Evaluating Online Photos, Vol 2

[Jeffrey Hunt]

Bright spots are... ...lighting right, lmao!

Wow.

 

[digitaldevo]

Taking pics on white is simple if one takes the time to learn how to. I would link to an article written by me on how to but that would be breaking th rules sorry. I just don't have time to rewrite it all again . But it involves EV. Maybe later when on pc on EVO right now.

 

[digitaldevo]

Sure, it could be over exposure, or even the cameras sensor being overwhelmed. But isn't the end result is the same when looking at these pictures? My point is not a complaint about image manipulation, but that when one sees evidence of over exposure, or contrast differences of this magnitude, that the entire stone is going to be seeing these effects and not just a few spots. The basic conclusion to be drawn, in my opinion, is that the entire stone will be darker when in hand than it appears in the image. Is that incorrect?

Not really correct. Just because high contrast areas get over exposed does not mean everything in the picture will be. It depends on the metering mode was used and the like. The stone itself could easily be perfectly exposed with correct color, a
As clo in se as one can get without special sensor equipment . The stone could end up in hand as it was in the picture very easily. A reflection is easy to blowout and still have everything else perfect.

Also when shooting on white you don't need the base to come out white unless doing ad work. Often times the base will come out slightly gray in color. The tricky part is getting the white white which I will explain later. Just know the blown highlights mean nothing as far as stone color in most scenarios.

 

[Michael_E]

Just because high contrast areas get over exposed does not mean everything in the picture will be. It depends on the metering mode was used and the like. The stone itself could easily be perfectly exposed with correct color, as close as one can get without special sensor equipment . The stone could end up in hand as it was in the picture very easily. A reflection is easy to blowout and still have everything else perfect.

Getting back to the original posters pictures, do you think that they are indicative of what the stone will look like in hand or not? I don't think so, but they do have a wide contrast, so I'm sure that there are probably some colors in the picture which will match some colors in reality. I doubt is the stone will look like that in hand since I think that the original was much more brightly lit that it will be in it's new owners hand. The real question is how close are those sorts of, no background, brightly lit images to reality? If they are not close, then what sort of mental adjustments should someone on this forum make to get their expectations for the stone more in line with reality?

As for realistic images, I think that many of the folks on this forum take some of the most realistic images possible. They may be out of focus, but are usually taken on decent backgrounds, and with lighting that is much closer to how the gems will be used and seen than most studio setups. I think that a hand shot beats any other background hands down, (pun intended), for realism. The last set of images that Fortekitty took of her mandarin garnet is about as close to reality as anything that I've seen. I've attached a magnified and cropped copy of her hand shot and as you can see the lighting and background used here prevents the highlights, coming from the pavilion of the stone, from being blown out.

Digitaldevo, do you have some images to post, showing what you think represents realistic images of gems? I'd sure be interested in seeing some.

 

[digitaldevo]

Firstly, yes, I believe the orig images was/is edited, but NOT for the reasons you gave, that is all, those were incorrect. Do I believe they are accurate of the stone in hand? Not at all, most shot in that method are not for many reasons, even aside from editing.

Also, what makes you think they are brightly lit? Do you understand the basics and principles of photography? If so, then do you understand white balance, ISO, shutter, aperture, all play a part in things? And lastly, if you understand all of that so far, do you understand hows they all work together with different lighting?

The reason ask the aforementioned questions is because from your recent post I am not so sure if you do understand them all or not. Because lights do not even remotely have to be bright to take an image like that.

How does it portray to reality using white backgrounds and such? Simple, it gives an unbiased uninfluenced accurate color rendition of the stone in question. Why do you think diamond and colored stones are graded just like that/this? Because it is the only way to see the true color(s), tone, saturation, and inclusions to be able to color grade and such. By supplying two shots, one like this, and then one more artistic sitting outside or something, then you can cover the true realistic version of the stone as well as the outside influenced version.

Supplying ONLY an image not taken on the white and such but shot outside or on flowers etc., how is this even remotely portraying realism? I already explained how certain colors can make others looks grades higher in quality, and so forth. So how is this a realistic portrayal of the stone?

