Diamond photos: Whiteflash vs JamesAllen

[less_confused]

I notice that the photos in JamesAllen are taken against a white background an dthe photos for Whiteflash againsta black background.

When I look at VS2 stones, GIA both, I see an interesting difference.
JA photos show a lot of inclusion detail whereas WF photos seem to be perfect and pristine.

Why the difference?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/17/2009 10:50:51 PM
Author:less_confused
I notice that the photos in JamesAllen are taken against a white background an dthe photos for Whiteflash againsta black background.

When I look at VS2 stones, GIA both, I see an interesting difference.
JA photos show a lot of inclusion detail whereas WF photos seem to be perfect and pristine.

Why the difference?

Can you please post some examples - at least 3 from each

 

[less_confused]

Would love to post pictures if I knew how.

But it''s pretty obvious: just open any SI1 stone on Whiteflash and 1 on James Allen and look at the photos. Same size, but WF always shows a pristine gem. JA stone inclusions are visible.

I have looked at ~50 WF stones over the past few weeks and haven''t seen any inclusions in their photos for SI1 or higher quality. Conversely, James Allen inclusions are visible.

I think that this speaks to the photography and not the gem quality. SI1 by definition has inclusions that can be seen magnified at 10x - so why aren''t those visible in WF pictures?

 

[less_confused]

I am attaching a WF picture.

 

[stone-cold11]

Different photo techniques. WF image is more of a presentation photo shoot, JA image is more of a loupe image where the lighting condition are maximize for ease of finding the inclusions present.

 

[less_confused]

Here''s a JA SI1.

The Whiteflash sample is typical of their photos - hard to see inclusions at all in SI1 stones
The James Allen sample is typical of their photos - either to see the inclusions in an SI1.

Is JA too harsh with their photography? Is WF too gentle with their photography? Is it that WF chooses SI1 stones that are very close to VS1 in quality? Or are there other reasons?

I notice that the JA photos tend to look less staged: strong light & white background make contrasts easy to see.

 

[less_confused]

I like JA photos because they help me see where and what type of inclusions are present.

Under natural conditions, which photo style is more likely to be what someone will see without a loupe? JA is probably a bit harsher than one would expect to encounter on someone''s finger or ear. But is WF too soft and generous?

 

[stone-cold11]

Under normal viewing conditions, more likely to be WF image than JA image.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/18/2009 11:03:29 AM
Author: less_confused
I like JA photos because they help me see where and what type of inclusions are present.

Under natural conditions, which photo style is more likely to be what someone will see without a loupe? JA is probably a bit harsher than one would expect to encounter on someone''s finger or ear. But is WF too soft and generous?

Its just a different style of photography and presentation and these photos won''t reflect how you will see the diamonds in real life.

 

[purrfectpear]

I''m not having any problems finding the inclusions on the WF photo.

You really can''t see them?

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 8/18/2009 5:01:31 PM
Author: purrfectpear
I''m not having any problems finding the inclusions on the WF photo.

You really can''t see them?

I couldn''t. It took me a good minute of staring at it to see the something in the center of the table and the six o''clock arrow. But I''m far sighted.

 

[kenny]

The difference is in the lighting.
Every vendor is free to decide how to light their stones, and it makes a HUGE difference in how visible the inclusions will be.

I believe each vendor sees their lighting is a very important, and proprietary, part of their overall business strategy.

An hemispherical dome of soft even directionless light from above will de-emphasize inclusions.
It took me 5 seconds to google up this one for photographing jewelry.

 

[kenny]

Good old gold takes disclosure even further.
They use a lighting technique that intentionally emphasizes the inclusions and they even add red arrows to guide your eye to the inclusions.

Personally I like this.
I feel like it really reveals the most about the stone I am buying online.
I have bought from several PS vendors but when it comes to disclosure GOG wins, hands down AFAIC.

This is only one of several photos GOG provides; they also provide a beauty shot with flattering lighting.

This is one of their SI1s.

 

[kenny]

Then Diamnods By Lauren takes another approach to lighting.

IMHO lighting varying THIS much between vendors is a serious problem for online shoppers.

I wish all vendors had to use standardized lighting so we could compare apples to apples on our computer monitors.

 

[Ellen]

Sorry for the slight threadjack.


KENNY!

 

[kenny]

Lucy, I got some splaining to do.

(That pic is Perfect!, girl!)

 

[Ellen]

Indeed you do!

REALLY good to see you.

Ok, I''ll quit jacking up this thread now.

 

[kenny]

Well I wrote to Admin and we worked things out and they graciously let me back in.
That's probably all we should say.

Great to be back. Group HUG!

 

[less_confused]

I suppose photos can be for several purposes.
One is to reveal inclusions - very important for online shopping. Clearly GOG and JA go out of their way to meet this objective. Whiteflash fails here IMHO.
Another is to show how the gem appears under ''normal'' conditions.

I appreciate everyone''s advice. It actually makes me more comfortable with JA stones because many of the inclusions appear minor even under their strong lighting.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 8/18/2009 7:36:06 PM
Author: less_confused
I suppose photos can be for several purposes.

Absolutely correct, LC, and the purpose most certainly influences the result.

