strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Why I love 60/60 diamonds- compared to AGS0 IS/ASET and photos
- Thread starter Rockdiamond
- Start date
- Status
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
WF takes some good pics but calling them 40x bugs me...Date: 5/19/2009 5:26:36 PM
Author: purrfectpear
IMO no one does photos better than Whiteflash. Personally I don''t want to see the ''artistic'' version of how the vendor thinks it would look in real life, I want to see it 40x in all it''s ugly glory. Then I can make an educated guess about whether the inclusions would be eye visible at 10x or 0x
They are 40x life size but at best 1x magnification.
They are not what you would see using a 40x microscope.
purrfectpear
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 4,079
Sorry, my badDate: 5/19/2009 5:33:04 PM
Author: strmrdr
WF takes some good pics but calling them 40x bugs me...Date: 5/19/2009 5:26:36 PM
Author: purrfectpear
IMO no one does photos better than Whiteflash. Personally I don''t want to see the ''artistic'' version of how the vendor thinks it would look in real life, I want to see it 40x in all it''s ugly glory. Then I can make an educated guess about whether the inclusions would be eye visible at 10x or 0x
They are 40x life size but at best 1x magnification.
They are not what you would see using a 40x microscope.
All I know is that the stuff you see in the photo, you can''t see with your eyes
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
Marian- there''s the dark arrows we were discussing before.
Perrfect, Storm:
I love both WF and GOG''s photos.
To my eye, they are just as "artisitic" as any.
There''s a balance that must be struck.
If a photo does not look good, it''s not going to sell the item.
If the photo looks better than the item, it''s going to cause a lot of problems.
Perrfect, Storm:
I love both WF and GOG''s photos.
To my eye, they are just as "artisitic" as any.
There''s a balance that must be struck.
If a photo does not look good, it''s not going to sell the item.
If the photo looks better than the item, it''s going to cause a lot of problems.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
Great post OMC!Date: 5/19/2009 5:04:42 PM
Author: oldmancoyote
Serg - thanks for the answers and clarification. My apologies if I have offended; it was not my intention to imply that you implied anything.
It simply seemed to me that some people were curious about the techniques that David uses to take pictures, so, having seen him, I tried to reassure readers that there is no grand technology or ''scientific'' setup effort involved. Many people on PS seem to favour a scientific/positivist approach to assessing a diamond - which I would say is almost the opposite to what David seems to prefer.
************* Semi philosophical digression - feel free to skip ******************
For example, Garry and Karl''s questions/comments involve details such as getting the diamond perfectly flat/parallel to the camera, or understanding the setup of ambient light to the extent of knowing the colour of clothing which is likely to influence the reflections seen in the stone. I''d say that this type of request reflects an underlying belief that there is a ''best'' diamond, and only by observing in controlled conditions other stones one can tell how different they are from this platonic ideal and thus rank them as more or less beautiful.
David''s view is that these details are fairly irrelevant, since the buyer will rarely if at all observe the diamond in such conditions. This is consistent with a view of the world that says that each diamond is unique and ought to be judged on its own merits in many conditions of lighting and environment - best thing to do is to depict it so that it looks beautiful as it does to an ''artistic'' eye. Possibly true, but not very useful to a consumer (usually with little experience of diamonds and jewellery) who is trying to decide between two stones sometimes only on the basis of photos and reflector images, unless they trust the vendor to a very large degree.
Given this (and assuming I''m right), it''s no surprise that the freehand/unstructured technique that David uses presses so many wrong buttons; particularly since - thanks to his eye and skill - there is a fairly high degree of consistency in the result, a well-defined ''style'': a DBL photo is easily recognisable. The ''logical thinking machine'' then starts whirring: The guy must be using a system - and he won''t tell us, so he must be hiding something... No he''s not - the system he uses is his implicit taste and skill, and he probably doesn''t know ''how'' he does it.
So who''s right? I don''t know. I enjoy sitting on the fence, and taking from both camps depending on what I am looking for and feeling like at the moment.
One area where I feel your otherwise excellent analysis lacks is the sentence I highlighted:
I believe that a great level of trust must be established before a consumer forks over thousands of dollars to make the purchase.
Part of the issue with ASET/IS is that it ostensibly removes the vendor from the selection process.
When a potential buyer is looking at GOG, for example, wouldn''t some buyers rather ask Jon what he recommends? Use his eye to select a stone for consideration instead of trying to learn how to read IS/ASET themselves. That has always been a large part of my consideration about IS/ASET. Although sellers like GOG make great use of the tools, there are shoppers who toss aside the experience of a trusted vendor to replace it with the ASET. Maybe, just maybe, there''s something lost there?
