Fancy Yellow Radiant Cuts Any Preference?

[Rockdiamond]

The facet indicated by the arrows- which is reflecting light. Is that on the back or the front?

The light is coming from above.
DF- if your question is sincere-how many sellers outline their photographic methods?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

The facet indicated by the arrows- which is reflecting light. Is that on the back or the front?

The light is coming from above.
DF- if your question is sincere-how many sellers outline their photographic methods?

RD,

Now that we have established that the light source is above the diamond and I think you said it was stationary. By tilting slightly the diamond and tweezers you control how much light hits the pavilion(back) or crown(front). The difference between the two shots is how much you tilted the diamond to vary the amount of light hitting each part of the diamond are you still disputing this?

 

[Lurchie]

I try so, so hard to stay out of these threads - mostly because I respect all the people who take part in the discussions for the variety of knowledge and viewpoint that they bring to the table.

CCL - I truly believe your motivations come from wanting to make the online diamond buying experience transparent and pain-free for consumers. You have a tremendous amount of knowledge and you share it generously. Teaching consumers how to interpret photographs of diamonds is a worthy and worthwhile pursuit, IMO. Is there a more productive way of doing so? To be fair, your poll was a little misleading. The title of the thread is "Fancy Yellow Radiant Cuts Any Preference," the title of your poll was "Which image do you prefer," and the questions in your poll relate to diamond performance. There were some mixed messages in there.

As an alternative, it would be great if someone (hint, hint) were to write a PS tutorial showing photos of diamonds in various kinds of lighting and describing what kind of lighting shows what. I know this information is out there in PS Land, but maybe it would be helpful to consolidate it? Taking specific vendors out of the equation would make it feel more even-handed.

 

[acebruin]

i'm also trying to stay out of this discussion but i have to chime in...

i don't think DBL is trying to mislead any customers... he's putting up different pictures to show different characteristics of the stones... i also have to defend him on his photography method... that's his way of taking pictures, you or i cannot expect him to outline his methods... that's HIS proprietary and intellectual info... that's like asking a software company how they made the software or what algorithm they use for the software... c'mon you don't ask an artist how they do their drawing / painting... if someone doesn't like the way DBL is taking pictures, move on... no need to try to attack DBL to layout their photographing methods...

has any customers of DBL actually bought something from them and felt they were mislead by the pictures? i'm a customer's of DBL's and many others including fancydiamonds.net... i for one appreciate DBL's pictures, and i WISH i know how he did his pictures...

taking pictures is an art... give the same camera to two different people... same light source, same conditions... and you will end up with 2 pictures... it's how the picture taker look at the world via their cameras...

it's great to educate consumers... i'm all for education... but i also don't think DBL needs to layout their methods... put yourself in david's shoes... if someone is asking you proprietary info on how you did something for your business, are you going to lay it out for them?

my two cents...

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I try so, so hard to stay out of these threads - mostly because I respect all the people who take part in the discussions for the variety of knowledge and viewpoint that they bring to the table.

CCL - I truly believe your motivations come from wanting to make the online diamond buying experience transparent and pain-free for consumers. You have a tremendous amount of knowledge and you share it generously. Teaching consumers how to interpret photographs of diamonds is a worthy and worthwhile pursuit, IMO. Is there a more productive way of doing so? To be fair, your poll was a little misleading. The title of the thread is "Fancy Yellow Radiant Cuts Any Preference," the title of your poll was "Which image do you prefer," and the questions in your poll relate to diamond performance. There were some mixed messages in there.

As an alternative, it would be great if someone (hint, hint) were to write a PS tutorial showing photos of diamonds in various kinds of lighting and describing what kind of lighting shows what. I know this information is out there in PS Land, but maybe it would be helpful to consolidate it? Taking specific vendors out of the equation would make it feel more even-handed.

Many good points in your post.
Wink did an admirable job on this topic https://www.pricescope.com/journal/camera_may_not_lie_it_tells_different_truths

 

[Ella]

Please keep this thread on the topic of photography techniques in general. NO personal or attacks on businesses or vendors.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for posting that Lurchie- it makes a lot of sense.
Ace- thank you as well- great post!

