Virtual Assessment vs Direct Assessment: Princess Cuts/Office Lighting

[Rhino]

Greetings PriceScope readers,

As many of you are aware both GIA and AGS have made or are making changes to their reports and including a grade for "Light Performance". I know most of you are aware as discussion about this is happening all over the place.

In the AGS system the metrics being considered for light performance are ...

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

In this particular study we will be exploring the metric of *contrast* as observed in one of the most common lighting conditions you all are familiar with. Common everyday office lighting. We have been showing consumers & staff here 2 princess cuts in our store for observation testing and it is of interest to me and many in the trade to know if what people are seeing *live* can also be seen *virtually*... as in here, online. Both of the diamonds in this study are both AGS "0" Princess cuts that display certain different optical characteristics as each takes on a different appearance depending upon the light conditions it is brought into. These differences may be obvious to some, slight to some and some of you may see no difference at all. Different light conditions enhance contrast and others do not. Since “office lighting” is typical to many persons viewing environments we will be specifically focusing on contrast brilliance as observed in office type lighting conditions. To the layman reading, don’t sweat any of this. This will not require much brain power at all … just some simple options to answer in the poll after you view both virtual diamonds.

Thankfully this is made possible with the Octonus Software which allows us to *see* these virtual comparisons by accurately scanning a diamond, loading it into certain light conditions and well ... just observing as we would were you here in the store or your own office. Before we proceed and if you would like to participate you will first need the free Gem Advisor software from Octonus which you can get directly at this link courtesy of MSU, Leonid & PriceScope.

So before we get into a little on the subject of contrast, please download the software. Install it on your computer. Open it up first ... this associates all .gem files with the program in the Windows registry then you'll be able to click on the sample models and participate in this study.

Contrast: ... our friend Garry Holloway does an incredible job of explaining the phenomena here as it relates directly to brilliance/brightness. You must read the 2 paragraphs on "Brilliance" and the accompanying graphics on the side for full understanding. It’ll only take you all of 60 seconds to read. I’d post that here but there are 2 graphics that help demonstrate the concept at that link. What will be of interest is his tutorial covers rounds ... we'll be making the assessment with princess'.

Once you load the models they will be in a default view/light condition that simulates the office lighting environment.

Specific instructions ...

a. After you've installed the Gem Advisor software as per the instructions above ...
b. click on the file attached to this post and let it open.
c. click on the file in the next post (I can only post one per post) and let it open.
d. With both files open, place them side by side and hit the green play button.
e. It will take a few minutes (depending on the speed of your computers processor) but once done you'll have both diamonds rocking before your eyes on your computer monitor.
f. Sit back from your computer AT LEAST a full arms length away. A little more is actually better since diamonds are not as big as they will appear on your screen. Come to think of it, you can resize the window and decrease the size of the diamond which may be a better idea. It may not matter, just make them both the same size.

As you sit observing the diamonds rocking for a few moments ask yourself … “Which diamond appears better to me”?. The best advice I can give you is BE HONEST. The less you know about diamonds the better. After you take the poll and we collect enough answers we will show what people are saying in the direct assessment (with the same 2 stones using only the eyes) and then we'll begin to explore technologies that correllate with this observation and determine their accuracy in doing so.

Thank you for your participation.

Warm regards,

 

[Rhino]

Here's the other file below. LETS HAVE FUN WITH THIS!!!

 

[ame]

BOOO! I don''t have a windoze box!

 

[Rhino]

For a deeper study on this subject reference must be made to a respected and fellow peer of mine who has written extensively on this subject of contrast brilliance, Mike Cowing who contributes and participates on this forum and director of the ACA gem lab. A link which you will find of interest here.
http://acagemlab.com/Article1/Article1.htm

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Thanks a TON for those participating thus far!

The results of this research will help all companies involved who have made and are working on technologies to help the end consumer.

You see ... it is your input we all value most.

Companies like BrillianceScope, Imagem, Octonus, Sarin, OGI, Isee2, AGS/AID, GIA/GEM, EightStar, etc. and Garry too and yes, even myself!

