What would you do with a little blue diamond (.10) ?

[pinkjewel]

Just bought a little round blue diamond. Very pretty blue color-almost a sky blue. But it is really tiny at only 0.10ct. I'll post a photo later-if I can get one of such a tiny little thing (LOL). Any ideas on setting it to maximize the color?

Thinking maybe some sort of organic style might look pretty-mixing some colorless diamonds and pink diamonds...

 

[minousbijoux]

Wait until Kenny finds out! He'll be so excited and will teach you everything he knows about photography just to get a good photo of it!

 

[chrono]

What is the mm size of the little blue? I'm thinking you can have it gypsy set into a band (either yellow or gold or even rose metal). If you want more bling, add a few diamond melees of the same measurements to make it an etoile scattered band with the blue right in the middle. I find that light blue stones tend to be enhanced by a rosy or blush pink metal.

 

[pinkjewel]

Wait until Kenny finds out! He'll be so excited and will teach you everything he knows about photography just to get a good photo of it!

I'd love to hear his tips for photographing!

 

[pinkjewel]

What is the mm size of the little blue? I'm thinking you can have it gypsy set into a band (either yellow or gold or even rose metal). If you want more bling, add a few diamond melees of the same measurements to make it an etoile scattered band with the blue right in the middle. I find that light blue stones tend to be enhanced by a rosy or blush pink metal.

I never thought of setting the blue in pink gold-but I LOVE pink gold. Do you know of any examples of blue diamonds in blush or pink?

 

[pinkjewel]

I also thought of a setting like this. Blue in middle, white on either side and pink on the ends. Can't remember where I pulled this picture from- I've had it in my jewelry inspiration folder. Anyone recognize it?

 

[chrono]

I have a picture of a blue pear FCD set with pink FCD melees in a halo but I'm not using my PC at the moment. I'll post a picture later this afternoon.

 

[minousbijoux]

I also thought of a setting like this. Blue in middle, white on either side and pink on the ends. Can't remember where I pulled this picture from- I've had it in my jewelry inspiration folder. Anyone recognize it?

I must say I have a bias about this. A blue diamond is so incredibly rare. Sticking it in with various colored diamonds may cheapen the look and make them look artificially colored. Some members here have taken FCDs and custom made gorgeous rings using the various color they had on hand. I think they worked so well because they weren't symmetrically set and all matchy, matchy, if you know what I mean. I love the ring design you suggest, but why not keep it simple and have it be the one blue center diamond surrounded by simple white diamonds in pink gold? [Full disclosure: I'll probably love whatever you do!]

 

[justginger]

I don't have a clue how to set FCDs. All of mine, including my .11 FIB, sit in a little box. I pull it out and ogle them from time to time. I'll be keen to see what you do with this little one.

 

[chrono]

My idea is to have your blue as the only FCD, with the rest being plain white diamonds. This will make the blue FCD the star of the ring. The only problem is that bands spin so you might have to hunt it down sometimes. Perhaps, have the diamonds lined up rather than scattered too obviously like this ring below.

 

[chrono]

I also thought of a setting like this. Blue in middle, white on either side and pink on the ends. Can't remember where I pulled this picture from- I've had it in my jewelry inspiration folder. Anyone recognize it?

If you go this route, I'd do the blue in the center and keep the rest colourless white diamonds.

 

[minousbijoux]

Yes please! I love either idea of Chrono's.

 

[chrono]

Another pink and blue FCD combo.

 

[pinkjewel]

I love the blue and pinks together- but my blue is so tiny compared to these stones. I do agree,though, in that particular rose gold setting I posted- I think the central blue with whites would look good and eliminate the pink.
I found another pic using the multi color like I first envisioned- but this was done in sapphires and diamonds.

I think if I want the blue with pink diamonds- I'd need to just do 3 stones. blue central and pink either side- maybe pear shaped pinks placed horizontally on either side. I also like the scatter ring idea with the larger blue and tiny white diamonds.

Please keep the ideas coming!!

 

[kenny]

Wait until Kenny finds out! He'll be so excited and will teach you everything he knows about photography just to get a good photo of it!

I'd love to hear his tips for photographing!

