Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Project

[minousbijoux]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

It would behoove us to have one or two other PSers reviewing the photos and stones for accuracy. I'm not sure where to raise that idea, as I'm not sure the CS vendors who came up with this idea have ventured over here...I'm another who thinks we'd get more traction keeping this thread in CS since its a study of colored stones...

 

[kenny]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

FWIW, I have no objection if admin wants to move this thread to CS.

I just wanted maximum eyeballs.
RT and Hangout have more eyeballs than CS.
I'm on a crusade to advance awareness/knowledge of photography here.
I think if this project happens it will be very informative for all of us.


… and even though they don't sell colored stones I'd love to see the same gems shot by WF, GOG, BGD, and JA … especially informative would be JA's revolving video set up.

More eyeballs means more participation.
More info is better.

I realize CS and diamonds are very different cuisines, but this FCD aficionado likes where they overlap.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

FWIW, I have no objection if admin wants to move this thread to CS.


… and even though they don't sell colored stones I'd love to see the same gems shot by WF, GOG, BGD, and JA … especially informative would be JA's revolving video set up.

I'm not sure this would be reasonably possible if only for the fact that the players here aren't clamoring for any kind of uniformity, and many of them consider their photo set-up conditions proprietary.

They aren't trying to find a photographic standard; rather, each of them has chosen their set-up to call attention to what they think best interprets the hallmark of their goods, whether it's cut or something else. More simply put, most vendors are looking for what distinguishes them and their product, not how they can all look more vanilla and alike......if that makes sense. Even more important, most of them aren't in the photography business; they are in the jewelry business, and photographs are only meant to serve as a by-product media of how they serve that interest.

The comparison thing is a great idea if the point is to advance one's own understanding of photography, but I'd imagine there are photography forums that probably cover that in as extreme a detail as we all hair-split over gems.

 

[aljdewey]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

On the broader topic that I think is at hand.......

It's important to understand that photography can serve many different purposes. As Kenny pointed out in another thread, every photograph is 'manipulated' in that the photographer (artist) makes a series of creative choices (time of day, focal range, shutter speed, etc.) to 'create' a static image.

That creation can serve many purposes. One might be sheerly expressive - I enjoy photography and take them for these reasons most of the time.

In this discussion, though, the purpose of the photography is to provide some representation of a retail product. The goal isn't to be 'expressive' for artistic purposes, but rather to create an image that most closely represents what the item looks like in real life.

As long as the goal is to better represent instead of to misrepresent, the process by which we get there (photo manipulation, either pre- or post-process) shouldn't be maligned.

 

[arkieb1]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

I am willing to shoulder the cost of shipping and insurance of the gems to whoever is supposed to receive it next. Gene might still have my home address from past transactions. As for a volunteer stone, let me see what I'm willing to risk.

You could start a mailing fund and members donate a small amount to help with shipping costs. As for the stones, you need something that is really easy to photograph the colour of and something that is really difficult to capture the correct colour of for continuity.

 

[kenny]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

FWIW, I have no objection if admin wants to move this thread to CS.


… and even though they don't sell colored stones I'd love to see the same gems shot by WF, GOG, BGD, and JA … especially informative would be JA's revolving video set up.

I'm not sure this would be reasonably possible if only for the fact that the players here aren't clamoring for any kind of uniformity, and many of them consider their photo set-up conditions proprietary.

They aren't trying to find a photographic standard; rather, each of them has chosen their set-up to call attention to what they think best interprets the hallmark of their goods, whether it's cut or something else. More simply put, most vendors are looking for what distinguishes them and their product, not how they can all look more vanilla and alike......if that makes sense. Even more important, most of them aren't in the photography business; they are in the jewelry business, and photographs are only meant to serve as a by-product media of how they serve that interest.

The comparison thing is a great idea if the point is to advance one's own understanding of photography, but I'd imagine there are photography forums that probably cover that in as extreme a detail as we all hair-split over gems.

Right, but who said they were "clamoring for uniformity"?
But vendors can speak for themselves.
And who said this about getting vendors to be uniform?
Yes I've mentioned on PS more than once about of vendor's photography set ups being closely guarded and proprietary … which BTW would in no way be compromised if they participated.
The result of participation is only a pic or two of some gems, not a pic of their set up or any explanation of their equipment or process.
If a participant cared to reveal anything besides the pic that would be optional.

Who said they are trying to find a photographic standard?

Who said they want to look more vanilla and alike?
I've also said the best style for vendors will be the one that sells the most diamonds.

Yes Pricescope is not a photography forum.
We discuss every other topic under the sun but gem photography is inappropriate?

This topic bubbled up this time because a customer got a colored gem that was very different from the vendor's pics.
This project was not my idea.
It was a vendor's.

This is a community that uses photographs to help make gem buying decisions.
I think the understanding this project could offer would be welcome.

 

[Ella]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

I'm sorry folks, but we cannot repin this thread in three forums, it's too much and we've said no to others in the past so it would not be fair.

We are however happy to put it in whichever forum you wish. Please have someone let us know once it's decided.