I agree wholeheartedly that bringing transparency to the diamond business is a boon to consumers- and in fact, that has been a large part of my motivation in posting on PS over the years.

I think part of the challenge in that is drawing a line between transparency about the business in general, and particular aspects that distinguish one company from another- that might be proprietary.
I've described how I take the photos in as specific a manner as I feel comfortable doing.

I agree- CCL has a seemingly great motivation, and has learned a lot.
BUT- by aiming his guns at one vendor, who has done nothing wrong, the value of discussions is diluted to the point of becoming almost meaningless ( although everyone loves a good fight, so they may be entertaining)

Reading PS can illustrate that there are indeed bad guys out there.
Read RT today and find examples of this.
The bad guys might not work hard to satisfy customers- or not meet obligations to consumers- or they might use deceptive methods of advertising.

As I have mentioned before, our photos have been stolen on MANY occasions and used for misrepresentation.
Or, other sites may have photos that seem to be of the stone they are offering, yet closer inspection shows the same images used over and over again for different stones- with no clear explanation of this.
OR- they can use photoshop to make the diamonds look exactly as they want.
ALL of these violations deserve examination- and repeating often to assist consumers- so they don;t fall prey.

The difference in the two photos CCl used in his "poll" was simply that I use a point and shoot- which has an autofocus- in one shot the focus was spot on- an instant later- in the very same light- the focus was less than sharp.

Generally only 10% ( or less) of the photos I take are used on our site- we pick the ones that best represent the diamonds we are offering.


Lastly- and this is probably the tenth time I've done this- CCL- can we bury this hatchet? I enjoy discussing diamonds, and am happy to discuss them in the forum with you.
I respect what you're trying to do, but in fairness, think about what the goal is.
I am fiercely proud of our website- and our record satisfying many thousands of consumers- we both want to help consumers- we're on the same side.

Even if we look at our differences regarding make- having more informed viewpoints- especially differing viewpoints- can only enrich a conversation, as long as the participants respect each other.
If it is your goal to learn abou tthe diamond business, part of the lesson needs to be that different cutters- and dealers- have different ways of looking at ( and photographing) diamonds.

 

[Ella]

Please remember that vendors are generally not allowed to post photos of their own products.

RD just so you are aware for educational and non promotional purposes you ARE allowed to post images especially in a thread about photography methods which is purely for educational reasons. If in doubt just ask Andrey and I'm sure he will preclear anything you want to post if it is for educational purposes only. The goal of pricescope is not to stifle the proper support of opinions by tradesmembers as long as they don't abuse it for self promotional reasons.

While this is partially correct in that we do allow photos for educational purposes we still request that vendors clear it with us first as we want to be sure of the intent. We also do have restrictions on which photos they may post, so it is always best to ask us first.

Anyone ever has questions about policies please feel free to email the Pricescope staff to clarify.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Thanks for posting that Lurchie- it makes a lot of sense.
Ace- thank you as well- great post!

RD,

Here is the problem, the simple use of your images makes you feel persecuted and on the defensive here.
I get it, I didn't ask you before posting them here, I just found the best side by side example of dramatically different lighting I could find.
I really meant it before,I wish you and clgwli hadn't even mentioned who took the shots it wasn't important it just distracted from the focus I wanted which was the differences in the images.

As an amateur photo enthusiast I have to disagree when you state the lighting in both is identical this doesn't seem plausible. It looks like you have moved the tweezers either by tilt or slight back forward movement from one shot to the other, which is consistant with the same overhead lighting source hitting the pavillion(back) more than the crown(front) in one shot over the other. This can be achieved with ever so slight changes in the tilt or moving the tweezers forward or backwards with respect to the light source, especially if the light source is much bigger than the diamond.

Once again in this thread I'm pointing this out not to say you are being deceptive, this stone is well presented on your site with several different viewpoints.

