ASET photos and discussion

[WinkHPD]

I have been experimenting, finally, with taking pictures through the desk top version of the ASET tool. While I have seen a few decent photos from the hand held version I have not been able to take any that I thought worthy, and have not had good results with the desk top until after extensive conversations with Jim Caudill at the American Gem Society Laboratory. Pre Christmas preparation season arrived about the time I might have liked to have started experimenting and that was that.

Finally, with the use of a good macro lense and by removing the lense from the top of the desktop unit I was able to focus on more than just the inside 90% of the stone so I finally have a picture that shows the entire image. (As a side note, I had to remove my glasses to see the entire image until Jim Caudill sent me a different lense for the top of the desk top model. Those without glasses could see it perfectly and I doubt it was realized at first how awkward it was for us who use glasses to see the whole image.)

When I tried using lights on my photo stand the image was horribly blown out, and by experimenting under daylight I got the first image. The second, brighter image was taken by putting the photo stand on my desk and using 4100 kelvin Halogen lighting in 24 and 17 degree spots from my ceiling. I am using an I-SI2 EightStar to take any questions about the quality of cut from the equation. You can however see the inclusions if you look closely.

I welcome comments from any of you who have the device as to why I might be getting the different intensity of color on the under the table portion of the diamond and the outside the table portion.

When I use the same setup on one of the diamonds from Pual-Antwerp's Cut by Infinity brand I see a different distribution of brightness of colors. In the charts from AGS there is never a variance in the color, red is red, green is green, etc. Any ideas? Comments on interpretation of the images, causes of the different intensity of colors, and tips on how to get better images are welcomed!

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Here is photo #2

 

[WinkHPD]

And finally, photo #3. If anyone knows how to put them all side by side it would be appreciated.

Wink

 

[JohnQuixote]

If anyone knows how to put them all side by side it would be appreciated.

Wink

1 - 2 - 3

 

[WinkHPD]

Thanks John, and would you also have some comments for this poor supplicant???

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

we are finding Neil''s system with the hand held to be very simple.
But frankly there seems to be little advantage for ASET over ideal-scope / red reflectors for round diamonds.
The ASET comes into its own in fancy shapes however. And we are working on a video tutorial to help with that.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/8/2006 8:57:34 PM
Author: Wink

Thanks John, and would you also have some comments for this poor supplicant???

Wink

I have been running pell mell today and have promises to keep (some non work-related), but I have this on the to-do list Wink.

Oh, and I think you meant to type superman, not supplicant, right?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/8/2006 9:17:33 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
we are finding Neil''s system with the hand held to be very simple.
But frankly there seems to be little advantage for ASET over ideal-scope / red reflectors for round diamonds.
The ASET comes into its own in fancy shapes however. And we are working on a video tutorial to help with that.

You are right, Garry.

But I think that Wink is mainly showing rounds, since it will help him improve his photographic set-up. Later on, he has amazing fancy shapes to be playing with.

Live long,

 

[valeria101]

Quick Q: where did the inclusions go in the last picture?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/9/2006 5:35:05 AM
Author: valeria101


Quick Q: where did the inclusions go in the last picture?

The last picture is a G-VS2 diamond. H&A cut. I am interested in an interpretation of the different color saturations of the H&A vs the EightStar cuts, I am not at all sure I agree with Gary that the ASET has little use for rounds different from the red reflectors. I think there is much information here, but I am not sure what it is.

I am also interested in how to get a better picture, regardless of the shapes.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wink these are not high resolution - they were the first I ever took with the hand held first sample we recieved from my manufacturer.
I used my canon 4meg ixus $350 camera.
Arthur is better at it now and is using the camera on its back with the scope sitting on top of the lens and a piece of perspex on top.
We use a black pen cap for the darkened shots.
We will release some soon I hope.

I think the shots are as good as yours.
Perhaps there needs to be a device specially designed for photography.

 

[valeria101]

May I add a couple of questions to the list?

Date: 1/9/2006 5:59:08 AM
Author: Wink

I am interested in an interpretation of the different color saturation of the H&A vs the EightStar cuts...

Is there any need for one? As far as I understand, the point of these colored reflector tools is to replace the imprecise quantitative evaluation of color saturation (subject to lighting variations etc.) with a clear cut one based on the clear difference between different color zones. E.g. between the IS and ASET, some hard to distinguish shades of light to intense red were translated into clearer cut red and green zones...
Is this wrong? If not... why would color intensity of ASET colors still matter?




I am not at all sure I agree with Gary that the ASET has little use for rounds different from the red reflectors. I think there is much information here, but I am not sure what it is.

Somewhat related, may I ask if there can be some interpretation relating the green patches (reflection at lower angles) with observed fire?




