- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,741
Rockdiamond said:
Lurchie said:I try so, so hard to stay out of these threads - mostly because I respect all the people who take part in the discussions for the variety of knowledge and viewpoint that they bring to the table.
CCL - I truly believe your motivations come from wanting to make the online diamond buying experience transparent and pain-free for consumers. You have a tremendous amount of knowledge and you share it generously. Teaching consumers how to interpret photographs of diamonds is a worthy and worthwhile pursuit, IMO. Is there a more productive way of doing so? To be fair, your poll was a little misleading. The title of the thread is "Fancy Yellow Radiant Cuts Any Preference," the title of your poll was "Which image do you prefer," and the questions in your poll relate to diamond performance. There were some mixed messages in there.
As an alternative, it would be great if someone (hint, hint) were to write a PS tutorial showing photos of diamonds in various kinds of lighting and describing what kind of lighting shows what. I know this information is out there in PS Land, but maybe it would be helpful to consolidate it? Taking specific vendors out of the equation would make it feel more even-handed.
ChunkyCushionLover said:Please remember that vendors are generally not allowed to post photos of their own products.
RD just so you are aware for educational and non promotional purposes you ARE allowed to post images especially in a thread about photography methods which is purely for educational reasons. If in doubt just ask Andrey and I'm sure he will preclear anything you want to post if it is for educational purposes only. The goal of pricescope is not to stifle the proper support of opinions by tradesmembers as long as they don't abuse it for self promotional reasons.
Rockdiamond said:Thanks for posting that Lurchie- it makes a lot of sense.
Ace- thank you as well- great post!RD,
Here is the problem, the simple use of your images makes you feel persecuted and on the defensive here.
I get it, I didn't ask you before posting them here, I just found the best side by side example of dramatically different lighting I could find.
I really meant it before,I wish you and clgwli hadn't even mentioned who took the shots it wasn't important it just distracted from the focus I wanted which was the differences in the images.
As an amateur photo enthusiast I have to disagree when you state the lighting in both is identical this doesn't seem plausible. It looks like you have moved the tweezers either by tilt or slight back forward movement from one shot to the other, which is consistant with the same overhead lighting source hitting the pavillion(back) more than the crown(front) in one shot over the other. This can be achieved with ever so slight changes in the tilt or moving the tweezers forward or backwards with respect to the light source, especially if the light source is much bigger than the diamond.
Once again in this thread I'm pointing this out not to say you are being deceptive, this stone is well presented on your site with several different viewpoints.
In general though I am really against any vendor who uses only lighting that is good for viewing inclusions (like that on the right) and presenting only this type of lighting to draw conclusions on beauty in the absence of a shot that more accurately shows virtual facets.
We will have to agree to disagree.
ChunkyCushionLover said:Lurchie said:I try so, so hard to stay out of these threads - mostly because I respect all the people who take part in the discussions for the variety of knowledge and viewpoint that they bring to the table.
CCL - I truly believe your motivations come from wanting to make the online diamond buying experience transparent and pain-free for consumers. You have a tremendous amount of knowledge and you share it generously. Teaching consumers how to interpret photographs of diamonds is a worthy and worthwhile pursuit, IMO. Is there a more productive way of doing so? To be fair, your poll was a little misleading. The title of the thread is "Fancy Yellow Radiant Cuts Any Preference," the title of your poll was "Which image do you prefer," and the questions in your poll relate to diamond performance. There were some mixed messages in there.
As an alternative, it would be great if someone (hint, hint) were to write a PS tutorial showing photos of diamonds in various kinds of lighting and describing what kind of lighting shows what. I know this information is out there in PS Land, but maybe it would be helpful to consolidate it? Taking specific vendors out of the equation would make it feel more even-handed.
Many good points in your post.
Wink did an admirable job on this topic https://www.pricescope.com/journal/camera_may_not_lie_it_tells_different_truths
ChunkyCushionLover said:Rockdiamond said:Thanks for posting that Lurchie- it makes a lot of sense.
Ace- thank you as well- great post!RD,
Here is the problem, the simple use of your images makes you feel persecuted and on the defensive here.
I get it, I didn't ask you before posting them here, I just found the best side by side example of dramatically different lighting I could find.
I really meant it before,I wish you and clgwli hadn't even mentioned who took the shots it wasn't important it just distracted from the focus I wanted which was the differences in the images.
As an amateur photo enthusiast I have to disagree when you state the lighting in both is identical this doesn't seem plausible. It looks like you have moved the tweezers either by tilt or slight back forward movement from one shot to the other, which is consistant with the same overhead lighting source hitting the pavillion(back) more than the crown(front) in one shot over the other. This can be achieved with ever so slight changes in the tilt or moving the tweezers forward or backwards with respect to the light source, especially if the light source is much bigger than the diamond.
Once again in this thread I'm pointing this out not to say you are being deceptive, this stone is well presented on your site with several different viewpoints.
In general though I am really against any vendor who uses only lighting that is good for viewing inclusions (like that on the right) and presenting only this type of lighting to draw conclusions on beauty in the absence of a shot that more accurately shows virtual facets.
We will have to agree to disagree.