In general though I am really against any vendor who uses only lighting that is good for viewing inclusions (like that on the right) and presenting only this type of lighting to draw conclusions on beauty in the absence of a shot that more accurately shows virtual facets.

We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for the thoughtful answer ccl.
Would it be possible for you to post a link to the stone CCL, or some of the other photos- I really don't want to have to do a lot of detective work tracing down which stone it is, and I'd like to see the other photos of it

 

[Lurchie]

I try so, so hard to stay out of these threads - mostly because I respect all the people who take part in the discussions for the variety of knowledge and viewpoint that they bring to the table.

CCL - I truly believe your motivations come from wanting to make the online diamond buying experience transparent and pain-free for consumers. You have a tremendous amount of knowledge and you share it generously. Teaching consumers how to interpret photographs of diamonds is a worthy and worthwhile pursuit, IMO. Is there a more productive way of doing so? To be fair, your poll was a little misleading. The title of the thread is "Fancy Yellow Radiant Cuts Any Preference," the title of your poll was "Which image do you prefer," and the questions in your poll relate to diamond performance. There were some mixed messages in there.

As an alternative, it would be great if someone (hint, hint) were to write a PS tutorial showing photos of diamonds in various kinds of lighting and describing what kind of lighting shows what. I know this information is out there in PS Land, but maybe it would be helpful to consolidate it? Taking specific vendors out of the equation would make it feel more even-handed.

Many good points in your post.
Wink did an admirable job on this topic https://www.pricescope.com/journal/camera_may_not_lie_it_tells_different_truths

Thanks for posting Wink's article and video - I'd not seen it before.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for posting that Lurchie- it makes a lot of sense.
Ace- thank you as well- great post!

RD,

Here is the problem, the simple use of your images makes you feel persecuted and on the defensive here.
I get it, I didn't ask you before posting them here, I just found the best side by side example of dramatically different lighting I could find.
I really meant it before,I wish you and clgwli hadn't even mentioned who took the shots it wasn't important it just distracted from the focus I wanted which was the differences in the images.

As an amateur photo enthusiast I have to disagree when you state the lighting in both is identical this doesn't seem plausible. It looks like you have moved the tweezers either by tilt or slight back forward movement from one shot to the other, which is consistant with the same overhead lighting source hitting the pavillion(back) more than the crown(front) in one shot over the other. This can be achieved with ever so slight changes in the tilt or moving the tweezers forward or backwards with respect to the light source, especially if the light source is much bigger than the diamond.

Once again in this thread I'm pointing this out not to say you are being deceptive, this stone is well presented on your site with several different viewpoints.

In general though I am really against any vendor who uses only lighting that is good for viewing inclusions (like that on the right) and presenting only this type of lighting to draw conclusions on beauty in the absence of a shot that more accurately shows virtual facets.

We will have to agree to disagree.

Ostensibly, the Empire State Building doesn't seem plausible.
Yet there it stands.
No matter what you think is possible the photos were taken within seconds of each other in the same lighting. In fact the lighting is reflecting off the stone the same place in both photos. No lighting change between the photos.
Tilt: If the stone is at an angle to the camera, it won't look "square"
The outline of the stone in both photos is also very consistent- meaning they are at the same angle to the lens.
Tell me I have a sloppy desk? I'm guilty as charged- but I have a steady hand. The stone's position and relation to the lighting changed as small as humanly possible between the two photos. No matter. If you take 20 photos of a diamond in less than 60 seconds, you're going to get these variations.
I believe that it's informative to publish a variety of photos- which is what we do.

And I believe that our listings have as in depth a photographic representation of each stone as ANY site.



I need to point out the obvious- CCL is...well some guy ( or girl) typing away somewhere- totally anonymous.
I'm a person- who is known, as is our company.
Therefore it's important that I respond to points raised. My goal is to have an informative, respectful dialog.
I'll try to find more photos of the stone CCL used to give an idea of other variations possible between camera and diamond.