Both types have their benefits, but they need each other to work successfully. Also,the consumers I have spoken to over the last 5yrs want to "see" what the gemstone looks like as it is supposed to look, not artificially enhanced by its surroundings. They want to see as accurate of colors, tones, saturation, etc. as possible. In this way they can judge if the stone is worth it. As a well respected person, cutter-rough/finished stone seller wholesale and public-etc., said on another forum about the artistic shots, "I think they are fantastic looking shots, but I would never consider using them to sell any of my work". Because they do not portray realism in most all cases due to the colors, tones, saturation, and inclusions being hidden by the outside influences. I am of the stance that both images are needed and are the perfect online way of showing how a stone looks. But if you have to chose between on or the other, then it should be the white background as it gives the truest representation of color, saturation, tone, etc.

Once again you keep referring to the lighting in most studio setups. How do you know what lighting folks are using? How do you know how much light they are using? My setup is not much different then shooting the stone outside, just white back and white base.

As for on hand shots, while they can portray what the stone looks like with outside influences, it can change the actual realistic appearance of the stone uninfluenced. Another problem with hand shots is it is something I have seen hundreds of consumers complain about all over the internet... because the skin or hair on hand or whatever is so close it is nasty and gives them the heebie jeebies.

Again, as for highlights getting blown out, that can be not done in any shooting method. It has to do with exposure and exposure latitude. Nothing to do with the style of the setup, sorry.

Also the problems on that shot, to echo Jeff and a few others from another forum, is you can not see any facet junctions, no facets themselves, or any details to see clarity. By not seeing the junctions and facets you can not really judge the cutting and polishing on the stone and it is not "sharp" enough to sit out from its background. So while you maybe able to get a rough idea of how the stone sort of looks, you can't see some important details that could make the stone go from $300 to $30. Yes, the seller should describe the stone as well, but consumers tend to desire to "see it with their own two eyes" prior to purchasing. Hence why pics are so important.

The largest amount of complaints I receive on my consumer advocacy website is about unrealistic images and images looking nothing like the real stone. And complaints came in about some sellers I know for a fact, as would most anybody here were I to mention their names, which I will not do BTW so don't ask, do not over edit their images to look all great, it is just how they take them all fancy like artwork, but not all edited like those whom are truly scamming, so I of course have to write back and explain about the entire thing and so forth.

And when asked most consumers I have dealt with over the last few years seem to prefer both a realistic portrayal and an artistic portrayal. That way they get the best of both worlds and can truly have an idea of what they will get in the mail.

As for posting pics, now you know I can not do that, due to the rules, sorry.

 

[T L]

Wow, lots of information here. When trying to photograph gems, I have noticed that many people shade them with their hands. I do think this sometimes enhances the color, but it also allows for better viewing of the facet patterns IMO (and in my very unprofessional opinion). What do you think of hand shading? Do you think it artificially enhances the color? I was told at by another member off PS to not hand shade my gems when I photograph them because that was "dishonest." I don't know if I would say that, but there is something to be said about a plain photograph of a gem in diffused natural light.

 

[chrono]

This thread has become my must read everyday; not only to improve my photography (yet keep it honest to show the real colour, not with the intention of making it look better), but also on understanding other’s photography as how the stone might appear IRL. I also wonder about the handshading trick. I photograph my stones without shading but there are certain stones that if I do not shade it, will show up as a white blob in pictures due to the extreme sparkle and brilliance. Since I’ve learned about white balance, I now attempt to photograph on a white surface so that when I’m done, I can see if my camera took true to colour pictures or not by looking at the background colour.

 

[JewelFreak]

What do you think about the accuracy (or lack of it) in videos of colored stones? I'm sure color can be manipulated & a stone possibly positioned so faults specific to that gem aren't apparent if possible. But does video give a more accurate representation of other things, such as cut?

It is frustrating when looking at photos or video that we don't know the light source, how bright it is, etc. Again, the proof is in holding it in your hand. That's why I'd never buy from a source not recommended by people who have bought from it -- and one with a good return policy, not ony published but one they actually stick to.