For settings, I set mine in flowers.

Yes I'd love to see a pic.
I also have a 10 point FCD and, even an 8 point.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/fancy-colored-diamond-collection.159746/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/fancy-colored-diamond-collection.159746/[/URL]

Getting the sharpest, clearest pics of such small things unfortunately requires some fancy macro gear and skill.
Soon I plan to start a thread about higher end macrophotography.
But it IS possible to get nice pics of tiny diamonds; here's my 8-point GIA-natural Fancy Intense Greenish Blue pear.



Sure the camera and lens is important but there are tips for getting the best results from whatever camera you have.
Most point and shoots have a macro setting (often the setting with a flower).
Even on the macro setting you can't get too close or it will blur, so either experiment or read your manual to find out the closest focusing distance.
For instance if it say the minimum focus distance is 8 inches, get out a ruler.
Put the diamond 8" from the front of the lens (BUT, some makers don't mean the front of the lens; they mean the distance to the sensor near the BACK of the camera which is a greater distance so it makes their camera seem more desirable).
If it looks sharp at 8", then experiment with 7 inches too if you have TONS of light.

Either use a tripod or set the camera on some books and use the camera's timer so you don't blur the pic by the vibration induced just by touching it.
Diamonds are little boxes of mirrors and windows so when you take a pic of a diamond you are taking a picture of your yellow walls, some blue of the sky from that nearby window, the camera itself, and your brown shirt.
That usually ain't so pretty when your goal is to communicate the body color of a colored diamond.
All cameras from cheapo cellphone to a $50,000 Hasseblad will give the best results if you can put the diamond in white translucent box like this.



It would be even better if it had a white front with a zipper in the middle, opened just enough for the lens to peek into.
You can also cut out a round hole in a sheet of styrofoam that fits onto your camera's lens.

The goal is for the diamond to see only WHITE and the lens.

You can buy lightboxes from http://store.tabletopstudio-store.com/ or many other vendors.
You can also make your own from a cut-out cardboard box into which you have glued sheer white cloth.
An aquarium covered with a white sheet works beautifully too; don't forget the bottom must also be white.

If you don't want to buy fancy lights you can experiment putting your light box in the sun or shade.
The more light the better because it will make the camera's aperture close down and give you the best depth of focus possible, which may even allow you to have the diamond closer to the camera than the manual states.
Getting the diamond to be as close as possible and as magnified as possible BEFORE you take the pic uses more of the pixels of any camera so you get more sharpness.
Cropping in after the pic it taken may make the diamond appear larger on your screen but it cannot created pixels out of thin air and results in more-blurry pics than if you had filled the viewfinder up with more of the diamond right at the camera BEFORE the pic is taken.

Kenny's 3 Es of macrophotography are, Experiment! Experiment! Experiment!.

 

[kenny]

I just thought of something.

Maximizing sharpness means getting the diamond to appear as big as possible in the viewfinder or LCD BEFORE you take the pic, and this depends on finding and always using your camera's closest focusing distance.
Try this:

Put a ruler on a table.
Have one end almost touching your lens (Obviously don't let it scratch your glass.)
If you don't have a tripod place the camera on the talbe
Use a few coins to raise the back of the camera so the lens is looking slightly down along the ruler.



Then take a pic on your macro setting.
As you can see, with my manual-focusable lens, when the focus ring is rotated so the camera is focused as close as possible it has a minimum focusing distance of 9" from the front of the lens.
THAT is where I'd have to put the diamond unless I bought other accessories to make closer focusing possible.



Today most cameras cannot be focused manually; they take over the focusing decision and it and may not know what to focus on when looking along a ruler.
There is nothing on a ruler that tells the camera little brain to focus as close as possible.

Here's the solution:
Take several test pics.
For each pic place one small, high-contrast solid colored object on the ruler and adjust everything so it is near the center of the viewfinder so it is obvious to the camera what exactly you want to focus on.
To start place it, perhpas 12" away.
Take a pic.
Is it sharp?
If yes, move the object to 11" (If it is blurry move it to 13" etc.)
Is it sharp at 11?
If yes, move it to 10".
keep going till it is blurry because it is too close, then back off to the closest distance that gives you sharp focus.

