Lynn B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,609
The Fire Thread!
- Thread starter Ellen
- Start date
Lynn B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,609
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
Molly1024
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 493
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Lynn...
YAWZA!!! That 2nd shot about took my eye out.
What camera are you using?!? I really like it''s macro.
Ellen ... excellent camera. Canon''s quality, even in the point & shoots are phenomenal. My daughter has a digital elph and the pix are just beautiful with it.
Hi Molly! Great shots as well. What kind of cut is in your ring?
Ellen ... excellent camera. Canon''s quality, even in the point & shoots are phenomenal. My daughter has a digital elph and the pix are just beautiful with it.
Hi Molly! Great shots as well. What kind of cut is in your ring?
Molly1024
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 493
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 19,449
Here's ONE shot I managed to take of my ring (on a fencepost at my parents' home, no less)...it has zero fluorescense but kinda looks like it has some blue in this shot. ETA: actually, that's an old rusted gate hitch which is apparently a size 7, LOL! Sorry the pic is so small...I'm always working on posting better pics...maybe it's my computer? Anyway, enjoy!
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,737
Great shots.
A couple of observations:
Most of these shots were done in direct sunlight.
Notice how the body of the diamonds are dark in most shots (except where the whole diamond is on fire or a ball of over exposure).
The shots on the mirror / glass with a dark background that you took Ellen - in general show the diamond is really bright, where as most of the shots where there is a lot of very bright areas in the field of view show the diamond as having less burned out total sparkles, and more dark body color. The reflections in the glass/ mirror show the diamond as a fair bit darker.
LynnB most of yours show dark body color away from the bright sparkles too.
Rasberry the middle shot of your group of 3 allows us to see the dark body color too.
So what is causing this?
And do we see this when we look?
In general there have been many ''panic'' threads over the past 5 years from consumers who are shocked that their supa doopa new ideal cut looks dark in direct sun light.
1. I think the biggest variable is the back ground color. Non reflective black makes the diamonds non sparkling body look and photograph brighter over all. A white background makes the diamond body look darker.
2. One difference here in the eye / lens is that we do not tend to get as much of the over exposed ''flair'' with our eyes as a lens does. Possibly the better the lens, the less flair.
Some of you may remeber and even link to the thread where someone noticed fire reduced when they got their new glasses and specs perscription - their diamond lost some fire. This is a real effect - and one that you can deliberately fake by focussing at a point well behind the diamond - eg the ground. Notice the flairs often get bigger.
It would be interesting to see photo''s with dark and bright backgrounds, and in focus / out of focus shots
A couple of observations:
Most of these shots were done in direct sunlight.
Notice how the body of the diamonds are dark in most shots (except where the whole diamond is on fire or a ball of over exposure).
The shots on the mirror / glass with a dark background that you took Ellen - in general show the diamond is really bright, where as most of the shots where there is a lot of very bright areas in the field of view show the diamond as having less burned out total sparkles, and more dark body color. The reflections in the glass/ mirror show the diamond as a fair bit darker.
LynnB most of yours show dark body color away from the bright sparkles too.
Rasberry the middle shot of your group of 3 allows us to see the dark body color too.
So what is causing this?
And do we see this when we look?
In general there have been many ''panic'' threads over the past 5 years from consumers who are shocked that their supa doopa new ideal cut looks dark in direct sun light.
1. I think the biggest variable is the back ground color. Non reflective black makes the diamonds non sparkling body look and photograph brighter over all. A white background makes the diamond body look darker.
2. One difference here in the eye / lens is that we do not tend to get as much of the over exposed ''flair'' with our eyes as a lens does. Possibly the better the lens, the less flair.
Some of you may remeber and even link to the thread where someone noticed fire reduced when they got their new glasses and specs perscription - their diamond lost some fire. This is a real effect - and one that you can deliberately fake by focussing at a point well behind the diamond - eg the ground. Notice the flairs often get bigger.
It would be interesting to see photo''s with dark and bright backgrounds, and in focus / out of focus shots
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
max, thanks! Glad I inspired you, can''t wait to see your pics!
Lynn, love your ring. You got one like me, with the muted colors and mainly soft white light, I just love those.
Molly, beautiful, and creative!
Monarch, love it! lol @ size 7 gate hitch!
Raspberry, love that second one with the orange/peach rays!
Gary, as I was looking these over again before posting, I did notice a few were closer to what you and I had discussed, and thought to myself, I don''t remember seeing that (in real life). But the ring still don''t come close to what my earrings do. I had pics of them showing up gray, but just recently deleted them, as I needed more space on my puter. I''ll try and get some shots to show you. I''ll also try and get the other shots you have requested to compare, this should be interesting!
For those wondering, Gary and I recently discussed the phenomena of ideals turning dark in bright light.
