Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[stone-cold11]

View this video by RD. The rounds are relatively well cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iThUVa5ND6Q

 

[Doc_1]

View this video by RD. The rounds are relatively well cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iThUVa5ND6Q

let me remind with the OP's question that started this thread:

Hi All,

I was wondering if someone could kindly tell me why Cushions with the crushed ice appearance seem to be "looked down upon" amongst the various types of cushions out there? (based on many posts i've read on PS).

I'm new to PS, is there someplace I can go to look at the different types and compare? I really appreciate any help.

Thanks!!!

So the question remains unanswered by all the critics.
Why would top notch high end designers, HW, Tiffany, .... choose the crushed ice look for their clients?

 

[stone-cold11]

So? I am trying to determine RD's camera set up so that it is at least consistent with what the ASET is showing. Both you and RD has already stated that the RB looks dark in the pictures which most of us know should not be based on the ASET. As it currently stands, it is not so it is not displaying an accurate portrayal of what the stones will look like according to the ASET. If your AVC is shot under RD's set up, it will look dark just like the round brilliant in the pics he took and the video on youtube, reflecting the black of the camera back in to the lens.

WOULD YOU BUY YOUR AVC BASED ON A VIDEO LIKE THAT?

You want something that shows you a true pic/video of how a diamond performs and so far RD's video is not. So now you want me to comment on how the crush ice stone performs? Based on a set up that is not consistent with ASET? Garbage In Garbage Out.

 

[kenny]

View this video by RD. The rounds are relatively well cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iThUVa5ND6Q

let me remind with the OP's question that started this thread:

Hi All,

I was wondering if someone could kindly tell me why Cushions with the crushed ice appearance seem to be "looked down upon" amongst the various types of cushions out there? (based on many posts i've read on PS).

I'm new to PS, is there someplace I can go to look at the different types and compare? I really appreciate any help.

Thanks!!!

So the question remains unanswered by all the critics.
Why would top notch high end designers, HW, Tiffany, .... choose the crushed ice look for their clients?

What a coincidence.
Everything about how you post and think sounds exactly exactly exactly like Rockdiamond.

Hmmmmm.

 

[Doc_1]

So? I am trying to determine RD's camera set up so that it is at least consistent with what the ASET is showing. Both you and RD has already stated that the RB looks dark in the pictures which most of us know should not be based on the ASET. As it currently stands, it is not so it is not displaying an accurate portrayal of what the stones will look like according to the ASET. If your AVC is shot under RD's set up, it will look dark just like the round brilliant in the pics he took and the video on youtube, reflecting the black of the camera back in to the lens.

WOULD YOU BUY YOUR AVC BASED ON A VIDEO LIKE THAT?

You want something that shows you a true pic/video of how a diamond performs and so far RD's video is not. So now you want me to comment on how the crush ice stone performs? Based on a set up that is not consistent with ASET? Garbage In Garbage Out.

Not with the light setting in the beginning of the video, that is where we differ. it will look gorgeous too.

 

[Doc_1]

View this video by RD. The rounds are relatively well cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iThUVa5ND6Q

let me remind with the OP's question that started this thread:

Hi All,

I was wondering if someone could kindly tell me why Cushions with the crushed ice appearance seem to be "looked down upon" amongst the various types of cushions out there? (based on many posts i've read on PS).

I'm new to PS, is there someplace I can go to look at the different types and compare? I really appreciate any help.

Thanks!!!

So the question remains unanswered by all the critics.
Why would top notch high end designers, HW, Tiffany, .... choose the crushed ice look for their clients?

What a coincidence.
Everything about how you post and think sounds exactly exactly exactly like Rockdiamond.

Hmmmmm.

That is funny....LMAO
I will pick the phone one day and talk to RD but after this debate is over, if ever.
You gave me the laugh before bedtime thank you for it, am sure RD when he reads this he will laugh too.
See you tomorrow!

 

[stone-cold11]

Not with the light setting in the beginning of the video, that is where we differ. it will look gorgeous too.

Nope, because the stone will be reflecting the black of the camera. Regardless of the lighting condition.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Doc, with RD's videocamera setup, I can tell you that the AVC you bought will look more like the round's image/video than the crush ice radiant or cushion. Would you have buy it then if that is the video you saw instead of GOG's video?

