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

[strmrdr]

Here is the same thing for a modern tolk...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/18/2009 7:46:34 PM
Author: 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.

Doesn''t really matter it wont change the fact the difference is in the pavilion not the crown.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/18/2009 6:04:58 PM
Author: 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.

David i would like me and others to be able to repeat the way you look at diamonds.
I have nothing - no way at all.
I need deep details.

How far away your eyes are and the camera, what colour your camera is and your clothes, the angle of viewing - photo of daylight window and direction building faces, size of window and distance from diamond, other lights in the room and heaps of stuff like that.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/18/2009 7:28:25 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks for participating Ellen!

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?

David here is a link to download free software so you can see for your self how many of the largest Indian companies use Sergey''s software - you will find this amazing - download version 1.5 program from here
http://www.octonus.com/oct/download/oxy_view_down.phtml

And get some samples to play with here
http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/pacor/gallery/

and here (optionally) is a sample of the huge training courses available from real example
http://www.octonus.com/oct/rough/17.php

When you open the stone files you will see that the realistic view in the bottom right side window is default set to open in Ideal-scope view - so yes - cutters use this all the time. ASET, H&A''s and Gilberston scopes views are there too along with regular light.

 

[Rockdiamond]

All great questions big boy- what are you wearing

Seriously- the point about photos.
When I am shopping for something on the internet, personally, I''d rather see a "real life" photo of the item.
In the case of diamonds, most of the sites have zero photos- it still amazes me that people buy without even a glimpse.

Then you have the sites using representative photos, but conveniently forgetting to mention that part.
Doncha love searching a site and seeing the same photo, over and over again?

Then you have sellers with actual photos. There are many ways to handle the photography.

I commend sites with microscopic images, extremely consistent- with a loupe to be able to see even greater magnification. Awesome, no question.
I prefer seeing the diamond real life.
With dust, and a tweezer as it adds a lot of perspective.
I don''t find repeatability to necessarily be the goal, in photographing a diamond.
I don''t find that they look exactly the same every time you look at them in real life.
The characteristics that don''t change- such as the shape of a fancy shape- or weather ia stone is step cut or brilliant faceted- can be captured realistically in either the controlled photo, or the "freehand one"


Clearly there are different ways of looking at photography, as there are looking at diamonds.
I''d be absolutely thrilled if a reliable third party wanted to photograph them using a different style that you prefer Garry.



Plaid Shirt, Polka dot pants.


Here''s another photo

 

[Rockdiamond]

Cool Stuff Garry!
I''ve actually seen a similar machine in action, many times, here in NYC. Most of the cutters we deal with specialize in Fancy Shapes- which might impact the differences in usage of software as well.

I''d also bet the use of Sergey''s software has had an impact on the improvement in the make of Indian cut diamonds - which has been substantial over the past 10 years in particular.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/18/2009 8:42:22 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Clearly there are different ways of looking at photography, as there are looking at diamonds.
I''d be absolutely thrilled if a reliable third party wanted to photograph them using a different style that you prefer Garry.



Plaid Shirt, Polka dot pants.


Here''s another photo

David I do not have a photo solution for you. i am not pushing an ideal format at all.
I am more interested in trying to understand what you see than the photo''s.

That has always frustrated me - I asked you years ago - you have written 50 times more words in reply and told me nothing - it would take a lot less time to just tell me so I can reproduse what you see.
It is not a joke - it is a serious question.

BTW you still do not seem to be able to take a photo with both diamonds straight to camera?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry, the photos are my work, and I''m proud of it. Regardless of whatever opinion is expressed about them, the fact is that my work has been stolen literally dozens of times by internet sellers to lazy to take their own photos- and sufficiently unethical to steal someone else''s. I don''t give lessons on how I take photos.
I''m sorry if you feel that a detailed description of how I do what I do- further than what I - and others- have already written, is sufficient.

We can disregard the photos, and I could just say " I like this diamond better"- or we can agree to disagree on if you like the photos. They are real photos- not retouched in anyway other than cropping.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

David the topic is on the header of each page.
I am not talking about your photo's, I want to understand why you like this diamond?

I do not think it is because of the differences in how each shows up in a photo is it?

I think it is because of what you SEE

You see different things to many others - but how can we know what YOU see if we do not know about "the looking" process?

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think it''s really part and parcel of the conversation Garry.
How I see diamonds is really from about 6 inches from my face, to arm''s length.
Yes, I love louping the diamond- but i make buying decisions based on far more factors- based heavily on how a diamond looks naked eye.

To someone who''s looking for precise facet alignment, ASET/IS is essential.
But what if you don''t necessarily want such a perfect alignment?
A smaller table may focus the light in a manner preferred by many- again- ASET/IS is a great tool for identifying that.
But what if one likes a slightly larger table? What if one likes a slightly less focused light reflection?

