a different opinion on AGS 0 princess cuts

[Rhino]

Ok folks.

Before we begin to even consider Bscope results lets first exaime the optical signatures of 2 AGS "0" princess cuts we have here in our lab.

Some of you are very familiar with Angular Spectrum Evaluation/Interpretation of Reflector images and some of you do not yet know as this is very new information to the trade. I appeal to my peers who are familiar and who have heard Pete Yantzers presentation on the subject. Leonid, if you have a link to that presentation and/or if it can be presented/posted here online it would benefit the readers. If not I'll pursue permission to do so for the benefit of all.

Garry, Sergey, Wink, Dave, Paul, Brian, John... all who have worked with reflector technologies. Knowing what you've learned from the AGS presentation plus your own experience with these scopes... What can you tell me about these 2 stones? I want to add one more element from which I am awaiting an answer from Garry/Serg in the "Yaw Angst" thread pertaining to the metric of *intensity*, but I don't just want you to consider the colors (they tell us angle of entry) but also the depth of the colors (they tell me, I believe *intensity* but I want confirmation from peers on this).

What do these images tell you? I encourage all to participate who have any knowledge on this. Both pictures were taken under identical lighting conditions, aperature settings, etc, and unedited with the exception of cropping.

Warm regards,

 

[onedrop]

I am not sure if this thread is for the experts only, but I have been reading it with interest. It seems that when any standard is developed be it in or outside of the diamond industry, that there will be criticism. And at times extremely harsh criticism. In my opinion the criticism will probably go a long way in smoothing out the edges of the new standards if you will. I have to say though, as a consumer, I never thought that the new AGS system for princess cuts was designed to assist in choosing a princess sight unseen just be the numbers. Instead I see it as a tool to make a better choice and to weed through stones that might be duds. Those on PS that have purchased these new AGS princess stones have been very pleased.

So why the backlash? Did I miss something wherein AGS has said that the standards that they have developed for princess cuts are the end all to be all?

 

[Rhino]

I am showing these 2 stones to consumers in the store today. Just got consumer review #1. I'm making a note of this and will share the results after I have sufficient data and enough observations. You all will find this consumer's input (who has no knowledge of diamonds) quite amazing and will demonstrate a point I'd like to bring out later in this discussion.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

For me, the stone on the right clearly has a lot of ''reds'', which is positive, but it lacks in contrast pattern, compared to the stone on the left.

In that way, the one on the right is more like a reflector, while the left one probably has a more balanced light return. The main reason is that the lefty has a nicer distribution of black areas, according to me.

I suppose (but that is only a supposition) that I would prefer the left one, when actually seeing the stones.

Live long,

 

[WinkHPD]

I see two stones that both reflect a lot of light. There is very little outright leakage but there is a very nice pattern on the left hand stone of bright red with the less bright green and a healthy distribution of "head shadow" dispursed through the stone.

The stone on the right has more red, less green and the "head shadow" less evenly distirbuted and not quite as "contrasty" to the red and green as it is in the left. I suspect that the stone on the left will be the more visually pleasing, and that both stones will score fairly well as far as light performance goes. Both stones should be very attractive.

That is my opinion based only on the Aset photos, now I look forward to hearing from you how the stones look in real life.

Wink, taking a risk...

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/20/2005 9:15:07 AM
Author: Rhino

Valeria... Sergey is not looking to hijack this thread and neither am I. I''m sorry if it appears so.

Sure not... I am a bit biased towards any comment about dynamic bargaining, and some wishful thinking made me read between the lines of Serghey''s post some hint at price/demand adjustments responding to a grading system. Yum! as they say

About the two pincess cuts - well, I can''t possibly say it better than Paul. Both would be great and close contenders based on the pictures - IMO two beauties with subtly different personalities for someone judging things solely based on personal taste, not technicals. Perhaps I would preffer the left diagram if it reffered to a large stone, and the other if choosing among smaller princess cuts, simply because I feel contrast makes more sense in large diamonds while small ones show off better vith one flash off the entire face. Of course, what is ''small'' and what is ''large'' here is a personal threshold - I would expect everyone has their own (im)practical threshold. Otherwise, taugh call. I wish I could see those two in person.

 

[Rhino]

Keep it coming guys.... you''re not going to believe what the consumers are saying (and my staff on the floor) and how the correllations in the observations made by Paul and Wink coincide with consumer input.