I am also interested in how to get a better picture, regardless of the shapes.

Those are quite nice to begin with, as far as I can tell.

In those three - the painting on 8* has never been that visible in previous types of reflection images (H&A viewer and IS - perhaps noticeable, but it becomes quite obvious under ASET)

 

[denverappraiser]

Wink,

These are pretty good. The different color saturation under the crown and the table of the same stone is caused by the light reflection between the top surface of the piece of glass and the surface of the stone. You see it on any picture where there is a piece of glass, plastic or whatever between the stone and the camera. I highly suspect that there is a truncation effect on the green caused by the inside surface of the glass as well.

Here's a few thoughts from someone who so far has been too cheap to buy the version of the tool you're using but who has a moderate amount of experience with these things (I'm holding out for version 2):

Play with your lighting and use a diffuser. It may help to try to restrict some of the low angle light from entering by putting some sort of blinder around it. It’s remarkably sensitive to whether the original light source is directly overhead or slightly off. For example: I’m going to assume that the stones you are looking at are pretty nice. I suspect that the color variation in the center is caused by the placement of the light, not by the cutting of the stone. I think this is probably the case for the color variation within the blues in different portions of the stone as well.
The color balance and intensity of the original light source has a big effect on how pretty the colors are. Brighter isn't always better.

Don't trust the automatic controls on the camera unless you've got a model where you have no choice.

I don’t think the images in the AGS charts are photographs, they’re computer models. They can use whatever color they wish.
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[oldminer]

• In regard to grading fancy shapes with ASET:
  
  While I support more knowledge, I wonder how an appraiser or grader will be able to readily assess if one diamond is more, slightly less, or slightly more beautiful than another with an ASET scope? Surely, one can see the difference from a wonderful stone versus a fair or poor one without any tool. The defining use of this tool requires the ability to discern nuances of performance. Every client wants to know how much better one diamond is from another.
  
  1. How will this be based if the eye must interpret images that obviously are varied and quite complex?
  
  2. How repeatable will the interpretation be when the ASET image is presented to different appraisers? Is it going to be "subjective" opinion or a matter of objective measure?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Good advice Neil.
You seem to be ahead of the pack - are you still using cling wrap?
We think thin perspex is ok.

The AGS charts are all done with DiamCalc.

Dave ASET can only ever be subjective unless you use a computer based pixel counter and look at a rotated stone image like AGS do.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/8/2006 8:57:34 PM
Author: Wink
Thanks John, and would you also have some comments for this poor supplicant???

Wink

Val noted the main observation I would make: Brillianteering approaches are distinct. Easy to see if the UGs were run from star to girdle. The variance in angles (or in the 8*'s case, lack of it) between crown, star and UG facets is engaging to look at with the multiple color coding. By the way, Wink, you established a nice focal depth with these images. Bravo.

Here is a page with more painted examples from Bill - the conversation dovetails... Well, actually it degenerates some.

The hand-held setup Neil has arrived at (and Garry's photos, which are quite nice too) works well, but methinks those would be hard to manage vis a vis standardization. Neil still gets my vote for handyman of the century with this stuff.

Wink, I feel your pain on the lighting intensity, diffusing, etc. Another issue that will become a concern at some point is the desktop ASET's stage: As diamond size increases the girdle moves farther away from the glass platform and at some point the color coding of the angular paths is going to be compromised. AGS told me sometime ago there may be different stages forthcoming - which leads me to believe all of us who bought Desktop ASET version 1.0 may have just paid for the R&D of version 2.0.

Ain't we generous?

 

[oldminer]

Well, then we agree. Great.

Now, when appraisal clients want a definitive ASET result, the real thing to tell them is that the ASET shows an excellent performing diamond, when that happens to be the case, but we can''t tell them which one of two or three stones is "best" from the use of an ASET scope.

I really want consumers to grasp the reality of what the tool can do and what it cannot do. It is very useful, but it is not going to be the tool to compare quite similar stones with as it remains quite subjective and personal as to which diamond is the most beautiful.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/9/2006 2:25:33 PM
Author: oldminer
Well, then we agree. Great.

Now, when appraisal clients want a definitive ASET result, the real thing to tell them is that the ASET shows an excellent performing diamond, when that happens to be the case, but we can''t tell them which one of two or three stones is ''best'' from the use of an ASET scope.

I really want consumers to grasp the reality of what the tool can do and what it cannot do. It is very useful, but it is not going to be the tool to compare quite similar stones with as it remains quite subjective and personal as to which diamond is the most beautiful.