There are , after all, vendors with great interest in both selling really well cut diamonds- and also placing client satisfaction on top of the list.
Storm- you used the term "sloppy optical symmetry". To me that sounds like there''s something wrong with the diamond.....
The images you posted are extreme.
We''ve photograhed many stones with open culets.
That does present some interesting challenges.
When the ring is on the finger it looks quite different than a photo taken with nothing behind the stone.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
The fundamental disconnect over images is....
David you see images as art
I see them as a way to remotely evaluate a diamond to make a recommendation.
I am very very good at doing so if I can say so myself.
I don't like images that might be deceptive for the simple reason they make what I do harder.
Which is why back lighting really annoys me.
David you see images as art
I see them as a way to remotely evaluate a diamond to make a recommendation.
I am very very good at doing so if I can say so myself.
I don't like images that might be deceptive for the simple reason they make what I do harder.
Which is why back lighting really annoys me.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
Storm- my point about images being artistic, is that there is effort made to make the photo look prettier. The diamond might be positioned in a manner that shows a sensitivity to the shape.
There might be a reflection.
The background color is considered. It takes a lot to make photos look good.
Not to say the efforts are being made to do anything other than accurately portray the item.
It''s not a bad thing.
And heck, I look at a lot of things from an artistic viewpoint.
Storm, you have mentioned "back lighting" a number of times.
What are you referring to?
I''ve taken literally hundreds of thousands of photos of diamonds.
Putting a light behind one would not seem to be possible- unless you place the diamond on a lighted tray.
There might be a reflection.
The background color is considered. It takes a lot to make photos look good.
Not to say the efforts are being made to do anything other than accurately portray the item.
It''s not a bad thing.
And heck, I look at a lot of things from an artistic viewpoint.
Storm, you have mentioned "back lighting" a number of times.
What are you referring to?
I''ve taken literally hundreds of thousands of photos of diamonds.
Putting a light behind one would not seem to be possible- unless you place the diamond on a lighted tray.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
light either directly hitting the pavilion or being reflected into the pavilion is back lighting.
In the images you posted on the white background light is being reflected by the background into the back of the diamond.
When a diamond is held in the air in tweezers light is striking the pavilion and filling in the leakage making the diamond appear brighter than it really is.
Try this experiment, take a colored piece of paper and punch a hole into it.
place the paper on the white background you are using, the hole appears bright don't it?
Now holding it up in the air, still bright.
Now lay it on your palm. the hole is much less bright isn't it? (open 4 prong)
Now lay it on a dark object, mush less bright now isn't it? (bezel)
This is what happens with leakage in diamonds.
stone-cold11
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 14,083
Basically light reflected off the background and entering the stone and into the viewer's vision from the pavilion. Change the background to black and the stone went dark when viewed from the same position with the same lighting.
It does not necessary meant having a light source below the girdle level.
It does not necessary meant having a light source below the girdle level.
Imdanny
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 6,186
Date: 5/19/2009 5:33:04 PM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 5/19/2009 5:26:36 PM
Author: purrfectpear
IMO no one does photos better than Whiteflash. Personally I don''t want to see the ''artistic'' version of how the vendor thinks it would look in real life, I want to see it 40x in all it''s ugly glory. Then I can make an educated guess about whether the inclusions would be eye visible at 10x or 0x
WF takes some good pics but calling them 40x bugs me...
They are 40x life size but at best 1x magnification.
They are not what you would see using a 40x microscope.
Thanks.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
There''s no question a diamond will look different once set- furthermore, how you set it will affect how it looks. We can all agree on that.
There''s no way I can think of to have light hitting the front of the diamond, and not have it go through to the back.
Background color is a consideration- but only to the extent that it should be used to show the diamond realistically. Which is what we do.
Using a mat background may offer some advantages- but there are drawbacks there as well.
There''s also an issue as to where the focus should lie.
At the skin of the stone? At it''s heart?
The bottom line is that diamond photography is always going to be a compromise. As is diamond cutting.
In terms of some of the other questions- such as the pavilion- I''d rather wait till the diamonds get back here tomorrow, so I can look at them again. they''ve been at Dave''s since last week.
Here''s a photo i took of the .53 AGS 0 stone.
I''m not in love with the photo, but I don''t hate it either.
I''d like to take more shots once the stones come back.
