Are there any photos documenting the negative aspects of a "Steep Deep"

[whatmeworry]

kitchen, different exposure, f10, 1/30 second

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/23/2009 9:36:03 PM
Author: whatmeworry
bedroom, zoom and cropped

angle hides leakage

You rock :}

 

[whatmeworry]

kitchen, low exposure, zoomed and cropped

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/23/2009 9:40:13 PM
Author: whatmeworry
kitchen, low exposure, zoomed and cropped

also clearly shows the leakage.

 

[tonyc2387]

thanks, whatmeworry!!

now, just to satisfy personal curiosity, do you otherwise notice it day-to-day? or does it just take very specific conditions?

 

[Rockdiamond]

OK, this is rare.
Karl and I are in total agreement.
whatmeworry, those are some descriptive photos!
Especially, as Karl said, the close up taken through a modifed H&A viewer.
I honestly think this shows what type of darkenss to look for as well- maybe better than any photos I''ve seen before on PS.
Bravo!


Of course I''d tony took the words out of my mouth!

I have been looking at my steep deep over here ( if it is a true steep deep).
I can replicate the dark center in some limited lighting situation- other times, it''s hard to notice.
Whatmeworry- you?

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 11/23/2009 9:51:51 PM
Author: tonyc2387

thanks, whatmeworry!!


now, just to satisfy personal curiosity, do you otherwise notice it day-to-day? or does it just take very specific conditions?

It''s a very pretty diamonds. It compares well to GIA Ex and AGS 0 in most lighting situations except in very dim lighting (kinda like the kitchen low exposure picture). If I see a dark center, it''s more often due to head and body obscuration rather than leakage (I say this because other nearby diamonds also go dark in the center). I don''t notice it day to day. I would really have to look for the leakage in specific conditions.

 

[tonyc2387]

thanks again, WMW. that''s exactly the sort of description and data this thread needed!

Date: 11/23/2009 11:26:27 PM
Author: whatmeworry
It compares well to GIA Ex and AGS 0 in most lighting situations except in very dim lighting (kinda like the kitchen low exposure picture).

Just to clarify, what sort of differences do you note in these conditions?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 11/23/2009 8:39:46 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 11/23/2009 8:30:16 PM
Author: Karl_K
try this...
The diamond close to the backdrop is important.
Vary the angle a bit and take a few shots.
Just doing it this way you can change the effects of it being steep deep to a large degree so post a few.
Ideal would be a ring light around the lens of the camera and right over the diamond because otherwise with no angle to the light you get way to much head shadow aka a lot of vendors photos.
Otherwise just put the diamond in the V-between 2 fingers and shoot away.

I actually did take one that way Karl.
I think this one shows the darkness pretty well too.
If you're suggesting a series to show different effects of tilt, I'll get some more tomorrow. The photo was taken in a room with a lot of natural light.

Kenny- in the last photo I posted before this one, the light is actually shown at the top of the photo- there is a lot of ambient light, as well as overhead fluorescent and we have very high ceilings here- no other lights focused on the diamond.

On point to this thread you continue to claim that photographs show accurately the light return in diamonds.
You have proven by posting the 63% table diamond with your normal setup of holding the diamond up in the air with tweezers than you can mask any leakage or cut flaws by showing a diamond in this way.

Once again please show us the picture of that colored diamond with the big dark ring and this time hold up the tweezers and place the light source so that the tweezers are again dark like in most of your photographs, allow the normal amount of light you accept I want to see how different it looks when indirect lighting illuminates the side and pavillion of the diamond and how this masks any discernable leakage or flaws in the cut of the diamond. In the 63% table diamond you have all but masked all the leakage lets see if you can mask that dark ring in the colored stones as well..

When one you can take diamonds with not borderline but just plainly bad cut and hide the flaws that is certainly not a tool I would want to use for selection and rejection of diamonds.

Perhaps you have been having trouble finding clear examples of darkness under the tables, because leakage is an area of the absence of light return light that is allowed to pass rough. The light is still entering the diamond so this would not provide a dark area in a photograph, it just won't be as bright as areas relecting light. In that way you need to dramatically reduce the amount of light to the diamond and or iincrease the contrast(IE use a lense, provide greater head shadow, cover the pavillion etc.) before you see significant darkness.