This seems to be a true and accurate interpretation of my knowledge of Diamond Dock (GOG) and the little I have been able to guage of RD's rather opaque video lighting methodology (although methodology is the wrong word when the rules are not clearly definable).
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=&...lient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_en-GBAU382US383&ie=UTF-8

BTW Doc, Australia has freedom of speech. Infact we are well known for it - infact we have a reputation (which I uphold) for vigorously speaking our mind.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

View this video by RD. The rounds are relatively well cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iThUVa5ND6Q

For an example of a non rules based video system please see this video SC posted above - note the different background color's and the huge diference in diamond size where in the ASET photo's there is only a small size diff. (the unpatterned stone seems to be close or zoomed in more on the video's?).

It is rather funny (in a sick aussie way perhaps) that Rhino once upon a time was accused by many on this board of behaving like this:

"obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace"

But fortunately has very much changed and he applies more consistant rules and methodolgy. I am sure that there were good commercial reasons for that. I have no doubt his business has grown because of it.

 

[Cehrabehra]

View this video by RD. The rounds are relatively well cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iThUVa5ND6Q

For an example of a non rules based video system please see this video SC posted above - note the different background color's and the huge diference in diamond size where in the ASET photo's there is only a small size diff. (the unpatterned stone seems to be close or zoomed in more on the video's?).

It is rather funny (in a sick aussie way perhaps) that Rhino once upon a time was accused by many on this board of behaving like this:

"obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace"

But fortunately has very much changed and he applies more consistant rules and methodolgy. I am sure that there were good commercial reasons for that. I have no doubt his business has grown because of it.

Funny Garry, I was thinking about that too, Jon as the black sheep.

I have defended underdog opinions in the past, I will defend peoples right to a differing opinion, especially if the opinion is about preference. But I love science at heart. I embrace differences but foremost I like to understand them. How? Why?

 

[Rockdiamond]

View this video by RD. The rounds are relatively well cut. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iThUVa5ND6Q

For an example of a non rules based video system please see this video SC posted above - note the different background color's and the huge diference in diamond size where in the ASET photo's there is only a small size diff. (the unpatterned stone seems to be close or zoomed in more on the video's?).

It is rather funny (in a sick aussie way perhaps) that Rhino once upon a time was accused by many on this board of behaving like this:

"obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace"

But fortunately has very much changed and he applies more consistant rules and methodolgy. I am sure that there were good commercial reasons for that. I have no doubt his business has grown because of it.

Funny Garry, I was thinking about that too, Jon as the black sheep.

I have defended underdog opinions in the past, I will defend peoples right to a differing opinion, especially if the opinion is about preference. But I love science at heart. I embrace differences but foremost I like to understand them. How? Why?

I all- I hope everyone had ( is having) a great weekend.

Sara- part of what I feel is so wrong about people who second guess GIA EX cut grade ( for example) - or order a diamond's cut in a "scientific" manner is that this particular aspect of a diamond transcends science.
IN the cutting it's a totally different story than in the evaluating the finished process.
A comparison I've used before is one where we try to use science to determine a Monet is "better" than a Picasso.
Some things need to be judged visually.
I do believe, after all these years, I've finally made some headway into the mistaken reliance on aset for all types of diamonds. It certainly has it's place, but I do believe we have shown that even the aset experts do not have a valid methodology for using the device to show what is, or is not a well cut "crushed ice" stone.

Ken- your post was insulting on so many levels- but more than anything it was insulting to Pricescope.
Do you think the good people running this site could- I should say would not prevent someone doing as you imply.
Same to those who attack Doc, while ignoring ( or condoning) behavior of another individual who has been disruptive, and broken forum policies.
Do you have any idea how difficult it is to question certain "givens" here on PS? Against such odds. I question one principal and 20 people come down on me and throw insults- more challenging especially since I am NOT anonymous.

I don't know Doc, but I am not ashamed to admit a am very grateful for his open mind, and willingness to stand in the face of such fierce opposition.

 

[stone-cold11]

As mentioned, I have compared for everyone to see.
I'll comply with Stone's request and shoot the round next to the radiant to compare how they handle the light, in different environments.
A strong case can be made for the aset in "repeatability" .

Where is the comparison video? It's has been a week now.

 

[Rockdiamond]

As mentioned, I have compared for everyone to see.
I'll comply with Stone's request and shoot the round next to the radiant to compare how they handle the light, in different environments.
A strong case can be made for the aset in "repeatability" .

Where is the comparison video? It's has been a week now.

Stone, I think you should dock my pay.
Seriously- in addition to posting here on PS, I have quite a bit to do in the business- I will see about making a comparison video this week.
Then you can tear it to shreds and tell us all how it's not done correctly.