 

[chrono]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

This started in CS and involves CS stones, so unless this is to include diamonds (which I don't think experiences the same issues we do in CS), I think it ought to stay in CS.

 

[FrekeChild]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Agreed.

 

[kenny]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Agreed, CS.

Thanks and sorry for the trouble, Ella.

 

[PrecisionGem]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Ok, this is how this project is going to work. Any vendor interested in participating should email me. After a few days, I'll contact everyone who did email me, and will arrange to shipping order. Then each vendor will ship a stone to the first guy on the list who will photograph them EXACTLY as they do all their stones for their website. Then ship the stones to the next person on the list.

Once everyone has had the stones to photograph, the last person will need to ship each stone back to the owner. We will work out the costs of this among all the vendors so it is evenly distributed.

After all the images are taken and processed exactly as each vendor does for their own website, we will publish them here on Pricescope, and make them available to be downloaded so that any unwanted adjustments that this website may do to the images is avoided.

The whole intent of this project is not to have a photography contest, nor have vendors adjust how they take pictures. It is to give consumers some information so that they can better interpret a photograph based on the different techniques of each vendor. Many of the vendors have numerous stones already on their sites, so the idea is to use the same methods for these traveling stones as were used on the stones currently on display.

Anyone interested can find my email on my website.

 

[RTFrog]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

So this project is limited to vendors?

And what about posting of Raw unedited files, before any post-processing?

 

[PrecisionGem]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

So this project is limited to vendors?

Yes. Consumers are interested in understanding the vendors image.

And what about posting of Raw unedited files, before any post-processing?

The idea is to post pictures exactly how they are posted on each persons website. In my case that's 72dpi at 400 x 400 resolution. This has nothing to do with post processing or not. It is about seeing the same stone presented 3 or 4 or 10 different ways. This will then allow you as a consumer to make a better judgment of any other image presented on a site.

 

[Jeffrey Hunt]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Hello!

I love this photo project idea, and it might be great to do it every year or so too. This would mean keeping it very simple though. A project like this has many opportunities to veer off track – I think Gene is on the right path and I support his approach completely.

Unfortunately I am simply too busy to participate, maybe I could do one stone, but that would not fit the format.

A suggestion, and I need to talk about my own work to describe this. My photos have sometimes been referred to as glamour shots. (Not always with the best intentions it seems, but I own that term, it’s awesome.) I have experience with shooting many stones, from many faceters, and have seen a broad range of quality in finished gems. Weak photos, less than crisp photos, or photos with reduced scales often hide inclusions in “less than clean” gems – I’ve especially seen this with spessartite and tsavorite. My shots of stones that have had inclusions often magnify the trouble; I usually cannot even show them. No one would touch the stone. I have inventory that has to be seen in person and not through photos. It’s not a matter of photo processing it’s a matter of only showing the strong material online.

My suggestion is to include several stones with inclusions. Maybe a spess with spots or a tourmaline with light inclusions throughout, make these medium to lighter colored stones. Then the real work will begin.

A few thoughts.

Cheers

Jeffrey Hunt

 

[chrono]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Thank you, Gene. I agree with your idea and hope more vendors will participate. Given that most CS vendors do not frequent the forum, I hope that regular posters and lurkers alike will make their favourite CS vendors aware of this test "survey" and encourage their participation. I do not see the need to post the RAW images; the intent isn't to see how much a picture is photoshopped but to compare how accurate the pictures are to the stone itself, and how that changes (or not) from vendor to vendor.

 

[slksapphire]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

i would LOVE for vendors to participate in this project.

my philosophy would be to keep it simple. vendors photograph the stones / make adjustments as if they were posting the stones to their own websites.

my only note of caution: this would be so helpful to those of us in the PS community. i think it is critical that we are fair to each of the vendors that participates. after all, what's in it for them if they are just going to be bashed by everyone for making their stones look too good, etc?

i would rather see broad participation rather than the vendors who clearly have great setups.

just my 2 cents.

 

[minousbijoux]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

i would LOVE for vendors to participate in this project.

my philosophy would be to keep it simple. vendors photograph the stones / make adjustments as if they were posting the stones to their own websites.

my only note of caution: this would be so helpful to those of us in the PS community. i think it is critical that we are fair to each of the vendors that participates. after all, what's in it for them if they are just going to be bashed by everyone for making their stones look too good, etc?

i would rather see broad participation rather than the vendors who clearly have great setups.

just my 2 cents.

Excellent cautionary note. And vendors, please - no extra tweaks; just what you would normally do - if that's possible.

 

[kenny]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Sorry I got carried away by offering to photograph the stones.
Clearly the point is to serve customers of CS vendors by seeing how the same gems appear when photographed by several vendors.
I'm not a vendor so I should not be taking pics.
My reasoning applies only to me, and if other non-vendors feel differently they will make their own decision.

I still offer the use of the stones I posted, but I hope better ones are offered by others.
My suggestion of the 3 primaries and secondaries was not based on experience as a CS collector.
I'm not a CS collector so I don't know what type of gems or what hues would be most helpful.

