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

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks FB!
I am especially grateful to those who would prefer to discuss the actual topic in an open minded manner, such as yourself!

Here''s a photo of the stone in question.
Do you feel there''s any visible negative effects depicted in this photo?

 

[stone-cold11]

yes, steep deep. Try putting something black behind the stone and take the pic again.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/17/2009 5:16:50 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks FB!
I am especially grateful to those who would prefer to discuss the actual topic in an open minded manner, such as yourself!

Here''s a photo of the stone in question.
Do you feel there''s any visible negative effects depicted in this photo?

I don''t see anything significant and certainly not the darkness under the edges of the table that is typical of a steep/deep.
But as Stone says; try it with less light able to enter through the pavilion.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/17/2009 5:16:50 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thanks FB!

I am especially grateful to those who would prefer to discuss the actual topic in an open minded manner, such as yourself!


Here''s a photo of the stone in question.

Do you feel there''s any visible negative effects depicted in this photo?

That''s a perfect picture if everyone wore diamonds floating in mid air.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I no longer have the diamond here to take additional photos.
I''d have to say that the stone was not "my favorite" or personal preference, but I could not say it had any obvious dark areas.

Is the theory that black behind the diamond somehow simulates a finger?

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/17/2009 6:16:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I no longer have the diamond here to take additional photos.

I''d have to say that the stone was not ''my favorite'' or personal preference, but I could not say it had any obvious dark areas.


Is the theory that black behind the diamond somehow simulates a finger?

putting it in the v between 2 fingers will show it also.
Putting it in a spring ring and on your finger will also.

I like to use red behind the diamond as it makes it really stand out.
I have a bright red business card I use to check for leakage when I don''t have an IS handy.

 

[stone-cold11]

It is to show you how much light of the light you see is actually coming from the pavilion instead of reflection of light enter from the crown.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 11/17/2009 6:16:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I no longer have the diamond here to take additional photos.
I''d have to say that the stone was not ''my favorite'' or personal preference, but I could not say it had any obvious dark areas.

Is the theory that black behind the diamond somehow simulates a finger?

the diameter of this stone is too small for its weight.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 11/17/2009 6:59:28 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 11/17/2009 6:16:54 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

I no longer have the diamond here to take additional photos.

I''d have to say that the stone was not ''my favorite'' or personal preference, but I could not say it had any obvious dark areas.


Is the theory that black behind the diamond somehow simulates a finger?

the diameter of this stone is too small for its weight.

NO question about that one DF!
I did not sell the stone- nor did I recommend it when it was here for photography.
Too deep? Yes, it was.
You, if anyone , should remember that my own personal view is for 60% depth on an RBC.

Regardless, the dark areas we''re talking about didn''t seem apparent in the stone when I looked at it in person.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 11/17/2009 7:10:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Regardless, the dark areas we''re talking about didn''t seem apparent in the stone when I looked at it in person.

Because the light is coming in from the pavilion.

 

[kenny]

Date: 11/17/2009 7:16:43 PM Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 11/17/2009 7:10:54 PM Author: Rockdiamond
Regardless, the dark areas we're talking about didn't seem apparent in the stone when I looked at it in person.

Because the light is coming in from the pavilion.

True. Here is RD's pic again.

Note how the front of the tweezers is dark, but the insides of the tweezers pick up lots of light from behind.
If the light was coming from the front of the diamond then the front of the tweezers would be brighter.

Even that hair at 3 O'Clock reveals where the main light source is.
The hair is darker where it is on the top of the diamond.
But it's bright where it hangs over the girdle into the air, because it is illuminated by light from behind the diamond.

Steep deep-related darkness is concealed when a diamond is backlit.

To me it looks like backlighting is the norm at www.diamondsbylauren.com .
Backlighting makes all diamonds look beautifully-cut to my eyes.
They seem to explode with light from within.

As an artist and photographer just taking pics for myself I will use lighting to optimize beauty and see no problem with backlighting in this situation.
If the pics are for that purpose my artistic expression should not be limited to front lighting.
But as an online diamond shopper trying to evaluate cut, partially by looking at pics, backlighting makes all diamonds seem well-cut, even the poorly-cut ones.