I''m suggesting that in such cases, it''s possible that ASET/IS does not show what a particular person wants to see. In such cases, an " 6 inch to arm''s length" view is preferable.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 5/15/2009 12:49:24 PM
Author: denverappraiser
Blue Nile and other retailers could, if they wanted to, include more information about their stones although this would not come without a certain amount of costs as well as other problem. They’re a well run company and they don’t make this sort of decision lightly so this begs the question why they’ve chosen not to do it even though that seems to be the direction of the majority of their competition and it seems to be a successful strategy. I’ll summarily dismiss the explanation that it’s because they’re stupid or that they aren’t paying attention, they most definitely are not so the question remains. It is correct that we will never really know the answers here because how and why they do things is a trade secret of great importance but we can speculate.

Maybe they don’t think providing more data (ASET, IS, photomicrographs, Sarin scans, etc.) would be useful in assisting their clients in evaluating stones.

Maybe they think the costs would be prohibitive to them and/or their suppliers.

Frankly, these both seem unlikely. My theory is that it would reduce their ability to sell stones that might sell poorly given more information. I also think it would reduce their ability to upsell buyers to their own branded ‘signature’ line where they DO provide a little more in the form of the GCAL report. Providing free information that makes their stones easier to compare to offerings elsewhere is NOT necessarily in their best interest.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

For my money, I think the argument is much simpler: Their target market isn''t limited to the cut-ophiles. Their target market is "anyone who wants to buy a diamond online."

Let''s keep in mind that diamonds meeting the AGS0 criteria represent perhaps a mere 2-3% of diamonds produced. Blue Nile is looking to be a massive player, not a ''niche'' jeweler.

Since only 2-3% of buyers will fit into the niche that might desire added technologies, it''s not a significant enough portion of their potential market share to impact or change behavior.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/18/2009 9:30:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I think it''s really part and parcel of the conversation Garry.
How I see diamonds is really from about 6 inches from my face, to arm''s length.
Yes, I love louping the diamond- but i make buying decisions based on far more factors- based heavily on how a diamond looks naked eye.

To someone who''s looking for precise facet alignment, ASET/IS is essential.
But what if you don''t necessarily want such a perfect alignment?
A smaller table may focus the light in a manner preferred by many- again- ASET/IS is a great tool for identifying that.
But what if one likes a slightly larger table? What if one likes a slightly less focused light reflection?

I''m suggesting that in such cases, it''s possible that ASET/IS does not show what a particular person wants to see. In such cases, an '' 6 inch to arm''s length'' view is preferable.

Wow what a help that is David - I can certainly replicate everything you see now.
Thanks for nothing.


I give up

 

[risingsun]

David~I posted two photos of my AGS 0 hearts and arrow diamond. They were taken in my foyer, without flash, with the sunlight over my shoulder. Nothing difficult about it. Are these pictures displeasing to your eye in any way? The stone has the perfect IS and ASET, but I don't have scans. I bought my stone, a HOF, at a local jeweler. I supplied my own reflector tools and was satisfied with the results. I also looked at the stone under the microscope, as well as through the loupe. We took the diamond into a variety to lighting conditions. I ran it through the HCA. This is a situation where I did see the stone IRL. but wanted to back up my choice with the technology I've used for online purchases. In a B&M, once the playing field is level--all of the diamonds pass the tech tests--then I am happy to choose with my eyes. Romancing the stone just doesn't work for me anymore.

ETA: I noticed that the first photo was taken in my living room, no flash, with my the back of my hand facing the window.

 

[Rockdiamond]

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.

Hi Marian,
That''s an amazing looking diamond!
You have stumbled upon how difficult it is to photograph diamonds.
Your photos are nice looking, but don''t show some of the details in the diamond.

In fact many of the photos I see of near tolk stones show a lot of district arrows.

It''s absolutely great you got exactly what you wanted and used all the tools you felt you needed in your purchase.



Garry- I see what I''m describing. The larger table diamond has a less organized facet pattern- which I prefer. The larger tabled diamond seems to focus the light less ( if that''s a way of describing it)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/19/2009 12:17:10 AM
Author: Rockdiamond

Garry- I see what I''m describing. The larger table diamond has a less organized facet pattern- which I prefer. The larger tabled diamond seems to focus the light less ( if that''s a way of describing it)

Did I ever ask what you SEE David?

I asked HOW you look - the environment - so others (who could be bothered) can SEE what you see.
Thee is no point us bothering with your version of what you see David - we all have our own eyes and our own Antennae for picking up people with genuine motives.

 

[risingsun]

Date: 5/19/2009 12:17:10 AM
Author: Rockdiamond

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.

Hi Marian,
That''s an amazing looking diamond!
You have stumbled upon how difficult it is to photograph diamonds.
Your photos are nice looking, but don''t show some of the details in the diamond.