By yourself having to "coax" darkness out of a badly cut diamond by reducing light to the pavillion you have also proven that you can't accept a diamond as being well cut just because you don't see any darkness. What would happen in low light conditions where the pavillion isn't getting much light would you then see a dark ring or not?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

David your 63% table stone - I doubt it is steep deep - do you have the proportions?
Most of the darkness effects are the lens on your camera.
Ifyou are going to use it for a study then standardize the distance to the diamond please - the darkness from the lens indicates it is probably a shallow crown normal pavilion diamond. So it is unlikely to work for your purpose - prportions or at least diameter and deth in MM?

 

[John P]

Date: 11/24/2009 12:15:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
David your 63% table stone - I doubt it is steep deep - do you have the proportions?
Most of the darkness effects are the lens on your camera.
Ifyou are going to use it for a study then standardize the distance to the diamond please - the darkness from the lens indicates it is probably a shallow crown normal pavilion diamond. So it is unlikely to work for your purpose - prportions or at least diameter and deth in MM?

The proximity is exaggerating obstruction - this in addition to leakage present.

Side note: Have others noted how many "steep/deep" threads & concerns from new members this discussion has spawned?

 

[kenny]

Date: 11/24/2009 11:24:15 AM
Author: John Pollard

Side note: Have others noted how many 'steep/deep' threads & concerns from new members this discussion has spawned?

Look on the bright side.
At least they've forgotten about feathers.

 

[John P]

...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/24/2009 11:24:15 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 11/24/2009 12:15:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
David your 63% table stone - I doubt it is steep deep - do you have the proportions?
Most of the darkness effects are the lens on your camera.
Ifyou are going to use it for a study then standardize the distance to the diamond please - the darkness from the lens indicates it is probably a shallow crown normal pavilion diamond. So it is unlikely to work for your purpose - prportions or at least diameter and deth in MM?

The proximity is exaggerating obstruction - this in addition to leakage present.

Side note: Have others noted how many ''steep/deep'' threads & concerns from new members this discussion has spawned?

I did not see any leakage John?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/24/2009 12:32:29 PM
Author: John Pollard
...

No.......

runs away screaming......

 

[John P]

Date: 11/24/2009 1:48:45 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/24/2009 11:24:15 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 11/24/2009 12:15:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
David your 63% table stone - I doubt it is steep deep - do you have the proportions?
Most of the darkness effects are the lens on your camera.
Ifyou are going to use it for a study then standardize the distance to the diamond please - the darkness from the lens indicates it is probably a shallow crown normal pavilion diamond. So it is unlikely to work for your purpose - prportions or at least diameter and deth in MM?

The proximity is exaggerating obstruction - this in addition to leakage present.

Side note: Have others noted how many 'steep/deep' threads & concerns from new members this discussion has spawned?

I did not see any leakage John?

Nor did I. But without seeing it away from obstruction I wouldn't presume to say there is or isn't any.

I may have missed an image showing that it has no leakage (?) but was trying to catch-up with limited time this AM.

 

[John P]

Date: 11/24/2009 1:55:02 PM
Author: Lorelei
runs away screaming......

 

[kenny]

???

 

[John P]

Opposite of

 

[kenny]

Ohhhhhhhhhh.

Are you saying the round diamond that RD posted 3 pics of has a painted girdle?

If so, do you think he knew?
If so, why would he pick such a diamond for this steep deep thread?

In not, are you saying some other diamond in this thread has a painted girdle?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/24/2009 2:07:41 PM
Author: John Pollard
Opposite of

LOL!!!!!

 

[John P]

Date: 11/24/2009 2:09:32 PM
Author: kenny

Ohhhhhhhhhh.
Are you saying the round diamond that RD posted 3 pics of has a painted girdle?

No. You said

Look on the bright side.
At least they've forgotten about feathers.

My reply was saying they've forgotten about [p word] too. I just didn't want to say [p word]. What a ruckus that was.

Like ill faeries, saying its name gives it power.

...I'm off to cleanse myself in sage and thyme.

 

[Karl_K]

though shall see the leakage and the people screamed! steep/deep steep/deep!

Thats why a red background is nice if someone is to ??????? to use a IS/ASET. It separates out obstruction from leakage.

 

[kenny]

I am perplexed why some subjects and even posters are taboo and avoided.