 

[denverappraiser]

I would expect them both to be lovely. I expect the left one would do better with concentrated lighting like a spotlight or sunlight because it will show more contrast in this kind of environment and I would expect the other to do better in diffused lighting like an office because it collects more light from the high angles. Personally, I like the look of high contrast and good scintillation so I’ll go for the one on the left.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/20/2005 3:26:38 PM
Author: denverappraiser

I expect the left one would do better with concentrated lighting like a spotlight or sunlight because it will show more contrast in this kind of environment and I would expect the other to do better in diffused lighting like an office because it collects more light from the high angles.

Could it be that this also makes the one to the right more ''photogenic'' ? After all, for it there is a position from which the camera can collect allot of white light and no ''dark spots'' (which some posters & buyers found unpleasant) while the other may look better when worn on a hand in movement rather than sitting still.

This, not counting cut grading tools (Brilliance Scope & others probably) that favor concentrated flash.

Just a though...

 

[denverappraiser]

Ana,

This is one of the things that leaves me a bit nervous about all of the reflector images. It is showing a view of the stone from a position perpendicular to the table with relatively even lighting conditions save for the calibrated head shadow in the middle. This is useful enough information but it’s hardly the typical viewing environment and maximizing it is not necessarily what makes a particular viewer prefer one stone to another. We don’t all have the same taste. Changing the size of the shadow, varying the intensity and direction of the light source(s) and viewing the stone from directions other than directly above the table all have considerable affects on what the stone looks like and which is ‘better’. The ASET, when used in a standardized fashion gives one more tidbit of information. Frankly, I haven’t really decided if this tidbit is useful or not. There is a real tendency to try to define what is the best image and then to judge others against that standard and this strikes me as asking for trouble. Were we not playing a game with Rhino and others for our mutual education and were instead addressing a question from a consumer about which stone is best, I never would have answered a question like this.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 9/20/2005 1:50:51 PM
Author: onedrop
I am not sure if this thread is for the experts only, but I have been reading it with interest. It seems that when any standard is developed be it in or outside of the diamond industry, that there will be criticism. And at times extremely harsh criticism. In my opinion the criticism will probably go a long way in smoothing out the edges of the new standards if you will. I have to say though, as a consumer, I never thought that the new AGS system for princess cuts was designed to assist in choosing a princess sight unseen just be the numbers. Instead I see it as a tool to make a better choice and to weed through stones that might be duds. Those on PS that have purchased these new AGS princess stones have been very pleased.

So why the backlash? Did I miss something wherein AGS has said that the standards that they have developed for princess cuts are the end all to be all?

I am not aware of AGS doing so, but from day one there has been a concerted effort by some to discredit them. Perhaps there are valid interests, but perhaps it is just protecting of turf formally unclaimed by anyone. Until now no major laboratory has published grading standards for any stone other than round that the public was willing to recognize and accept. (Dave Atlass has been making a valiant effort for years.) Many are making a good living selling princess cuts that will not score above an AGS 4 or 5, perhaps they might NOT want AGS scale to be accepted.

Others may simply not want change for any reason, and some, like me, will relish the opportunity to welcome the new system with open arms. I can definitely say this. I have seen many AGS 0''s, 1''s and one (so far) AGS2 (not one of Pauls) that were ALL much more beautiful than what I am used to seeing in the princess cuts. By far the MOST beautiful that I have seen was an AGS 1 that tipped the "Make Winky''s heart beat fast" meter all the way off the scale.

I will say this. Whether or not people buy into the AGS program, the princess cut diamonds that are now available to the public are much more beautiful than those that were available last January. This is a good thing, as a well cut princess is a thing of beauty. Now there is no more excuse for only retaining weight and the eye can easily see the difference from what was, and what now is. Some will go forth slowly changing to the newer cut parameters, and many may stay the same, but for those who wish to look, there is a new princess on the scene and she is a beauty. I predict that like the well cut round she may take a while to become the demanded stone, but then twenty-five years ago it was hard to sell an ideal cut round diamond. Now well over half of my clients come into the office asking for an ideal or even a Hearts and Arrows cut diamond.