To our CS collectors … what gems/hues would you like to see used?

 

[chrono]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

I offer my 5 carat Loliondo spessartite garnet that is clarity challenged for the photography study. It is large enough that it should also be easy to handle and if I recall correctly, it also has sugar inclusions.

 

[minousbijoux]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Greens - especially emerald - and reds are hard to capture. It would be great to have an emerald and a fairly saturated red stone make the rounds. It would also be great to have a stone a bit more on the dark side photographed, since "darker than the vendor pics" is something heard with frequency around here. Once we have a clearer idea of the stone needs, then I'd be happy to see if any of my stones would fit the bill.

And thanks for volunteering your spess, Chrono.

 

[kenny]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

I do not see the need to post the RAW images; the intent isn't to see how much a picture is photoshopped but to compare how accurate the pictures are to the stone itself, and how that changes (or not) from vendor to vendor.

Chrono, using the term RAW in this context is kind of confusing.
You apparently mean unedited pic, as in directly out of the camera before post processing (editing) with Photoshop or other program.

RAW, especially when capitalized, means something else.
RAW is one of several picture formats like JPEG, PNG, TIFF etc.

Pricescope does not allow all formats of pics to be uploaded, and I just tried uploading a RAW file and Pricescope did not accept it.
This may be because RAW files, being uncompressed, are huge or perhaps because different manufacturers have their own version of the RAW format.
Even different models of cameras from the same manufacturer can have different versions of RAW.
I know this because when I bought a newly-released Nikon body I had to wait weeks for Apple to release a software update so iPhoto on my computer could recognize the RAW files from the new body.

 

[chrono]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Kenny,
I did mean the RAW format but I guess since you tried and PS doesn't accept that format, that point is moot. As for unedited pictures, I don't think that is necessarily since that defeats the purpose of the survey/poll. Each vendor should use their usual setup and usual post processing techniques and all that is required is the final picture.

As for hues, do you mean this?
Primary: green, red, blue
Secondary: yellow, magenta, cyan

Green, red and blue stones are easy to get although these are expensive colours in larger sizes unless they have strong modifiers or are not well saturated. Good yellows, magenta and cyan stones aren't easy to think up either...

 

[LoversKites]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Chrono, how generous of you. I'm all excited for the results.

Greens - especially emerald - and reds are hard to capture. It would be great to have an emerald and a fairly saturated red stone make the rounds. It would also be great to have a stone a bit more on the dark side photographed, since "darker than the vendor pics" is something heard with frequency around here. Once we have a clearer idea of the stone needs, then I'd be happy to see if any of my stones would fit the bill.

+1, especially the darker stone.

A shifty or moody stone would be a good idea too, no?

 

[chrono]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

A dark blue spinel should take care of the dark, blue and shifty part.

Can you tell I'm super excited about this CS project?

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

A tanzanite would be a good candidate too. Their subtle nuances in color can be extremely difficult to capture.

If we're looking for volunteer stones, you can have all mine to choose from.

 

[kenny]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

As for hues, do you mean this?
Primary: green, red, blue
Secondary: yellow, magenta, cyan

I just wanted to withdraw my suggestion of what gems or hues to pick, since I'm not a CS collector.

BTW, which hues are primaries depends on whether you are referring to mixing light or mixing pigments.

 

[chrono]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Kenny,
I'm open to suggestions; I hope you don't feel like I was trampling all over your ideas. In my excitement, I may not have conveyed my message well. I think it might be easier to find CS using the paint based primary and secondary hues.

Primary:
Yellow - sapphire is costly unless someone has some diffused samples, mali garnet, ?
Red - reddish garnet or tourmaline should be overly expensive?
Blue - blue spinel?

Secondary:
Orange - spessartite?
Purple - amethyst
Green - tourmaline. Emerald and garnet are too expensive to be shipped cross-country.

What do you all think?

 

[kenny]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

Kenny,
I'm open to suggestions; I hope you don't feel like I was trampling all over your ideas. In my excitement, I may not have conveyed my message well.

Not at all.
It is I who have done much trampling in this thread, also in my excitement.

I'm looking forward to this and hope zillions of vendors participate.
I'm disappointed admin didn't pin the thread.
We'll have to keep bumping it up.

 

[JewelFreak]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

This is such a wonderful idea -- I'm looking forward to seeing results. I'll volunteer whatever stones I have that would help. I have green, blue-greens, yellow-greens, amethyst, a Malawi garnet (yellow).

We should perhaps get input from vendors on how many stones to include -- in other words, how many they will be able to put time into photographing. Whatever they put into doing this is time away from bacon-earning stuff, so the amount is what they're willing to do.

--- Laurie

 

[minousbijoux]

Re: Brainstorming Pricescope's Photography Comparison Projec

It seems that Gene is spearheading this effort. I'm sure he'll give us some parameters shortly. Gene/vendors: please tell us what stones you seek for the exercise as many of us are happy to oblige...

ETA: please