H&A Clarity clarification

[WinkHPD]

Hopefully if you know of someone doing this you will out them to the public ridicule that they deserve.

Wink

Hi Wink, thanks for the photo's and contribution.
Thanks to everyone else too.

I have been aware many years ago of vendor(s?) who were playing tricks. One I believe even used a series of photo's of a few stones and rotated, took different exposures and focus etc to get a big range of photo's for the least cost. I have not heard much about that company in years. Not even sure if they still exist.

I do not believe any current Pricescope vendors are doing anything wrong.

But if I may continue the hypothetical - what if the Hearts image was done the way AGS do theirs?
There are no inclusions, and can be no inclusions because the images are produced from a 3D scan of the outside of the diamond.
Is this acceptable?
It clearly shows the symmetry of the stone, which is what the H&A's is all about, and the report has the inclusion plot right there.

Now you are talking an entirely different question. In the first place, AGS does not produce a Hearts image on their reports, only the arrows image, and they make no pretense of that being an actual photo.

Putting an image of what the arrows should look like is totally different that doctoring up an actual image and saying that "Hey, this is what I am selling you" when they know that it is not.

You ask if making the image from a 3D scan is acceptable, I think it would be, BUT ONLY IF IT WAS CLEARLY STATED! The AGS reports state that this is a computer generated image so that there is not any chance of it being perceived of otherwise.

I know of at least one company that shows the AGS report, the reflector images (H&A viewer), the idealscope, the loupe photo, and the ASET scope image for every diamond. That way they can see the computer generated image on the report and the actual image in the ASET scope. In my opinion, providing ALL of the information on each stone is important both to the client who is looking at diamonds, and to the reputation of the vendor sharing that information. It takes a little effort, but it is what is actually needed to offer the best opportunity to the public to make an informed decision.

Wink

 

[susimoo]

NO!!!!!


No photoshop, ever!!!!!!!!! That is fraud in my book.

No photoshopping out inclusions EVER!!!

BUT

Using Photoshop to correct the exposure, retouch out a speck of dust, or correcting white balance to bring the diamond back to how you know it looks is absolutely okay in my book.

I disagree with the idea that ALL photoshopping is ALWAYS bad.
Photography itself is a lie; diamonds are not 2 dimensional, they are 3 dimensional.
Diamonds change their look tremendously as you move them - freezing them in time is another non-truth.

Photoshop is just a tool like a telephone or a car that can be used for good or bad, by honest and dishonest vendors to tell the truth or deceive.

A vendor can use lighting and NO Photoshop to deceive customers by making poorly-cut, leaky diamonds look fantastic.

To clarify, what I meant was that by removing inclusions, that are visible, to make the stone look cleaner than it is, is unacceptable.
I do not look at the colour in a photograph as being representative of it in RL, due to the variation in my moniter etc. However, I do expect that the image IS represenative of the clarity, for better or worse!

I completely get where you are coming from. I am a make up artsist, so work in a field that invovles photography. For the record, some of the models I have worked on were I2's but came out the other side as FL!!!!

 

[Rockdiamond]

great discussion Garry!
In terms of using imperfection to downgrade cut, I agree with those who feel the two are unrelated. I've seen some really imperfect stones that were incredibly well cut- and from my perspective, the cut made them far more worthwhile.
But the interesting aspect of your question is more about perception and H&A. In this regard, it probably would be a problem for most consumers who want the quality H&A implies- so it's kind of working at odds with itself.

Photoshopping- I agree with those who say no. At all.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Could someone please show Wink a new AGS ASET hearts image please.

 

[kenny]

Using Photoshop to correct the exposure, retouch out a speck of dust, or correcting white balance to bring the diamond back to how you know it looks is absolutely okay in my book.

I disagree with the idea that ALL photoshopping is ALWAYS bad.

I mostly agree, except that a spec of dust the diamond should be cleaned and the image redone if possible.
The reason being it is sometimes impossible to tell if it is dust or an inclusion reflection so making a habit of removing dust in photoshop can lead to inclusions being covered even if there is no evil intent.

I agree IF it is impossible to tell whether it is dust or an inclusion.
With a bellows and a good macro lens the diamond fills the screen and uses all the pixels so the pics are so sharp that it is always obvious to me what is dust.
I realize many vendors don't have this luxury (or are not aware a Nikon bellows is only $200 http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Bellows/1/sku-NK190074999990?r=FE )
This uses only perhaps 5 or 10% of their camera's pixels.
Here's an example.
I took this pic on a Nikon D7000 using a 105mm f2.8 Nikkor micro lens using no extensions or bellows or other close-up optics.
Even though this is a very fine macro lens, look how small this 0.27 ct diamond is and how few pixels were used.