In fact many of the photos I see of near tolk stones show a lot of district arrows.

It''s absolutely great you got exactly what you wanted and used all the tools you felt you needed in your purchase.



Garry- I see what I''m describing. The larger table diamond has a less organized facet pattern- which I prefer. The larger tabled diamond seems to focus the light less ( if that''s a way of describing it)

The only time I see the arrows is when I tilt my hand. Then I see maybe three at a time. They are not black, but diamond colored, if that makes sense. Taking a good black arrows photo takes time and effort and doesn''t represent a real life depiction of the stone. Does that make sense to you? The black arrow pics are to show the consumer the cut characteristics of the diamond. Not to indicate how it will look on your hand.

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/18/2009 5:40:06 PM
Author: 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?

Oldmancoyote,

Re: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.


I never told what David edit(Photoshoping) his photos, didn’t I?

re: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?

It depends from direction to main light source . If you try compare or grade diamonds from short distance you very often try add additional light ( specially if you want take shot) . Because distance is between observer and diamond is short you have mainly two options :
1) Ring illumination
2) Light in direction 60-120 degree from axis diamond –observer

Gemologist, retailers … usually use only second option. But in consumer “habitat” light sources have much bigger distance from diamond and typical position for artificial lights sources are quite far from angle 60-120 degree( from observer – diamond axis)

Please see photos what we published several times on PS.

This photos is very good illustration how result for diamond comparison depends from light schema and how big difference in results could be between gemological and consumer light schemas .

For each light schema you can create “Best “ diamond

SO my fro David is :
If diamond A is more bright than Diamond B in gemological light schema, but Diamond B is more bright than Diamond A in consumer light schema.
Which diamond is better for consumer?
Is my question clear enough now?




Re: I'd think most light coming from below the pavilion would be blocked by the fingers, wouldn't it?

Depends from orientation between hand and light source. I think fingers does not block all pavilion light on David photo

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/19/2009 3:05:42 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 5/18/2009 5:40:06 PM
Author: 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?

Oldmancoyote,

Re: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.


I never told what David edit(Photoshoping) his photos, didn’t I?

re: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?

It depends from direction to main light source . If you try compare or grade diamonds from short distance you very often try add additional light ( specially if you want take shot) . Because distance is between observer and diamond is short you have mainly two options :
1) Ring illumination
2) Light in direction 60-120 degree from axis diamond –observer

Gemologist, retailers … usually use only second option. But in consumer “habitat” light sources have much bigger distance from diamond and typical position for artificial lights sources are quite far from angle 60-120 degree( from observer – diamond axis)

Please see photos what we published several times on PS.

This photos is very good illustration how result for diamond comparison depends from light schema and how big difference in results could be between gemological and consumer light schemas .

For each light schema you can create “Best “ diamond

SO my fro David is :
If diamond A is more bright than Diamond B in gemological light schema, but Diamond B is more bright than Diamond A in consumer light schema.
Which diamond is better for consumer?
Is my question clear enough now?




Re: I''d think most light coming from below the pavilion would be blocked by the fingers, wouldn''t it?

Depends from orientation between hand and light source. I think fingers does not block all pavilion light on David photo

Fancy colored Diamonds love sunlight....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/19/2009 3:24:26 AM
Author: DiaGem
Fancy colored Diamonds love sunlight....

Yes because many of them are cut with tiny virtual facets and long light paths.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/19/2009 12:52:50 AM
Author: risingsun

The only time I see the arrows is when I tilt my hand. Then I see maybe three at a time. They are not black, but diamond colored, if that makes sense. Taking a good black arrows photo takes time and effort and doesn't represent a real life depiction of the stone. Does that make sense to you? The black arrow pics are to show the consumer the cut characteristics of the diamond. Not to indicate how it will look on your hand.

Many of the pictures you see on the net overstate the head shadow.
As you have found you have to try and duplicate it on the hand it is not a day to day view unless the diamond has contrast issues with rounds.

People are much more likely to seek out this lighting with step cuts to get lost in the patterns and tend top view them closer and looking down into them.

 

[strmrdr]

That is why this is my favorite DC lighting as I found it represented a real world view with wifey2b''s diamond.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/19/2009 4:43:11 AM
Author: strmrdr


People are much more likely to seek out this lighting with step cuts to get lost in the patterns and tend to view them closer and looking down into them.

fixed typo

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/19/2009 4:46:18 AM
Author: strmrdr
That is why this is my favorite DC lighting as I found it represented a real world view with wifey2b''s diamond.

Very cool detail shot Storm... Is it an actual photo, and did you take this it?

