- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,339
ACA Classic vs. New Line - The Best Way to Compare
- Thread starter kenny
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,339
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,339
Here's one I took.
Classic on left, New Line on right.
No photoshopping.
No splicing either, both stones really were side by side.
Aligning arrows in two stones is something I do NOT want to have to do for a living!
Sheesh!
If anyone has more tips on how to improve my photography I'm all ears.
This pic just doesn't do justice to these beautiful stones.
I may try some more tomorrow.
My appologies to Whiteflash.
I really wanted to get good photos that showed Classic and NL side by side.
As it is my pics only are showing how bad of a photographer I am.
Classic on left, New Line on right.
No photoshopping.
No splicing either, both stones really were side by side.
Aligning arrows in two stones is something I do NOT want to have to do for a living!
Sheesh!
If anyone has more tips on how to improve my photography I'm all ears.
This pic just doesn't do justice to these beautiful stones.
I may try some more tomorrow.
My appologies to Whiteflash.
I really wanted to get good photos that showed Classic and NL side by side.
As it is my pics only are showing how bad of a photographer I am.
Kenny
Think you have to experiment with the lighting. Maybe more directly overhead or aimed at the bottom of the stone.
You could also try a penlight laying in front of the stone on the black reflective surface.
From those pics, it looks like the light is aimed at the upper girdle facets on the top of the stone.
Try also lighting the stone from the top perpendicular to the girdle
What aperture setting are you using?
Rockdoc
Think you have to experiment with the lighting. Maybe more directly overhead or aimed at the bottom of the stone.
You could also try a penlight laying in front of the stone on the black reflective surface.
From those pics, it looks like the light is aimed at the upper girdle facets on the top of the stone.
Try also lighting the stone from the top perpendicular to the girdle
What aperture setting are you using?
Rockdoc
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,339
I believe these were all at f16.
My lens goes to f32 but at f16 my exposures are already a few seconds long at this enlargement.
I was worried if I went to f32 exposures may run very long and my floor is not very stable and I may get more vibration.
But I should try everything.
Don't have to pay for film.
For the record here is what I bought.
The second kit shown is the Jewelry Kit.
Click on the lights.
tabletopstudio
Oh, and how much will a polarizer help?
I have a 52mm but this lens needs a larger one.
And won't that gobble up two stops of light too?
My lens goes to f32 but at f16 my exposures are already a few seconds long at this enlargement.
I was worried if I went to f32 exposures may run very long and my floor is not very stable and I may get more vibration.
But I should try everything.
Don't have to pay for film.
For the record here is what I bought.
The second kit shown is the Jewelry Kit.
Click on the lights.
tabletopstudio
Oh, and how much will a polarizer help?
I have a 52mm but this lens needs a larger one.
And won't that gobble up two stops of light too?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,339
I tried looking straight down on the diamonds with all the light come from above.
I even tried pointing the lights at the ceiling.
I was not happy enough with the pics to post them.
Still the results look nothing like GOG's or Whiteflash's website.
I give up trying to photograph these, and I have to send one back tomorrow.
We've decided to keep the ACA Classic .748 I VVS1.
Why?
Honestly, probably just because it is bigger.
I've carried both with me for a week.
I've spent a lot of time looking at them side by side in my car, at work, at home, at the store, in the sun, in shade, under a tree, in a movie theater, in candlelight, at sunset, sunrise and at noon, near a window, in my basement and even in moonlight.
In some lights I like one, in other lights I like the other.
Then I'd rotate them a few degrees to the left and my favorite would switch again.
It has been very illuminating.
After the prefect diamond viewing experience, I don't see why there is so much fuss about painted diamonds.
They certainly look different but I can't conclude that overall one looks better or worse.
The larger one, the Classic, had a .035 carat unfair advantage.
If the New Line diamond was larger I'll bet we would have kept that one.
Thanks to everyone for following this project, and helping me with my little Diamond Safari.
Here's my opinion about the Classic vs. New Line question . . . just ignore it and select based on all the other usual considerations.
Either will be stunning.
Yes my conclusion is the same as what everyone else said.
If I was more trusting I could have saved myself some time, but I had to see for myself.
