Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[kenny]

"Back story" is the PS Understatement of the Century.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Back to the discussion
Is crushed ice bad- and what , exactly, is crushed ice?

Any guesses on which stone is whiter?

 

[kenny]

RD, please find the owner's manual for your camera and read about white balance.

Sometimes your "I don't understand all that complicated newfangled stuff" is NOT endearing.
It hurts your case.

Appearing to be competent is a good thing.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I lost that, a long time ago Ken.

But I can say that whatever is the balance affecting one stone, the other is right next to it, similarly affected.

 

[clgwli]

Laptop guess (my colors are crap) and my DH is busy with his college football stuff right now so I can't use his. But I will guess the radiant is lower in color? Don't laugh as it is a laptop guess.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Ken- I have to know how to operate some high tech gear.
Taking pictures is more of a result driven thing, for me.
I take the photos, stick the card into my computer, and if the results conveys to me what I saw with my eye, I go with it.
If it was not working, yes, I'd have to RTFM

i just bought an SLR- I love it. It's great for taking pictures of people.
I'ts going to take a lot of work- and a macro lens, for me to start to capture diamonds.
I'll have to RTFM

 

[kikidoe]

from the top view, the right one looks whiter (or brighter), since the left one looks dark.
from the side view, the left one looks whiter and the right one looks yellowish.
so i guess, the round brilliant is lower in color.

 

[clgwli]

David, I'd suggest getting a tripod too if you use the DLSR for macro shots. IMO just easier to do while keeping in focus. Totally different feel than macro on point and shoots.

 

[FuturePsyD]

Coming from a total amateur...

It's a difficult picture to assess. The radiant looks "whiter" however it has a yellowish tinge. The round looks like it is in a shadow of some sort, as it looks gray/dark to me. The yellowish tinge seems to be due to your shirt (or something), because I see chunks of yellow reflected in both stones.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Interesting observation about the yellow chunks Future!

I guess you mean the middle photo.
I think the diamonds are reflecting either
a) walls and ceiling ( definitely need paint job)
b) the housing of the diamond lamp which they were under which is a kind of light brown color.

 

[Doc_1]

I see more warmth under the right .
I could not though tell from looking directly at the side view of the stones i had to look at what is filtering through them, since the source of light was coming from above.

 

[risingsun]

Risingsun: yes, we may not be privy to what has occurred between certain members in the past, but that does not mean that Doc can't express his/her opinion regarding certain posts in this particular thread.

I personally have nothing against any individuals that have posted and have learned a great deal. But I don't think its fair to ask Doc to not voice his opinion on a public forum thread that is currently in play simply because there may be a back story between certain posters.

This is the first time in many threads that we are actually getting somewhere. Doc has the right to express his opinion. I have the right to suggest that he let ccl and RD work it out for themselves. The dynamics are complex and may not be evident to a newcomer to this board. We are working through some difficult interpersonal interactions. That is why I said it would be best to let it be, IMHO. This has been far better than past attempts. I want to give credit and support, where it is due. As Kenny said, "Back story" is the PS Understatement of the Century."

 

[stone-cold11]

David, which stone are you using for the round?

What is the carat weight and report number?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Ken- I have to know how to operate some high tech gear.
Taking pictures is more of a result driven thing, for me.
I take the photos, stick the card into my computer, and if the results conveys to me what I saw with my eye, I go with it.
If it was not working, yes, I'd have to RTFM

i just bought an SLR- I love it. It's great for taking pictures of people.
I'ts going to take a lot of work- and a macro lens, for me to start to capture diamonds.
I'll have to RTFM

If you want to stop having diamonds stop look dark like that round you have to move the camera farther away with a telephoto macro.
The reason why the round looks darker than the radiant is that it more efficiently draws light from higher angles, it draws in and reflects the black part of the camera lense which is at a high angle to the stones.

The radiant is drawing light from lower angles, so it is aided by the lamps you are using and their reflections off the white surface.
Not an accurate cut comparison.

 

[Doc_1]

Now looking further i see the right diamond is warmer than the left.

 

[Ella]

Everyone has been having a great discussion here and I would hate to need to close the thread because of fighting or throwing insults.

Please keep focused and remember that you can disagree without insulting others.

 

[Doc_1]

Did you change the order of the stones or it is the same in the last two photos?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CCL- the fact is, there is dissension among some of the industry's top people regarding some of AGS's tools, and grading standards- particularly cut grading of fancy shapes.

A difference of opinion is common in the diamond industry no kidding . Do you have any proper written studies to support this dissention? Who are these top people you speak of? Some opinions are better supported than others

GIAL doesn't agree with everything AGSL is doing. I have had interesting conversations with senior members of both labs and they don't always agree. It must make for interesting family dinner conversation when Phil Yantzer(GIA Research and Education) and his wife Kelly(GIA Research and Education) get together with Peter Yantzer (Executive Director American Gem Society Laboratories).