I know and am in contact with the heads of most of these companies and I know the minds behind them and their interest in serving the genreal public. I can't say a bad word about any of them. They are all responsive to my requests and work with me tremendously to improve their products when possible. If anyone is interpreting this study to KNOCK any one particular company or technology they represent then you are misunderstanding our motives here. I work with these guys to make things *better*. I just wanted to make that clear.

The reason I say this is because after enough opinions are gathered here we will be correlating these technologies to this virtual assessment to determine which technolgies best determine the beauty of a diamond in office lighting conditions. Because if this virtual assessment correllates with what people are seeing live ... this is valuable data especially to people who would stress the direct assessment, with the eyes.

Who is that important to?

How does ASET fit into this?

How does Bscope fit into this?

If they don't fit into this what will they do to correct their system, if at all? These are the questions we are seeking answers to. And the answers reveal both their strengths and their limitations. Things people should know before they drop a buck or even consider ANY of their "advice". I am sorry if I did not make that clear because we will be posting the technological results of these 2 stones within a day or two as we garner more responses.

The results of this will be well ... at least in the mind of this Gman ... profound.

LOL... no more questions.

Unless they're from you of course.

One more thing... just finished watching the news. All reading, please keep the folks at WF in your prayers. The storm is heading right towards them sooner than I realized.

 

[Rhino]

Ooooooh ladies... come out of the Hangout!

 

[Rhino]

Forgive me for thinking out loud here ...

Neil ... you are skeptical about ASET and for good reason. Your questions are valid. Dissenting opinions force one to think deeper and this is good. How would you like to be able to identify an ASET image and know with confidence how that stone will appear in office lighting? One of the most common that people observe diamonds under?

Some folk here would consider that good advice to have before the purchase. Think ASET images will pop up? AGS "0"''s can have differing ASET images yet still be equally as beautiful to people depending upon their personal assessment and prefernces. I know folk here who would sacrifice a bit of fire or other metric for an even more attractive stone in other lighting environments. We will explore this further. Food for thought.

 

[Rhino]

Interesting. Sergey... only 10 votes so far and I am seeing correllations. I will attempt to video tape the phenomena. How can I llink a video file to this website for comparison?

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/22/2005 2:39:45 AM
Author: Rhino
Interesting. Sergey... only 10 votes so far and I am seeing correllations. I will attempt to video tape the phenomena. How can I llink a video file to this website for comparison?

BTW.
1) I found this thread just
2) I can not download gem files. Strange

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I had the same problem, Sergey.

Then I downloaded the files to my desktop, opened the GemAdvisor software, and then opened the files. This was successful with me.

Live long,

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/22/2005 4:39:51 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I had the same problem, Sergey.

Then I downloaded the files to my desktop, opened the GemAdvisor software, and then opened the files. This was successful with me.

Live long,

This way doesn''t work for me now. Very strange.

I can not save gem files from PS to my computer.

 

[valeria101]

The download worked for me... but with a change: usually I'd right click on the filename and save it via the drop down menu. Now I had to click on the filename which opens a new page with a warning that the file might be dangerous and a download button that works.


I looked at the two stones using every option I know in DiamCalc and reached the conclusion that choosing between them is a futile exercise: the two guys are perfection incarnate and there is no room left for any other sort of choice but one based on personal taste (or throwing dice).

The slight difference of appearance is due (IMO) only to the different crown height and table size - the higher crown gets the table to look more roundish... for lack of suitable metaphor. IMO, it is good to preserve a bit of diversity among these perfect stones in order to avoind the comparison with perfectly similar industrial product or, say, coke cans in a box.

All in all, these two stones are just different enough to give someone the satisfaction of making a personal decision about them.

Now, one may ask why did I refrain from making such a satisfying personal decission? Oh well... I am not shopping for a diamond, that's all. And faced with these two I could simply not find any valid argument to prize or recommend one over the other.

 

[Serg]

Thanks, Ana

BTW Spread are quite different

 

[Serg]

re:I looked at the two stones using every option I know in DiamCalc and reached the conclusion that choosing between them is a futile exercise:

Try office light and black background

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/21/2005 3:39:35 PM
Author:Rhino



... the Octonus Software ... allows us to *see* these virtual comparisons by accurately scanning a diamond, loading it into certain light conditions and well ... just observing as we would were you here in the store or your own office.