After all this, I will certainly look at sellers' sites differently. And I can't wait to get that garnet & see how it compares to what y'all have said.

I'm gonna bookmark this thread for much future reference! Tons of great info here.

--- Laurie

 

[Michael_E]

Do you understand the basics and principles of photography?

Not at all, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night, isn't that enough? I'm surprised that you haven't posted any images of your own yet, I think that it would sure be nice for you to post some images to help explain your views to those of us who may not be bright enough to follow your complex and highly intellectual posts.

 

[Michael_E]

Supplying ONLY an image not taken on the white and such but shot outside or on flowers etc., how is this even remotely portraying realism? I already explained how certain colors can make others looks grades higher in quality, and so forth. So how is this a realistic portrayal of the stone?

It is realistic because that is how the stones will be seen in use, particularly for hand shots. If everyone were running around wearing white gloves, then I imagine your approach would work fine, but I haven't seen that happen.

 

[Michael_E]

As for posting pics, now you know I can not do that, due to the rules, sorry.

The rules are pretty specific about not posting pictures of items which are for sale. They also allow for pictures to be posted in support of you ideas. You have no access to stones which are not for sale? I would think that a research gemologist would have plenty of images of interesting stuff. In a discussion about photography it would seem necessary to show pictures to clarify and explain what you are saying. Too bad I was looking forward to getting some better insight.

 

[LD]

I'm sure the rules are that you can post photos for educational purposes SO LONG AS they're not for sale. Otherwise, we'd be in a pickle and never learn anything.

If you have a quick look over in the diamond forum, a number of sellers post images but not of anything for sale.

Hope that helps.

p.s. I think the images are of gems from Tan? If so, in my experience, with the exception of blue sapphires, his photos have been quite accurate.

 

[PrecisionGem]

DD, I assume that the link at the bottom of your signature to your wife's web site, and I thought I'd see your photography there, but I could only find one picture of a loose stone, and to be honest, didn't think it was a very good picture.

As far as cupping the hand over a photo, it's a good idea in a way, and not so good in another. You really don't want direct strong light for a picture, such as sunlight. Strong light creates too high a contrast that no film or digital sensor could hand that my dynamic range. The human eye is way more superior than film or digital camera in this area. So by shading the stone, you reduce the dynamic range of and get a more pleasant photo. The down side is, you hand gets reflected in the pictures and it's color can be picked up. Much better to use a white shade. Make a small box out of white cardboard, and then reflect your light source off another white surface and you will get much nicer photos with more neutral color.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

As for realistic images, I think that many of the folks on this forum take some of the most realistic images possible. They may be out of focus, but are usually taken on decent backgrounds, and with lighting that is much closer to how the gems will be used and seen than most studio setups. I think that a hand shot beats any other background hands down, (pun intended), for realism. The last set of images that Fortekitty took of her mandarin garnet is about as close to reality as anything that I've seen. I've attached a magnified and cropped copy of her hand shot and as you can see the lighting and background used here prevents the highlights, coming from the pavilion of the stone, from being blown out.

Digitaldevo, do you have some images to post, showing what you think represents realistic images of gems? I'd sure be interested in seeing some.

I agree with Michael_E and the realism of the photographs of that garnet.

Low RI stones have much more crown reflection (aka glare aka camera flash(somtimes)). This is expected, the critical angle is higher the lower the RI. You get much more glare off colored stones(lower RI) than you do from diamonds(higher RI).

If the angle of incidence to the normal of any crown facet is below the critical angle the light intensity will completely reflect off the crown. Camera shots where the table plane isn't paralell to the plane of the camera lense often have glare and this is amplified in lower RI stones, this is realistic and not a product of any manipulation. I see glare off the crown of this mandarin garnet one small bright star facet triangle on the right.

 

[Michael_E]

If the angle of incidence to the normal of any crown facet is below the critical angle the light intensity will completely reflect off the crown.