 

[stone-cold11]

I figure if you have the time to make these long rebuttal, a short video would be more worth your time.

 

[Rockdiamond]

How long do you think it takes to make a video of a diamond?
That means shoot the video, produce the video and upload it.

Doc, with RD's videocamera setup, I can tell you that the AVC you bought will look more like the round's image/video than the crush ice radiant or cushion. Would you have buy it then if that is the video you saw instead of GOG's video?

This seems to be a true and accurate interpretation of my knowledge of Diamond Dock (GOG) and the little I have been able to guage of RD's rather opaque video lighting methodology (although methodology is the wrong word when the rules are not clearly definable).
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=&...lient-ff&rlz=1B3GGLL_en-GBAU382US383&ie=UTF-8

BTW Doc, Australia has freedom of speech. Infact we are well known for it - infact we have a reputation (which I uphold) for vigorously speaking our mind.

Garry-I have complimented Jon- I don't necessarily agree that the Diamond Dock is the best way to shoot, but since there's no rules, we all have to experiment.
As a leader in this industry, I'd think that you might be able to temper your criticism, and remember just how difficult it is to have so many videos published. How many many sites have no photos at all, much less video.
I have listened to the comments make- and listened carefully.
I've started to shoot the diamonds in a sorting tray, and also use varied lighting.

We've had a tremendous response to our videos- in many cases from consumers who've found them extremely valuable in assisting in decision making process.
To answer your point in your subsequent post- the stones were vastly different in size. I do not believe that's impacting my point.

I'll repeat- I'm getting Lbox- and will use it extensively, I'm sure. But I'll still use my current methodology in combination with Lbox.

 

[stone-cold11]

Produce and upload you do not have to stare at it while the computer is doing it right?

 

[Rockdiamond]

I have a video of these four stones. In thinking of Garry's criticism of my methodology- or lack thereof, according to him, it seems to me that experimentation is the only way to discover how to do this sort of thing. It might very well mean that there needs to be different methods of photographing different cuts of diamonds.

Even though it might seem simple to Stone, making the videos we do requires a lot of time.
I need to look at the footage with a critical eye.
Which is, in essence, the control.
The logical criticism might be that my preference is now the deciding factor.
Which has also been a valid criticism of HCA

And the truth is, a lot of people do value what Garry Holliway thinks-he has demonstrated to many people that his methods work.
I've always found that it's intelligent to give people credit where it's due. Even if I feel differently.
Just like photography the best representation methods can indeed vary for the type of stone- as well as the type of buyer.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

It might very well mean that there needs to be different methods of photographing different cuts of diamonds.

If you want your video to be accepted as educational not simple salesmanship you can't edit a video or choose lighting to show a stone in the most beautiful way or to preferentially show one stone as looking better than the other to support your opinion. Educational videos are about objective comparisons not about subjective selling of one stone or one cut or about the seller's personal preference. Your goal should be to find the most common viewing environment(s) and lighting and film all stones under those conditions consistantly.

You have finally blocked the pavilion that is a good first step, step two and three should be eliminating the strong directional grading lamp assymetric lighting and shots where the camera is so close that the stones draw the black camera lense reflection. These are uncommon viewing environments for ring wearers.

Describe your lighting environment(s) in detail to the viewer but don't fudge them to suit a particular cut.
You can save editing time and enhance the objectivity of your videos by leaving out subjective commentary or all commentary whatsoever.

Rhino often does this and allows the viewer to make up their own mind.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And film focusing face to on one stone at a time, or do as I have in some instances and place the stones in something that is curved on the right radius so all the stones face straight to camera at the same time.

For example in the photo above the camera is over the cushions and the round on the right is facing away.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I too do not like DD as a lighting model. It misses the lighting that contributes the most to the very brightest highest light return diamonds, and probably alos has the wrong lighting positions for the best crushed ice cuts too.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/
Anyone who is playing with lighting setups could look at that link and see what I mean from my first post.

An optimal lighting setup (for a full 180 degree hemisphere) could have the top 25 degrees as a relative dark area, and the brightest lighting at the 25 degree gradually phasing down to very little of no light at the horizon (Cosine lighting).
However it is appropriate to also obscure the area blocked by the body as well.

For example here is one of the scheme's inside the LBox.
However a normal room can suffice, but it is important then that the same (exact) set up (or set up's) is/are used so that people can compare a stone from 1 month ago video to one today.

