strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
And ensure both stones face direct to camer (they will appear to be not flat - they must face at a big angle difference.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.
![]()
I am also waiting for an answer to my questions Rising Sun?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.
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.Date: 5/18/2009 1:46:00 AM
Author: strmrdr
black lens to close to the diamond.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 mineI 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.![]()
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.
Date: 5/17/2009 5:44:07 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
On a plastic white stone matching tray
High intensity lighting macro lens,
Moh, that is hard (pun intended),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.
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?
yesDate: 5/18/2009 12:51:14 PM
Author: DiamondFlame
So was the photo op staged to show the 60/60 stone at its prettiest?
HI All!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?
![]()
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.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?
bumpDate: 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.
I am also waiting for an answer to my questions Rising Sun?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.
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?
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...
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.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.
Date: 5/18/2009 4:50:00 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI All!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?
![]()
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.