Hm... IMO, there is some bias left and it has nothing to do with the outstanding technical performance and realism Diam Calc has achieved.

The program does show diamonds as one would in their own office under magnifying glass in prison cell. Perhaps this is no big deal as long as the programme is used for anything but showing diamond in a naturalistic manner. Perhaps very little is missing: for once, it is not feasible to show diamonds at natural size - most are too small to show relevant detail on them with the available resolution on a computer screen, and it is very easy to hit 'Ctr l-' and put things into perspective anyway. That I did a couple of times before looking at the two stones to answer Jonathan's invitation. I am not sure what would help making these pictures look three dimensional: obviously, the perspective is there but the image is till 'flat' and monochromatic, hence the comparison with a prison cell - or diamond sorting desk . Transparency would most likely help, but what simple change in the display could render that remains to be seen. It is simply a pity that the effort to model the viewer's shadow and lighting conditions does not result in an intuitive picture of these effects. With more than sufficient graphic capabilities in place, allot of improvement may be trivial actually.

Perhaps 'transparency is not the right word above: the diamond models are transparent inasmuch as one side shows through the other, but to nothing else - and the result is an eerie, artificial image. The closest thing in nature to the DiamCalc images of diamonds are the suprarealist paintings. It is certainly not the case that this software is not advanced enough - but it does not seem as if it was primarily meant as a showcase for inadverted users so some of the technical means may not have yet been used as much as possible to add to the realism of the sum total visual impression. For example, the optical effects that are so carefully modeled inside the diamond have no effect on its 'environment' - in contrast with what one might expect in a natural viewing environmet.

A few thoughts come to mind taking hints from various websites which do struggle to show diamonds and jewelry in a convincing rather than technically correct manner. One may think that adding features in the background is the natural way of showing 'transparency', perhaps this is where that dreadful color gradient some software uses to give some visual sense of perspective comes from... Some sellers use multicolor backgrouds for their photos to achieve 'depth' via an impressionist effect (see Diamonds by Lauren) - but, a simpler solution strikes me as both better and easier. Of course, the real diamonds are too small to allow much to be seen though them - but they do reflect colors and shadows from around them. Ironically, the software does allow that in theory, but the technical intricacy does not translate in visual realism as much as one would hope. For starters, the 'Fading Hemisphere' lighting helps as is.

Further, a simple visual trick used by quite a few pieces of software and websites would make DiamCalc models tangible, in my opinion - some fuzzy projections of the object on a horisontal plane: shadows. Since this software already does optical projections to perfection, one more would probably not hurt. The same simple shadow could help give a sense of changes in lighting - a very impressive feature of the software that seems allot more useful for 'theory talk' (i.e. the rhetoric competition between carefully protected experimental lighting conditions) than visual effects. Those little shadows help conveying a sense of mass, transparency and perspective - not perfectly, but it surely helps allot more than I would have thought without seeing the graphic effect at work. Tiffany.com does it well - taken for 'dissection' their pictures are very sketchy and unnatural, little more than airbrushed drawings, yet with literally a couple of shading stokes the display manages to show size and perspective. Other website displays use the method, but in a less thoughtful manner usually; for example, I do not know other site that uses shadows to convey size as well as the three dimensional quality of the object.

I must say I am seriously impressed with every piece of Octonus software I touched this far (GemAdviser and DiamCalc and GemCalc). Of course, this is not saying much because my use of these is limited to having a good time and crowding Pricescope: the serious applications escape me, so I am probably allot more sensitive than one might want to the impressionistic part - the realism comparing the graphics to direct observation. It would have been a completely discrete form of entertainment if it wasn't for this forum: debating impressions about these models online gives away their worth as a communication tool beyond my own personal understanding. The quote from Jonathan's post makes me think at least some commercial users find this exercise allot more important than I do, or than someone debating solely the technical correctness of the underlying models would. This far, I could not pinpoint what else than realism could make this software a trustworthy form of showing diamonds in an instant. The pressure on additional checks could only increase if the immediate intuitive impression does not go the full length to convince. Perhaps this point needs to be brought up some day. Actually, this is the point of this post, although carelessly added at the end.

