Unscrupulous?! Scandalous?! Status Quo?!

[VapidLapid]

Chrono is totally right.
Peter''s garnets look like very well cut well matched stones. In evaluating for photographic liberties taken it is not the symmetry of the cutting in the stones that give them up, it is the duplicated pixel masses in the continuous tones. In this instance, for example, look at the pavilion facets in the upper left quadrant through the table. Same angle cut in the same place on two stones in the same arrangement but a slightly different aspect or transition of surface tonalities.

 

[Gailey]

Date: 3/8/2010 11:39:52 AM
Author: amethystguy
Trying to compare a precision cut like Peter''s to some commercial cuts on NSC stones is like apples to oranges

While I agree that these two images look remarkably similar, until that is you look at them at extreme magnification - to the point where you can see the pixels individually. Then you will see that they are markedly different.

Kayla, did you just look at the images on Peter''s website or did you take a look at them on Flickr? Did you attempt to enlarge the images to make the comparison?

I think they are a glowing testament to how a pair should look.

 

[Roger Dery]

Date: 3/8/2010 10:41:25 AM
Author: kayla.tastikk
These garnets are from Peter Torraca''s website, and seem to very very closely resemble each other... any thoughts?

I totally don''t want to insinuate that he does alter his images, just maybe that the cuts are so similar on these that they are indeed different ones just skillfully cut. Though that also isn''t to say that I don''t think NSC faked their pictures, it''s obvious they did, but this is just food for thought.

Hi Kayla,
On one hand it is quite a testament to Peter''s faceting skills, I think. But also, I know he has invested in the top of the line in faceting machines, and is capable of consistently reproducing precise dimensions in matched pairs and suites of gems. I have seen his work in my own hands, and he is good.

 

[ma re]

Quite an obvious difference at 7 o''clock.

 

[ptorraca]

Hello All --

A couple friends pointed this thread out to me and after reading a bit, I see a comment or two is in order:

First, I can assure you all that the garnets pictured earlier are two separate stones -- a deliberately matched pair. They were cut from a single longish rough, so the color is literally the same. If anyone requires further proof than my statement, I would be happy to direct you to the jeweler''s shop in Andover, NY where these stones are on display. Alternatively, you could go to my Flickr photostream and have a much closer look. I think you will find that the pattern of inclusion and reflections are quite different. (If you''re unfamiliar, when looking at an image on Flickr, there is a tiny icon of a magnifying glass labeled "All sizes", immediately above the picture -- clicking there will allow you to view the original, full-sized uploaded image.)

Second, all of my website images are from either my little Fuji point & shoot camera or my Canon XTi with Sigma 105mm macro lens. I use an old version of photoshop to crop the images where appropriate and tweak the white balance when necessary (I use daylight-equivalent fluorescent lights; my weak photography skills make tweaking sometimes unavoidable). Beyond that, I do not manipulate photos. My goal is to make the image as accurate as possible.

While I have received returns, it has never been because a stone''s color was misrepresented. That''s a track record I intend on keeping.

peter


peter

 

[lelser]

Date: 3/8/2010 10:41:25 AM
Author: kayla.tastikk
These garnets are from Peter Torraca''s website, and seem to very very closely resemble each other... any thoughts?


I totally don''t want to insinuate that he does alter his images, just maybe that the cuts are so similar on these that they are indeed different ones just skillfully cut. Though that also isn''t to say that I don''t think NSC faked their pictures, it''s obvious they did, but this is just food for thought.

Comparing precision cuts to native cuts is more like apples to orangutans than apples to oranges

I''ve known Peter for a while now, and would be willing to bet my inventory that he would NEVER alter his images top deceive. I''ve seen his cutting up close and personal and if he wants to create an identical pair, he can. So can I, so can Roger, so can Richard, and a number of others. If you ask any of us if a pair is a good match or an excellent match, we''ll tell you that too.

I know you weren''t trying to say anything against Peter, but reputations are a delicate thing, and he''s worked very hard for his and deserves not to have ANY shadow - direct or indirect - cast on it.

 

[Maisie]

It would be sad if this thread became a witch hunt of vendors who might do the same as NSC.

 

[Gailey]

Date: 3/8/2010 2:54:58 PM
Author: Maisie
It would be sad if this thread became a witch hunt of vendors who might do the same as NSC.

I agree Maisie, but I am sure that is not Kayla''s intent.

When you think about it, what would be gained by spending hours and hours carefully manipulating pixels to make one stone look like two in a $220 pair of garnets. Heck, Peter could have cut a couple of other pairs in the same period.

