Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone photos

[Karl_K]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I don't own Photoshop by the way, I use a program called Aperture on the Mac.

Which based on that image has a fairly crappy jpg creation engine.

 

[pregcurious]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I am confused. I think the intent of this thread is to use software to detect if a picture has been altered, in the context of using that information to decide if the gemstone in the picture is correctly represented. Am I understanding this properly?

I've taken many (bad) photos of my gemstones, and the color that my gemstones comes out completely depending on the camera I use, the light source, the surrounding colors...basically everything that has to do with acquiring that picture electronically, and anything in the environment that may affect the perception of that gem.

I recommend that everyone try taking pics of their own stones to experience how difficult it is to accurate pictures, and how easy it is to make a stone look different (without Photoshop). When I did this myself, I all of a sudden understood why images _should_ be altered to increase their accuracy. However, because PS is such a Photoshop unfriendly place, I usually state if my photos have been altered. My photos are usually pretty bad though, so I don't post them often.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I don't own Photoshop by the way, I use a program called Aperture on the Mac.

Which based on that image has a fairly crappy jpg creation engine.

Or the image error program is pretty crappy. When I compare the raw image with the jpg, they look identical on my 27 inch screen. The end product is what really matters.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

FWIW every pic I've posted was processed with the lowly iPhoto program that comes free on every Mac.

I bought Lightroom and Elements (a stripped down cheapo version of Photoshop) but haven't installed them yet.

I second shooting in RAW if your camera can.
In post when you try to correct overexposed or underexposed parts in a JPEG file there very little data there to recover
With RAW overexposed areas that look solid white and blown out can contain a surprising amount of wonderful detail.
Same with some dark areas that look solid black.

RAW rocks!
Yes it takes up much more memory, but it's worth it.
If memory cost is an issue … shoot in RAW, do your post editing, save the modified files as a beautiful JPEGs and delete the original RAW files.

I don't convert, or SAVE AS, to JPEG.
I do a screen capture which creates a PNG file.
This gives me a more accurate pic on Pricescope.
When I used to convert to JPEG those picks looked washed out when uploaded to Pricescope.
For whatever reason the PNG files look correct on PS, though of course Pricescope's software dramatically lowers the sharpness/resolution.

Kenny,

The washed out colors were probably a result of color profile issues. One topic that hasn't even been touched here is the extremely important role color profiles play in the display of colors (in print and on screen). This is amplified by operating systems and browsers. This can result in images that look either washed out or the reverse, overly saturated--depending not the type of monitor you have (wide gamut or standard), the browser and operating system you use, whether your images have been tagged with color profiles, etc. It's a mess, really. There's no real way to be sure that your images, no matter how good your intent and effort, will be seen by others as intended. That's only one of the many reasons why the ability to return a colored stone for a refund after a reasonable inspection period is so important, and why folks shouldn't get their undies in a bunch about photos on the Internet (as you have been so good at pointing out, thank you).

If you want to learn more about the way color profiles, operating systems, browsers and monitors all play together this is a pretty good read, but only scratches the surface:

http://cameratico.com/guides/web-browser-color-management-guide/

Jeff

 

[RTFrog]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

Hi Gene:

Here's a couple pictures - both shot in RAW and JPEG, and edited in both aperture and photoshop.





Here's the kicker - while the changes look small, one is direct from the camera without any "In-camera edits", the other has been tweaked.





This is something I'm trying to show that is occurring when trying to purchase colored gemstones, or at the very least, find a way to let the consumer know that the colors have been changed. The end product is very important.

 

[RTFrog]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I am confused. I think the intent of this thread is to use software to detect if a picture has been altered, in the context of using that information to decide if the gemstone in the picture is correctly represented. Am I understanding this properly?

I've taken many (bad) photos of my gemstones, and the color that my gemstones comes out completely depending on the camera I use, the light source, the surrounding colors...basically everything that has to do with acquiring that picture electronically, and anything in the environment that may affect the perception of that gem.