The difference is however in their discussions is that they don't simplify the arguments down to black or white or some vague general statement as you do. Instead education and research professionals debate the specifics on much more detailed and scientific level. You aren't allowing that to happen when you make simplistic comments like the photograph doesn't match the ASET.

Continuing along this topic you still didn't post your picture as promised with arrows where you point out where the leakage is in the Daussi Cushion.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Ken- I have to know how to operate some high tech gear.
Taking pictures is more of a result driven thing, for me.
I take the photos, stick the card into my computer, and if the results conveys to me what I saw with my eye, I go with it.
If it was not working, yes, I'd have to RTFM

i just bought an SLR- I love it. It's great for taking pictures of people.
I'ts going to take a lot of work- and a macro lens, for me to start to capture diamonds.
I'll have to RTFM

If you want to stop having diamonds stop look dark like that round you have to move the camera farther away with a telephoto macro.
The reason why the round looks darker than the radiant is that it more efficiently draws light from higher angles, it draws in and reflects the black part of the camera lense which is at a high angle to the stones.

The radiant is drawing light from lower angles, so it is aided by the lamps you are using and their reflections off the white surface.
Not an accurate cut comparison.

Finally we agree!!!
The radiant and round are drawing light from different angles- and using that light differently.
The photos do show a potential view of the stones. And they do show that potential for the exact reasons CCL identified.
There's a lot of times the light is entering the diamond at strange angles.
No matter which angles you design the diamond to capitalize on, it will not be as strong in other aspects due to that.
IOW- Round diamonds will return more light in certain circumstances, well cut radaints may (appear to, or actually) return more light in other circumstances.

I like ( not love) the way the round looks in person.

Stone- here's the vital info for the round
Table:60
Depth: 60.6
CA 35.5
PA 40.8
I got it as a result of asking for 60/60 diamonds to use for this comparison.
But it's not my type of 60/60.
Too steep a crown. I knew this by examining the diamond, confirmed when I looked at the measurements.
It's nice- but not my choice as a 60/60 representative.
I took the photos before just to see what they looked like- figured they might be illustrative.

 

[stone-cold11]

Obstruction issue then, due to the camera being too near the stone,

Move it further away, at least until only the arrow shafts are dark, and take the image again for comparison?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Interesting observations I have made now that I finally got a chance to view this on a real computer.

I was surprised to see as much red as I did in the Daussi diamond. I looked at the photos and videos more than once and side by side I would personally say that the Radiant was a brighter stone. FTR I am not putting down the Daussi saying it looked leaky at all, just pleasantly surprised with the amount of red and other colors. That is an aboslute positive for me.

The lighting RD is using helps the Radiant more than the cushion.

I finally finished the article that CCL linked. It took a while since the diagrams were always listed way before they were discussed which made for a lot of scrolling. Understanding the science behind it is neat.

Congratulations on getting through it that is a heavy article. Tough to find the diagrams as the publisher was struggling to save space and put the diagrams far away from their referred text.

I do wonder if taking a photo of an ASET is any more accurate than taking a photo of a diamond in a light box much like Gary's (very controlled light source).

Even better would be the ASET video, because even with the lightbox lighting often favours one type of diamond cut over another. The multiangle almost hemispherical "perfect" LED light used in the light box video is too bright in my opinion. I needed the corresponding ASET video in the lightbox to draw my conclusions found here

CCL, David has a youtube channel. If you find his channel it is super easy to find any videos that have been posted. I actually stumbled on it while looking at another video of his. They are listed in chronological order from most recent upload to first upload. I believe this comparison video was 2 or 3 down on the list.

Yeah I was searching Webgal214(his other channel) but under DBL it is indeed easier than I thought.

Do these scans also have the ability to show the pavilion facets much like they showed the facets on the crown? Just curious since I have no idea what they can or cannot do.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

RD and Doc1 - CCL does make one valid criticsm - RD you have a low level of comprehension when you read. When the discussions are like this one is - it is worth reading carefully. It has also frustrated me greatly in the past.
It is infact the main issue I have with you is that explaining the same issue many times.
I am participating here because there is potentially good learning to be had for enthusiast consumers and lurkers (trade, labs and consumers).
But RD, you too should try very hard to understand some of the basic issues so that, for e.g. when you do experiments you understand things like lens obstruction (e.g. the photo of the round you posted has the lens / camera blocking a lot of light, or the light is coming from very low angles). Most enthusiasts get these concepts pretty easily - they are not complex.


Here are the two stones under discussion (I suggest opening two or 3 windows to play together):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs3Y8ZppRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbWqY0y2Z9M
and here is the default DiamCalc 0.78ct round for comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FJYfBl35cM

 

[Rockdiamond]

The facet scan is remarkably accurate.
In these photos I've pointed to dark areas- where we will have to agree, the light is not returning. For whatever reason.
leakage, or the US army's calculation of head size.
I see these areas as slivery and small on the stone on the right- that being a stone I am categorizing as a brilliant representative of the "crushed ice" variety.


The stone in the left is the Daussi- which is roundly assaulted here on PS.
I'm not saying this as an advocate of Daussi- rather an objective observer.