I do NOT expect it to take that long for the new Princess, with or without the AGS paper. Beauty is Beauty, and it will be demanded over the relatively lifeless princess cuts I had grown so used to, and so tired of, seeing.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

While we're collecting data here I'd like to post another demonstration which relates directly to the subject at hand. Here are 2 diamonds we had scanned, depicted in this graphic by a lighting condition, relative to human observation, that Sergey had created within DiamCalc for me (thanks Serg). This graphic emphasizes the optical metric of contrast. One of 4 metrics considered in the new AGS system.

The 4 relating to light performance being...

a. brightness
b. dispersion
c. leakage and
d. contrast

Each component contributing to the overall appearance of the diamond. In some diamonds one component may stand out over another *which consumers may prefer over the other, THEIR CHOICE*.

Take a look at these 2 stones. One is gone so I have to use the graphics demonstrated via technology but the point should be clear. These virtual images are very similar to our hemisphere photography depicting the same metric and can be observed with the human eyes in weak ambient/hemisphere type lighting.

Is it obvious which diamond is displaying superior contrast? Pretty big difference eh?

I'll come on later as time allows. Thank you for your input everyone. Great minds here.

 

[Serg]

Garry,
please published example with round and square diamonds from our Indian report.
I have not it with me.
It should be nice answer for Rhino question.

 

[MissAva]

I have admittedly not seen any AGS 0 princess cuts....however there were a few things on the other site that upset me...who on here pushes GIA down and only AGS up? I am most familiar with GOG and WF but both offer GIA and AGS.....I don’t get the harshness of what I read there, is the business model for Diamond Vendors really so harsh as to allow such things? A few thoughts on what Rhino posted, I think different people are attracted to different things in a stone, when I went to your shop I was shown three different styles of cutting to perfection…I preferred the Heart and Arrows style I looked clean and sparkly without being busy to the eye. That does not to my mind me that the eight star or Solsferra are unattractive, just not to my personal liking.
Oh and the other day I found out something interesting Bailey Banks and Biddle as many consumers know, not sure how often those in the industry visit mall stores, have a line called Artic Ideal which are “perfectly cut stones, beyond anything you can find any where else….” What are they AGS 0 RB set in a lovely platinum solitaire. But they are selling there for a one carat for about 13 or 14 grand…quite a bit more then the other round brilliants they have in the store. Clearly someone likes the way they look or they would not sell and the campaign would have been ended. JMO
PS: Many Thanks to Lenoid and Irina, your fairness and honesty are above reproach.

 

[MissAva]

I do not know how to link in PMs...so I am posting this here...not trying to take over this thread, but the vendors and Lenoid and Irina need to read this Consumer Alert which seems dangerously close to slander and other things IMO.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/20/2005 4:53:33 PM
Author: Matatora


I have admittedly not seen any AGS 0 princess cuts....however there were a few things on the other site that upset me...who on here pushes GIA down and only AGS up? I am most familiar with GOG and WF but both offer GIA and AGS.....I don’t get the harshness of what I read there, is the business model for Diamond Vendors really so harsh as to allow such things? A few thoughts on what Rhino posted, I think different people are attracted to different things in a stone, when I went to your shop I was shown three different styles of cutting to perfection…I preferred the Heart and Arrows style I looked clean and sparkly without being busy to the eye. That does not to my mind me that the eight star or Solsferra are unattractive, just not to my personal liking.
Oh and the other day I found out something interesting Bailey Banks and Biddle as many consumers know, not sure how often those in the industry visit mall stores, have a line called Artic Ideal which are “perfectly cut stones, beyond anything you can find any where else….” What are they AGS 0 RB set in a lovely platinum solitaire. But they are selling there for a one carat for about 13 or 14 grand…quite a bit more then the other round brilliants they have in the store. Clearly someone likes the way they look or they would not sell and the campaign would have been ended. JMO

PS: Many Thanks to Lenoid and Irina, your fairness and honesty are above reproach.

Hi Matatora. I gave a similar answer in another thread when asked how new cut grading approaches will impact retailers - and who will be using AGS versus GIA (or both). Here it is, paraphrased.
Retailers have been able to sell using eyes-only for many years. It is the advantage they will always have over internet/long-distance vendors. The internet caused proliferation of tools like ideal-scope (and now ASET) among sellers and consumers. The HCA has also been a strong aid for predicting a diamond's performance before seeing it, and now we have GIA's cut estimator... Don't forget that INTERNET consumers know of these things, while many non-internet consumers do not.