 

[Maisie]

Date: 3/8/2010 3:00:08 PM
Author: Gailey

Date: 3/8/2010 2:54:58 PM
Author: Maisie
It would be sad if this thread became a witch hunt of vendors who might do the same as NSC.

I agree Maisie, but I am sure that is not Kayla''s intent.

When you think about it, what would be gained by spending hours and hours carefully manipulating pixels to make one stone look like two in a $220 pair of garnets. Heck, Peter could have cut a couple of other pairs in the same period.

I just felt sad when Peter felt he had to come and defend himself when there is no proof that he is actually doing anything underhand.

 

[VapidLapid]

I dont think anyone was casting aspersions as to the veracity of Peter''s pair of garnets. I think his was being cited as an example of the slight photographic differences in a true photograph of an absolutely perfectly cut, matched set of stones.

It would be very unproductive if this thread became a witch-hunt.

 

[FrekeChild]

Hi Peter!

And ditto to the apples and orangutans comment.

ETA: BTW, I don't think it was Kayla's intent to accuse Peter of doing the same thing as NSC. In fact, I don't think she's doing that at all. I think she was just using his image as an illustration that two stones can be photographed together.

If that was not your intent kayla, I'm sorry. Thats just how I read it.

 

[Maisie]

I apologise if I have misunderstood what kayla said.

 

[MonkeyPie]

Date: 3/8/2010 3:06:32 PM
Author: VapidLapid
I dont think anyone was casting aspersions as to the veracity of Peter''s pair of garnets. I think his was being cited as an example of the slight photographic differences in a true photograph of an absolutely perfectly cut, matched set of stones.

This. If anybody could cut two stones to look identical, it would be Peter...and not just because he''s my favorite

I think this thread has lost it''s track a bit. NSC has dug themselves a hole, and their ladder out is rather flimsy at best. I don''t know what more could be said at this point.

 

[Linda W]

And neither do I.... 9 pages??????

enough is enough.

 

[y2kitty]

I was hoping Evan from NSC could read this thread and address our concerns.

 

[kenny]

As long as we're talking about being aware of Photoshopping ... look at the reflections under the stones.

Anyone else notice how the reflections of the culets are touching the girdles?
This is not possible when a gem sits on a reflective surface.
The culet reflections should be hidden by the gem.

This has to be done with software.
Or the stones are resting on clear glass and a separate mirror, or other reflective surface, is precisely positioned under the glass and carefully angled so the reflections of the culets just touch the girdles.

Just saying...

 

[VapidLapid]

Kenny I think it is possible. It depends on the thickness of the glass of the mirror. Certainly a first surface mirror would not do that but a second surface mirror with thick glass would displace the reflected image.

 

[kenny]

Good point VL.
I could be wrong.
You have me curious so I'm going to get out my camera, a princess cut and a mirror...
Stand by.

Good point about first-surface mirrors.
The mirrors we all have in our homes have their reflective coating on the back.
First surface mirrors have them on the top.

This makes them groovy for man applications in optics like telescopes where you want reflections but not the distortions induced by even the finest optical glass.

 

[kenny]

Okay I stand corrected.

I just took these two pics of a sapphire resting on a regular bathroom hand mirror.
These mirrors have the reflective surface on the back of the glass, and of course the gem sits on the top of the glass.
That space between the top and bottom of the glass can be taken advantage of for creative effect by moving the camera up and down.

On the left pic the camera was positioned lower so the culet's reflection does not reach the girdle.
On the right pic I raised the camera so it does.

Touche VL!
I learned something.

 

[Gailey]

As long as we're talking about being aware of Photoshopping ... look at the reflections under the stones.

Anyone else notice how the reflections of the culets are touching the girdles?
This is not possible when a gem sits on a reflective surface.
The culet reflections should be hidden by the gem.

This has to be done with software.
Or the stones are resting on clear glass and a separate mirror, or other reflective surface, is precisely positioned under the glass and carefully angled so the reflections of the culets just touch the girdles.

Just saying...

Well, I kind of glad that this thread got bumped again because it gives me the opportunity to finally put an end to the ridiculous speculation about these two garnets that Peter Torraca cut.

I CAN CATEGORICALLY TELL ALL OF YOU THAT THEY ARE A PAIR. TWO BEAUTIFUL IDENTICAL STONES. and yeah, I'm shouting, shouting from the rooftops.

I know this because they now belong to me along with a larger square cut from the same batch of rough. Regrettably, I am out of town at the moment, otherwise I would whip out the camera right now and photograph them for you all to see. Be assured, it will be top of my to do list the moment I get home next week.