I recommend that everyone try taking pics of their own stones to experience how difficult it is to accurate pictures, and how easy it is to make a stone look different (without Photoshop). When I did this myself, I all of a sudden understood why images _should_ be altered to increase their accuracy. However, because PS is such a Photoshop unfriendly place, I usually state if my photos have been altered. My photos are usually pretty bad though, so I don't post them often.

Hi Preg! Yup, I was pretty sure that was the intent of this thread. I absolutely agree with you about how difficult it can be to take accurate pictures. Maybe if everyone here took their pictures, edited them a bit, and reviewed the pre and post results, they would see a trend or at the very least, how it applies to their own photography. What I'm realizing from this thread is that PS isn't as unphotoshop friendly as we thought, as described by respected vendors, and that in general - it seems commonplace to use image editing.

There are many reasons why photos should be edited to adequately represent the correct color, this has been confirmed by a number of vendors in this thread. Kenny also did a good job explaining why and how it is used.

The problem still occurs though when a vendor takes advantage of software/edits to in-accurately describe their offerings. We use those images, and often only one image, to purchase a stone. It's off to me that the consumers generally state when they use photoshop, especially when vendors don't have to. The standard seems different.

There still seems to be misunderstanding and controversy over this particular method of talking about image editing. That's to be expected, it launched a whole debate over photoshopped images used to win photography awards, such as an iconic image in the past year. I'm hoping someone has a suggestion, recommendation, or solution for this issue.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I don't own Photoshop by the way, I use a program called Aperture on the Mac.

Which based on that image has a fairly crappy jpg creation engine.

Or the image error program is pretty crappy. When I compare the raw image with the jpg, they look identical on my 27 inch screen. The end product is what really matters.

The stuff being discussed here is far beyond what you would see by eye unless you zoomed in on the image to the pixel level.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

The problem still occurs though when a vendor takes advantage of software/edits to in-accurately describe their offerings. We use those images, and often only one image, to purchase a stone. It's off to me that the consumers generally state when they use photoshop, especially when vendors don't have to. The standard seems different.

The best image given the limitations of technology is only good enough to decide to see it in person for a final decision. Which is why a return policy is very important.
What you see on a monitor is never going to totally agree with what you see in person.
The best that current technology can provide images are going to have post processing done on them.
That is a fact that everyone has to accept.

 

[WinkHPD]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I believe that every image I post on the net has been processed in Photoshop, with the possible exception of something that I post from my phone on Instagram, and many of those are processed then emailed to a client and posted as well. Here is why.

This is a photo from my camera, cropped.



Here is the image, sharpened.



If you were a vendor competing with companies able to afford professional photographers, which would you post?

More importantly, does the sharpened image do anything other than enhance the viewer's enjoyment of the photo?

Wink

 

[PrecisionGem]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

More important than the type of software used to edit the image is the type of light used for the photograph. Many gems have from mild to strong color shifts depending on the light source. A sapphire or tanzanite can look very blue with natural (shaded) daylight, but the same stone will be purple or violate in incandescent light. There are a number of different types of fluorescent bulbs used in offices, and makes the gem beehive differently. A red garnet can look very red in incandescent light but turn a muddy dark burnt brown color with a new CFL bulb.

I see many pictures posted online by customers where the white balance on the camera is set wrong which just further distorts the color of the stone.

For these reasons tools like GIA color set and Gemdialogue were created, however they require that both parties posses the tools. I do have a few customers who own the Gemdialogue as do I which does allow you to communicate the color accurately, but again under the same type of lighting conditions.

 

[FrekeChild]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I don't care if images used to sell gems/jewelry are photoshopped or altered, so long as the end result resembles the item in hand. And I'm saying, as a colored stone buyer, that I'd rather buy a stone that looks less than stellar in a picture, and have it be really beautiful in person. So I guess the problem lies in expectations. An amazing photograph of a stone sets up amazing expectations. I feel like the stone has to be as good as the photo. I can't tell you how many times I've bought a stone that is less than great, but promising, in photos and been blown away when I get it in real life.