There''s no way I can think of to have light hitting the front of the diamond, and not have it go through to the back.
Background color is a consideration- but only to the extent that it should be used to show the diamond realistically. Which is what we do.
Using a mat background may offer some advantages- but there are drawbacks there as well.
There''s also an issue as to where the focus should lie.
At the skin of the stone? At it''s heart?
The bottom line is that diamond photography is always going to be a compromise. As is diamond cutting.
In terms of some of the other questions- such as the pavilion- I''d rather wait till the diamonds get back here tomorrow, so I can look at them again. they''ve been at Dave''s since last week.
Here''s a photo i took of the .53 AGS 0 stone.
I''m not in love with the photo, but I don''t hate it either.
I''d like to take more shots once the stones come back.
stone-cold11
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 14,083
So do you take an image of the stone with black background if the stone is going to be mounted in a enclosed bezel setting since no light is going to be coming in from the pavilion in the case or are you going to put a tin-foil or mirror polish the inside bottom of the bezel setting so that the light that passed through the pavilion is reflected back into the stone and to the viewer again?
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
Bezels are a funny thing. It''s hard to predict exactly how a stone will perform in a bezel.
The sad truth is that any bezel covers a lot more ot the stone than a prong does.
I don''t arrange my backgrounds at all.
I take as many photos of the diamond neccesary- freehand- and pick the ones that best represent it.
If we look at either of the photos posted by WF or GOG- both excellent- both, like ours, show a fair representation that a viewer can use to get a very good idea what the stone will look like.
If the buyer was setting either of the diamonds posted in a bezel, should they request a different photo?
There''s no need to belabor the point.
There''s not all that many companies that take the effort to post actual photos - and videos- of the diamonds they are representing.
My compliments to companies like WhiteFlash- and especially Good Old Gold for the great information, images, and videos.
I have tremendous respect for Jon.
And I''m extremely proud of what we do
We post as many photos- and videos of our stones, as any site I''ve seen.
It''s not a matter of making money- it''s a matter of extreme importance to me- honest representation of diamonds on the internet.
Here''s a photo of the 60% table diamond- I''m not happy with the focus on this one- I will take more.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
These two photos do show something I realized makes a difference to me.
This might go to your question about pavilions Storm:
The 60% table diamond- as well as my the diamonds I have in mind when I say 60/60 have the more narrow pavilion facets. What I believe Storm referred to before as sloppy alignment, in this case causes the appearance of narrower pavilion facets when viewed thru the table.
You can see the difference in the photos.
Clearly, many people love the chunky facet style.
But I''ll bet if it was based on eyeball viewing only- and I''m including arm''s length, close inspection, all kinds of lighting, loupe and microscope- but no reflectors- a fair amount of people would choose the more delicate type of facets in the 60% example I posted.
This might go to your question about pavilions Storm:
The 60% table diamond- as well as my the diamonds I have in mind when I say 60/60 have the more narrow pavilion facets. What I believe Storm referred to before as sloppy alignment, in this case causes the appearance of narrower pavilion facets when viewed thru the table.
You can see the difference in the photos.
Clearly, many people love the chunky facet style.
But I''ll bet if it was based on eyeball viewing only- and I''m including arm''s length, close inspection, all kinds of lighting, loupe and microscope- but no reflectors- a fair amount of people would choose the more delicate type of facets in the 60% example I posted.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
stone-cold11
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 14,083
risingsun
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2006
- Messages
- 5,549
When I look at the two photos you have just posted, this is what I see. The 60/60 appears very splintery to me. The AGS0 seems to have more chunky facets. I would like to state again, David, that the black arrow pics that you see on the net are not what we see in person. Having done an ASET/IS, I can tell you that the small bits of light leakage are just what we would expect in a classic hearts and arrows diamond. You can see this on WF and GOG diamond info or in Garry or Brian''s tutorials. The precision makes for a beautiful diamond, but you are not viewing an architectural rendering on your hand. I am just not seeing the merits of the 60/60 over the AGS0 from what we have viewed and discussed thus far.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
Hi Stone-Cold,
Are you saying that in either of the photos posted from WF or GOG that the photo shows what the diamond will look like when it''s set into a bezel?
A rhetorical question because that would be impossible. Setting any diamond changes it''s appearance to some degree.
Can you please show me a reference to "baclklighting" in any GIA article, or photographic journal that would refer to a diamond photo?
It seems to me it''s a word- and concept- invented here- with no basis in reality whatsoever.