Here is an example of what that test pic would look like for cameras that cannot be focused manually.

 

[pinkjewel]

wow, Kenny- thanks for all the tips!! I am not a totally novice photographer-but have not done any macro, so all those pointers certainly come in handy. I do much more portrait type photography, so pretty much keep a 50mm 1.4 lens on my Nikon DSLR. I just LOVE the dof you get with that lens!! I only have my little Leica dlux 4 with me this weekend (I do have manual focus ability with it)-but forgot to bring my little gorilla pod I usually use with it. I have a regular tripod for my Nikon. Pics may have to wait until next week-or I'll see if anything comes out with my little camera I brought with me in the meantime.

 

[kenny]

wow, Kenny- thanks for all the tips!! I am not a totally novice photographer-but have not done any macro, so all those pointers certainly come in handy. I do much more portrait type photography, so pretty much keep a 50mm 1.4 lens on my Nikon DSLR. I just LOVE the dof you get with that lens!! I only have my little Leica dlux 4 with me this weekend (I do have manual focus ability with it)-but forgot to bring my little gorilla pod I usually use with it. I have a regular tripod for my Nikon. Pics may have to wait until next week-or I'll see if anything comes out with my little camera I brought with me in the meantime.

Wow, a Lieca woman (or man) PROPS!

Since you have an SLR and a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 lens (which is NOT a macro lens BTW) you might be able to use a simple $40 lens reversing ring to dramatically improve your pics of small diamonds. (Compare the first two pics below.)
http://www.adorama.com/NKBR2A.htmlhttp://www.adorama.com/NKBR2A.html

Adding only this ring may yield some surprisingly nice close ups for the price IF your Nikon camera body can function without the lens directly connected to the body. (Which Nikon DSLR body do you have?)
Generally the less-expensive Nikon bodies cannot.
Nikon's more-expensive bodies have better legacy-backwards-compatibility with older Nikon lenses and attachments.
They do this to get more money out of you AND because pros are likely to have zillions of old lenses and gadgets - and Nikon does not want to lose the big spenders to Canon, their very worthy competitor.

I just found out that even the the wonderful Nikon D5100 ($570 body only) does not work at all unless the lens is directly on the body.
Anything you put between the body and the lens such as reversing rings, extension rings and bellows prevent the D5100 from taking pics - the pics just come out solid BLACK.
(I know this because I just temporarily "bought" a D5100 to test this for a friend. Tonight I'm returning it for a full refund.)
I had to give him the bad news that the cheapest Nikon body sold today that you can put reversing rings, extension rings and bellows on is the Nikon D7000, $1200 for the body only. (It is the best body I own, though I have my eye on the new 36.6 MP D800)
But the D7000 gives you this wonderful flexibility and eye-popping results.

Besides just reversing your 50mm lens, you can get even more enlargement with an $80 Nikon PK-13 extension ring.
http://www.adorama.com/NKPK13.html
It contains no optics; it just moves the lens further away from the camera for greater enlargement.
Avoid any "tele converter or tele extender" from ANY maker that has glass and either screws onto the filter ring or goes between the body and the lens.
They do magnify but they soften the image, more than the gizmos I'm suggesting, which adds no glass to the optical path.
Some people who have them are happy, and that means they are happy . . . but if they compared their pics to reversed, extended or real macro lenses they'd see sharpness they'd never seen before.
Instead of buying anything gadget with optics, save your money and put it towards a real macro micro-Nikkor lens some day.

I also have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4, (not macro) an old manual focus one, and I just used it to take the three pics below of 3 FCDs, a 12-point Fancy Grayish Violet pear, a 10-point Fancy Red Radiant, and an 8-point Fancy Intense Greenish blue pear, all three with natural material and color origin per GIA.

All pics are full sized, meaning I did NO cropping, or zooming in, using software after the pic was taken.
What you see is exactly what I saw in the camera's viewfinder.

1. This pic was take with the 50 mm lens mounted directly to the body in the usual way, and the lens's focusing ring was rotated to focus as close as possible (max enlargement for that lens).
Notice how tiny the diamonds are.