There are more and larger areas of leakage ( or whatever causes these dark areas)
Does that make it less attractive? I think we need to agree or agree to disagree- that it's a matter of taste, deciding if the patterns created by this "wonky" facet pattern, combined with the shallow angles the shallow rough causes.
You get a clear reflection of the girdle in the table! You can read the laser inscription fer cryin' out loud.
Is that bad?


ETA- Garry- I'll look at the youtubes and respond

 

[kenny]

Wow, leaky diamonds sure do look beautiful when held up where light can enter the pavilion.
Amazing difference.

This is an excellent example of what a great lighting technique this is for poorly-cut diamonds!
It is plugging the leaks with light.

 

[Rockdiamond]

RD and Doc1 - CCL does make one valid criticsm - RD you have a low level of comprehension when you read. When the discussions are like this one is - it is worth reading carefully. It has also frustrated me greatly in the past.
It is infact the main issue I have with you is that explaining the same issue many times.
I am participating here because there is potentially good learning to be had for enthusiast consumers and lurkers (trade, labs and consumers).
But RD, you too should try very hard to understand some of the basic issues so that, for e.g. when you do experiments you understand things like lens obstruction (e.g. the photo of the round you posted has the lens / camera blocking a lot of light, or the light is coming from very low angles). Most enthusiasts get these concepts pretty easily - they are not complex.


Here are the two stones under discussion (I suggest opening two or 3 windows to play together):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcs3Y8ZppRU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbWqY0y2Z9M
and here is the default DiamCalc 0.78ct round for comparison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FJYfBl35cM

Garry- I love ya man- you rock.
But believe me, sometimes I feel like I've answered your arguments a lot of times as well.
A diamond handles light in a manner of ways. All diamonds.
The simulations show one possibility. Photos show other possibilities. aset shows another possibility- albeit less clearly.
I have found through experience that different cutting styles- ie round versus radiant, versus oval, versus Emerald cut- react differently to light.
That would include intensity of light. It would also include the direction the light was coming from. And the color of that light-- and it's UV content.

What this means is that the very best representation there is- which might very well be the Lbox- is still limited.
The real world treats diamonds differently.
That includes things like the metal the stones are eventually set in, and the angle by which we view different jewelry.
I know we agree on a lot of these aspects- and many have been discussed at length here.

The youtube representations were fantastic. They clearly showed a possible way the diamonds would look.
A limitation, in comparing to real life is that the range of motion hurt the Daussi in the simulation. I believe that stone would look quite a bit different if you stuck the real thing in the Lbox. That reason I say this are the large facets on the pavilion that you can see through the table as a static area of white , right below an area that is grey for most of the range of motion- at a few instants it gets a little light in the video. I agree that it is possible to recreate that with the diamond.
I tried, and I can replicate that- but only if I really try to hold my hand very steady.
Normally those two facets are switching on and off quite as the diamond moves through a greater range of motion.

The radiant did seem to have the incredibly fast on/off facet darkness action.
The round, under these circumstances sends back a lot more light than either the radiant of the cushion.
Agreed.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

RD,

Re: The arrow diagrams you just posted.

I am going to try a litte more patient approach, instead of correcting you I'm hoping this will lead you in the right direction.
No offense to Kenny but you have already misled him, and I'd like to fix this before you mislead any others.

If leakage areas act as a window and lets light pass through the pavilion allowing you to see what is underneath. What does it tell you when the diamond looks darker than what is underneath it?

What does that then tell you about the areas you are pointing to?

(Hint: See Karl's post on page 8 of this thread.)

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

For all the lurkers, trade and consumers I do want to point areas that are leakage so I have enlarged the diffuse lighting shot provided.

To do this I want to remind everyone about the culet. A culet if present is a flat facet at the bottom of the diamond that acts as a window. Culet's do not reflect light they are cut flat at an angle below the critical angle of diamond so light passes right through. When looking through a diamond's culet one should be able to see what is underneath the diamond.

In the photograph due to the lighting and lack of white balance the white tray has a blueish tinge to it. I have circled the color of the tray with neon green showing the blueish white. I have also circled in green on the diamond where the culet is and you will notice you see the same blueish tinge as expected as this is the color of the tray underneath the diamond.

I have also circled the region in the ASET which corresponds to the culet, and it is white(leakage) as expected.
Now there are other regions of leakage but they are harder to see due to the lighting and the close proximity of the camera.
That doesn't mean they aren't there it just means the photograph doesn't have good enough resolution to easily see them.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And RD, because an area is red does not mean it will be bright in a photo - it will only be bright if there is a light in that area.
BUT! If an area is red it has the potential to be very bright - if it is green it might be bright and if it leaks it will never be bright unless you have bright lights hitting the pavilion.
If an area is blue it will usually refelct the lens - but when tilted the area can/usually flashes from fire to very bright and back to fire.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This shows that just because an area is red or green does not mean it will be bright

 

[Doc_1]

Isn't it what RD has been saying all along ?