Diamond/jewelry vendors typically have an easier time of this, because color isn't as important - so long as white metal looks white, and yellow metal looks yellow, pretty much good to go.

Colored stone vendors seem to have a harder time because color tends to change in different types of lighting, and cameras have different ways of capturing it as well. So I'd go so far as to say that photoshop/an editing program is necessary for colored stone photography - but it should really be used to show the stone as close as you can get it to how the stone looks in real life.

I think Gene is really good at editing a picture of a stone to get the picture to look like the stone. I feel confident when I buy something from him that what I see is what I'm going to get, and I have yet to be let down, even though I've mostly bought stones cut by him on the secondhand market.

We've all seen ebay photographs where the saturation is super amped up to sell a stone that is NOT that color in real life. Often those sell for so cheap that it's not worth it to send it back, even though the stone is far less than what is pictured. But that's terrible business practice.

 

[minousbijoux]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

Im not sold on this Image Error analyzer. Here is a photo that was taken RAW as a Nikon NEF file, converted to a JPG and reduced in size cropped, and of course my water mark added to it. Nothing else, no tweaks of any kind. Based on the analyzer image, you would think I "photoshopped the hell" out it.

I don't own Photoshop by the way, I use a program called Aperture on the Mac.

I'm coming late to this discussion so forgive. But let's take Gene's example here - I guess I would agree with others in saying so what if he "photoshopped the hell" out of it (I know you are not saying you did, Gene) if he did it to make it representative of what he sees in hand? We ask for images of stones as well as descriptions. Absent the vendor announcing their inability to achieve an accurate photo, we do rely on the images as well. So do we expect the vendor to post images that do not accurately reflect the gem? Obviously not. If the vendor believes that by tweaking the color balance, saturation, contrast, exposure, etc. that they can achieve a more accurate image of their stone, then of course they should. With all due respect to RTF, who is clearly quite a knowledgable and capable photographer, I am not that interested in the results of the image level analyzer - just accurate images of stones, however they are achieved.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

just accurate images of stones, however they are achieved.

Amen

 

[minousbijoux]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I don't care if images used to sell gems/jewelry are photoshopped or altered, so long as the end result resembles the item in hand. And I'm saying, as a colored stone buyer, that I'd rather buy a stone that looks less than stellar in a picture, and have it be really beautiful in person. So I guess the problem lies in expectations. An amazing photograph of a stone sets up amazing expectations. I feel like the stone has to be as good as the photo. I can't tell you how many times I've bought a stone that is less than great, but promising, in photos and been blown away when I get it in real life.

We've all seen ebay photographs where the saturation is super amped up to sell a stone that is NOT that color in real life. Often those sell for so cheap that it's not worth it to send it back, even though the stone is far less than what is pictured. But that's terrible business practice.

This is the issue in a nutshell. Great discussion. No one criticizes anyone for photoshopping images. What we consumers will criticize, however, is when photoshop is used to overstate saturation, alter the hue, minimize eye visible inclusions, etc. After a while, certain vendors get known for their photo styles. I know, for example, that Lisa's and Roger's stones will always look better in hand. I know that Barry's and Gene's are spot on. I know that there are some of our favorite vendors - and many good ebay vendors - whose images regularly overstate the intensity of the stone's color. It also absolutely depends upon the lighting used. One of our trusted vendors consistently has images that show the stone to be lighter in tone and slightly greater in saturation than one sees in hand undoubtedly due to the lighting used. It is not popular among the vendors when we share these reviews online, but we do it to assist the next buyer who may come along. It might be hard for vendors to see such feedback posted to a public forum, but if PS matters to them, then it might be worthwhile to take the constructive criticism and work on making the photos more accurate - whatever their means to achieve it.

 

[RTFrog]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

Karl: Thanks for the response! Good to see you. I agree with you. In hand evaluation along with a return policy is absolutely key. This is especially important because we are online and have to reply on mainly post-processed images.

Wink: Thanks for the sharpening example. I think many people here could probably tell ahead of time that the faceting on the pre-sharpened picture is pretty great, but it makes sense. Everyone has his or her own taste.