Why not let the sun shine in?
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I thought PS was all about the pursuit of diamond knowledge.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/24/2009 11:24:15 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 11/24/2009 12:15:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
David your 63% table stone - I doubt it is steep deep - do you have the proportions?
Most of the darkness effects are the lens on your camera.
Ifyou are going to use it for a study then standardize the distance to the diamond please - the darkness from the lens indicates it is probably a shallow crown normal pavilion diamond. So it is unlikely to work for your purpose - prportions or at least diameter and deth in MM?

The proximity is exaggerating obstruction - this in addition to leakage present.

Side note: Have others noted how many ''steep/deep'' threads & concerns from new members this discussion has spawned?

Yes I have also noticed this John, and you''re welcome.
The reward for opening this dialog, and asking these questions is constant attack and slander.

Am I alone in finding Kenny''s attacks both completely out of place as well as disruptive to the entire conversation?

If everyone else feels this kind of badgering is fine, then something is REALLY wrong here.
Should I continue a productive conversation, or dedicate that time to refuting Kenny''s ridiculous accusations?


I apologize for reacting at all, but I am only human. One person''s bad attitude really lessens the value for all.


Garry- you are perceptive and correct.
The stone is probably a "Shallow/Deep"
The top is flat, the bottom steep.

I did not pick this stone for any other reason than in taking photos I noticed that I could coax a dark area from the center.

I''ll have a OGI run, and re-examine the stone for painting.

 

[kenny]

I am remaining courteous, on topic and not personal.

Concerns are best brought to the moderators.
Recruiting others in public is disruptive to the purpose and flow of the thread and atmosphere here, and frankly doing that is getting personal.

 

[John P]

Kenny and RD,

Date: 11/24/2009 3:09:19 PM
Author: kenny
I am perplexed why some subjects and even posters are taboo and avoided.

Why not let the sun shine in?
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I thought PS was all about the pursuit of diamond knowledge.

If this was addressed to me I was trying for humor Kenny. The cartoons and sage/thyme talk was tongue-in-cheek. I presumed you'd get the joke, remembering your personal interest and helpful actions in pursuing that topic. I'd also remind you that I was one of the biggest sunlight proponents, doing considerable research and orchestrating a cross-lab study with input from AGSL and GIA for the journal here.

It was also meant to defuse tension. Ergo...cartoons.

Sorry if it came out the wrong way.

Date: 11/24/2009 3:30:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Yes I have also noticed this John, and you're welcome.
The reward for opening this dialog, and asking these questions is constant attack and slander.

While discussion is healthy, creating fear-based doubts for new consumers based on a thread that may have nothing to do with their diamond is not healthy. Occasionally people lobby for a technical forum away from RT where pros and seasoned enthusiasts could carry on without newbies presuming the 10-page-thread de jour must also have to do with whatever diamond they are considering.

You're absolutely right that it takes thick-skin to post here. I would actually refer you to some of the painting threads alluded-to above. There were epic battles that explored more limits than these threads do, if memory serves. In the end cool heads and cool posts prevailed...on both sides of the issue.

People are pretty smart. They read tone as well as content and can ultimately judge what's fair & reasonable.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 11/24/2009 2:33:34 PM
Author: Karl_K

though shall see the leakage and the people screamed! steep/deep steep/deep!

I am DYING here.......ROTFLMAO.

 

[kenny]

Thanks John, no problem.

I have nothing but respect for you . . . oh and lots of admiration.

Your transparency and honest unbiased pursuit of the truth has always been exemplary here.
You have always represented diamonds of the best cut so all the technical discussions reflect well on your merchandise.

You are someone I'd buy a diamond from sight unseen just based on your word, regardless of whom you worked for.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 11/24/2009 3:30:29 PM

The reward for opening this dialog, and asking these questions is constant attack and slander.

Am I alone in finding Kenny's attacks both completely out of place as well as disruptive to the entire conversation?

Since David asked the question, I'll answer for the benefits of others who may be reading.

As far as I'm concerned, David is alone. Neither Kenny nor anyone else has attacked him. The mere act of crying victim doesn't make it so.

David instigated a discussion on a topic that he knows has very strong opinions on polar opposite ends, and people who have differing opinions have challenged his ideology. Disagreeing with one's ideology doesn't amount to a personal attack, and those can't be comfortable with that distinction might be better served avoiding such conversations.