Most retailers with walk-in customers may not want reflector images 'confusing the issue,' since almost all of the buying public won't know to ask for them anyway. With GIA adopting proportions-based grading you may see retailers begin to use information from the GIA Cut Estimator to justify their in-house diamonds' cut grade - since a wide range will qualify for the top grade.

Retailers of ideal diamonds who use AGS for grading may or may use in-house ASET or other reflector devices/images (ideal-scope), depending on their customer base. If they have only walk-in customers they may not feel it's necessary. On the other hand, if they deal via internet - or are proud of their inventory - the additional info will help them to justify what they are selling.

Look to see many savvy B&Ms using the GIA cut estimator and grading system and a much smaller group with AGS0 quality goods - a few potentially having ASET images.

GIA will stick with proportions. They will also allow many more diamonds to fall into their top grade. AGS will stick with performance and a stricter top grade. Do the math. Those with goods that receive top marks in both systems will promote both systems. Those with goods not performing well in AGS' metric will promote GIA's GCE and poo-poo the AGS' approach. Those with woofy, icky parameters will keep on keepin' on - and will poo-poo both systems.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Rhino - Late to the game. My input on the images would reinforce that already offered. I''m interested to hear the real life observations.

 

[MissAva]

Thank you John!

 

[onedrop]

Wink:

Thanks so much for your thoughts to my post. Your comments shed some light on the reasons for the "animosity" of the thread in the other forum. I always try to get an understanding of the facts before commenting. I want to think that what standards that both GIA and AGS are developing will benefit the consumer. Rollout of the standards is a start. To have experts then chime in once the standards are presented is even better. None of what I have read on PS re: AGS Princess cut standards seems to read like people are shilling for one lab or the other. The commentary seems pretty fair and honest IMO. I appreciate the new standards because when numbers and science enter the picture my eyes glaze over, but if I have general guidelines it makes my search a lot easier. That said, I appreciate you and the other experts putting your input into this thread.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Rhino, here''s my purely speculative take - the stone on the left will have more contrast and it will be obvious to any eye, thus making it slightly less brilliant than the one on the right. It will also have greater scintillation, IF more bold, more clearly defined "on-off" flashes translate into "greater" scintillation...the difference, however, will not be great.

The stone on the right will appear slightly/moderately more brilliant, and here is where you might be able to directly see this in the comparing the ASET pattern differences with the stone on the left - both in area and intensity of color differences.

Dispersion will be very similar, and excellent for a Princess cut.

Both stones will look great, but different...depends on your personal taste beyond this point.

Sorry, but I seem to have dislocated my neck in sticking it out way too far!!

 

[denverappraiser]

So tell us Rhino; What do people think who have actually seen the stones? Have they viewed them in a variety of different lighting environments and does this change their thoughts?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 9/20/2005 5:21:07 PM
Author: onedrop
Wink:

Thanks so much for your thoughts to my post. Your comments shed some light on the reasons for the ''animosity'' of the thread in the other forum. I always try to get an understanding of the facts before commenting. I want to think that what standards that both GIA and AGS are developing will benefit the consumer. Rollout of the standards is a start. To have experts then chime in once the standards are presented is even better. None of what I have read on PS re: AGS Princess cut standards seems to read like people are shilling for one lab or the other. The commentary seems pretty fair and honest IMO. I appreciate the new standards because when numbers and science enter the picture my eyes glaze over, but if I have general guidelines it makes my search a lot easier. That said, I appreciate you and the other experts putting your input into this thread.

You are very welcome, I am glad you find the output of the various people here useful. There are a LOT of great people here with decades of combined experience. (Heck some of us have decades of experience all by ourselves, although some of those decades have more value than others.)

There are some bona fida experts here, Richard von Sternberg who visits seldom is definitely one of them, Brian the Cutter, Paul Slegers, Serg, Mike Cowing, Dave Atlass a few of the others. (I am intentionally leaving John Quixote and Rhino off the list just to make sure they don''t get too swollen up ). Others I am not mentioning because my assistant is gone for two weeks and my internet connection was broken and my head and neck both hurt like heck so I am not remembering people I should be remembering. The information that they all share is priceless to those who wish to assimilate it, and useful to those who just wish to take a quick glance at it as they learn enough to buy a stone and then move on to the next big thing in their lives.