This really is some personal and unavoidably biased 'DiamCalc Diary' page with a couple of random thoughts. Thought I'd mention rather than not...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The smaller stone has 7 chevron facets per corner.
The larger stone has 5 chevrons per corner and is a less accurate scan because it is too large for Helium (bigger than 8.4mm corner to corner).

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/22/2005 7:43:14 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The smaller stone has 7 chevron facets per corner.
The larger stone has 5 chevrons per corner and is a less accurate scan because it is too large for Helium (bigger than 8.4mm corner to corner).

Garry , I should correct you.

The larger stone has 5 chevrons per corner and is a less accurate scan because it did not scan by Helium

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 9/22/2005 1:12:32 AM
Author: Rhino

How would you like to be able to identify an ASET image and know with confidence how that stone will appear in office lighting? One of the most common that people observe diamonds under?

This would be great. Convince me it’s possible.

I’m a fan of both ASET and DiamCalc but with all of these tools it’s important to understand what is, and what is not being shown. When I look at the GemAdvisor images on the screen, I do not see the same thing as when I look at a diamond. It’s like comparing a photograph of the Grand Canyon with a visit to Arizona. The photo may be both lovely and accurate and it may be useful in deciding if I want to spend my vacation in Arizona or Alaska but it’s not correct to say that this is exactly what it will look like when I go there.

ASET images are a clever way of displaying a large amount of data onto one screen and, at least in the case of the DiamCalc generated models, they seem to be fairly repeatable. As Martha Stewart would say, ‘this is a good thing’. I love it and, in this since I think ASET represents giant leap forward but the devil is going to be in the details. I think those details are going to be where the data came from and how that data is analyzed.

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

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/22/2005 9:20:11 AM
Author: denverappraiser

I’m a fan of both ASET and DiamCalc but with all of these tools it’s important to understand what is, and what is not being shown. When I look at the GemAdvisor images on the screen, I do not see the same thing as when I look at a diamond. It’s like comparing a photograph of the Grand Canyon with a visit to Arizona. The photo may be both lovely and accurate and it may be useful in deciding if I want to spend my vacation in Arizona or Alaska but it’s not correct to say that this is exactly what it will look like when I go there.

ASET images are a clever way of displaying a large amount of data onto one screen and, at least in the case of the DiamCalc generated models, they seem to be fairly repeatable. As Martha Stewart would say, ‘this is a good thing’. I love it and, in this since I think ASET represents giant leap forward but the devil is going to be in the details. I think those details are going to be where the data came from and how that data is analyzed.

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

Very well said. I could add a post, but it would be largely the same content.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/22/2005 9:20:11 AM
Author: denverappraiser


I’m a fan of both ASET and DiamCalc but ... it is important to understand ...what is not being shown.

[A] photo may be useful in deciding if I want to spend my vacation in Arizona or Alaska but it’s not correct to say that this is exactly what it will look like when I go there.

That is sufficient, no ?

I kept wondering for a while if virtual rendering are ever going to be good enough to even claim being comparable with direct observation. Now, I think they are better overall after a long list of give and take. One would expect this sort of comparison to be a central topic here, and it has not been. Would it even be desirable for you (i.e. the pros writing on this thread) to have some tool of if electronic communication accepted as perfect substitute for visual inspection? Just in theory...

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/22/2005 11:20:40 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 9/22/2005 9:20:11 AM
Author: denverappraiser



I’m a fan of both ASET and DiamCalc but ... it is important to understand ...what is not being shown.

[A] photo may be useful in deciding if I want to spend my vacation in Arizona or Alaska but it’s not correct to say that this is exactly what it will look like when I go there.

That is sufficient, no ?

I kept wondering for a while if virtual rendering are ever going to be good enough to even claim being comparable with direct observation. Now, I think they are better overall after a long list of give and take. One would expect this sort of comparison to be a central topic here, and it has not been. Would it even be desirable for you (i.e. the pros writing on this thread) to have some tool of if electronic communication accepted as perfect substitute for visual inspection? Just in theory...