It was a fun and educational experience.
I even tried pointing the lights at the ceiling.
I was not happy enough with the pics to post them.
Still the results look nothing like GOG's or Whiteflash's website.
I give up trying to photograph these, and I have to send one back tomorrow.
We've decided to keep the ACA Classic .748 I VVS1.
Why?
Honestly, probably just because it is bigger.
I've carried both with me for a week.
I've spent a lot of time looking at them side by side in my car, at work, at home, at the store, in the sun, in shade, under a tree, in a movie theater, in candlelight, at sunset, sunrise and at noon, near a window, in my basement and even in moonlight.
In some lights I like one, in other lights I like the other.
Then I'd rotate them a few degrees to the left and my favorite would switch again.
It has been very illuminating.
After the prefect diamond viewing experience, I don't see why there is so much fuss about painted diamonds.
They certainly look different but I can't conclude that overall one looks better or worse.
The larger one, the Classic, had a .035 carat unfair advantage.
If the New Line diamond was larger I'll bet we would have kept that one.
Thanks to everyone for following this project, and helping me with my little Diamond Safari.
Here's my opinion about the Classic vs. New Line question . . . just ignore it and select based on all the other usual considerations.
Either will be stunning.
Yes my conclusion is the same as what everyone else said.
If I was more trusting I could have saved myself some time, but I had to see for myself.
It was a fun and educational experience.
Well, Kenny
You''ve had quite an adventure. You certainly have put forth more effort than the average person.
Sometimes, it just takes a lot of photos, to get just one that you like. Sometimes, I''ve taken 20-30 short and none of them, have turned out the way I want them to.
Then other times, even though I do the same thing, I great incredibly good photos. (Maybe digital cameras have a mood they get into)
The other part is that the digital cameras rarely pick up the dispersive colors unless you have the stone totally out of focus. Haven''t figured out why that is. It just is.(shrug)
I sincerely wish my photos came out as good as what my eye sees.
I think you''ve learned that when you have two really great stones, it is very difficult to separate one from the other to figure out if one is better than the other. It just takes a lot of practice, which takes a while to get good at doing. Like you previously said, you have a new respect for those of us who do take these photos that are in the biz.
I admit I am a bit spoiled as about 98% of the stones I get to "play" with are the really incredible cut ones. But in the past 6 years of so of doing this I''ve learned a ton about them.
Congrats on your selecting, and new pet rock!
Rockdoc
You''ve had quite an adventure. You certainly have put forth more effort than the average person.
Sometimes, it just takes a lot of photos, to get just one that you like. Sometimes, I''ve taken 20-30 short and none of them, have turned out the way I want them to.
Then other times, even though I do the same thing, I great incredibly good photos. (Maybe digital cameras have a mood they get into)
The other part is that the digital cameras rarely pick up the dispersive colors unless you have the stone totally out of focus. Haven''t figured out why that is. It just is.(shrug)
I sincerely wish my photos came out as good as what my eye sees.
I think you''ve learned that when you have two really great stones, it is very difficult to separate one from the other to figure out if one is better than the other. It just takes a lot of practice, which takes a while to get good at doing. Like you previously said, you have a new respect for those of us who do take these photos that are in the biz.
I admit I am a bit spoiled as about 98% of the stones I get to "play" with are the really incredible cut ones. But in the past 6 years of so of doing this I''ve learned a ton about them.
Congrats on your selecting, and new pet rock!
Rockdoc
belle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,285
yay! congratulations on your purchase kenny!
what fun it must have been to spend so much time with these beauties. there is no way i could have done it. if i had two amazing diamonds on my hands for that long, i would not have been able to send one back!
thank you for taking the time to report your assessments, as well as those of others. your efforts and subsequent reporting will be of great help to those who are sure to follow in the process. the side by side comparison and accompanying viewpoints is invaluable.... not to mention the pics! did you happen to get any h&a shots?
i''ve been working with the camera trying to get some nice arrows shots to post but haven''t been happy with anything so far. i really hope you will post more pics. i am learning so much with all of the great input.
btw...new avatar is awesome! is that your inspiration pic, or the actual painting? your work is so detailed and exquisite it''s impossible to tell. the coloring and composition are magnificent.
what fun it must have been to spend so much time with these beauties. there is no way i could have done it. if i had two amazing diamonds on my hands for that long, i would not have been able to send one back!
thank you for taking the time to report your assessments, as well as those of others. your efforts and subsequent reporting will be of great help to those who are sure to follow in the process. the side by side comparison and accompanying viewpoints is invaluable.... not to mention the pics! did you happen to get any h&a shots?
btw...new avatar is awesome! is that your inspiration pic, or the actual painting? your work is so detailed and exquisite it''s impossible to tell. the coloring and composition are magnificent.