ChunkyCushionLover,
Since you mentioned this and are interested, I think that you would find this interactive refraction simulator fun to play with. It's on an educational physics site and is part way down the page on the left. This gives a graphic and intuitive feel to ones thoughts about R.I.
http://interactagram.com/physics/optics/refraction/

Oh, I just thought that I'd add that this site has a huge list of materials, including gems, and lists their Refractive Indexes so you can play with them in the simulator. No, this is not how I spend all my time...just part of it.

 

[digitaldevo]

Gene,
Knock of the BS. You know exactly who I am and what not, and have for a long time. You've seen plenty of my work as well. You don't like me, you've made that clear in the past, so please don't come in here putting on a show for those who don't know the history. It is unnecessary to play games. Last I checked we are adults here. So keep it on the up and up please.

As for her website I haven't updated in it forever. She sells more locally and via phone then she does online with stones. It will get updated when I have the time as she hates computers, lol. She supplies images when products are requested typically. Due to software and server issues the prior website database was lost, and with it went everything on it. Just not high on the level of importance on the list currently. Her clients are far more important.

Michael_E, this is exactly why new folks don't bother coming here(a whole thread on it here even) is because of folks with attitudes such as yours. An attack on a person is an attack not matter how much you candy coat it! And being condescending and making those kinds of comments are again uncalled for. I'm not treading on your turf or the like, so calm down. I merely came in and gave an opinion as well as factual statements, sharing information most would, and do pay, lots of money to learn.

As for my images, I am NOT allowed to post them here due to watermarks being on them. I've already been slapped 2x, not doing it again. Do I have lots of samples? You bet, prolly more then most honestly, well not personally per say, but my Wife does, as for the number, that is none of anyone's business except hers.

It is not hard to find my work with a simple Google search, if you really wanted to see it, since I do use my real name.

I take a max of 2-3 shots of a stone and spend less then 5mins from shot to internet, including cropping and downsizing for the web. I don't sit around taking 50+ shots and spending long amounts of time per stone doing it, because time is something have very little of. I've been a photog for over 25yrs, a good part of that time professionally, and specialized in product shots and macro/micro photography. So I have no desire nor feel the need to "prove" myself to anyone. I came in and gave advice based of off facts and personal experience to help others and correct some serious misconceptions and misinformation being given. Don't like it, don't read it, simple as that, I could frankly care less, as it still helps others. But I am not here to argue it, especially when you flat out admit you don't know the first thing about photography, so what is the point, other then to start a "my car is bigger then your car" peeing match!?

Jewelfreak, videos are no different then photos and are just as easily "enhanced" using almost the exact same techniques as still photography. But under proper conditions videos can much better show the true appearance of a stone over a still photo simply because it can capture some of the live scintillation and dispersion as it looks in hand vs. a still shot where it is exactly that, still. The two combined make for a very good projection of the stone in hand IMO.

Little tips for the home shooters, to set a custom white balance grab a white coffee filter and hold it in front of the lens so no light is getting in except through the filter, now set your custom white balance be it the setting or taking of a white balance frame/picture, depending on your camera, of the area you will be shooting the stone without the stone, then remove the filter and shoot away. Works extremely well for setting up a shot for accurate colors. Basically the same principle as the white balance lens caps and ExpoDisc. We used to just use white Pringle's can lids but they switched them to clear now, which doesn't work. If diffused sunlight is not an option, as it is not for many, then your best bet is either a 6500K Ott-Lite HD CFL which can be had at any home lawn/garden center like Home Depot or Lowe's, or a Solux 3500K bulb. There are even better solutions specifically for photographing gemstones and jewelry for accurate colors and such, but there are multiple hundreds of bucks a piece for the real good ones and they aren't enough better then the ones I mentioned above to warrant the cost unless you are doing 1000's of production shots per day in a shooting house, lol, even then borderline value IMHO. Also if your camera supports it use Spot metering mode, if not center weighted average will do the trick as well. If your camera doesn't have a good enough macro mode but can accept filters, then pick up a Raynox DCR-150, 250, or both (depending on the mount of magnification you desire). If your camera doesn't accept filters try holding a decent 10x loupe in front of the lens and taking your shots. For those of you with digital SLRs but can not or don;t want to spend the money on a macro lens, spend about ~$10 or so on what is called a reverse lens adapter, match the size with the filter size of your current lens, the 18-55mm kit will work but a prime works better, and it will allow you to mount your lens on your camera backwards, which in turn gives you much more magnification of your subject.