To folks like me who are sometimes confused with being expert they are an incredible resource of valuable information, and often a great reality check. If we present information erroneously they will be quick to set us straight. If we are on target they will reinforce what we have to say and the information gathered by the public will be good. Often we will disagree about things, and in my opinion that is good for you too, provided the disagreement is couched in polite discourse and not name calling.

The open give and take of opposing views is very valuable both for the education of us in the trade and for you in the consumer corner. I would estimate that I have learned more in the past few years of discourse on Pricescope and on DT than I did in the twenty years prior. Mind you, I went to dozens of continuing education courses and I was a staple at the Tucson Gem show and the classes that they offered, but that was a few weeks per year. Here on Pricescope I get to discuss important issues nearly fifty weeks out of the year. Education is continuous rather than a week here or a week here, and it is immersive and intense. I would almost warrant that for many consumers it is way too much. However, for those who wish to go beyond a cursory spike in information there is all that you could ever want. And if that were not enough, you get it from some of the top names in the Industry.

When I went to the AGS laboratory in June at the Vegas show to listen to Peter Yantzer talk about the new system, who was in the room? Paul Slegers, Garry Holloway, The Denver Appraiser, Thom Underwood, I think Capitol Bill was there, but that may have been later, I get confused, Lieve (Paul’s partner, a wonderfully brilliant lady in her own right), and many others who will now feel free to smack me for not mentioning them too...

There was a LOT of brain power in that room and many of the people there are here also to share ideas and information with you. THAT is a VALUABLE and amazing thing, all made possible by this nearly instantaneous communication tool that the internet has become.

Wink in a rambling mode

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 9/20/2005 6:28:13 PM
Author: DiamondExpert
Rhino, here''s my purely speculative take - the stone on the left will have more contrast and it will be obvious to any eye, thus making it slightly less brilliant than the one on the right. It will also have greater scintillation, IF more bold, more clearly defined ''on-off'' flashes translate into ''greater'' scintillation...the difference, however, will not be great.

The stone on the right will appear slightly/moderately more brilliant, and here is where you might be able to directly see this in the comparing the ASET pattern differences with the stone on the left - both in area and intensity of color differences.

Dispersion will be very similar, and excellent for a Princess cut.

Both stones will look great, but different...depends on your personal taste beyond this point.

Sorry, but I seem to have dislocated my neck in sticking it out way too far!!

Gary,

LOL! I love your answer, maybe that is why my neck is so stiff, sticking it out there along with yours.

Rhino, I agree largely with Gary, but I am wondering if it is indeed possible that the left stone looks less brilliant to the eye, or does the greater contrast and thus scintillation that I am expecting from it hide any small difference in the brilliance? This is a fun excersize for me, seeing first the ASET then the stone, much different than seeing the stone when I pick it from the paper and already knowing is it wonderful or not before I see the ASET view. Thank you for doing this.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/20/2005 4:07:56 PM
Author: Serg
Garry,
please published example with round and square diamonds from our Indian report.
I have not it with me.
It should be nice answer for Rhino question.

Sergey asked me to post this.

Have a good look at these stones modeled under ASET and Ideal-Scope.
Answer the question in your mind.

 

[Capitol Bill]

Garry,
I''ve answered the question in my mind. While you''re at it, here are three additional questions that came to mind when considering the Carre image:
What image would a flat piece of mirror produce?
How important is contrast?
What occurs when tilt is introduced?
Thanks for the interesting exercise.

What was the original purpose for this thread anyway?

Bill

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/20/2005 3:54:37 PM
Author: Wink

By far the MOST beautiful that I have seen was an AGS 1 that tipped the ''Make Winky''s heart beat fast'' meter all the way off the scale.

You never cease to make me smile friend.


I can''t tell you guys how much I''ve been learning from this experiment. Really. You guys will probably think I''m out of my skull once this is completed but then I have been acused of being a little wacky anyhow.

As we are conducting this lil experiment in the store and getting all kinds of consumer feedback I thought it might be interesting to have a "virtual assessment" to compare to the "direct assessment" and see if people are seeing *online* what people are observing in the real world. I''m going to start a lil poll for comparison purposes and see how or if it all correllates. THIS IS FUN.