This is a problem.

 

[Kelli]

Backlighting is precisely the reason I was able to get good pictures of my steep deep too.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here is a photo showing a steep deep pave diamond with a dark ring inside the table.

If you do image searches you will find it is quite common when the diamonds are close to facing tha camera.
This is not a camera obstruction effect - it is a leakage / lack of light return effect.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you Garry!
That is a photo showing what a deep diamond looks like. Dark ring and all.

To me, that''s a lot more noticeable than a lot of examples we''ve seen.

Other than the spread issue of deep diamonds, I started the thread as it would be great to illustrate the darkness issue better.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/17/2009 5:12:49 PM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/17/2009 2:49:49 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Hi all,

Would this stone be considered a ''Steep Deep'' based on the CA/PA?

Steep, but not deep.

Deep starts at 41.2 in my mind. Others consider it to start at 41.0.

There is no real difference in effect.
This stone is steep enough to have some leakage that would show up when set without light shining on the pavilion and worn with a bit of gunk on the pavilion.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/17/2009 11:29:45 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Thank you Garry!

That is a photo showing what a deep diamond looks like. Dark ring and all.


To me, that''s a lot more noticeable than a lot of examples we''ve seen.


Other than the spread issue of deep diamonds, I started the thread as it would be great to illustrate the darkness issue better.

The issue is back to one from some years back David - you (like heaps of other diamntaires) illuminate the pavilion. You do not see diamonds the way wearers do.

Poke that diamond you have into blu tack (forgot the USA name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-Tack Blu Tack link
so the pavilion is effectively slightly dirty and can not get any illumination.
Even better still get some real greasy putty or plasticine and really see how the diamond will look most of the life after you sell it.

 

[Serg]

P40.8Cr36.5 is boundary diamond


due scanner error it could be P40.7Cr36.5 or P40.9Cr36.5

P40.7Cr36.5 has not strong leakage

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Everyone!

Apparently even determining if it is a "Steep Deep" involves some personal opinion.
Serg says it was a borderline stone.
My personal experience was that the stone did not have a dark center when viewed in person, under different lighting scenarios.

Stone- It just so happens that one of the photos I took had a dark background- I've posted it.

I believe that the photography aspect of this conversation deserves it's own thread, so I will start one on that topic.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You seem to be still backlighting the pavilion

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Garry,
As a photographer, I am very interested int he subject of "Backlighitng"- which is by no means something we work to achieve.

That subject really deserves it''s own thread.

 

[FB.]

Date: 11/17/2009 11:35:15 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/17/2009 5:12:49 PM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/17/2009 2:49:49 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Hi all,

Would this stone be considered a ''Steep Deep'' based on the CA/PA?

Steep, but not deep.

Deep starts at 41.2 in my mind. Others consider it to start at 41.0.

There is no real difference in effect.
This stone is steep enough to have some leakage that would show up when set without light shining on the pavilion and worn with a bit of gunk on the pavilion.

Garry

On another thread, I''m discussing what appears to be a well-proportioned 60/60 diamond. It has 41.1 pavilion and 33.0 crown. Would the stone suffer like a steep/deep when the pavilion gets dirty, or are the combination of angles adequate to compensate?

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/18/2009 3:16:16 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI Everyone!


Apparently even determining if it is a ''Steep Deep'' involves some personal opinion.

Serg says it was a borderline stone.

You missed his point....
That is why we ask for IS or ASET images.
There is to much variation in scanners and rounding on borderline stones.
A full 3d file imported into DC from helium or the top end sarin is the other way that is fairly accurate.

 

[Serg]

even AGS PGS gave 0 grade ( version PGS 1.1.2, November 2007) for diamonds P41.2Cr34.5, P41.8Cr36.0, P41.6Cr37.0 with Table 57

I never saw any problem with P41.2Cr34.5 specially for human stereo vision
it is boundary diamond( boundary does not mean bad diamonds, it means risky diamonds if you try grade such diamonds by scanner report only )

P41.5Cr34.5 is steep deep diamond
P40.8Cr34.5 is "Ideal diamonds"( most SAFE proportions)

P41 Cr34.5 is not steep deep diamond

P41.2Cr34.5 is boundary diamond

P41.2Cr34.5 and P40.7Cr36.5 are similar diamonds

 

[Serg]

I do not know exact definition for steep deep diamonds.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/18/2009 3:37:23 PM
Author: FB.