TL, as for hand shading, not honestly sure, will have to experiment some honestly. As long as camera is setup for metering properly it shouldn't, technically, have a large affect on the image,a side from cutting down on blown highlights from reflections or the like. It may darken the tones a bit however, as I said, not entirely sure as never did it.

 

[gsellis]

Flash? No. A flash that close would blow it out because of the range. It looks like a lightbox and a single LED source light with the white balance set, then cropped in an editor and possible contrast added. The single source allows for any scintillation to show like you would get with a single source of light such as the sun. All diffused lighting is warm and well light, but no sparkle.

As for anything else in this thread, the windows does not look bad, but it is just a 2d photo. I did immediately notice some meets that were more a suggestion than a meeting. That is a standard factory cut on a jambpeg machine. It still is good if the color holds in person. Color and scintillation are what will win.

And what Michael says about tilt window is right on. I have added a pic that shows what a light ray will do from the side. If you can imagine, it will do the same as the table tilts to the right until the green line finally hits the critical angle and bounces instead of passes though. In another discussion elsewhere, a quartz stone with 45degree mains on the pavilion and on the crown will get really good performance, but it will still get a window. Just at a steeper angle. The further away from critical angle, the less windowing. BUT, the deeper the stone can get darker, bow-ties, etc. It is a balancing act.

 

[digitaldevo]

A flash would not necessarily blow the entire thing out at the range. There are lots of diffusers for flashes and the power can be turned down big time as well, then you also have the flash EV setting in most cameras which can tune it down even further. One is easily capable of using a flash that close if diffused properly and power adjusted properly, and I know this because I do it all the time when shooting insects outdoors as do most other macro photographers. .

Not to mention one can not say how close the shot was taken, since there is absolutely no EXIF data in the image file to show the focal range. The person could have been feet away with a long lens or zoomed in using a flash as well. All that can realistically be identified about the blown highlights is that they are blown highlights. They could be from contrast enhancement, or a flash, or light reflections, or anything else. There is no way to tell since there are not even any reflections on the stone to show the possible setup being used either.

 

[Michael_E]

Michael_E, this is exactly why new folks don't bother coming here(a whole thread on it here even) is because of folks with attitudes such as yours. An attack on a person is an attack not matter how much you candy coat it! And being condescending and making those kinds of comments are again uncalled for. I'm not treading on your turf or the like, so calm down. I merely came in and gave an opinion as well as factual statements, sharing information most would, and do pay, lots of money to learn.

As for my images, I am NOT allowed to post them here due to watermarks being on them. I've already been slapped 2x, not doing it again. Do I have lots of samples? You bet, prolly more then most honestly, well not personally per say, but my Wife does, as for the number, that is none of anyone's business except hers.

Digitaldevo,
You and I have no history and I am not being condescending nor attacking you at all. I apologize profusely if you feel that I was attacking you in any way. You asked if I knew anything about photography and the answer is yes, a little bit, but not nearly as much as I would like to. You are posting a lot of information which contradicts my experience, BUT you seem to know what you're talking about and so I would sincerely like to SEE some examples which would further your position and perhaps helps me to get better at my picture taking as well. As for watermarks, well take some new pictures without them.

My turf? I hardly think so. My posts are not all that frequent, my influence here is minor and my comments should always be looked at critically, as should the comments of everyone else. Calm down? Ha, I've been laughing about being wrong... again, for two days now! I am calm and always stay that way, since there's nothing to get wound up about. You think that I am wrong in the comments that I've made, that's fine with me, as a matter of fact I appreciate it. There's no better way to learn something new than to have someone tell you that you're wrong and then clarify the reasons why. Your explanations have merit, but are also kind of cookie cutter explanations about photography which don't really address the issue of how to the average viewer of pictures on this forum can gain more information about the pictures they are seeing, than what is immediately apparent. We don't even disagree, so why the odd response?