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
"I sincerely wish my photos came out as good as what my eye sees. "
Truer words have never been spoken! I often think that as I play around with my stone and digital camera. I have not seen a camera capture the stone as it really looks to your naked eye. There''s just so much going on within the stone and the magical colors.
Kenny your experiment sounded like alot of fun...and it was great to live vicariously through you for a week. Please post pictures of your new baby!
Truer words have never been spoken! I often think that as I play around with my stone and digital camera. I have not seen a camera capture the stone as it really looks to your naked eye. There''s just so much going on within the stone and the magical colors.
Kenny your experiment sounded like alot of fun...and it was great to live vicariously through you for a week. Please post pictures of your new baby!
aljdewey
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 9,170
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,339
RocDoc, thanks for the cool pics.
Belle, thanks for kind words.My avatar is a detail of this transparent watercolor painting.The hardest part is saving the white of the paper since there is no white paint.
Here it is on my wall to get an idea of the size.
Belle, thanks for kind words.My avatar is a detail of this transparent watercolor painting.The hardest part is saving the white of the paper since there is no white paint.
Here it is on my wall to get an idea of the size.
If I come across the pic of my front gate that I painted it from I’ll post that.
One morning I woke up and opened my curtains and the sun was sparkling on the dew on the spider webs in the iron gate.
It was just magical so I grabbed my camera.
I haven’t gotten any H+A pics yet.
While I had them both I was concentrating on getting side by side comparisons.
I’ll fool around some more with the one I kept before sending it to be set.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
FireGoddess
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2005
- Messages
- 12,145
belle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,285
i thought it might be your painting!
awesome. i can empathsize with the difficulty of painting ''light''. i have long since admired the work of steve hanks. it was because of his amazing use of light that i became interested in watercolor as a medium. i am nowhere near your level of mastery but enjoy the process and can appreciate the inherent talent you possess.
as always, i would love to see more pics!
here''s to beauty all around!
as always, i would love to see more pics!
here''s to beauty all around!
sunkist
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 2,964
Kenny I love your painting! it is beautiful and magical like you said. Sorry you couldn''t get the pics you wanted of your two stones. Have you tried natural light? I think the best shots come with natural light. I know it''s not as controlled and in an experiment you need control, but it might get you the pics you want! Thanks for sharing your experience with us! I enjoyed following it!
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,339
When I first saw the two diamonds I was surprised.
I expected the NL to be much better.
I don''t know why.
Maybe because of all of the mystique around the Eightstar, that very expensive painted diamond.
But the Classic and New Line ACAs both looked superb.
They were both on clip rings so i could wear them next to my Solasfera.
After a while I started to notice that while both beautiful they did not look the same.
One looked better at one moment, but then when I rotated my hand or moved it with respect to the light the other one looked better.
It was really more like 50/50.
This turned out to be very frustrating.
I wanted one to be the clear champ.
We are not mannequins standing still in a store under a light.
Our hand moves.
Our head moves.
We move through a thousand different viewing and lighting conditions and angles all day long.
Making any kind of science out of my observations quickly proved futile and irrelevant, and I am an engineer who loves studies, experiments, and data.
Too many variables.
Neither was a brighter stone to my eyes in all or most conditions.
I quickly lost track of which looked better in which situation.
Other diamond characteristics are MUCH more important than whether you pick a New Line or a Classic.
We picked the Classic probably because it was larger.
I expected the NL to be much better.
I don''t know why.
Maybe because of all of the mystique around the Eightstar, that very expensive painted diamond.
But the Classic and New Line ACAs both looked superb.