Many of you have gotten to know me in the last few years and know that one of the things I abhor most in life is dishonesty, especially of this kind. I have somewhere between 10 and 15 stones that have been cut by Peter. Each and every one of them have exceeded my expectations, as has the level of his service and commitment to his craft.

Peter is not only an exceptional lapidarist, he is also one of the most honourable, professional and respectful people I have gotten to know since I started collecting gems. To continue to include him in this thread and imply that mis-represents his stones is insulting in the extreme and can only come from people who have a) no knowledge of his work, and b) have had no dealings with the man himself.

Kenny, yet again, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your comments are a measure of you, not of Peter.

Just sayin .....

 

[kenny]

As long as we're talking about being aware of Photoshopping ... look at the reflections under the stones.

Anyone else notice how the reflections of the culets are touching the girdles?
This is not possible when a gem sits on a reflective surface.
The culet reflections should be hidden by the gem.

This has to be done with software.
Or the stones are resting on clear glass and a separate mirror, or other reflective surface, is precisely positioned under the glass and carefully angled so the reflections of the culets just touch the girdles.

Just saying...

Well, I kind of glad that this thread got bumped again because it gives me the opportunity to finally put an end to the ridiculous speculation about these two garnets that Peter Torraca cut.

I CAN CATEGORICALLY TELL ALL OF YOU THAT THEY ARE A PAIR. TWO BEAUTIFUL IDENTICAL STONES. and yeah, I'm shouting, shouting from the rooftops.

I know this because they now belong to me along with a larger square cut from the same batch of rough. Regrettably, I am out of town at the moment, otherwise I would whip out the camera right now and photograph them for you all to see. Be assured, it will be top of my to do list the moment I get home next week.

Many of you have gotten to know me in the last few years and know that one of the things I abhor most in life is dishonesty, especially of this kind. I have somewhere between 10 and 15 stones that have been cut by Peter. Each and every one of them have exceeded my expectations, as has the level of his service and commitment to his craft.

Peter is not only an exceptional lapidarist, he is also one of the most honourable, professional and respectful people I have gotten to know since I started collecting gems. To continue to include him in this thread and imply that mis-represents his stones is insulting in the extreme and can only come from people who have a) no knowledge of his work, and b) have had no dealings with the man himself.

Kenny, yet again, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your comments are a measure of you, not of Peter.

Just sayin .....

Huh?
I said nothing negative about Peter.
Read my subsequent posts, and put down your sledge hammer please. Sheesh!

I limited my post to analyzing the technical photographic process, and offered no judgement whatsoever.


BTW, beautiful stones.

 

[soberguy]

There was a topic a while back that showed the same thing happening...

 

[VapidLapid]

Ok I know from where you speak having 4 stones myself cut by Peter, but really I thought that it had been settled way back when even that there is no hint of fakery in Peter's work. IT was an interesting observation and hunch that led to Kenny's comment and just shows how it is possible to come to wrong conclusions from seemingly true premises. I think it is great that after it was described to him how that conclusion could be false he agreed and tested the idea and reported back that it is indeed so. A quick fleck through Peter's Flicker would assure just about anyone that there is no deceit in Peters photography. And that his stones are extraordinary. I wear one daily.

 

[Gailey]

As long as we're talking about being aware of Photoshopping ... look at the reflections under the stones.

Anyone else notice how the reflections of the culets are touching the girdles?
This is not possible when a gem sits on a reflective surface.
The culet reflections should be hidden by the gem.

This has to be done with software.
Or the stones are resting on clear glass and a separate mirror, or other reflective surface, is precisely positioned under the glass and carefully angled so the reflections of the culets just touch the girdles.

Just saying...

Well, I kind of glad that this thread got bumped again because it gives me the opportunity to finally put an end to the ridiculous speculation about these two garnets that Peter Torraca cut.

I CAN CATEGORICALLY TELL ALL OF YOU THAT THEY ARE A PAIR. TWO BEAUTIFUL IDENTICAL STONES. and yeah, I'm shouting, shouting from the rooftops.

I know this because they now belong to me along with a larger square cut from the same batch of rough. Regrettably, I am out of town at the moment, otherwise I would whip out the camera right now and photograph them for you all to see. Be assured, it will be top of my to do list the moment I get home next week.

Many of you have gotten to know me in the last few years and know that one of the things I abhor most in life is dishonesty, especially of this kind. I have somewhere between 10 and 15 stones that have been cut by Peter. Each and every one of them have exceeded my expectations, as has the level of his service and commitment to his craft.

Peter is not only an exceptional lapidarist, he is also one of the most honourable, professional and respectful people I have gotten to know since I started collecting gems. To continue to include him in this thread and imply that mis-represents his stones is insulting in the extreme and can only come from people who have a) no knowledge of his work, and b) have had no dealings with the man himself.