Been slapped twice? So? I have been "slapped" a number of times as well and that's just part of seeing what the boundaries are in this forum. I wouldn't let that keep you from posting pictures in the proper manner and it would certainly help to further your explanations and teach me more about the errors in my thinking. Thanks again for your consideration Digitaldevo!

 

[smitcompton]

Hi All,

I think most people on C.S. like and respect Gene at Precision Gems. I . like Gene have a history with this Digital Divo which only brings his penchant for trouble to mind. Be prepared for a takeover. He is an expert in everything. Ask when he got his G.G.

Michael, thanks for your input . Those darn photos are a problem and its good that you help.

Thanks,
Annette

 

[digitaldevo]

Hi All,

I think most people on C.S. like and respect Gene at Precision Gems. I . like Gene have a history with this Digital Divo which only brings his penchant for trouble to mind. Be prepared for a takeover. He is an expert in everything. Ask when he got his G.G.

Michael, thanks for your input . Those darn photos are a problem and its good that you help.

Thanks,
Annette

That is fine, folks can like and respect whom they want, but it doesn't change the fact that folks should be on the up and up and not play dirty and underhandedly, no matter who they are.

I was wondering how long it would take some more to chime in. Same crowd from the same forum. Expert in everything huh? Photography, gemology, lapidary, web & graphics design/networking/computer science, cooking, martial arts, Marine Biology/Animal behavior, and law enforcement, went to college for just about all of them over the years, Dean's List for most of it, studied them for years as well, and worked in the fields over the years, but that is far cry from being an expert in everything. Just smart and I know what I know and enjoy sharing it with others. While most kids were playing I was studying and reading books and doing experiments on things and learning everything I possibly could and have continued to do so ever since I could read on my own. I only have issues with folks who make attacks because I just don't bend over and take it and/or because they are jealous and feel inferior in their own competence that they feel the need to try and belittle another to make themselves feel better, that is all. I have far more who respect me and turn to me for help because of it then those, like yourself, who hate me because of it, lol. But thank you for providing yet even more proof for my pudding, it is greatly appreciated. . Keep it coming by all means. Nice try at a cheap shot, but I never said I was a GG, lmao. Go back to the drawing board.

 

[digitaldevo]

Well it sure seemed/seems like it, sorry. A lot of snide and condescending comments in your replies. At least in my neck of the woods they are considered as such. That is a problem with the internet though, one can not see body language to tell how a statement was made, where in person it is super easy to tell how it was meant. So all I had to go with was the tone I got from those certain comments/statements. If this is not the case, then you have my profuse apologies as well.

I can tell you sometimes what is learned in a text book does not always hold true in the real world when it comes to photography, mainly due to the film/digital switch, a lot more different then most folks want to think.

I don't post any images online without a watermark sorry. I used to, and then when I had to fight over 15-20 copyright violations ranging from selling fine art prints of my shots, to selling coffee mugs with my pics on it, to posters, to calendars, to ads online using them, to unscrupulous vendors using my stone and or jewelry shots to pose as their on and selling them on Ebay and ripping consumers off since they were my pics and my Wife's stuff, so obviously they couldn't be representing theirs since she didn't see it to them, lol. It got too costly and too much of a hassle filing DMCA and C&D notices as well as pursuing legal actions if those didn't work Easier to watermark them in a way they can not be removed and reused easily, because I used to just do a small sig or logo until they(thieves) cropped them off or out and did the same things again. So nothing goes on the internet without any longer, easier and cheaper.

So I am not allowed to post due to the watermarking. But a simple Google search of my username + flickr is not difficult to do at all.