2. The below pic was taken with the exact same 50mm lens, used for the above pic, 50mm lens reversed with a Nikon BR-2A. Notice the incredible enlargement you get for only $40.



3. For the below pic I added a PK-13 extension ring to the body, AND then the BR-2a Reversal ring, then the 50mm lens, reversed:



These 3 pics demonstrates how to get more enlargement without spending too much money on a real macro lens (which only gets you near 1:1 anyway which ain't that good - (assuming you have a Nikon body that can accommodate these gizmos.)
But true Nikkor macro lenses are designed to retain more resolution when used with extension rings and even bellows that can move the lens around 10 inches from the body.

The main point here is it is important to make the diamonds bigger BEFORE the light even gets into the camera.
This produces results that are vastly superior to zooming or copping in laster using software.
No software can create pixels out of thin air.

Now here your the same 50mm lens turned backwards using a $40 Nikon BR-2A reversal ring.


No, a reversed 50mm 1.4 it does not have the flexibility and razor sharpness of a full macro lens or bellow, but

 

[kenny]

Next I want to post two pics taken with a 30 year old 28mm f2.8 manual focus NON zoom lens.
These old non-zoom lenses are available pretty cheaply on the Internet.

Compare these to the 3 pics above take with 50mm lenses.
A 28mm is more wide angle, but when reversed becomes more of a high magnification "macro".
The 24mm gives you even greater magnification backwards and a 21mm gives you more still.
But check the filter size of these lenses so you can get the correct reversing ring, which may NOT be the BR2A, which only fits lenses with a 52mm filter size.

Again both pics below are full sized, meaning I did NO cropping, or zooming in, using software after the pic was taken.
What you see is exactly what I saw in the camera's viewfinder.

In the first pic the the 28mm is reversed with a Nikon BR-2A lens reversing ring.



Next the PK13 extension tube is on the body, then the BR-2A reversing ring, then the 28mm backwards.
(You could get even greater enlargement with two or three PK-13 extension rings.)



As these five pics testify, getting the enlargement to happen BEFORE the pic is taken is key to the best macro photography results.

You can get even greater enlargement, with a bellows extension, which necessitates very expensive heavy tripod.

 

[kenny]

So here's the post which should drive the main point home.
Enlarge the diamond BEFORE not AFTER you take the pic. (In the lower pic below I enlarged it AFTER I took the pic.)

The top pic in this post was taken with a 28mm lens at f11, reversed, and on an extension ring.
What you see filled up the camera's entire sensor.

The bottom pic (which was copped from the same pic as the first of the five above) was taken with the SAME fine camera and a very fine 50mm Nikkor lens at f11 but not reversed and no extension ring . . . but it was copped, or zoomed in, or blown up, on the computer AFTER the pic was taken to end up with the same enlargement as the top pic.
You compare . . .

The main reason for the difference you see is how many of the camera's sensor's pixels were used.
In the top pic 100% were used; in the bottom pic perhaps 3% were used.



Plus neither was taken on a fully-extended bellows with a true macro lens designed to be extended away from the body so the top pic is not even as good as it gets.

 

[pinkjewel]

Kenny- thank you!!!!
Unfortunately, I bought my little Nikon DSLR at least 5 years ago (maybe more?) and it is a lowly D60. Not capable of working without the lens attached. I had toyed at taking up macro photography about 3 years ago and looked at some macro lenses. Seems like there was a 90mm macro lens I liked, but can't remember the details now. I originally purchased my camera to take dog portraits for reference photos and it was sufficient for that. I was painting dog portraits and many of my customers were handing me lousy pictures, so if they were local- I started just taking them myself so I could get better pics. The D60 with the 50mm 1.4 lens was perfect for that. A fast lens with great DOF and the lens body was not too big or heavy. I got burnt out of painting-I created too much stress on myself to paint "perfect" portraits, but have been doing Blythe photography for fun- there are some GREAT flickr groups for Blythe. In fact I purchased a few Blythe dolls just to have fun with the flickr photography groups. Also an expensive hobby-LOL.