Date: 11/17/2009 11:35:15 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/17/2009 5:12:49 PM

Author: FB.

Date: 11/17/2009 2:49:49 PM


Author: Rockdiamond


Hi all,


Would this stone be considered a ''Steep Deep'' based on the CA/PA?

Steep, but not deep.


Deep starts at 41.2 in my mind. Others consider it to start at 41.0.

There is no real difference in effect.

This stone is steep enough to have some leakage that would show up when set without light shining on the pavilion and worn with a bit of gunk on the pavilion.

Garry


On another thread, I''m discussing what appears to be a well-proportioned 60/60 diamond. It has 41.1 pavilion and 33.0 crown. Would the stone suffer like a steep/deep when the pavilion gets dirty, or are the combination of angles adequate to compensate?

That proportion set would need to have some bad digging or sym prob''s to be bad.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/18/2009 3:35:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI Garry,

As a photographer, I am very interested int he subject of ''Backlighitng''- which is by no means something we work to achieve.


That subject really deserves it''s own thread.

David does this help you understand the issue?
I have posted things like this before - it is a concept from physics that if light can go in and out one way - the opposite must also be true.
So if you had a light source where the strong ray is going out - then more about 60% of the light would go out the pavilion in the area just inside the table in that position.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/17/2009 6:16:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I no longer have the diamond here to take additional photos.

I''d have to say that the stone was not ''my favorite'' or personal preference, but I could not say it had any obvious dark areas.


Is the theory that black behind the diamond somehow simulates a finger?

I have a steep/deep graded as a GIA VG I can capture the differences in if you''d like to see.

 

[kenny]

Date: 11/19/2009 1:43:33 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

. . . it is a concept from physics that if light can go in and out one way - the opposite must also be true.

Garry, would that also mean that light entering the pavilion would conceal the darkness problem with a steep deep?

Rhino, could you photograph a steep deep next to a well cut round, then take another pic backlighting the steep deep's pavilion to make the darkness go away?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/19/2009 2:27:46 AM
Author: kenny

Date: 11/19/2009 1:43:33 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


. . . it is a concept from physics that if light can go in and out one way - the opposite must also be true.

Garry, would that also mean that light entering the pavilion would conceal the darkness problem with a steep deep?


Rhino, could you photograph a steep deep next to a well cut round, then take another pic backlighting the steep deep''s pavilion to make the darkness go away?

Yes Kenny, You can see a reflection of the light on crown facets on David''s photo - clearly that light is able to illuminate the pavilion.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/19/2009 2:36:06 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/19/2009 2:27:46 AM

Author: kenny

Date: 11/19/2009 1:43:33 AM


Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)



. . . it is a concept from physics that if light can go in and out one way - the opposite must also be true.

Garry, would that also mean that light entering the pavilion would conceal the darkness problem with a steep deep?



Rhino, could you photograph a steep deep next to a well cut round, then take another pic backlighting the steep deep''s pavilion to make the darkness go away?

Yes Kenny, You can see a reflection of the light on crown facets on David''s photo - clearly that light is able to illuminate the pavilion.

re:You can see a reflection of the light on crown facets on David''s photo - clearly that light is able to illuminate the pavilion.

It is not clear for me at all.
Crown angle is 36.5 degree.
angle between viewer direction and crown facets( in vertical plan ) is 53.5 degree
so source of light ( what reflected from crown table) has 17 degree from girdle plane in Crown hemisphere !
of course Pavilion could catch light from upper hemisphere too, but statements like "clearly that light is able to illuminate the pavilion" are misleading
( Even ASET , IS are not very helpful to reject diamonds what could redirect light from upper hemisphere to eye by Pavilion facets)