As for the cookie cutter crack, that again, in my neck of the woods is a derogatory comment to insult some one's words. But regardless, I don;t see how they are, pretty thorough IMO and many others I have taught/tutored, but back OT, the ONLY way folks are going to be able to understand how to see what is going on in pictures is to learn how they are taken/shot and maybe even practice some on their own. No fancy equipment is really necessary for the basics. Heck, I often use a $70 P&S digital camera when I'm in a hurry. I've even used my cell phone + 10x loupe successfully in a jam. If they don't understand how the images are shot then they will not be able to see what is done in editing what is done in shooting, and what can just happen honestly. There is no real way to just look at a pic and tell this and that is "faked" in most cases, otherwise Forensics folks wouldn't be pumping in millions of dollars into the company working on the algorithms to actually allow a computer to analyze a pic and tell. There just is no easy solution, aside from experience. Not something that can be taught, but rather one that has to be learned. Many folks who are used to seeing Bayer sensor based images will see a FoveonX3 image or Leica M series image or some MF digital images and swear they arfe heavily edited, when in reality they could be straight out of camera because Leica and some MF companies choose to leave off the AA(anti-aliasing) filter off of their sensors and control/correct the artifacts caused by not having one via special algorithms in the software(firmware) in the cameras themselves, which allows the sharper images and finer details and more contrasty images to be captured at the expensive of more ISO noise and such. The AA filter on almost all Bayer based cameras in essence, and to keep it simple, basically blur, albeit slightly, the entire image captured to get rid of the artifacts caused by the Bayer sensor array, but this causes less finer details, less contrast, and a less sharpening in images. Hope this helps explain some of it. So, as you can see, until you get to know and experience how the images come to be and how they are taken, there is no simple way to just explain how to "tell". The person who can come up with a sure fire way will get rich very shortly, and quickly, after! As long as they beat the company/scientists currently working on the one and only algorithm and program(s) to do so.

As for slaps, the one was an image that fell into guidelines and I still got slapped because of the watermark was considered self promotion and that was even just a link to my personal Flickr image hosting service where all my personal work goes. So, sorry, there is no away around this unless they change the rules. Complain to them about that.

 

[PrecisionGem]

DD I have no idea who you are and believe I have never met you unless we crossed paths at Tucson and I didn't know it.

I didn't want to state for a fact that the photos on your wives site were your work since I had no knowledge that they were. But after your informative posts on photography I really was expecting better images.

 

[Michael_E]

So, as you can see, until you get to know and experience how the images come to be and how they are taken, there is no simple way to just explain how to "tell". The person who can come up with a sure fire way will get rich very shortly, and quickly, after! As long as they beat the company/scientists currently working on the one and only algorithm and program(s) to do so.

My point here is that any image, on the internet or elsewhere, has some clues which can point to just how realistic an image may be. Certainly you can't tell exactly how an image was made, but you yourself said that you didn't feel that the original images shown were realistic, but gave a vague answer that you felt that they were unrealistic "for a number of reasons". I am interested in those reasons, since they impact directly on we can get a better feel for what a stone really would look compared to these images.

I stated what my experience led me to believe about how one should look at those images in order to get a better "feel" for what the stone might look like when it is sitting in one's hand. Since you see broader options for making those images, I imagine that you also see a wider range of what those stones may look like in reality and wonder how you would decide whether a stone is worth purchasing.

The technical part of picture taking is interesting, but my feeling is that a large number of people viewing images on the 'net are not going to keep all of those technicalities in mind and so having a few easily remembered pointers to help guide them in trying to sort out how a gem may look is probably much more helpful than all of the techno talk. Any simple tips on how to get a better idea of how something really looks compared to it's online image?

As for my "tone", please do ignore that. I'll tell you right up front that in any post anywhere, I am either trying to be helpful or funny. If you read any other intentions into my posts, then you are reading them incorrectly.

 

[digitaldevo]

Whatever Gene, you and I both know that is not true in two separate other forums no less. :/ As for pics on there I already stated they were thrown up when redid the website due to losing it all not long ago. Also for low dollar items not going to spend much time taking a fancy picture. Lol. That is just common sense. Do the Google search and one can see my work instead of dwelling on something explained already Nd that has no real relevance. But you wouldn't want to so that because than you couldn't politely trash talk as previously in other forums. :/

As for tips on how to tell I don't know what to tell you nor how to put it into words. After 25yrs of photography and 10yrs of working with editing software I just know when I it. sorry. That's why I stated to learn how it is done and then you will know it when you see it.