Lynn B
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,609
Hey, Jon, thanks for the note (and the compliment)! The photos were taken in Digital Macro Mode with my Canon 550SD Digital Elph. I got it strictly because of all the great photos I''d seen here on PS taken with Canons!Date: 10/3/2006 11:12:29 PM
Author: Rhino
Lynn...YAWZA!!! That 2nd shot about took my eye out.What camera are you using?!? I really like it''s macro.
Lynn
Rosebud8506
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 665
Rosebud8506
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 665
Rosebud8506
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2006
- Messages
- 665
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
I''ve gotten big flares and little sparkles... both on camera.... when I focus on the diamond and then let the flares in, they''re smaller and more pinpoint - sometimes. Fewer of the big huge flares that went like several inches as when I focused ON the flare itself. I have gotten very intense fire that isn''t flared out all over though. I don''t have any pictures on this, my laptop, but on my thread I have a ton of fire shots. There are fire shots on ALL 6 pages of this thread.... mostly 1,3,4,5, but all have at least a couple.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cbs-omc-pix.50194/
My stone looks dark in light and light in dark also... really weird to watch it when you walk out from under a tree LOL I have more fire pics I never posted, I''ll post some here tomorrow or something.... my diamond is out of my hands so no new pics anytime soon ::sniff::
Scott Terence
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Messages
- 278
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Just beautiful Molly. Usually in radiants you get lots of smaller flashes with a crushed ice look but I see some that can throw off broad flash too depending on how the pavilion is cut. When you view yours daily does it have more of a crushed ice look or do you think broader chunkier flashes? In those pics it looks like you caught some good broad flash which I like.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Hi Garry,
Here are my thoughts.
Take the same stone and mix some softer diffuse lighting into the mix and that helps to neautralize the dark body and causes softer/whiter reflections off the pavilion facets helping to take away the darkness. I suppose the best example of this is what Wink, Marty, myself and others have said they really liked and that''s taking a beautifully cut diamond outside on a bright, clear sunny day and observing the diamond as the light is filtering through the tree leaves above. You''re seeing a wonderful display of both direct and diffuse light at the same time and it gives a well cut stone an almost irridescent look. Almost like its in colorful celephane. Take the direct sunlight out of the picture and you''ll be back to a stricter view of brightness as opposed to fire. If you remove the diffusion of the leaves you''re back to a direct sunlight view of strictly fire and the body goes dark again. I demonstrate this in the fire vid but I may have a clip of this appearance under a tree which is just beautiful if you''d like to see. In it you can see the softer reflections of white light off the pavilion mixed with a softdispersion from the sunlight coming through the leaves.
The background may be a contributing factor. If the body appearance doesn''t change when we change the backdrops then we can eliminate that option.
Does the fire actually extend that far? It just might. I believe it does since it can also be photographed. An interesting thing I learned when I was learning how to use a telescope to stargaze is that when you turn your telescope towards a deep space object like a globular cluster, neighboring galazy or a nebula, etc ... if you focus your pupil on the object itself you will not see it. However if you don''t focus on the object but direct your pupil to another nearby object in the eye piece (like a star close to that deep space object) the galazy, nebula, or globular cluster comes right into view. It sounds odd but this is true when it comes to observing deep space objects. Why? There are receptors in the eye which are more sensitive to light which can only be *seen* if not directly looked at or focused upon. There''s a name for this which escapes me at the moment but the same principal may apply here mate and light sensors of the camera may be capturing things here which only those receptors can see when not focused upon the flash itself. I''m not 110% on this theory but it makes sense to me and it is true about receptors in the eye that are more senstive to light when not looked directly upon. The "out of focus" would also explain the gentlemen with the glasses problem which is why I agree too.
Indeed it would be. If I find some free time in my day tomorrow I''ll see if I can oblige. Didn''t Leonid do a short vid on this with the various backdrops?
Night night,
Here are my thoughts.
What I believe is causing this is a combination of things. The temperature of the light combined with the intensity of its illumination. Something I''ve been noting as I do observations in various environments that feature spot lighting is ... The stronger the light source the darker the body appearance, yet the more intense the flashes and flares that emanate from the stone (talking typical tolkowsky type proportsions and those outside of it that produce similar optics and particularly most or all stones I''ve seen with solid reflector images). Direct sunlight is perhaps the strongest spot light we''ll ever find and as you pointed out the body goes dark and as observed in these pictures and also in the fire video I did as well. And yes ... this is something I see.
