Why I love 60/60 diamonds- compared to AGS0 IS/ASET and photos

[strmrdr]

David,
If you would please,
This lighting and this distance with the diamonds on your fingers like the other picture.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/18/2009 1:51:33 AM
Author: strmrdr
David,
If you would please,
This lighting and this distance with the diamonds on your fingers like the other picture.

And ensure both stones face direct to camer (they will appear to be not flat - they must face at a big angle difference.

 

[risingsun]

Bumping in hopes of seeing Garry''s response...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rising Sun I have insufficient info upon which to comment yet.
I hope that Dave''s scans are not too corrupted. And that we can have them in .srn or .gem files?
The 60% stone appears painted, which helps the edge light return.

Date: 5/15/2009 5:00:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
David please take photo''s as per instructions with your ideal-scope as the scan of the GIA stone is clearly not accurate.

And secondly, will you please fully describe the way you examine loose diamonds and have someone take photo''s of your technique - a full idiot proof description so that we can all replicate your precise viewing and lighting so we should see what you see when we look at diamonds.

I am also waiting for an answer to my questions Rising Sun?

 

[risingsun]

Date: 5/18/2009 1:46:00 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/17/2009 11:41:22 PM
Author: risingsun
This is my photo of an AGS 0 hearts and arrow diamond. I wonder why your pic looks so much different than mine

I never pick up those black bits. Sometimes, if I try, I can get some black arrows to show up, but never like those that appear in your photos.

black lens to close to the diamond.
totally unrealistic amount of head shadow in his first image.
It would be like someone looking at the diamond from 2 inches.

His second has a more realistic amount of head shadow but the white background is unrealistic.
Getting realistic images that show a diamonds performance is hard.
Many of the pictures you see on vendors sites are tricked out to hide flaws.
This is why reflector images are critical.

Thanks strm. I have taken super close up pics, in different lighting conditions, and never seen anything like this. Thanks for your timely response. I use a point and shoot camera, which avoids the black lens and know how to keep my head shadow out the the pic, for the most part. My eyes would be crossed if I tried to take a photo from two inches away. I use the macro setting, but it can't get in that tight.

 

[Moh 10]

DBL, you wrote:

quote
"My photos are different than many others on the web. I don't use light boxes. I simply hold the diamond and take photos using many different lighting sources.
Can we stipulate that my photos are not a "scientific" representation, rather a more "artistic" one? Also- my goal in the photos is to represent what my eye( and the buyer, once they open the box) will see.
Using that as a barometer, the photos have performed remarkably well."
endquote

Once the buyer opens the box the only way he is going to see what looks like your photos is if you also sell him all those light sources and instructions for where to position them.

Then when they wear the ring they must also carry around some contraption that all the lights are mounted on.
Take away all those lights and the diamond will look like diamonds from any other vendor's website.

But hey, you are making money.
Clearly, people buy based on your "artistic" photography, so it must be okay.
You have just admitted that deceptive photography sells.

Look, creative lighting has helped advertisers sell product for as long has there have been cameras.
Better lighting makes a car look better.
Fine.

But a car is a car.
It's funciton is transportation.
But a diamond's function is how it performs with light.
What you are doing is akin to making a Yugo appear to be a Lexus.

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/17/2009 5:44:07 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
On a plastic white stone matching tray

High intensity lighting macro lens,

David,
I think 2 biggest flashes under 60% table( boundary between table and crown) come from Leakage . Ray left pavilion and go to upper hemisphere to catch gemological light source. Please block pavilion by black paper and do shot again. your 60/60 diamonds will lost main flashes and Charm

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 5/18/2009 9:30:01 AM
Author: Moh 10

But hey, you are making money.
Clearly, people buy based on your ''artistic'' photography, so it must be okay.
You have just admitted that deceptive photography sells.

Moh, that is hard (pun intended),

Frankly, Serg, too.

I think what this has been about is a theoretical exploration of perceptual prejudice...but not so much what follows from it.

