Idealscope image of my stone

[yiky]

Hi all!

I finally got my stone and took some IS images. It was not easy without good equipment, but here''s what I managed to get.

GIA
1.07ct
G
SI1
EX/EX/EX
56%
61.8%
35.0
40.8
Med-Slightly thk

 

[yiky]

Another image.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Not bad

Turn your camera light setting to the little light globe (tungsten). Also i think you might have the stone inside the scope a bit too far. The stone should be just level with the bottom of the scope.

 

[yiky]

Do you think the diamond is good?

 

[oldminer]

You should try to end up with an image that has a white rather than a pink background color outside and under the diamond. The Tunsten suggestion Garry made may help. It looks as if the crown of the stone is in better focus than the pavilion. Garry said the stone may be too far inside the IS, but it could be the focus of the camera was a bit too close and the depth of field insufficient to get the entire stone into better focus. Work first with the focus and secondly try increasing the F stop and lowering the shutter speed to compensate. Using less light and a longer exposure time increases the depth of field. I have gotten the best shots with the IS using only the pink cone and not using the lens of the IS, but only using the cameras''s lens. There is a lot of experimentation necessary to to take clear IS photos. Because of the difficulty, I have opted most often to use the IS image created in DiamCalc in conjunction with Sarin measurements. Few of the IS users are lucky enough to have a Sarin + DiamCalc to do this with, so the direct photo method is the one most often pursued.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 12/7/2008 7:18:02 AM
Author: oldminer
There is a lot of experimentation necessary to to take clear IS photos. Because of the difficulty, I have opted most often to use the IS image created in DiamCalc in conjunction with Sarin measurements. Few of the IS users are lucky enough to have a Sarin + DiamCalc to do this with, so the direct photo method is the one most often pursued.

------------

Dave,

There may be a number of reasons to use DiamCalc, as a function of practical measures, and also, and particuarly, your personal experience...for not measuring directly with an IS. But, as a mater of principle, I do find it ironic, and a bit of calling the kettle black...

---------

as for example:

We believe the predictive tools are excellent for cutters to use as a guide, but for jewelers and consumers who want to know with certainty how their one unique diamond performs, then one must measure the performance on that stone versus predicting by measuring parameters. Parametric screening works. I have been providing a crude but useful tool for all shapes since the late 1980''s and have had my share of abuse from those who used to say "Parameters don''t work.". Now, much of what we hear is "Parameters work", but of course we now measure more parameters with better precision. I have said they work all along, but are not the way to make a final judgment when there are better tools Whenever I have a diamond to weigh and have a scale, I put it on the scale. If I don''t have a scale I measure the stone and use a calculator, specific gravity and a formula to ESTIMATE the weight. Anyone knows which is preferred and most accurate.... What I see is a new style of scale that will quickly weight the performance of light with the confidence one gets from a digital scale when one needs a carat weight.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-000-and-imagem-results.46481/page-2