Gene: Gemdialogue sounds like an excellent recommendation tool, even with the lighting limitations.

Freke: You make a lot of great points. Just like eBay – there are some excellent and honest vendors, and then there are those, a majority there, that only rely on image enhancement.

Minous: Makes sense

There’s a reason I haven’t posted this type of analysis before. It can be absolutely polarizing, as demonstrated in the other thread. For the purpose of this thread, can it be a useful tool when evaluating something – especially when it doesn’t seem right? Absolutely.

There’s a very big difference in intentional an unintentional image manipulation, along with other factors as demonstrated by reaction and candor. The theme regarding color, photoshop, and adequate representation has occurred many times – color is subjective, even though its not. But we rely on vendors to do their best with their tools to accurately recreate the color.

The average buyer or consumer may not be aware of everything behind the scenes – and what can be done to encourage a purchase. Knowledgeable critics shouldn’t be berated or frivolously threatened when providing an opinion, critique, or review.

Smaller vendors have a lot of competition – especially when market leaders have tremendous margins/marketing budgets and profits. With respect to colored stones, many of the largest ones push unnatural products with attractive hues and modifications. Those that purchase and display them often do not realize the artificial enhancements. What makes their photography or imagery easier is for example having a BE sapphire in a perfect or always consistent color. Realizing that a store or chain has hundreds if not thousands of pieces in the exact same hue… And add in the lapidary expertise – here we often have masterful custom faceting versus mediocre sweatshops focused on weight retention. This can be clearly seen in light performance or sheer beauty.

I’m glad everyone posted here and that this place allows for exchanges with vendors and true experts in their respective fields. Thanks Mico for starting this thread. Hopefully it has been informative. It’s nice to have a response and open discussion about this issue and others. Any one looking to make a purchase or to acquire more knowledge is lucky to find reputation and interactions beyond static images. I originally came here to find the most knowledgeable place on diamonds and migrated into the even more fascinating world of colored stones.

Any tools, technologies, or future innovations that can assist in the process should be considered, evaluated, and fairly discussed.

 

[kenny]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

… There’s a very big difference in intentional an unintentional image manipulation ...

Huh?
ALL image 'manipulation' is intentional … as is everything I do before I take the pic.
Isn't moving a light a little to the left to reduce table glare 'manipulation'?
Manipulating before or after the shutter is tripped are both morally equivalent.

Manipulation has a negative connotation.
The word doesn't even belong in a discussion of gem photography.
Everything we do is manipulation.
Photography is 2 dimensional while reality is 3 D so isn't converting 3D to 2D 'manipulation' too?

What matters is whether the product was manipulated (in pre or in post) to be more accurate or less accurate.
Once again, IELA can't reveal this so IELA is useless here.

 

[chrono]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

What matters is whether the product was manipulated (in pre or in post) to be more accurate or less accurate.

I do not know anything about image analyzing and manipulation software but I agree with Kenny the most important issue for me (and I think most of us) is whether the pictures are manipulated make it look as the stone does in person or to make it look far nicer than the stone IRL.

 

[kenny]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

What matters is whether the product was manipulated (in pre or in post) to be more accurate or less accurate.

I do not know anything about image analyzing and manipulation software but I agree with Kenny the most important issue for me (and I think most of us) is whether the pictures are manipulated make it look as the stone does in person or to make it look far nicer than the stone IRL.

Thanks Chrono.
I'm sure many here also "do not know anything about image analyzing and manipulation software".
Nobody needs to learn anything about it.

What everyone here does need to learn is that image manipulation/Photoshopping is not bad.
It's good.
It's very good and essential to accurate results becuase even the best cameras cannot pull off the impossible and are inferior to human eyes and brains.

Camera manufacturers have done two things so they can make gobs and gobs of money putting a camera in every hand.
1. Convince everyone that cameras are so groovy that you don't have to learn anything.
2. A picture never lies.
Both are massive oversimplifications.