Once we allow David sees what he sees, I think there is no standards for photographing diamonds, and it''s his right, if not responsibility perhaps to have them shown in ways that he thinks shows them at their best advantage. And, by the fullness of your quoting, Moh, you can see David has been more than transparent in his presentation of strategies for photography.

Likewise, to Serg''s follow up, David can do that, and towards effecting a view we might prefer to see, you might have suggested a technique for getting at it. But...does David see the leakage and like it, for reasons you understand?

Are we back at fundamentals, still.

Is the best performance the reddest IS, or not. Why or why is it reasonable to suggest it is.

And...to what extent is training and prejudice a bias-er in any and all of this.

Do naive eyes tend to see the same beauty, or not?

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/18/2009 9:55:53 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Date: 5/18/2009 9:30:01 AM

Author: Moh 10


But hey, you are making money.

Clearly, people buy based on your ''artistic'' photography, so it must be okay.

You have just admitted that deceptive photography sells.

Moh, that is hard (pun intended),


Frankly, Serg, too.


I think what this has been about is a theoretical exploration of perceptual prejudice...but not so much what follows from it.


Once we allow David sees what he sees, I think there is no standards for photographing diamonds, and it''s his right, if not responsibility perhaps to have them shown in ways that he thinks shows them at their best advantage. And, by the fullness of your quoting, Moh, you can see David has been more than transparent in his presentation of strategies for photography.


Likewise, to Serg''s follow up, David can do that, and towards effecting a view we might prefer to see, you might have suggested a technique for getting at it. But...does David see the leakage and like it, for reasons you understand?


Are we back at fundamentals, still.


Is the best performance the reddest IS, or not. Why or why is it reasonable to suggest it is.


And...to what extent is training and prejudice a bias-er in any and all of this.


Do naive eyes tend to see the same beauty, or not?

re: But...does David see the leakage and like it, for reasons you understand?

Ira,

consumer does not use diamonds without settings ( rings,)
Even consumer use very open ring, Leakage can not produce bright flashes in ring due fat on Pavilion.
I am not against any leakage , I think retail Should show diamond in light conditions what consumer use latter ( in consumer light conditions light usually can not come through pavilion)
I just asked do comparison photo in consumer light conditions instead Gemological light

 

[Serg]

Re: Are we back at fundamentals, still. Is the best performance the reddest IS, or not. Why or why is it reasonable to suggest it is.


Ira, I want clarify , my recent post has not any connection to performance definition . Of course I happy if PS community will stop religion disputes and start discussion about performance definition.

My post was about Correct light conditions for Subjective performance comparison .
Even we use different performance definition in our mind , we can avoid a lot of empty disputes if we ill agree what correct light conditions is( for performance grade)
Key question here , should light conditions allow redirect light from pavilion to observer ?

Until we use different light conditions, different understanding about performance , we can not be agree.

 

[DiamondFlame]

Thanks David for this interesting exercise.
And I would ask that everyone be more patient in trying to understand each other. The English language is not without flaws and some of us are not as proficient in it as others. Let's keep this civil.

Back to the exercise. Based on the ASET/IS, it is clear which stone has the aesthetically pleasing images. But in the real photos, I'd be a lying Pinocchio if I were to say the one on the left is not beautiful despite the light leakage and suboptimal symmetry. Should I believe my eyes or should I figure out what I should see based on the ASET/IS images? So is it back to the definition of 'beauty' or 'performance'? What do you consider 'beautiful'? Symmetry? Brilliance? Or the interesting interplay between brightness and darkness (leakage)? Or should we question the concept of 'mind clean' in judging a stone's beauty?

So was the photo op staged to show the 60/60 stone at its prettiest? That's what some of the photo-retaking suggestions seem to imply, if I read them correctly. But I second the request for a video presentation. That would help alot though I'm sure there might still be questions on lighting equipment, video techniques, etc..