Our photos aren''t intended to be representations about inclusions, so we don''t mimic darkfield lighting. Because our ''claim to fame'' is our branded ACA diamonds, we want to emphasize that precision cutting and symmetry so our photos are taken to feature that element. Even still, you can see inclusions readily in many of them. In the photo you posted, I can readily see the inclusion at the base of the 12o''clock shaft. I can also make out inclusions between the 6 and 8''clock arrows, as well as a small inclusion on the tip of the 8 o''clock arrow.

Images are great to help a customer get a reasonable sense for what to expect, but they have limitations. When you look at an object the size of a softball on your monitor, it''s inevitably bound to show more than it would to see it to actual size. Likewise, the darkfield/inclusion photos can show you all the little ''birthmarks'' in a stone, but on the other hand shows things you''ll never actually see in real life when you wear a diamond.

 

[Ellen]

I will add, as far as using pics to look at inclusions/trying to determine eyecleanliness, it''s been my personal experience that it''s pretty much worthless. I have seen pics of stones I would have sworn on a grave would be eyeclean, yet they turned out not to be, and vice versa. Therefore, I always tell posters to have a real person eyeball it, you simply can''t go by pics.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Front lighting and back lighting make huge differences too - and another thing I have learned is that some inclusions are very hard to see in an ideal-scope but others jump out at you far more than through a loupe.

But Less Confused - what do you think you can do with this information from a photo? For example my Stone area manager and I had a debate yesterday about if an SI2 stone we are considering buying - was the inclusion eye visible or not? The vendor has bigger better photo''s than JA specific for inclusion display. We could not agree and we are both familiar with the system etc. so don''t think you will become an overnight expert and shoot yourself in the foot!

 

[less_confused]

It''s all about making a decision on a gem.

Online vendors that post pictures are doing their best to inform buyers like me. And speaking with a person live helps to clarify what clarity is acceptable (for example, inclusions on girdle ok, but not on table).

As many have explained here, a picture only goes so far - ultimately the stone has to be seen live. Which is why I really trust the vendors like WF, GOG, and JA because, when I pull the trigger and buy, they also offer a return policy.

Ultimately, I want to avoid having to return a stone, and that''s why I look at the pics as well as the other data.

Thanks again for everyone''s advice and insight.

And thanks Alison for clarifying Whiteflash''s approach.

 

[Linda W]

Date: 8/18/2009 6:14:29 PM
Author: kenny
Well I wrote to Admin and we worked things out and they graciously let me back in.

That''s probably all we should say.

Great to be back. Group HUG!

KENNY KENNY KENNY!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am so glad to see you back too!!!!!!!!! OMG, can I please be added to the group hug. You used to make me laugh so much. WELCOME BACK.

OK thread jack over.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/19/2009 12:23:09 AM
Author: less_confused
It''s all about making a decision on a gem.

Online vendors that post pictures are doing their best to inform buyers like me. And speaking with a person live helps to clarify what clarity is acceptable (for example, inclusions on girdle ok, but not on table).

As many have explained here, a picture only goes so far - ultimately the stone has to be seen live. Which is why I really trust the vendors like WF, GOG, and JA because, when I pull the trigger and buy, they also offer a return policy.

Ultimately, I want to avoid having to return a stone, and that''s why I look at the pics as well as the other data.

Thanks again for everyone''s advice and insight.

And thanks Alison for clarifying Whiteflash''s approach.

Yopu are already making the type of learner error that worries me LC.
Yes - these are open transperent and good vendors.
But labs and everyone already take inclusion position and size into account - you will shoot yourself in the foot by thinking you can quickly learn to grade clarity from images

 

[less_confused]

What error am I making?

There is a specific type of inclusion and a specific location that I want to avoid. The picture does help me verify that my desire is being met. An IS also helps.

Other than holding the gem, is there a better way to achieve my goal with limited online info?

 

[stone-cold11]

The error of trying to judge the worth of a stone from an image of the diamond.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/18/2009 6:14:29 PM
Author: kenny
Well I wrote to Admin and we worked things out and they graciously let me back in.
That''s probably all we should say.

Great to be back. Group HUG!

* joins in hug*

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/18/2009 8:26:02 PM
Author: Ellen
I will add, as far as using pics to look at inclusions/trying to determine eyecleanliness, it''s been my personal experience that it''s pretty much worthless. I have seen pics of stones I would have sworn on a grave would be eyeclean, yet they turned out not to be, and vice versa. Therefore, I always tell posters to have a real person eyeball it, you simply can''t go by pics.

Ditto this.

 

[less_confused]

Date: 8/19/2009 10:25:26 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
The error of trying to judge the worth of a stone from an image of the diamond.

But I''m not doing that at all.

My original post asked about the difference in picture style that was making a big difference in my ability to see inclusions in a photo (i.e. to an untrained eye).
I am not saying Stone A is better than Stone B because of this. I am not saying that Stone A''s value is higher or lower because of a photo.
Neither am I saying that the photo is the first and last stop for me as a diamond buyer.

I am trying to understand the value of the photo and how best to leverage. What I have learned from everyone here is that there is a difference in photo style, and that difference can diminish or accentuate inclusions. JA''s photo style seems to accentuate them.