I have a friend who takes beautiful macro pictures of flowers with a little P&S- I don't know how he does it! On flickr check out Ira Tucker. I just can't believe some of the photos he gets with his little camera. I'll see if I can get anything decent with my Leica. Didn't work too well yesterday when I tried and I don't have the instruction booklet with me this weekend to see what it says about macro. I'll see if I can figure out anymore today.

 

[CrisM]

pinkjewel - there are so many elegant possibilities with your blue! Looking forward to your decision.

 

[Silverbackmp]

I'm pretty sure a D60 is capable of using a reversing ring but perhaps not. Usually if they have motors in the camera body they can do this (designed for backwards capability) and I know a D80 has a motor in the body as I have one (and a D700) and I've used it conjuction with an old 500mm "P" lens with a teleconverter attached which removed the "P" function (auto)--in other words, the lens worked just fine with zero electrical connection to the body--all manual of couse.

If you want a good dual use lens, then the old 105mm macro comes highly recommended for facial portraits.

Sorry for the intrusion...long time lurker.

 

[pinkjewel]

I'm pretty sure a D60 is capable of using a reversing ring but perhaps not. Usually if they have motors in the camera body they can do this (designed for backwards capability) and I know a D80 has a motor in the body as I have one (and a D700) and I've used it conjuction with an old 500mm "P" lens with a teleconverter attached which removed the "P" function (auto)--in other words, the lens worked just fine with zero electrical connection to the body--all manual of couse.

If you want a good dual use lens, then the old 105mm macro comes highly recommended for facial portraits.

Sorry for the intrusion...long time lurker.

Hmmm- you may be right that it would work totally manually. I know auto focus doesn't work, but seems like I remember that those lenses will work manually- I'd forgotten that. I'll have to do a little more research. thanks!

 

[kenny]

I'm pretty sure a D60 is capable of using a reversing ring but perhaps not. Usually if they have motors in the camera body they can do this (designed for backwards capability) and I know a D80 has a motor in the body as I have one (and a D700) and I've used it conjuction with an old 500mm "P" lens with a teleconverter attached which removed the "P" function (auto)--in other words, the lens worked just fine with zero electrical connection to the body--all manual of couse.

If you want a good dual use lens, then the old 105mm macro comes highly recommended for facial portraits.

Sorry for the intrusion...long time lurker.

There are a few issues and it gets very messy when making generalizations because Nikon does not seem too consistent.
Also your body may be capable of working with a reversing ring and extension tube, but that doesn't mean your lens is.

All camera makers are under competitive pressure to make their cameras as simple and brainless to use as possible.
Unfortunately it seems like every "advancement" becomes a disadvantage when struggling to get high-end macro results.

I'd love to get my hands on every DSLR body and lens Nikon has made and test them myself and publish a compatibility chart.
The high quality results of a reversed lens on an extension ring, and especially a bellows extension, is just SO dramatic.

If you have a Nikon DSLR and are not sure whether it will work with a reversing ring or extension tube just buy both from a place like Adorama or B&H Photo, or Ritz Camera with a good return policy and try them out.
Read your owners manual, you may have to put your camera into the Manual exposure mode.
Hopefully it will allow you to work in the A mode, aperture priority and your lens will have an aperture ring.

Some Nikkor lenses do not have aperture rings that you can rotate with your fingers
They are called G lenses and an electrical signal comes from the body to tell the aperture in the lens where to go.
When these lenses are reversed the body can't talk to them so the aperture stays wide open - terrible for macro work.
I want to control the aperture myself.

Then there's the autofocus issue ; some lenses have an internal focusing motor, some bodies have the motor.
Some bodies don't autofocus with some lenses.
Obviously if a lens is installed reversed autofocus will not function.
Actually for macro work you want to manualy focus.

Exposure control, with some Nikon bodies you can put it in M for manual exposure mode and it will work.
For nicer bodies you can ALSO put it in A mode for Aperture priority, this is the mode I use and prefer.
I pick the aperture and the camera picks the shutter speed for the best exposure.
But even if your camera/body can't control the exposure just take a pic...if it's too bright adjust the aperture or shutter speed.
There are often work-arounds to what initially seem like deal breakers.