No argument here. I am intrigued with the possibility of predicting performance qualities (especially in fancies) and like the enhanced look at contruction ASET offers, but I think your statement that it can show an ''excellent performing diamond'' - leaving the rest up to direct observation and personal taste is right on.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/9/2006 2:32:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 1/9/2006 2:25:33 PM
Author: oldminer
Well, then we agree. Great.

Now, when appraisal clients want a definitive ASET result, the real thing to tell them is that the ASET shows an excellent performing diamond, when that happens to be the case, but we can''t tell them which one of two or three stones is ''best'' from the use of an ASET scope.

I really want consumers to grasp the reality of what the tool can do and what it cannot do. It is very useful, but it is not going to be the tool to compare quite similar stones with as it remains quite subjective and personal as to which diamond is the most beautiful.

No argument here. I am intrigued with the possibility of predicting performance qualities (especially in fancies) and like the enhanced look at contruction ASET offers, but I think your statement that it can show an ''excellent performing diamond'' - leaving the rest up to direct observation and personal taste is right on.

I beg to disagree.

In this forum, we constantly see professionals and especially consumers, commenting on the slightest difference between, very often, three super-ideal rounds. Even within the same brand, one stone is often prefered to another, and, most often, the idealscope-image is the most important factor in this choice.

Now, an ASET-image is slightly more complicated, but in fancy shapes, we are also talking about clearly greater differences in cut-quality than in rounds. Here, the main question right now, is not whether a stone is AGS-1 or 0, but whether it is AGS-4 or AGS1.

I consider it very weird that most people here consider themselves capable of chosing the very best of 3 super-ideal-cut rounds, cut by the same company, with the same goal, while they would not be able to make a difference between 2 entirely different looking fancy shapes.

It reminds me of the lyrics of a song by the Belgian group K''s Choice:
''When your president''s an actor, something is wrong''

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/9/2006 4:02:18 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

I beg to disagree.

In this forum, we constantly see professionals and especially consumers, commenting on the slightest difference between, very often, three super-ideal rounds. Even within the same brand, one stone is often prefered to another, and, most often, the idealscope-image is the most important factor in this choice.

Now, an ASET-image is slightly more complicated, but in fancy shapes, we are also talking about clearly greater differences in cut-quality than in rounds. Here, the main question right now, is not whether a stone is AGS-1 or 0, but whether it is AGS-4 or AGS1.

I consider it very weird that most people here consider themselves capable of chosing the very best of 3 super-ideal-cut rounds, cut by the same company, with the same goal, while they would not be able to make a difference between 2 entirely different looking fancy shapes.

Live long,

I agree with Paul - it is the fancies where this toool is useful - but to add to the problem Paul points to - to properly anaylyse them we will need movie ASET''s with the stones being rotated.
Now that is not going to be easy - but just as well that Pricescope now supports video streaming

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/9/2006 4:02:18 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 1/9/2006 2:32:36 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

No argument here. I am intrigued with the possibility of predicting performance qualities (especially in fancies) and like the enhanced look at contruction ASET offers, but I think your statement that it can show an 'excellent performing diamond' - leaving the rest up to direct observation and personal taste is right on.

I beg to disagree.

In this forum, we constantly see professionals and especially consumers, commenting on the slightest difference between, very often, three super-ideal rounds. Even within the same brand, one stone is often prefered to another, and, most often, the idealscope-image is the most important factor in this choice.

Now, an ASET-image is slightly more complicated, but in fancy shapes, we are also talking about clearly greater differences in cut-quality than in rounds. Here, the main question right now, is not whether a stone is AGS-1 or 0, but whether it is AGS-4 or AGS1.

I consider it very weird that most people here consider themselves capable of chosing the very best of 3 super-ideal-cut rounds, cut by the same company, with the same goal, while they would not be able to make a difference between 2 entirely different looking fancy shapes.

It reminds me of the lyrics of a song by the Belgian group K's Choice:
'When your president's an actor, something is wrong'

Live long,

Hey Paul,

I hope you don’t think I am one of the people who will use equally nice ideal-scope images, or my own taste preferences to tell someone what they will prefer(!)… I am absolutely against that.

Superideal rounds and premium fancies can be at equal levels of top performance while having distinctly different ‘looks’… The most basic comparison would be a blonde, brunette and redhead who are equally beautiful (look, Garry is paying attention now): No vendor can tell a client which of these they will prefer. It’s a matter of taste.

What I was saying above:

Will we be able to tell TOP performers from the rest of the pack with ASET? Yes.
Will we be able to tell which princess (or round) is a blonde, a brunette or a redhead? Yes.
Will we be able to tell the client which he/she will prefer? NO.

Do we disagree?

Forgive me if I wasn't clear, we had a president who was an actor you know...