I can't tell you how many times I've read on PS, "Oh, that vendor Photoshops their images." … assuming everyone agrees that any and all Photoshopping is dishonest and deceptive.
I am on a crusade to move Pricescope out of these dark ages.
Hopefully people are more likely to believe a photographer who is not selling any an inventory or even photography services.

 

[RTFrog]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

Hi Kenny,

This reply is for anyone that has been following this thread or may find it as a platform for discussion in the future.

Manipulation - this does not have a negative connotation, it's an industrial term - or term of art. All Adobe Imaging Editors are considered digital manipulation tools, Aperture is too. As soon as anything occurs in them, manipulation occurs. Deception is different.

The standards that anyone uses to represent or sell a product, especially to consumers, should be discussed. Macro photography of gemstones does not receive a free pass.

This thread has advanced beyond the IELA conversation to more blanket statements of acceptance of Photoshop, and that without it Gemstone Macrophotogrpahy would suffer.

Discussion about Photoshop and what Vendors do and do not is not the dark ages. It's been enlightening to know that so many vendors use photoshop for reasons to correct or portray more accurate images. Everyone has said that this is ok. However, each person has their own standards and techniques for doing it. Some results are way more questionable then others. We only get to know this from shared knowledge and participation in this forum.

Here are some related, informative articles.

http://www.americanphotomag.com/article/2013/05/interview-fred-ritchin-establishing-standards-digital-manipulation-photojournalism

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2009/09/18/is-photo-manipulation-bad-for-photography/

 

[bobsiv]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I'm not sure why you're being so recalcitrant about this RTFrog, but like everyone else here I have to disagree with you.

All of the examples you've shown could be accomplished in-camera, which makes the IELA tool moot. Further, your definition of 'manipulation' in this context seems to suggest that you think that an object has some subjective true color, and if the camera is left alone it will show that color. This seems to me to be a pretty fundamental misconception of photography and color perception.

 

[Mico]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

What is the consensus on a traveling stone? We may have had a volunteer in the "other thread"

 

[chrono]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I hope Gene's suggestion of a travelling gemstone photograph model will come to fruition now that this issue has been revived with strong interest.

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I'd be glad to participate in a traveling stone. Gene and I are located quite near each other so if he was interested he and I could actually take it one step further and shoot the stone in one of our studios together. We use different cameras, lenses and software. We could share the raw images we each shoot in the same studio and you could then see pure differences in just processing/software results as well, and eliminate the lighting as a variable.

Jeff

 

[PrecisionGem]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I'm in, but Jeff the idea is for each vendor to shoot the traveling stones exactly as they shoot all the stones for their own website. Thighs way the consumer can see the same stone the same way each vendor would represent it. I think this would give a good base line for the consumer to be able to read into the photos in the future.

Actually Chrono lives near us both, she could then see the stones in person and make unbiased comments on the photos with the stones in hand.

 

[chrono]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I am more than happy and willing to be a participant.

 

[Mico]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

Count me in as well as you all know how I take pictures, outside subdued or diffused natural lighting... But there may be no need to send them to me as I do not use artificial lighting.

I am about like the rest of you; drag out the Nikon D-70S and the 105 macro and put it on automatic and shoot like a madman

Most Respectfully;

Dana Reynolds
ASG Certified Supreme Master Gem Cutter
#96CGE42

Looks like we have another contender

 

[Alnitak]

Re: Using image error level analyzers to analyze gemstone ph

I'm in, but Jeff the idea is for each vendor to shoot the traveling stones exactly as they shoot all the stones for their own website. Thighs way the consumer can see the same stone the same way each vendor would represent it. I think this would give a good base line for the consumer to be able to read into the photos in the future.

Actually Chrono lives near us both, she could then see the stones in person and make unbiased comments on the photos with the stones in hand.

Gene, I realize that but I also was thinking it would be a good experiment to show people how even when the exact same lighting is used, different camera/lens combinations and different software combinations can yield different results. Just adding a layer to the whole thing if you will.

Jeff