They were both on clip rings so i could wear them next to my Solasfera.
After a while I started to notice that while both beautiful they did not look the same.
One looked better at one moment, but then when I rotated my hand or moved it with respect to the light the other one looked better.
And it was not like one looked better 70% of the time.
It was really more like 50/50.
This turned out to be very frustrating.
I wanted one to be the clear champ.
That seems to be how our brains are wired.
We don’t like ambiguity, especially with such an important purchase.
I’m sure I could adjust the lighting so one looked brighter.
Then I could readjust the lighting so the other looked brighter.
This proves nothing.
We are not mannequins standing still in a store under a light.
Our hand moves.
Our head moves.
We move through a thousand different viewing and lighting conditions and angles all day long.
Making any kind of science out of my observations quickly proved futile and irrelevant, and I am an engineer who loves studies, experiments, and data.
Too many variables.
Neither was a brighter stone to my eyes in all or most conditions.
I quickly lost track of which looked better in which situation.
I got a dose of reality and perspective as a result of my little test.
Other diamond characteristics are MUCH more important than whether you pick a New Line or a Classic.
We picked the Classic probably because it was larger.
Wow, Kenny....i can understand your frustration....whenever I try to compare diamonds I end up realizing that it is just about impossible to have both in the same EXACT lighting at the same time.....and to look at them with the same head angle, and on and on!!!!!!!!
Jd, I remember "meeting you" on your other thread......have you answered your questions about your own diamond???? Hope all is well...
Jd, I remember "meeting you" on your other thread......have you answered your questions about your own diamond???? Hope all is well...
Hi Carlotta! Thanks for remembering me and my issue!
I think I have answered my question. I had the opportunity to again view the diamond on my fiancee''s hand and several of her friends'' diamonds over this past weekend when we were all over the city (I did this discreetly, but it was great seeing all of them in various lighting environments!). In almost every lighting environment we were in, hers was just as sparkly as theirs and even more sparkly than most. Hers is also bigger and more noticeable. I also LOVE her setting. However, hers definitely has a noticeable dark center compared to all of theirs, even from a distance. I have no idea if this is because of the ''painting'' or whether it is too shallow for our preference, or whether it is "too good" of a cut for our liking (sounds weird, but we were told maybe it is because it is reflecting too much dark light and shadows for our liking since we prefer very bright).
I was hoping I was just seeing or imagining things... but unfortunately it definitely doesn''t seem so. I guess there are two solutions - take a 30% hit on a $20,000 purchase (ouch) and purchase a diamond elsewhere (maybe we actually prefer a worse-cut stone that has a brighter appearance in the middle??) or try and trade in and hope we get one that has a whiter appearing table.
I think I have answered my question. I had the opportunity to again view the diamond on my fiancee''s hand and several of her friends'' diamonds over this past weekend when we were all over the city (I did this discreetly, but it was great seeing all of them in various lighting environments!). In almost every lighting environment we were in, hers was just as sparkly as theirs and even more sparkly than most. Hers is also bigger and more noticeable. I also LOVE her setting. However, hers definitely has a noticeable dark center compared to all of theirs, even from a distance. I have no idea if this is because of the ''painting'' or whether it is too shallow for our preference, or whether it is "too good" of a cut for our liking (sounds weird, but we were told maybe it is because it is reflecting too much dark light and shadows for our liking since we prefer very bright).
I was hoping I was just seeing or imagining things... but unfortunately it definitely doesn''t seem so. I guess there are two solutions - take a 30% hit on a $20,000 purchase (ouch) and purchase a diamond elsewhere (maybe we actually prefer a worse-cut stone that has a brighter appearance in the middle??) or try and trade in and hope we get one that has a whiter appearing table.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,579
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,579
I just wondered because I looked at a superideal with a 54 table and it also seemed dark in the center in lamp lighting to me as well. I see you have a 55 table. I am not sure if that is the reason, but I am trying to look at a minimum of 56 for the table now. My old diamond has a very large table, and it is always white and pretty. It doesn''t sparkle as much as a H&A, though.
jasontb
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2006
- Messages
- 226
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,579
DillPickle
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2006
- Messages
- 82
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,579
- Status
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)