Take the same stone and mix some softer diffuse lighting into the mix and that helps to neautralize the dark body and causes softer/whiter reflections off the pavilion facets helping to take away the darkness. I suppose the best example of this is what Wink, Marty, myself and others have said they really liked and that''s taking a beautifully cut diamond outside on a bright, clear sunny day and observing the diamond as the light is filtering through the tree leaves above. You''re seeing a wonderful display of both direct and diffuse light at the same time and it gives a well cut stone an almost irridescent look. Almost like its in colorful celephane. Take the direct sunlight out of the picture and you''ll be back to a stricter view of brightness as opposed to fire. If you remove the diffusion of the leaves you''re back to a direct sunlight view of strictly fire and the body goes dark again. I demonstrate this in the fire vid but I may have a clip of this appearance under a tree which is just beautiful if you''d like to see. In it you can see the softer reflections of white light off the pavilion mixed with a softdispersion from the sunlight coming through the leaves.
This is true as the stone is then overexposed. However common folk don''t wear non reflective black backgrounds behind their diamond. So in essence this is reversing what you''re talking about because the background behind most engagement rings is a neutral color and not black or for that matter white. Perhaps closer to white but not bright white.
An interesting experiment would be to take a tolkowsky stone view it in direct sunlight or a spot lighting environment which causes the body to go dark. Then observe the same diamond in the same lighting with a white background and observe the body appearance. Then a flat black background and observe the body appearance. I''ll do it tomorrow and tell you what I see.
The background may be a contributing factor. If the body appearance doesn''t change when we change the backdrops then we can eliminate that option.
I agree. When we blur our vision we will see more of the flare. If you bring a stone akin to the wonderful photographs that people have been sharing here into direct sunlight you''ll see and observe strong fire of course BUT ... and this is to everyone here wearing a diamond. Squint your eyes as you look down on the fire. As you do that your eye will not be able to focus on the diamond as it would if it were open normally but the squinting (out of focus eyes) causes the flares to extent out such to the point that it looks akin to the photographs.
Does the fire actually extend that far? It just might. I believe it does since it can also be photographed. An interesting thing I learned when I was learning how to use a telescope to stargaze is that when you turn your telescope towards a deep space object like a globular cluster, neighboring galazy or a nebula, etc ... if you focus your pupil on the object itself you will not see it. However if you don''t focus on the object but direct your pupil to another nearby object in the eye piece (like a star close to that deep space object) the galazy, nebula, or globular cluster comes right into view. It sounds odd but this is true when it comes to observing deep space objects. Why? There are receptors in the eye which are more sensitive to light which can only be *seen* if not directly looked at or focused upon. There''s a name for this which escapes me at the moment but the same principal may apply here mate and light sensors of the camera may be capturing things here which only those receptors can see when not focused upon the flash itself. I''m not 110% on this theory but it makes sense to me and it is true about receptors in the eye that are more senstive to light when not looked directly upon. The "out of focus" would also explain the gentlemen with the glasses problem which is why I agree too.
It would be interesting to see photo''s with dark and bright backgrounds, and in focus / out of focus shots
Indeed it would be. If I find some free time in my day tomorrow I''ll see if I can oblige. Didn''t Leonid do a short vid on this with the various backdrops?
Night night,
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Ew ... another Canon. This forum is good for Canon''s business! I''m also a Canon nut.Date: 10/4/2006 8:42:19 PM
Author: Lynn B
Hey, Jon, thanks for the note (and the compliment)! The photos were taken in Digital Macro Mode with my Canon 550SD Digital Elph. I got it strictly because of all the great photos I''d seen here on PS taken with Canons!Date: 10/3/2006 11:12:29 PM
Author: Rhino
Lynn...YAWZA!!! That 2nd shot about took my eye out.What camera are you using?!? I really like it''s macro.
Lynn
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,737
pricescope
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1999
- Messages
- 8,266
pricescope
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1999
- Messages
- 8,266
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,737
Molly1024
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Messages
- 493
Date: 10/5/2006 1:26:54 AM
Author: Rhino
Just beautiful Molly. Usually in radiants you get lots of smaller flashes with a crushed ice look but I see some that can throw off broad flash too depending on how the pavilion is cut. When you view yours daily does it have more of a crushed ice look or do you think broader chunkier flashes? In those pics it looks like you caught some good broad flash which I like.
Looking straight down on it in the sunlight, I see little pricks of light dancing around but every so often I'll get a big chunk of light bouncing off of it, especially when it's just out of the US. My husband chose this stone although I chose the cut well before I knew about Pricescope and while I don't know if the dimensions make it an attractive stone on paper, it performs beautifully in person.
ETA: My stone does somewhat resemble the traditional crushed ice, but not as much as other radiants I've seen on here.
Ellen
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2006
- Messages
- 24,433
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
haha - yes, but I do have visitiation rights and in fact am going to go visit it today!Date: 10/5/2006 12:55:24 AM
Author: Scott 00
CB,
Isnt that the worst when you cant play with your pet rock?? I was separated from mine for like 6 weeks! But dont worry I am sure its being well cared for, in not played with as lovingly as you do
Lord Summerisle
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 866
belle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,285
300x240.png)