Lloyd which they themselves have stated here on the forum is one they are very happy with.

Let's just stop looking for a problem where none exists.

Jeff

alnitak, thanks so much for this explanation! I made another thread, and in light of this one possibly being deleted, i'd love if you were to partake in some of the conversation that may (or may not) ensue.

best,
Mico

 

[FrekeChild]

I've checked out of this mentally, and although I asked for the entire thread to be deleted yesterday morning, it's still here.

My experience was as follows:
1. My friend bought the stone based on the super blue pictures. She had it shipped to me to save on time since she was not sure about it, Clear Cut Gems being a new vendor to her (and to me).
2. I was unhappy with how the gem was packaged.
3. I took 154 photos and three videos, compared it to about 5 or 6 of my own stones (spinels and a tanzanite) and explained to my friend that the stone was not as pictured in the super blue pictures.
4. She and I went back and forth over a few days as to my thoughts on the stone. She came to the conclusion that it was not what she had hoped from it, and although she liked the stone, she really wanted to pursue a stone closer to the color of the original photographs.
5. I returned the stone, taking care in packaging it.
6. I continued to keep an eye on Clear Cut Gems' Facebook page, and website, as I enjoy pictures of bling as much as anyone else here.
7. I was happy to see more realistic pictures of the color when Lloyd posted it to his website.
8. Most recently I was shocked when I was shown the bright purple pictures, and had it explained to me that this was the same stone that I had viewed in hand.

Yes, I've used strong language to indicate my disappointment in the photography used by the vendor, those are my opinions, having seen the stone in person, and are perfectly valid. I don't think it's too much to ask to share a less than stellar experience with a vendor, but I've been admonished for sharing my experience, had my photography insulted, been belittled and felt threatened.

I also know there is talk going on behind the scenes of not doing business with me, which is fine. Frivolous and silly, but fine. Every vendor is allowed to do whatever they want as far as business practices go; we, as consumers, are just as easily able to take our business elsewhere.

So, I'm hoping that the mods get around to deleting this sooner rather than later.

All I'm asking for is a realistic representation of the real life gem.

 

[Alnitak]

All I'm asking for is a realistic representation of the real life gem.

That's important, but not always easy to do--so the return policy is key!

The Internet is tricky...we can't see each other's faces and hear the tones in each others voices. Things are easily misconstrued.

The bottom line is that Lloyd has taken the feedback on the packaging, and we all know he was trying his hardest on the photos. There's a lot of time spent getting a nice professional-looking photo, and time is money for everyone. Most importantly, Lloyd has a return policy and the gem was returned as it didn't meet expectations.

So it all ended as it should be until things got screwed up on an Internet forum. I think we can tell it wasn't your intent to make this all happen, nor was it Lloyd's but things escalated. Let's let them de-escalate. Thanks for the thoughtful summary.

Jeff

 

[RTFrog]

Alnitak: How is this result achieved without using photoshop or similar image manipulation tools?

 

[Alnitak]

In case this entire thread survives...I want to add something here to help future readers understand why the "ELA" algorithm provided by the fotoforensics.com website referenced by user RTFrog is not appropriate. To quote directly from that website:

"ELA measures the amount of change during a JPEG resave. When a digital photo is edited, the modified portions will have a different error level potential compared to the rest of the picture. Splices, drawing, and significant edits are usually visible as a significantly different error level potential.

There is a difference between real and authentic. A real photo of a forged document or a staged situation will not appear unusual under ELA. This is because the picture is real, even if the subject of the photo is not authentic. ELA does not identify the authenticity or other attributes related to the picture's subject.

ELA also does not detect all forms of digital manipulation; it only identifies differences in the JPEG compression rate. Digital modifications that do not significantly alter the error level potential, such as a minor color adjustment over the entire picture, may not be detected by ELA."

I've highlighted some crucial points in bold. Not that it only works when an image has been through a jpeg-compression-based resave. That pretty much means its useless for the purpose of detecting image changes that matter to a colored stone buyer. Why? Because the photographer can shoot in a raw format--native data as it comes out of the camera--and then make all of the changes they want to the image before saving it as a jpeg to post to the web. Because its the first time the image is saved, there is *nothing* for the algorithm to detect, since there are no differences in jpeg compression between two or more saves of a file as a jpeg-compressed image. Anything you see in the results is then either an artifact of the algorithm ("noise") or the result of image resizing (my camera shoots massive files that most people couldn't even see at full resolution on their monitors; I have to resize and then the pixels are altered in a way that the algorithm can detect). To top it all off, the group that puts the software out there makes it clear that things like color adjustments to a whole image may not be detected--the last line I've highlighted.