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hey John,

Just re-read mine and previous posts, and it seems that I was mis-interpreting both your and Oldminer''s posts.

Probably, I was too eager for a round of disagreements, after the peace of the Christmas-period. Damn, I have to try and pick a fight elsewhere.

Live long,

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/9/2006 4:48:20 PM
Author: JohnQuixote



I hope you don’t think I am one of the people who will use equally nice ideal-scope images, or my own taste preferences to tell someone what they will prefer(!)… I am absolutely against that.

What I was saying above:

Will we be able to tell TOP performers from the rest of the pack with ASET? Yes.
Will we be able to tell which princess (or round) is a blonde, a brunette or a redhead? Yes.
Will we be able to tell the client which he/she will prefer? NO.

Since the ASET is also meant for non-experts to understand and there''s no ''user guide'' for it around here yet, I hope this is not interrupting serious discussion.

From my side of the screen, the reflector images do not help much communicating personal preferences aside levels of quality. How many times did a buyer come to you asking for a certain IS look (not level of performance) ?

It seems to take allot of technical insight, imagination and experience to describe personal preferences in ASET (or IS) terms. The main difficulty may come from the obvious fact that these reflector images don''t give anything to choose - they have no aesthetic value of their own and if they do, how difficult is to relate that to predictable aesthetic features of the object they describe? Just a thought...

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/9/2006 5:24:08 PM
Author: valeria101


Since the ASET is also meant for non-experts to understand and there''s no ''user guide'' for it around here yet, I hope this is not interrupting serious discussion.

From my side of the screen, the reflector images do not help much communicating personal preferences aside levels of quality. How many times did a buyer come to you asking for a certain IS look (not level of performance) ?

It seems to take allot of technical insight, imagination and experience to describe personal preferences in ASET (or IS) terms. The main difficulty may come from the obvious fact that these reflector images don''t give anything to choose - they have no aesthetic value of their own and if they do, how difficult is to relate that to predictable aesthetic features of the object they describe? Just a thought...

I am not sure I agree with you. Here is one of the few non H&A cut stones that I own, I use it just to show my clients how excremental a diamond can look. It looks pretty obviously bad in the ASET too. It only takes a glance to know that this stone is NOT going to look good, and it also tells you in a glance, WHY

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Just because I know all of the other experts know this I will explain it without making a quiz, although that might be more fun...

There is some good red from the center of the stone, but no contrast so that the stone actually looks less brilliant that it is. Most of the light coming from the stone is the less brilliant ambiant light gathered from 0 - 45 degrees (represented by green light) and the contrast pattern that should be given by the head shadow is in fact poorly placed so as to look dark rather than to provide the on/off sparkle of a well cut diamond.

In truth this is a lifeless piece of crystallized carbon that I show to people here at the end of my cut explaination and although I have it marked NOT FOR SALE, I really need not bother, I could not sell it if I wanted to after people have seen a well cut diamond in comparrison.

Here is a slide from the AGS presentation that explains this a little better than I have.

Wink

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/9/2006 6:12:26 PM
Author: Wink

I am not sure I agree with you. Here is one of the few non H&A cut stones that I own, I use it just to show my clients how excremental a diamond can look. It looks pretty obviously bad in the ASET too.

My post wasn''t too clear... I picked an idea from way up the thread without mention: that that choices based on taste among goods of similar quality are difficult via ASET (or reflector tools in general).




It only takes a glance to know that this stone is NOT going to look good, and it also tells you in a glance, WHY

Fair enough

... Gee! Can''t imagine how this would be anywhere comparable quality with those you have posted earlier - maybe culet up!

 

[WinkHPD]

Oops, this one should have been first...

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/9/2006 6:21:01 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/9/2006 6:12:26 PM
Author: Wink

I am not sure I agree with you. Here is one of the few non H&A cut stones that I own, I use it just to show my clients how excremental a diamond can look. It looks pretty obviously bad in the ASET too.

My post wasn''t too clear... I picked an idea from way up the thread without mention: that that choices based on taste among goods of similar quality are difficult via ASET (or reflector tools in general).




It only takes a glance to know that this stone is NOT going to look good, and it also tells you in a glance, WHY

Fair enough

... Gee! Can''t imagine how this would be anywhere comparable quality with those you have posted earlier - maybe culet up!

LOL! It probably would look better culet up!

 

[WinkHPD]

For an example of the differences available in the various cuts, here are two gorgeous AGS 0 cut grade princess cuts. While both images are quite different they both have some nice red, some great contrast and unlike the rounds, they gather more light from the ambient light than would be acceptable for an AGS 0 round.

Wink

 

[belle]

awesome pics wink

well done