 

[Rockdiamond]

And film focusing face to on one stone at a time, or do as I have in some instances and place the stones in something that is curved on the right radius so all the stones face straight to camera at the same time.

For example in the photo above the camera is over the cushions and the round on the right is facing away.

Agreed Garry- not all the stones are straight on to the camera- however there is some value in having comparison shots where all the stones are together in the same shot.
I agree too that something curved might help this consideration.

ccl- thank you for the constructive post.
I have started to label videos with regard to the type of lighting they are exposed to.
You make a great point too about a sales demonstration versus an educational one- however I believe that any seller who makes videos- even if they are instructional, is actually selling their point of view.
I'd say the best medium is a presentation that allows for education, although there might be commercial implications.
A positive offshoot of the commercial side is the incentive and ability to shoot a large number of stones- which in itself allows some degree of education.
That is to say, if Jon or I were not having success with the videos we could not afford to dedicate the resources to producing them.

Stone- another aspect of this that takes some doing is assembling the stones.
I did a video of the four stones in the photo, but I was not happy with it- moreso after considering the suggestions given here lately- I made it about a week back.
Turns out I returned the smaller round to the cutter- so I'll need to get that back and re-shoot.
I believe it's a good candidate for a stone with a good aset- would you agree?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

[/quote]

RD try to set the focus on the camera to general and not the center of the image (it then focuses on the culet and makes the rest out of focus). And tap the light tray with finger to make the stone sit straight).

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here's two shots I took at arms length, then cropped. In hi res you still have a decent photo size, but nowhere near the detail of a true close up. Having said that, there are some practical questions I have.
To get a good close up of the diamond, it's likely that the camera will have to be fairly close to the diamond. I've seen Kenny's amazing photo of stones taken using elaborate setups that seemed to have the diamond further away- but I have to shoot close up to get close ups.
I have looked at some other vendors that have very nice looking close up photos, and have noticed that you can see black reflections in them as well.
I don't want to sound like I have a persecution complex, but why single out my photos, and criticize them for having reflections from the camera?
Is it possible to get the camera close enough for a good close up, and not have any reflection back to the camera?

This might very well warrant it's own thread......

 

[kenny]

To get the diamond further from the lens (and still in focus and well-magnified) you need a longer macro lens.
By longer I mean longer focal length, as in higher mm number.

When my 55mm macro lens is focus as closely as possible, the front of the lens is about 4 inches from the diamond.
With my 105mm macro it is about 10".
10" is sooooo nice!
It not only lets plenty of light in from the front, it reduces the obstruction issue.

A 200mm macro lens has an even longer working distance.
Warning: when comparing lenses be sure what they are measuring.
Some are measuring subject to FILM PLANE (or where todays CCD is at the back of the camera) not subject to the front of the lens.

If this was my profession I'd get the 200mm macro lens.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Kenny.
The practical aspect to this is that it would likely mean I'd need to have the diamond and or camera "fixed" in position.
That would limit the amount of angles I could get- and indeed, how many photos I could take.
But I will get the longer macro and experiment- I did acquire a Sony SLR recently. using the lens it came with was not workable for close ups.

Do you- or anyone else- notice that many of the good diamond close ups ( on other sites) show these dark areas?
In rounds with H&A, for example, you can see the dark arrows.

 

[kenny]

Sell the Sony on eBay and get Canon or Nikon gear.

This is your field.
Don't cheap out.

 

[Rockdiamond]

No need for that- I bought it at a place where it can returned no problem.
Can you suggest a particular model Kenny?

 

[kenny]

I'm a Nikon guy.

Buy one of the new bodies that can also take short movies of diamonds with your macro lens.
I think the D300 and D5000 bodies can do that.
I have the D200 and it can't take videos.

You may save money buying old used macro lenses, but not used bodies.
Check compatibility.
Generally the most expensive new bodies are more compatible with the oldest lenses - pros are more likely to have a bag of beloved old Nikkor lenses.

Check the reviews and lens/body compatibility charts at www.Kenrockwell.com

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

if you are going to get the LBox then it only works with the latest canon EOS

 

[kenny]

Research Canon VS. Nikon very carefully.
Once you start buying lots of gear switching brands will be out of the question, financially.

There are many passionate experts who swear by each brand.
Both are superb.

When it was time to buy a digital SLR body I didn't even look at Canon since I had a large collection of razor-sharp 30-year old Nikon (Nikkor) lenses which I use to this day.

If I was starting from scratch I'd have no brand bias.