Jeff

 

[Alnitak]

Alnitak: How is this result achieved without using photoshop or similar image manipulation tools?

I've never said that no editing has taken place. In fact, I've been clear that when appropriate editing *should* take place to make the image look as close to what our eyes see as possible. Lloyd himself said he has tried to do this, and in the case of that original stone even told the potential buyer that the gem was more violet than the photos implied.

Many cameras will conduct their own changes to saturation and tonal curves as part of their jpeg algorithms. Many websites do the same--Facebook is notorious for doing this.

My point was that you can't use the tool you were using for the function you implied. You also shouldn't be making assumptions about what people have done or not done to their photos based on the use of said tool, or really at all. There are too many variables at play.

Those who read the thread all know that from the very beginning Lloyd himself did not think those photos were accurate, and said so the potential buyer. He later came back with several attempts to get the color/saturation/etc. all to look as natural as possible. The intent was right from the beginning.

What's the point you are trying to make here?

Jeff

 

[FrekeChild]

Look, I'm tired of hashing this out, but these are the descriptors attached to the super blue photos on facebook - I screenshotted and posted them before and they are still up on the Clear Cut Gems Facebook page.

As they say dynamite comes in small packages.These sapphires have absolute superb color,in my opinion way better than the traditional darker blue,the color change is an additional bonus.In this shot you can see the hint of purple,if the stone were moved more it would turn completely purple.Please note the dimensions are 5.6mm.These pictures were taken in natural daylight with no enhancement,color may differ from monitor to monitor.

This description says to me that the stone IS this color, just that it shifts to purple.

Lloyd has admitted in this thread that the stone is not actually the color shown in the photographs, and they show the stone as being oversaturated and more blue than in real life.

I only finished this little sapphire today because of other cutting jobs.It is as exquisite as the previous one,slightly lighter in color as predicted but still an intense purple to blue color change depending on the angle.I was unable to reproduce the predominant purple in the images but you can clearly see it in the cutting pictures.Stats;5.6mm,.97 ct,eye clean except for a small chip on the girdle which I was unable to remove.The chip is only visible with a 10x loupe when viewing the stone from the side.
It would make an exceptional smaller solitaire ring stone or center stone.I will be discounting this gemstone because of the small chip and being under 1 carat.

This still states the stone as being blue sometimes. He has admitted here that this is not the case - that it is violet/lavender.

A better shot of the blue.This gemstone is sold.

Again, he has said in this thread that it's not blue.


On clearcutgems.com, and accompanied by the second set of photos that show some gray:

A very bright little Winza sapphire from Tanzania cut in a custom cushion design. This stone is a very pretty light/medium purple with a hint of blue in natural light. It has a noticeable color shift in different light sources. This gem has a very small chip on one side which is only visible under 10x magnification and does not compromise its beauty or strength in any way but has been discounted anyway.

This description reads as much more accurate to me, as are the photos.


Accompanying the bright purple photos on the CCG Facebook page:

A nice little Tanzanian lavender sapphire,this stone is very bright and clean but has a tiny chip on the edge of the stone which is not eye visible - 0.97ct 5.6mm vvs - Available.

I'm not going to dispute any of this except that I don't think the pictures show it accurately. I think that the set of pics that are on the CCG website are far more accurate.

Is it just me, or is this confusing to anyone else?

 

[Alnitak]

I'm not going to dispute any of this except that I don't think the pictures show it accurately. I think that the set of pics that are on the CCG website are far more accurate.

Is it just me, or is this confusing to anyone else?

None of us with the exception of you and Lloyd have apparently seen this stone in person. Since color perception varies even between two people, I don't think any of us is qualified to really judge the stone except you and Lloyd.

Based on everything I've read, it appears that this gem is a pretty classic Winza color-shift sapphire. They do exactly what has been described. And without two people standing there in the exact same lighting conditions, its going to be hard to say what's what. Clearly light temperature affects the color of this gem; that's not unusual. Personally, some of your photos look more blue-gray than violet even to me, while others look more violet. The main difference is saturation where your images look desaturated to me and his look saturated. I don't ascribe much to that in "back of hand" shots since I generally assume a lot of those variations appear to be the result of differences in light temperature and the camera/phone used to shoot the images.