 

[Michael_E]

As for tips on how to tell I don't know what to tell you nor how to put it into words. After 25yrs of photography and 10yrs of working with editing software I just know when I it. sorry. That's why I stated to learn how it is done and then you will know it when you see it.

So you have no pictures to illustrate your points and have no advice to give the original poster and her questions about evaluating pictures online? This has sounds suspiciously like, "I am the expert, you must believe me because I say so". Hmmm, that's too bad, I was hoping to learn something more than about how wrong I am. Well, maybe next time.

 

[LD]

DigitalDevo

Is there any chance you could remove the watermarks and just take some "normal" photos for us to demonstrate your ideas/experience please? Photos are far better than words and really emphasize points. I'll give you an example ...... many years ago, I was looking at a vendor's photo of a gemstone that I really liked. My friend pointed out to me that the tweezers holding the gem looked so bright and unnatural she suggested very bright lighting had been used. I wanted to see how that translated to the gemstone and, sure enough, when it turned up it was DARK!!! For me, seeing that photo has helped me to have a good guess at what gemstones will be like when I see that particular trait in a vendor's photo.

Another example is that I bought two stones from an Ebay vendor (both of which had videos and photos). They looked "too good to be true" and of course, they were! Not only had the photos been highly doctored but the video had as well! I would never have believed that was possible but I had the proof sitting in my hand and I wasn't happy! I posted my photos (that were true to life) alongside stills from the video and the vendor's photos to show the difference. I know it was helpful to others and I'm sure you could provide us with the same sort of thing. (By the way, the vendor found my post and came on here all guns blazing and calling me a liar - enough said)!

Like many on this forum I simply have an SLR (I think it's an SLR anyway! A point and shoot thingy with a macro!) and I'd love to try your idea of the coffee filter BUT I honestly don't know what difference it will make to my photos. So I'd love to see a "before" and "after".

Thanks in advance.

 

[chrono]

DD,
I second/third/fourth the suggestion of some simple, easy to remember tips for us regular folk who are not experts in photography nor will we ever be, to be able to tell if a picture has been photoshopped or not. It doesn't need every nitty gritty detail, only generalities are sufficient as we all know that it cannot possibly cover everything 100%.

 

[gsellis]

Another example is that I bought two stones from an Ebay vendor (both of which had videos and photos). They looked "too good to be true" and of course, they were! Not only had the photos been highly doctored but the video had as well! I would never have believed that was possible but I had the proof sitting in my hand and I wasn't happy! I posted my photos (that were true to life) alongside stills from the video and the vendor's photos to show the difference. I know it was helpful to others and I'm sure you could provide us with the same sort of thing. (By the way, the vendor found my post and came on here all guns blazing and calling me a liar - enough said)!

Videos can be doctored, but it takes more expensive software and it is a bit harder to do. The advantage of video (from a HDV camera) is that the color runs truer (than JPG - RAW is better, but there are video cameras that shoot 4:4:4 RAW too). But it can be doctored quite well. If you think about the move Pleasantville, you can get an idea. It was shot in color.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

If the angle of incidence to the normal of any crown facet is below the critical angle the light intensity will completely reflect off the crown.

ChunkyCushionLover,
Since you mentioned this and are interested, I think that you would find this interactive refraction simulator fun to play with. It's on an educational physics site and is part way down the page on the left. This gives a graphic and intuitive feel to ones thoughts about R.I.
http://interactagram.com/physics/optics/refraction/

Oh, I just thought that I'd add that this site has a huge list of materials, including gems, and lists their Refractive Indexes so you can play with them in the simulator. No, this is not how I spend all my time...just part of it.

Thanks Michel_E you have sent me that link already in e-mail it has some interesting stuff.
I have Diamcalc now and can show this glare in actual gem designs like this sapphire design, with a scanned corundum absoprtion spectra, simulated under lightbox lighting.