You can also call Nikon and ask them.
I call them often, and sometimes must speak to a supervisor if my question is specialized and obscure.
Often I have found them to give out bad info, apparently in an attempt to get me to buy some new more -expensive Nikon product.
And they will not even talk about bellows, since they no longer manufacture them.
But they can be helpful.
http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/238/~/nikon-support-contact-information

 

[pinkjewel]

Ok- still not home to play with Nikon camera, but finally got a not so good picture of it with my Leica.Hard to capture the color but this pic shows the color pretty well. Cut on the stone is not so great, but for a blue diamond was not too costly,either.

 

[txgreeneyes]

Wow!! It's beautiful!!

 

[kenny]

WHOA! That's gorgeous.
Is that blue color natural or treated, and which lab graded it?
If graded what color grade did it get?
I know we can't grade diamonds via pics but I'd guess GIA would give that a Fancy Vivid grade.
I have a natural GIA Fancy Intense Blue and it is MUCH more pale that yours.

Not that it matters, it is just as beautiful regardless the answers.
I'm just curious for my own education as I pay very close attention to what shades of blue are possible, both from the earth and from labs.

I'd love to see more pics in more lighting situations and maybe one with the diamond resting between two fingers.

 

[kenny]

I'd consider a tension setting.
A 10-point round is about 3mm in diameter so I'd want to be able to enjoy an unobstructed side view too.
We have tension settings and it's amazing how they let more light into and out of the diamond - and you get lots of bling out of the side of a diamond too.
Cleaning a diamond tension setting is a breeze too.

The diamond in pic below is 3.5mm round, so this ring has nice proportions for a diamond of that size.
It is titanium so it won't break the bank at $490, and I'll bet it would cost even less without that inlay of 18K gold.

I've had 2 rings made by Bruce Boon and he is very fast and reliable.

http://www.boonerings.com/stone-settings/classicroundwithgold.htm



OR

http://www.boonerings.com/stone-settings/classicflatwithgold.htm

 

[pinkjewel]

WHOA! That's gorgeous.
Is that blue color natural or treated, and which lab graded it?
If graded what color grade did it get?
I know we can't grade diamonds via pics but I'd guess GIA would give that a Fancy Vivid grade.
I have a natural GIA Fancy Intense Blue and it is MUCH more pale that yours.

Not that it matters, it is just as beautiful regardless the answers.
I'm just curious for my own education as I pay very close attention to what shades of blue are possible, both from the earth and from labs.

I'd love to see more pics in more lighting situations and maybe one with the diamond resting between two fingers.

Ahhhh- Kenny- you caught me . The diamond is irradiated!!!! I just wanted to see if anyone picked that up before I revealed it! I should have known that you were too smart for that! I've seen a lot of irradiated blue diamonds (especially when I was in the Carribean), but had never seen one this color. It does not have any of that teal blue color I associate with irradiated blue diamonds-it really is just a beautiful blue shade. Athough I never thought I'd ever buy anything but a natural FCD, I just couldn't resist it for the small asking price.

But while I was at this small boutique jewelers you are going to roll over. They had a natural blue diamond .61 ct that they said was about this same color a little over a year ago. Fancy intense blue- that someone had brought to them to buy from an estate sale. Although they said they told them it was a blue diamond the people didn't really understand how rare and valuable it was and must have sold it to them for a song! It also had good clarity. Do you want to know what they sold it for??????? Only $8000.00 dollars!!!!!!!!!!! I almost cried when they told me! too bad I didn't know about them before this trip! They ended up selling it to a diamond dealer! I had gone there to look at a Hearts on Fire titanium ring to give my hubby for our 10 year anniversary and they were the only jeweler anywhere around that carried the line. I had never even thought about titanium until last week and in researching it also ran across the Boone website. He does some awesome rings. As I wasn't quite certain what ring size he wore anymore it was easier to go with this jeweler. I also purchased this little blue diamond thinking my hubby might like it in a ring instead of a regular diamond since his favorite color is blue, but he liked the one I had bought him, so-darn, I guess I'll just have to keep little blue for me

I will try to get more pics in different lighting- as I said I had a hard time capturing the color and that photo showed it the best. How can you hold it between 2 fingers and still see the diamond?