You can not visit all beautiful placees in world.
Photos can help to you preselect which is real interesting for you. Photos even can give right grade such places for you. But photos can not give to you same emotions which can you receive in these places.It is instruments for choice, preselection, for save your time and money.
Video and good comments can give more information
BTW. Valeria, did you check video in DC. Video is much more close to real diamond than static image.
It is very interesting phenomena

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/21/2005 4:12:35 PM
Author: ame
BOOO! I don''t have a windoze box!

Hi AME,

I was researching this for you but it appears Paul has already published the answer. Thanks Paul.

On certain computres the .gem files will open automatically on others you need to save it to the hard drive then open them in Gem Advisor. Sorry for any inconvenicne.

I know that readers on other forums are watching this thread as well. You are cordially invited to participate if you like.

One thing I would stress however to keep this research as pure as possible ...

There are other scope views included with the GemAdvisor software. You are of course welcome to view these test stones in those other scope views BUT WE PREFER YOU DO NOT before conducting this experiment. Some people have preconceived ideas for or against these scope views and if you view the scope views first (like IdealScope, ASET, Gilbertson, H&A) you may be entering this research then with a little bit of bias towards a particular scope view.

If you are going to look at the scope views or other lighting conditions, LOOK AT THE SCOPE VIEWS AFTER YOU HAVE REGISTERED YOUR VOTE IN THE OFFICE LIGHT VIEW.

That''s all.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/22/2005 6:20:17 AM
Author: valeria101

The download worked for me... but with a change: usually I''d right click on the filename and save it via the drop down menu. Now I had to click on the filename which opens a new page with a warning that the file might be dangerous and a download button that works.


I looked at the two stones using every option I know in DiamCalc and reached the conclusion that choosing between them is a futile exercise: the two guys are perfection incarnate and there is no room left for any other sort of choice but one based on personal taste (or throwing dice).

The slight difference of appearance is due (IMO) only to the different crown height and table size - the higher crown gets the table to look more roundish... for lack of suitable metaphor. IMO, it is good to preserve a bit of diversity among these perfect stones in order to avoind the comparison with perfectly similar industrial product or, say, coke cans in a box.

All in all, these two stones are just different enough to give someone the satisfaction of making a personal decision about them.

Now, one may ask why did I refrain from making such a satisfying personal decission? Oh well... I am not shopping for a diamond, that''s all. And faced with these two I could simply not find any valid argument to prize or recommend one over the other.

This is excellent input Ana. Thank your these comments.

I have a question for you ... what light condition(s) would you consider most important to you when considering a diamond purchase?

 

[Serg]

Rhino,

Re: If you are going to look at the scope views or other lighting conditions, LOOK AT THE SCOPE VIEWS AFTER YOU HAVE REGISTERED YOUR VOTE IN THE OFFICE LIGHT VIEW.


I think background for office light should be "gray" Instead current "Light gray"
What do you think?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/22/2005 8:54:42 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 9/22/2005 7:43:14 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The smaller stone has 7 chevron facets per corner.
The larger stone has 5 chevrons per corner and is a less accurate scan because it is too large for Helium (bigger than 8.4mm corner to corner).

Garry , I should correct you.

The larger stone has 5 chevrons per corner and is a less accurate scan because it did not scan by Helium

Thank you for bringing this up Sergey. The .gem files I generate from DiamCalc which were imported to from Helium generate files that are over 100k (over 300k) and can not be uploaded to the PriceScope website. At this point only the Sarin does. If I can import a .dmc file from Helium into DC then to GemAdvisor I''d LOVE to import the Helium model to Pricescope. See if you can work on this for me? If not we''ll have to use the Sarin models. Thanks for noticing.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/22/2005 6:50:20 AM
Author: Serg
re:I looked at the two stones using every option I know in DiamCalc and reached the conclusion that choosing between them is a futile exercise:

Try office light and black background

Good input Serg. A suggestion though ... perhaps the white or the black background may be a little too severe (although I think the white is closer to the real observations) but even better ... the gray background may be the most neautral background to use for this experiement since the goal is to attempt to replicate the natural viewing environment and we are not showing clients these 2 stones against a black background. Too me, showing diamonds against a black background (while helpful in technology), can be a little deceptive in real world conditions leading a consumer to believe the stone is *brighter* than it actually is due to the high contrast against the black.