Before I share the thoughts of the consumers who were involved locally I''d like to get a comparison of virtual opinions as well. I hope enough consumers/laymen will respond.

While comments are very consistent under certain lighting conditions there are some where folks get a little confused about which they prefer more and some who know for sure.

Just so ya''ll know, the lighting conditions I am showing folks under here are

a. typical office lighting
b. weak ambient lighting/hemisphere
c. direct led 5800 degree kelvin
d. diffuse led 5800 kelvin
e. stronger natural ambient daylight that comes in our windows in front of the store

One of the beautiful things I am seeing as I study both the GIA and AGS systems is their flexibility for allowance of certain personal preferences, even if they are not my own. I have a history of being hard headed and opinionated ... I know this about myself.

Also while I see quite a variety of super ideal cuts from many manufacturers MOST of these stones coming from these factories all have certain minor facet constructions that make most appear quite similar except for those that border on the outskirts. You guys know what I''m talking about. In any case ... as they say ... variety is the spice baby! I believe we will see more variety of "ideal cuts" that most of us are not accustomed to, equally as beautiful, and will force some to think further "outside of the box".

I know I am.

In the meantime lets all have fun with this.

Peace,

 

[MissAva]

Okay 100% honestly the first time I looked at the photos I thought it was the same stone in both just top vs bottom...I have a TON to learn about princess cuts.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/20/2005 3:53:44 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Ana,

This is one of the things that leaves me a bit nervous about all of the reflector images. It is showing a view of the stone from a position perpendicular to the table with relatively even lighting conditions save for the calibrated head shadow in the middle. This is useful enough information but it’s hardly the typical viewing environment and maximizing it is not necessarily what makes a particular viewer prefer one stone to another. We don’t all have the same taste. Changing the size of the shadow, varying the intensity and direction of the light source(s) and viewing the stone from directions other than directly above the table all have considerable affects on what the stone looks like and which is ‘better’. The ASET, when used in a standardized fashion gives one more tidbit of information. Frankly, I haven’t really decided if this tidbit is useful or not. There is a real tendency to try to define what is the best image and then to judge others against that standard and this strikes me as asking for trouble. Were we not playing a game with Rhino and others for our mutual education and were instead addressing a question from a consumer about which stone is best, I never would have answered a question like this.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

I appreciate this response Neil. There are ways you and I think alike and ways we don''t. You see ... as logical thinking guys we like to point to a "best" and say ... HEY, Look at that! THIS IS WHAT A PRINCESS SHOULD LOOK LIKE!!! By nature I believe we like standards instead of no standards. Order, not chaos. Absolutes if you will. We all sometimes tend to be narrow in our thinking and I am no exception to this. There are certain issues I won''t budge on

but I can understand now, to a greater extent the variety and flexibility in these systems with regards to light performance and their impact on diamond appearance. This experiment reinforces the need for people to *see* and compare for themselves what it is they like and don''t like within diamonds. Just like GIA had said in their study ... DUH.

LOL... wait till you see the Bscope results.

ASET ROCKS man. It''s just a matter of understanding and interpreting it. I am more motivated now to complete the article I''m working on which covers ASET. Kind thanks to all who are giving input. Virtual comparison time.

Also food for thought for our friends on DT who are pointing to Bscope results and GIA ... wait till they see the Bscope results on some of the GIA Excellents coming out!

Garry ... how do you think a 36/41.2 will fair? Can anyone say "ring of death"?

Peace out,

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/20/2005 9:21:28 PM
Author: Capitol Bill
Garry,
I''ve answered the question in my mind. While you''re at it, here are three additional questions that came to mind when considering the Carre image:
What image would a flat piece of mirror produce?

Black in ASET light

How important is contrast?

Answer Strongly depends from definition contrast and light condition.
I sure contrast is very important, but I am not happy with IS, FS, ASET, Isee2, BS.. contrasts.

What occurs when tilt is introduced?
Thanks for the interesting exercise.

What was the original purpose for this thread anyway?

Bill

 

[Serg]

Re: THIS IS WHAT A PRINCESS SHOULD LOOK LIKE!!! By nature I believe we like standards instead of no standards. Order, not chaos.

Rhino,
Princess cut had been greatly improved in last 5 years without any labs standards. Is it possible with bad standards?
Bad standards are more worse than chaos, Diamond market is not chaos