Kenny, yet again, you should be ashamed of yourself. Your comments are a measure of you, not of Peter.

Just sayin .....

Huh?
I said nothing negative about Peter.
Read my subsequent posts, and put down your sledge hammer please. Sheesh!

I limited my post to analyzing the technical photographic process, and offered no judgement whatsoever.


BTW, beautiful stones.

Course not, you're as pure and innocent as the driven snow, with absolutely no reputation for stirring up controversy. You're a poor mis-understood soul. My mistake.

 

[Ella]

Please keep it civil everyone.

 

[Michael_E]

[attachment]4.jpg[/attachment]

The interesting thing about this image is that the break facets on the bottom of the stone are brighter than the rest of the reflection. Where is the light coming from to produce this effect, (since the stones are resting on that surface)? My guess is that the lighted background bounced off the lower surface, lighted the break facets, bounced back down to the lower surface and back up to the camera. Cool shot IMO. I love looking at images like this as it always presents a puzzle as to how the photographer set up the shot.

As for Photoshopping, why does everyone have such a problem with it? As long as the stones are close to the way they look in the pictures describing them it really shouldn't matter since the whole object is to accurately describe the stone, not the process of getting that accurate description. There are a LOT of stones that I couldn't photograph accurately without Photoshopping them. Which is more accurate an emerald that shows some yellow in an untouched image or a Photoshopped image that shows the color much more accurately with the yellow removed ? Do you want to know what it really looks like? Then quit worrying about how the image is produced, pay more attention to the character of the seller and ask them a few questions. You guy's get so tied up about the strangest things, you're buying the stone, not the picture.

 

[kenny]

[attachment]4.jpg[/attachment]

The interesting thing about this image is that the break facets on the bottom of the stone are brighter than the rest of the reflection. Where is the light coming from to produce this effect, (since the stones are resting on that surface)? My guess is that the lighted background bounced off the lower surface, lighted the break facets, bounced back down to the lower surface and back up to the camera. Cool shot IMO. I love looking at images like this as it always presents a puzzle as to how the photographer set up the shot.

As for Photoshopping, why does everyone have such a problem with it? As long as the stones are close to the way they look in the pictures describing them it really shouldn't matter since the whole object is to accurately describe the stone, not the process of getting that accurate description. There are a LOT of stones that I couldn't photograph accurately without Photoshopping them. Which is more accurate an emerald that shows some yellow in an untouched image or a Photoshopped image that shows the color much more accurately with the yellow removed ? Do you want to know what it really looks like? Then quit worrying about how the image is produced, pay more attention to the character of the seller and ask them a few questions. You guy's get so tied up about the strangest things, you're buying the stone, not the picture.

Since you asked . . . here's the set up . . . at my kitchen sink. Hahaha.
The sapphire (not visible in this pic because of the bright lights) is placed on a hand mirror, which is placed on the thingie between my two sinks.
In each sink I have placed a 10" dome light reflector mounted on a little stand.
At these magnifications you need a lot of light, also to get great depth of focus I used f22 which also requires tons of light.
Even with all that light the exposure was 20 seconds or so at ISO 100, hence the monster Gitzo Series 3 tripod.
The lights are as close as possible to and pointing at the sapphire but not towards the camera lens.

You are right; light reflects off the mirror and into the underside of the gem.

I also LOVE to try to figure out photographer's set ups.
Hence my whole experiment in this thread.

I think the reason people panic then they hear images are Photoshopped is twofold...
1. Photoshop CAN be used unethically to deceive
2. They do not understand how useful, even essential, it is to produce good results that do NOT deceive.

If everyone here used it and got proficient optimizing their images we would not be getting these emotional reactions.
This page of this thread is a great example of this...

I was curious whether those reflections were Photoshopped into Peter's image.
VL explained how it could be done without Photoshop.
I experimented and satisfied myself VL was right.
I posted everything for the educational use.
Yet one poster went bananas because I suggested a vendor he/she used had used Photoshop - which is not in ANY way an insult when you understand its legitimate usefulness.

 

[Michael_E]

Here's the set up . . . at my kitchen sink. Hahaha.

Yeah, but is that an approved sink or one of those sinks used for "trick" shots?

 

[kenny]

Here's the set up . . . at my kitchen sink. Hahaha.

Yeah, but is that an approved sink or one of those sinks used for "trick" shots?

Well if I don't turn tricks how else can I buy all these FCDs?

Just kidding.
That was a joke.

 

[mochi]

Gailey!!!

I can't wait for you to post many, many pictures of the beautiful garnet!!