 

[Serg]

re:Thank you for bringing this up Sergey. The .gem files I generate from DiamCalc which were imported to from Helium generate files that are over 100k (over 300k) and can not be uploaded to the PriceScope website. At this point only the Sarin does. If I can import a .dmc file from Helium into DC then to GemAdvisor I''d LOVE to import the Helium model to Pricescope. See if you can work on this for me? If not we''ll have to use the Sarin models. Thanks for noticing.

Tomorrow I will ask do new type of Export Helium Model to GA without data about parameters.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/22/2005 12:42:24 PM
Author: Serg

Rhino,

Re: If you are going to look at the scope views or other lighting conditions, LOOK AT THE SCOPE VIEWS AFTER YOU HAVE REGISTERED YOUR VOTE IN THE OFFICE LIGHT VIEW.


I think background for office light should be ''gray'' Instead current ''Light gray''

What do you think?

Scary ... I published my answer before reading this. I agree Serg. Next virtual assessment will be against a gray background. FYI when I show diamonds side by side in our store under various lighting environments I place the diamonds in a tray similar to Gary''s cut outs but with 2 holes so each stone can sit in them. The tray is transparent so the color behind the diamonds is the color of the persons skin.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/22/2005 12:40:39 PM
Author: Rhino

I have a question for you ... what light condition(s) would you consider most important to you when considering a diamond purchase?

Talking about a larger piece (something large enough to stand alone in a piece of jewelry... I would line up a couple between two fingers and play them into the light: i.e. changing distance and angle relative to whatever prevailing light source there is, and making various degrees of shade with the two palms. The transition between static positions and stopping the display gives away various impressions that all together make up the look of some stone. Online, the DC video and real videos of diamonds come close (as Sergey points out above). I would not pay allot of attention to the face down static view of any given diamond in real life, I have only learned to think through it as a useful abstract model for ''remote'' (online) viewing only - informative, but in a completely abstract way. Basically, I appreciate the models and handle them as any other mathematical model I deal with in more practical preoccupations.

I don''t know how to start thinking about one favorite lighting, really. All diamonds seem better in candlelight to me, maybe because colored stones fare worse under the circumstances.

From the tiny ones, I just want one flash from each piece, but I don''t have experience at all sorting through loose melee. Once set, the cut surely makes a difference in what that field of diamonds looks, but I wouldn''t know to go into this. H&A melee is to me a cousin of those Chinese engravings of long poems on a single grain of rice

[sorry for the lengthy and repeated editing! - there have been a few versions posted until this final one]

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/22/2005 12:00:19 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 9/22/2005 11:20:40 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 9/22/2005 9:20:11 AM
Author: denverappraiser



[A] photo may be useful in deciding if I want to spend my vacation in Arizona or Alaska but it’s not correct to say that this is exactly what it will look like when I go there.

That is sufficient, no ?

... photos can not give to you same emotions which can you receive in these places.

BTW. Valeria, did you check video in DC. Video is much more close to real diamond than static image.
It is very interesting phenomena

About the DC video: I sure tried it out first thing - it does make an admirable tool. In particular, I found these dynamic renderings substantially more realistic for step cuts or, well, any large stone with large facets. Not surprisingly the scores for dynamic light return are often better than the 'static' for step cuts too. I wish I could work out exactly when is this true - the dynamic light return scores of the DiamCalc are in a class by themselves among the available cut grading tools... at least in my opinion, for what that matters. Not in the least because these go beyond averaging numbers to combining viewing positions to create a quality score - something that feels more like the usual 'process' of looking at diamonds anyway. Secondly, I would think that such a score could handle measurement error better than taking averages despite predictable correlation between measurement errors in the various metrics used (e.g. the table tilt Garry was talking about).


About lanscape and photography in general...

Between a photo conveying an actual visual effect and a rendering based on a model (in particular here: photographs of diamonds versus DC renderings) there is a serious gap for me - it takes applied intellectual effort to compare them. And that is fun...

I am not sure I feel good about pushing the analogy with the travel mag further: for once, I find photography to be a great way of sharing emotions. The statement does include photographs of diamonds and jewelry, for better or worse.