 

[risingsun]

In this photo, the diamond appears to be very open to me. Just my .02.

 

[Serg]

There are to issues :
1) Who often do you clean diamonds( specially Pavilion) even in such open settings. How do you do it
2) Bright BackLight in DD so misleading because light with similar brightness absent in observer head area ( in 35 degree spherical angle) . In normal consumer light conditions Pavilion rays usually catch secondary relative dim light , and crown-table rays catch primary bright light sources . DD work via versa consumer light conditions: Pavilion rays catch bright primary light and relative bright background, o lot of Table-crown light from good cut can catch only very dim light from outside DD

See more explanations :



https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/


https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-cut-grading-problems-with-diamond-dock.41869/

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/18/2009 12:51:14 PM
Author: DiamondFlame



So was the photo op staged to show the 60/60 stone at its prettiest?

yes
but because of lack of knowledge not evil intent

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/17/2009 5:24:41 PM
Author: strmrdr
David,
This image is showing exactly what I would expect to see under those conditions based on the ASET iamges.
Can I get the sarin data please?

Can you explain what we are seeing?

Can you explain what about the diamonds and the environment the diamonds are in is causing the difference in appearance?

HI All!
Storm- it seems that yesterday, you felt the photo showed what you expected. Have you changed your mind?
I really appreciate you saying you don't think there was "evil intent".

Dmitri, thank you for being willing to participate with an open mind. Good question!
There was no effort to make either stone look better, or worse

No need to dignify any of the insulting things written- but I would ask anyone who does not like the photos to please post a photo that you feel does represent a diamond.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/18/2009 9:55:53 AM
Author: Regular Guy


Moh, that is hard (pun intended),

Frankly, Serg, too.

I think what this has been about is a theoretical exploration of perceptual prejudice...but not so much what follows from it.

Once we allow David sees what he sees, I think there is no standards for photographing diamonds, and it's his right, if not responsibility perhaps to have them shown in ways that he thinks shows them at their best advantage. And, by the fullness of your quoting, Moh, you can see David has been more than transparent in his presentation of strategies for photography.

Likewise, to Serg's follow up, David can do that, and towards effecting a view we might prefer to see, you might have suggested a technique for getting at it. But...does David see the leakage and like it, for reasons you understand?

Are we back at fundamentals, still.

Is the best performance the reddest IS, or not. Why or why is it reasonable to suggest it is.

And...to what extent is training and prejudice a bias-er in any and all of this.

Do naive eyes tend to see the same beauty, or not?

Ira- thank you as well- for being willing to have a civil conversation, free of insulting insinuations- and for acutally showing interest in the topic at hand.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Really.

 

[Serg]

David,
In Dialite( Diamcalc light model for gemological light ) your 60/61 diamond has DC light return 1.08( Bigger then Tolkowsky), 1.16 for Table( what is much bigger)

In Office light your 60/61 diamond has just 0.88( and 0.71 for table) what is much worse then Tolkowsky

what diamond is better for consumer?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Serg,
I would also like to thank you for participating!
Dmitri made one of the best points of the day: Written language can easily be misinterpreted.
I believe you and I probably agree on many issues- but discussing them in a written conversation has proved difficult.
What I''m saying is that I did not really understand your question.

In general- neither stone is "better" or "worse"- which is my point.
Some consumers will certainly be happier with the Near Tolk.
We can all agree on that, right?


Well, some consumers are going to be happier with the 60/61 in the example.
If they like it better, and it''s less costly, it seems like a win win situation.

If they want a near tolk, the IS and ASET are invaluable.

If they like the look of a stone more similar to the 60/61 I posted, they will need to use different methods.


Serg- based on the photos, does one stone look bigger to you?

 

[Stephan]

Why does everybody focus on light return when we talk about performances?
What about fire and scintillation?
Office light is not the kind of lighting that favors round diamonds.
It isn''t in my office that people compliments my diamond.
I don''t want to say that the 61/60 that David is showing us is better than the Tolk.
I even think I saw much better 60/60 diamonds that the one he is proposing.