Serg- I never use photo shop- or ANY editing program to alter anything about exposure, colors or anything except cropping.
With regards to your question about "gemological versus consumer" light scheme....a good question- and integral to the debate about photos. If the so called gemological lighting is more accurate, many would prefer that. But accuracy of image might actually make the image less "real world" realistic. Does the consumer what clinical, or practical?
We go for practical.

Garry- I am really trying to answer your question, much as I understand it.
How I look at diamonds:
Primarily natural light
I am lucky in that our offices are flooded with natural light- we have huge south facing windows that fill one entire wall.
There is a high ceiling, with dazor ( I believe) fl bulbs mounted under diffusers.
We have desk lamps- 3 bulb diamond assorting lamps- but generally I only need to use those to loupe the stone. For "normal" viewing I simply hold the diamond in between my fingers, in a tweezer, in a folded piece of paper- or sometimes we might have a ring without a center stone that I can drop the diamond into.
The last method- when there''s an applicable ring to use- might be the most telling.


Garry- and others: On the prior page I spoke about advances in tools, versus advances in computer modeling. You immediately discussed the computer modeling- what''s your opinion on the importance in the improvement in tools such as the dop?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/19/2009 2:46:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/19/2009 4:46:18 AM

Author: strmrdr

That is why this is my favorite DC lighting as I found it represented a real world view with wifey2b''s diamond.

Very cool detail shot Storm... Is it an actual photo, and did you take this it?

DC virtual image.
What I did is take the diamond and matched it up against the created images in DC based on a scan of the diamond to see which was the most real world.
That one is called jewelery shop in DC but that is a bad name for it as it does not represent any shop I have ever been in.
But it does a good job of representing other indirect or diffused lighting.
When diagem and I teamed up to cut a diamond we found it worked well there also.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/19/2009 2:46:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
what''s your opinion on the importance in the improvement in tools such as the dop?

There has been huge gains in diamond tooling that has allowed large production houses to cut to a level once reserved to the finest cutters.
Diamonds like the one you posted with sloppy optical symmetry are getting rare.
Even steep/deep huge girdle rounds are showing decent optical symmetry most of the time these days.
That is because of the advances in tooling and technique.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If you had to choose mechanical versus virtual tools, which would you say has had more impact Storm?


BTW- re: the image you posted.
It looks amazing.
Have you seen an actual image look like that?

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/19/2009 2:46:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/19/2009 4:46:18 AM

Author: strmrdr

That is why this is my favorite DC lighting as I found it represented a real world view with wifey2b''s diamond.

Very cool detail shot Storm... Is it an actual photo, and did you take this it?


Serg- I never use photo shop- or ANY editing program to alter anything about exposure, colors or anything except cropping.

With regards to your question about ''gemological versus consumer'' light scheme....a good question- and integral to the debate about photos. If the so called gemological lighting is more accurate, many would prefer that. But accuracy of image might actually make the image less ''real world'' realistic. Does the consumer what clinical, or practical?

We go for practical.


Garry- I am really trying to answer your question, much as I understand it.

How I look at diamonds:

Primarily natural light

I am lucky in that our offices are flooded with natural light- we have huge south facing windows that fill one entire wall.

There is a high ceiling, with dazor ( I believe) fl bulbs mounted under diffusers.

We have desk lamps- 3 bulb diamond assorting lamps- but generally I only need to use those to loupe the stone. For ''normal'' viewing I simply hold the diamond in between my fingers, in a tweezer, in a folded piece of paper- or sometimes we might have a ring without a center stone that I can drop the diamond into.

The last method- when there''s an applicable ring to use- might be the most telling.



Garry- and others: On the prior page I spoke about advances in tools, versus advances in computer modeling. You immediately discussed the computer modeling- what''s your opinion on the importance in the improvement in tools such as the dop?

re:Serg- I never use photo shop- or ANY editing program to alter anything about exposure, colors or anything except cropping.

RD,
I didn''t statement what you use ANY editing program, did I?

re:
With regards to your question about ''gemological versus consumer'' light scheme....a good question- and integral to the debate about photos. If the so called gemological lighting is more accurate, many would prefer that. But accuracy of image might actually make the image less ''real world'' realistic. Does the consumer what clinical, or practical?

I did not find your answer on my question and I did not understand your question

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/19/2009 3:26:55 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/19/2009 2:46:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
what''s your opinion on the importance in the improvement in tools such as the dop?

There has been huge gains in diamond tooling that has allowed large production houses to cut to a level once reserved to the finest cutters.
Diamonds like the one you posted with sloppy optical symmetry are getting rare.
Even steep/deep huge girdle rounds are showing decent optical symmetry most of the time these days.
That is because of the advances in tooling and technique.

Strm..., would you be shocked if I tell you cutters still use the same dops used decades ago...

Techniques made big advancements, polishing stations, wheels and Diamond dust mixes made big advances..., but the dop''s for average sized rocks is still the same old dop...

 

[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.

 

[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