They have to blow up and crop in AFTER the pic is taken - and when in doubt I'd say do not photoshop out something that MAY be an inclusion.

But if you are certain it is dust, then it's okay to retouch it out IMHO.
And yes retaking the pic would be preferred, but getting a diamond perfectly clean, and good macrophotography is VERY time consuming.
If I was a photographer for a high volume business I'd fire me for being so slow.

No wonder your photos are so good! Do you give photography lessons and photoshop? I can just imagine how much fun it would be to spend a couple of days with you!

Wink

Thanks Wink.

 

[Karl_K]

Could someone please show Wink a new AGS ASET hearts image please.

That is a different kettle of fish.
They are computer generated and in my opinion just good enough to know to ask for real images or to have a stone called in for real images.
Consumers should demand they be verified with real images.

 

[0-0-0]

http://www.infinity-diamonds.com/protected/uploaded_files/stones/6167/cert1345998268Ww5evgzDuG4KfiV4NIdt.jpg

I think it's OK as long as it's understood that they are CG and not real images.

 

[WinkHPD]

http://www.infinity-diamonds.com/protected/uploaded_files/stones/6167/cert1345998268Ww5evgzDuG4KfiV4NIdt.jpg

I think it's OK as long as it's understood that they are CG and not real images.

Dang, busted. I have not seen the most recent reports and looked at the certs I have in house before responding that AGS did not put the Hearts pictures on.

I do stand by what I said though, it is important that the vendor provide the actual as well as the computer generated image to give full information to the prospective clients.

Wink

 

[Jim Summa]

Hi Wink,
Don't worry about it. I wonder how many times AGSL has updated their reports over the years?
Have learned alot over the years from reading the boards and your one of the reasons why.

 

[Serg]

I feel that a very well cut and properly graded i1 stone with minimally eye visible inclusions can be h&a and be called high performance.
If 1/4 the stone is dark then of course it should not be considered either.
So a few dots in the image ok, 1/4 of the image dark not.

Storm,

Here is the image of a 1ct + E-I1 that was chosen for its visual performance over four other stones, all of which were SI2 or better, including a VS2. The stones were placed face up in a slotted tray and all six of the people looking at them chose this stone over the other four based on how it looked to the eye. Only after the stone was chosen did any of the lookers know which stone was which.

The inclusions were mostly colorless crystals, but they look black in the viewer. I agreed with the I1 grade even though the inclusions were not visible to the eye of all but one viewer, who still liked it best. Even though I think the Hearts image looks horrible, I agree with you that this diamond should be called high performance!



Wink

re: "Even though I think the Hearts image looks horrible, I agree with you that this diamond should be called high performance!" "For example, here is the hearts image of a beautiful diamond. The small crystal inclusions break the hearts in many locations, but the stone is an SI1 and incredible to look at with the unaided eye. Why would you penalize the cutting?"

Some selling persons consider H&A pattern as proof of Optical performance when others consider it is just a proof of Craftsmanship .

for my point of view : If inclusions significantly reduce Optical Performance or even just H&A pattern then Craftsmanship is not very high.
Cut is just part of modern Craftsmanship. Skilled cutters can optimize inclusion position relative to H&A pattern with goal to reduce damage of H&A pattern . Much more difficult Craftsmanship task is reduction of damage by inclusions to Optical performance .

 

[Karl_K]

for my point of view : If inclusions significantly reduce Optical Performance or even just H&A pattern then Craftsmanship is not very high.

Cut is just part of modern Craftsmanship. Skilled cutters can optimize inclusion position relative to H&A pattern with goal to reduce damage of H&A pattern . Much more difficult Craftsmanship task is reduction of damage by inclusions to Optical performance .

I disagree with the first line above.

Reducing visibility of inclusions and its impact on performance should always be the priority over reflections in the hearts view.
To encourage cutters to reverse that is counter productive to what you, Garry and myself have been preaching about for years.
To me minimizing the impact of an inclusion and producing a high performance diamond is a greater sign of craftsmanship than producing a perfectly cut IF stone. We do agree that it takes a high level of craftsmanship to produce a high performance stone from imperfect rough.

 

[WinkHPD]

Hi Wink,
Don't worry about it. I wonder how many times AGSL has updated their reports over the years?
Have learned alot over the years from reading the boards and your one of the reasons why.

Jim,

Thank you for the kind words.

Wink