Can you explain to me how to have light hitting the front of the diamond and not enter the back of it?
Marian- thank you again for adding to the conversation.
One of the aspects about this that''s interesting- I''m not saying 60/60 is better.
I''m not saying every person will pick the "splintery" design, over the "chunky".
I''m saying not every person will pick the chunky one either.
The ASET /IS tells us one stone is better. But what if our eyes tell us something different?
You''ve also stated that the back arrows seen in many of the photos are not there in real life.
I''m not disputing that ( clearly I can also look at the diamonds in real life), but what that means is that any photo showing the black arrows might not be accurate.
I don''t actually feel that way- but after having tons of garbage about "backlighting" thrown into the conversation, it''s important to again point out that any photo is a representation.
It''s likely that sellers of "Heart and Arrows" diamonds prefer photos that accentuate the patterns.
stone-cold11
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 14,083
I am not a trade person, just a consumer, no access to GIA article. I am not saying that the stone shot by WF, GOG will look like that when set in bezel, I am saying a ''rough'' idea of light performance can be deduced. Those are display images, not performance images.
This image is backlighting. The bright image is when the background is white or the stone lighted from behind the stone, take that away it becomes black. Which is why Serg or Garry ask you to cover the pavilion of your 60/60 stone and take a picture of it and see if you like it then. Can you do that at least for this test for comparison stake instead of just digging in your heels and saying this is not, will not happen? We see this leakage in the ASET image and the results of backlighting in your diamond image. If you cover the pavilion up with black foil, or whear a black cloth glove and put the stone between your finger, take an image and post it here and it still looks bright and shinny in the leakage are, then I will reconsider your point of view.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
ok here it is right from GIA:
"We determined that white trays
(which mimic the white folded cards and white
display pads often used in the trade) can sometimes
cause a diamond to look brighter by hiding
or masking areas of light leakage (areas where light
is not returned from the diamond because it exits
out of the pavilion rather than back to the observer).
Alternately, black trays were shown to demonstrate
possible areas of light leakage, but in many
cases they overemphasized them so the diamond
looked too dark. We found that a neutral gray tray
(similar in color to the walls of our CVE) was the
most appropriate choice for assessing a round brilliant’s
overall face-up appearance."
http://www.gia.edu/diamondcut/pdf/cut_fall2004.pdf
page: 21
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
David,
If one has a good mirror, and one has a light behind the mirror and no other light source, there will be no light at the correct side of the mirror.
If one has the same good mirror, and one has a light at the correct side of the mirror, and no light behind it, there will be no light behind the mirror.
Are you with me still?
Now, if one has a bad mirror, one with holes, with front-lighting, the mirror will not reflect light over its complete surface and the holes will not be reflecting. However, if one moves the light to the back of the mirror, there will be light coming through the holes and the rest of the mirror is dark. If one has a light source at both sides of the mirror, the complete mirror will send light to the viewer.
This is what backlighting is all about. If a diamond is a good mirror, reflecting the maximum of light entering through table and crown, the diamond will be completely bright with front-lighting only. If a diamond is a bad mirror, dark areas of light leakage will not be dark if one adds backlighting.
Since you, just like myself, and almost anyone who enters the diamondtrade, originally is trained to grade diamonds, it is absolutely natural that your conceptual thinking is incorrect. Like all traditional diamond-graders in the industry, you (just like myself) have been taught to judge clarity and cut at the same time, while examining the stone with a 10x-loupe. Again, this is logical, because examining cut at that point in time is more about judging the roundness of the stone, the thickness of the girdle, the presence and size of the naives, the culet and the shape (read size) of the table.
What a majority of the trade does not realise, is that they are essentially judging cut whle the stone is backlighted in order to have a better chance of finding the inclusions. And if a stone is bright and lively under these conditions, it actually means that it is a very bad mirror, full of holes, and exactly the opposite of bright and lively.
Therefore, David, backlighting is not a garbage-issue. It is essential. This is the point in time where you need to take a decision. You can either go for an aha-erlebnis, and then realise that all the fundamentals of your cut-assessment of diamonds are shaking. Or you can choose not to accept and stick to your old beliefs. The choice is entirely yours.
Live long,
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
Hi Everyone!
Stone-cold- the GIA website is open to the public.
Or, you can call them
212-221-5858
They will certainly talk to you- regardless of your status as a consumer.
Stone-cold- are you telling us that the photos you posted were taken using lights behind the diamond?
Another rhetorical question- that''s not an actual diamond photo- and not actual diamonds.