As an outsider, what I see is that this situation unnecessarily escalated in no small part due to the fact that the Internet is an anonymous medium where we can't look each other in the eye and read the tone of each other's voices. What started as a request for feedback seemed to devolve into an attack on Lloyd. There were criticisms of his packaging, claims that he didn't insure the package, and strong words used like "disgusted." You upped the stakes by implying that anyone doing business with him was doing so at some risk. That was a very strong and hostile position to take. Quite frankly, if I was Lloyd--or in fact if most of us were put in Lloyd's position--we'd feel angry and threatened as well.

To me it was also unacceptable to air all of this out publicly without having discussed it with him directly first. When you were asked about that, you stated you didn't feel he would be receptive, prejudging him and again casting a negative light on him. Did Lloyd over react? Perhaps, but you were threatening his livelihood in a very public way. Most people would react pretty strongly to the negative things that were very unfairly said about him.

And now I'm likely to be attacked....so I'm going to root around my flame-proof suit.

Jeff

 

[digdeep]

"I've been admonished for sharing my experience, had my photography insulted, been belittled and felt threatened."

Multiple Choice Irony Question: Which of the following can be described by this quote:

1.) a gemstone vendor?
2.) a PS member who participated in this thread?
3.) a trade member who participated in this thread?
4.) the OP?
5.) none of the above?
6.) all of the above?

I hope this thread STAYS right where it is........it is a good lesson in online etiquette and deleting it is not appropriate IMO.

 

[Alnitak]

"I've been admonished for sharing my experience, had my photography insulted, been belittled and felt threatened."

Multiple Choice Irony Question: Which of the following can be described by this quote:

1.) a gemstone vendor?
2.) a PC member who participated in this thread?
3.) a trade member who participated in this thread?
4.) the OP?
5.) none of the above?
6.) all of the above?

I hope this thread STAYS right where it is........it is a good lesson in online etiquette and deleting it (post trauma) is not appropriate IMO.

Agreed! Many lessons to be learned here.

Jeff

 

[FrekeChild]

Yes, it did seem to devolve into a total cesspool, didn't it?

I started this thread as a genuine request. I had been considering buying a sapphire from him that seemed to be quite similar in color to this stone in question. Clear Cut Gems is not a vendor who I've seen a lot of work from on here, so I was genuinely interested in seeing vendor photos vs. customer photos, ESPECIALLY after my own more recent experience. I see, looking back at my posts that it may look like I came into this with less than stellar intentions; it was not.

I did not purchase the sapphire based on my previous interaction with Lloyd, his pictures of the stone I had seen, and his descriptions of the stone that were all over the place.

Yes, I was absolutely disgusted at the new picture - I feel like the sapphire has been shown in it's absolute best lighting situation, and I do not remember the stone looking a bright amethyst color in real life. I remember (and have looked back into my email correspondence) saying to the buyer that the stone looked a more pure purple under fluorescent lighting, but this stone was never without a degree of gray, and that degree of gray is not shown in the new vendor photos.

I like gray stones. I considered keeping this one for myself, after the buyer came to her conclusion, but couldn't pull the trigger at the size and price point, which was $500 at the time.

Every day people talk about their experience here on PS, some of the posts are great, some are abysmal, and there are tons of them in between. The buyer explained to the vendor that it wasn't the color that she had expected from the blue photos. I never had any interaction with Lloyd besides receiving and sending back the stone. So why would I send a message to him out of the blue saying, "Yo dude, your stone's color looks nothing like those photos you just put up!" How, exactly, would you respond to that? I have approached a gem dealer before to inform him that people felt like his business dealings were kind of iffy, and I was thrilled when he asked me what he should do to make his business more transparent. But I had a prior relationship with him.

I said that I would not do business with Lloyd, and I said that other people should do it at their own risk. I am not sure how that is damaging - everyone takes their own risk daily when utilizing their purchasing powers. I'm pretty sure that you're referring to wording, and these days I probably do not word things as nicely as I should, as I'm under constant attack by a toddler aiming for my keyboard, but it wouldn't have changed the message.

 

[texaskj]

Yee gads, what a shit storm.
Having been a page designer at a newspaper for over 26 years, I've learned a few things about color. Most people have no idea how many things go on to get an accurate image. The camera, lighting, background, is it being color corrected, in RGB or CMYK, on a LCD or tube monitor, what kind of lights are over the monitor, blah, blah, blah. Printing gives you even more to worry about.
My idea is not sexy or pretty, but it would be better. Take the shot with part of a dollar bill in it. Or a five or whatever. I would use a new one; they do fade a bit over time, but it's the one thing most people have access to and they have definite colors to compare with. (It would also help with scale.) I can't believe some of the backgrounds used for stones.

 

[movie zombie]

is there an icon for beating a dead horse.....

 

[Alnitak]

Ask and you shall receive.