 

[oldmancoyote]

Serg, Garry, Moh: I have seen David taking photos of stones, and said photos being published on his site later simply after cropping. While I cannot say anything about the specific photos here, I can say that he uses basic photo equipment and very often uses sunlight rather than artificial lighting.

Serg - if I may ask a question: why do you think that holding the stones between two fingers is not a reasonable representation of a "consumer" view of a set stone? I'd think most light coming from below the pavillion would be blocked by the fingers, wouldn't it?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/18/2009 8:54:41 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Rising Sun I have insufficient info upon which to comment yet.
I hope that Dave''s scans are not too corrupted. And that we can have them in .srn or .gem files?
The 60% stone appears painted, which helps the edge light return.

Date: 5/15/2009 5:00:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
David please take photo''s as per instructions with your ideal-scope as the scan of the GIA stone is clearly not accurate.

And secondly, will you please fully describe the way you examine loose diamonds and have someone take photo''s of your technique - a full idiot proof description so that we can all replicate your precise viewing and lighting so we should see what you see when we look at diamonds.

I am also waiting for an answer to my questions Rising Sun?

bump

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks OMC!
Stephan- that is pretty much my point.
I did not go out of my way to pick the "ultimate" 60/60- rather a nice looking diamond that had the flavor I wanted.
In fact, finding a nicely cut 60/60 has become extremely difficult- precisely because of the ASET IS and other tools that measure performance, fire and scintillation in ways that make a near tolk look better.
For this reason, cutters have run to the near tolk model.
I believe that this shift is not to every consumer''s advantage.
It is for those wanting the type of "performance" that IS/ASET identify, but there are other aspects of "performance" more important to other consumers- even those wanting a really well cut diamond.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 5/18/2009 5:39:42 PM
Author: QueenMum
Why does everybody focus on light return when we talk about performances?
What about fire and scintillation?

Getting back to fundamentals, which seems prudent.

Frankly, I thought as a category of phenomena, fire and scintillation would be counted among the things included under light return broadly, along with brilliance.

But, people here over time have seemed to be comfortable talking more about rounds, associating these with this more broad definition of "light performance" as a defining marker for performance...

...but that with fancies, and some more than others, the sense that for total performance, studying light return wouldn''t achieve the best map for what the typical consumer might be drawn to most in their consideration of the value of attractiveness of the stone...and so other factors, including patterning and other things, might then come into the equation.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- I really don;t know what else you are looking for- I''m not trying to be evasive.
Part of what makes my photos look as they do is my training.
Remember, working as a grader meant I needed to be very good with a loupe and tweezers.
This translated into a great ability to be able to to hold diamond, or ring, in one hand, the camera in the other, and take photos very close to the diamonds. That''s how you can see the details as well as you can.

Of course the problem any diamond photo faces is that it needs to be enlarged using some method- in the case of our photos, it''s the camera''s proximity to the item.
Others may use other methods.
You need to do something, because the darn things are kinda small to show actual size.

For this reason, the best anyone wanting to show diamonds can hope for is a compromise.
Would it be better if every seller used the same equipment, in the same manner?

Maybe, but we''d loose something there as well.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 5/18/2009 5:58:23 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks OMC!
Stephan- that is pretty much my point.
I did not go out of my way to pick the ''ultimate'' 60/60- rather a nice looking diamond that had the flavor I wanted.
In fact, finding a nicely cut 60/60 has become extremely difficult- precisely because of the ASET IS and other tools that measure performance, fire and scintillation in ways that make a near tolk look better.
For this reason, cutters have run to the near tolk model.
I believe that this shift is not to every consumer''s advantage.
It is for those wanting the type of ''performance'' that IS/ASET identify, but there are other aspects of ''performance'' more important to other consumers- even those wanting a really well cut diamond.