Nor do my photos look anything like that.
If we have a stone with an open culet, it will be visible in many of my photos.
I have posted a few photos of the diamonds that are the subject of this thread- my photos look NOTHING like the "backlight" example.
Stone-Cold- you also requested that we "cover the pavilion up with black foil"- interesting concept- can you show me someone else taking photos with black foil on the diamond?
Again, rhetorical, unless I''ve missed that part.
Storm- if you wanted to call GIA, there''s the number.
What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand?
I believe the subject of "backlighting" deserves it''s own thread.
Stone-cold- the GIA website is open to the public.
Or, you can call them
212-221-5858
They will certainly talk to you- regardless of your status as a consumer.
Stone-cold- are you telling us that the photos you posted were taken using lights behind the diamond?
Another rhetorical question- that''s not an actual diamond photo- and not actual diamonds.
Nor do my photos look anything like that.
If we have a stone with an open culet, it will be visible in many of my photos.
I have posted a few photos of the diamonds that are the subject of this thread- my photos look NOTHING like the "backlight" example.
Stone-Cold- you also requested that we "cover the pavilion up with black foil"- interesting concept- can you show me someone else taking photos with black foil on the diamond?
Again, rhetorical, unless I''ve missed that part.
Storm- if you wanted to call GIA, there''s the number.
What does any of this have to do with the subject at hand?
I believe the subject of "backlighting" deserves it''s own thread.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
The way you are photographing and looking at the 60/60 other than the hand shot is covering flaws in the cut of the 60/60.
In the hand shot the head shadow is unrealistic making it not valid also.
You set out to prove that a 60/60 can be a good diamond, which I already know.
But you have not proven it here like you said you would.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
Thanks for participating Paul.
Can you show me a photo that''s taken in the manner you prefer?
I''d like to comment on what you prefer.
However, it''s really irrelevant to the conversation.
You''re pointing out how, in your view, others are incorrect in the manner in which they judge the cut of a diamond. I assume that IS/ASET images will bear you out on this.
I''m not disputing that fact.
But what if someone has looked at a stone in all sorts of objective lighting and prefers the stone that you can prove is less well cut?
I''m stating which one I like better- making the photos less relevant...although I do believe the photos show what I''m referring to- even Storm agreed at first when he said that the shot in my fingers showed just what he thought it would.
You can choose to like my photos, or hate my photos- that does not matter in regards to my point.
I prefer the look of the 60% table diamond over that of one you would consider to be a better cut.
This is the point in time where you need to make a decision Paul.
Will you politely accept the fact that not everyone agrees on what is the best cut?
Or simply attempt to invalidate any other opinion besides the one you hold.
The choice is entirely yours.
Can you show me a photo that''s taken in the manner you prefer?
I''d like to comment on what you prefer.
However, it''s really irrelevant to the conversation.
You''re pointing out how, in your view, others are incorrect in the manner in which they judge the cut of a diamond. I assume that IS/ASET images will bear you out on this.
I''m not disputing that fact.
But what if someone has looked at a stone in all sorts of objective lighting and prefers the stone that you can prove is less well cut?
I''m stating which one I like better- making the photos less relevant...although I do believe the photos show what I''m referring to- even Storm agreed at first when he said that the shot in my fingers showed just what he thought it would.
You can choose to like my photos, or hate my photos- that does not matter in regards to my point.
I prefer the look of the 60% table diamond over that of one you would consider to be a better cut.
This is the point in time where you need to make a decision Paul.
Will you politely accept the fact that not everyone agrees on what is the best cut?
Or simply attempt to invalidate any other opinion besides the one you hold.
The choice is entirely yours.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,978
stone-cold11
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 14,083
Serg requested you to do this, not my idea, I am just bringing it out again so that you will do it. Will you do it or not? The relevant post is post number 38 I believe, go and find it and verify yourself that I did not change any part of Serg's request.
Strmrdr has already shown you the relevant part that GIA acknowledge the effect of backlighting on the optical performance of a stone and we think we need to see the stone's image 60/60 with backlighting remove.
So what is so difficult in taking a photo in the way that we suggested? Are you afraid that it will show off the stone badly or what? If you think backlighting has no effect on the beauty of the stone, then it should not matter if you take the photo of the 60/60 as we suggested, right?
- Status
How to Buy the Best $25,000 Engagement Ring: A Smart Shopper’s Guide
How to Buy the Best $25,000 Engagement Ring: A Smart Shopper’s Guide - 02/24
300x240.png)