David, I have heard you say this before, but I wonder how true it really is. I certainly can''t answer it, but maybe one of the "experts"/diamond cutters could? I just have doubts that the IS is the reason so many near Tolk''s are cut. My guess is, cutters just find this set of specs pleasing, and consistant. But I could be wrong.

As for the two diamonds you posted, to be honest, I don''t find either of them that pleasing. That''s not meant to be an insult, just my own observation.

 

[stone-cold11]

David, from your description of the beauty of each stone I think you like the splintered, busy look of not very symmetrical look and not because of the difference between near tolk and 60/60. AGS0 will not have that look as symm is taken into account of the cut grade, so not really a comparison. How about finding a GIA near tolk stone with similar symm grade as the 60/60?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/18/2009 4:50:00 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/17/2009 5:24:41 PM

Author: strmrdr

David,

This image is showing exactly what I would expect to see under those conditions based on the ASET iamges.

Can I get the sarin data please?


Can you explain what we are seeing?


Can you explain what about the diamonds and the environment the diamonds are in is causing the difference in appearance?

HI All!

Storm- it seems that yesterday, you felt the photo showed what you expected. Have you changed your mind?

I really appreciate you saying you don''t think there was ''evil intent''.


Dmitri, thank you for being willing to participate with an open mind. Good question!

There was no effort to make either stone look better, or worse


No need to dignify any of the insulting things written- but I would ask anyone who does not like the photos to please post a photo that you feel does represent a diamond.

Yes it showed what I expected but it is meaningless about how they will look to the average consumer because the head shadow is to high.
I am still waiting for the sarin information and I will show you the difference in these diamonds.

The second photo is better if you combine the fingers holding the diamond and the distance and lighting of the second shot we will be making progress.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for participating Ellen!

I do believe the bottom line for cutters, is exactly that- the bottom line.
Clearly some cutters have more respect for how the diamond is going to look- I''m sure Paul fits into that category.
We''ve weeded out many cutters whose main goal was yield, at the expense of beauty- and found that there are indeed others who feel more as we do- placing beauty in a position of high priority.
But ANY diamond cutter must keep their eye on the bottom line- or they will end up a statistic.

It''s not the IS or ASET in particular that have caused this- rather a general trend in the cutting of round diamonds.
My feeling is that advertising, and marketing play a huge role in this.
Which leads me to that statement I made- Although wee can see real benefit from the use of ASET/IS for some, not all consumers looking for a really well cut diamond are served by ASET/IS.

To the cutters out there- I have a question:
I believe we can all agree that cutting standards, in general, have risen due to increased technology.
I would make the case that the mechanical tools play the largest part- allowing people to become proficient in a fraction of the time it used to take.
For example, the Dop. That''s the part of the arm that holds the diamond over the cutting wheel. It''s calibrated to allow far faster transitions from one facet to the next, as you are cutting.

A case could easily be made that the computer tools are more important.
Primarily in the area of taking apiece of rough diamond, and allowing the cutter to plot the finished diamond precisely.

I''m sure one of the experts will have an answer to help me learn more about IS/ASET....are there cutters using ASET/IS during the cutting process?

 

[strmrdr]

Ok David here is what your are missing, since you haven''t gave me the sarin data I had to find a combo that looked simular at a 60% table.
Now using that pavilion with tables from 50% to 65% this is the result...
Now what is the table size causing again?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- I'm not trying to be evasive- Dave did not send me the sarin data- or I somehow missed it.
We'll get them.

Can we please stipulate a few points about my photos to allow the conversation to move forward?

I realize there are different methods of photography, and some people prefer those methods.
I am saying that the photos look, to me, like a very accurate representation of a diamond, using an unedited raw photo.
Of course things like the monitor will come into play- this is by no means exactly what a diamond looks like- but no photo is.

We could simply have the conversation based on the ASET/IS- but I honestly believe the photos make the conversation more interesting.

If a reliable third party wanted to photograph them, I'd gladly arrange it.