H&A Clarity clarification

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If inclusions interrupt the pattern in a hearts image, is the stone still a hearts and arrows stone?

I would appreciate expert and consumers views please.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Are you speaking of external inclusions that interfere with the actual cut such as a cavity or something like that?

 

[0-0-0]

More likely large needles, feathers, and crystals that interrupt the light path?

IMO if the inclusions are bad enough that they are visibly interrupting the images, whether the stone is H&A or not would be the least of my worries.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I agree, thbmok!

My opinion is that if the inclusions are internal, that would be irrelevant to the cut precision. It certainly might have poor light performance if it had bad clarity, and that would keep the stone from being "Ideal". However, when I think of hearts and arrows, I am thinking of a particular precision cut. I'd still be checking the lab report to see if it had ideal light performance.

(I am happy to learn something new if that is incorrect, however!)

 

[susimoo]

I agree with the previous posters.

I think about the two things as being very separate. One is cut and the other is clarity. Whilst the clarity may change the image of the cut, it does not alter the cut. (if that makes sense ) So if the diamond is cut perfectly as a H & A, although the image is obstructed by the stones own internal inclusions, it still remains a H & A cut.

Like I said, I agree with the other poster who said it better.



(edited cos I canny spell to save masel !!! Hope my fellow scot's get this at least )

 

[Dancing Fire]

If inclusions interrupt the pattern in a hearts image, is the stone still a hearts and arrows stone?

I would appreciate expert and consumers views please.

IMO,yes, b/c some stones will have one little dark inclusion under the table and it'll reflect back to all 8 hearts and make stone look really bad but it only contain one little dark inclusion.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I agree with the previous posters.

I think about the two things as being very separate. One is cut and the other is clarity. Whilst the clarity may change the image of the cut, it does not alter the cut. (if that makes sense ) So if the diamond is cut perfectly as a H & A, although the image is obstructed by the stones own internal inclusions, it still remains a H & A cut.
Like I said, I agree with the other poster who said it better.



(edited cos I canny spell to save masel !!! Hope my fellow scot's get this at least )

guess that's what i'm trying to say on my post above...

 

[kenny]

A natural solid black opaque diamond could be cut to perfect hearts and arrows performance proportions/recipe with Excellent polish and symmetry.

Asking whether it is a hearts and arrows diamond is kind of like asking if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody there to hear it, did it make a sound?

Our minds construct lots of things that seem absolute, but are not.
Humans are not comfortable with ambiguity or unanswerable questions.

 

[Jim Summa]

Hi Gary,
If an inclusion interrups the pattern I don't think you should ding the stone.

 

[mimi123]

Hmmm, I'll admit I'm a little confused. How does the cutter determine if the cut is H&A if he can't see clearly enough to proceed through the inclusions? On the other hand, If a H&A cut is strictly based on #'s,ie, angles of cut precision, in that case couldn't these diamonds all just be machine cut?? Off the cuff, I would be tempted to say they are not related, one is cut, the other is clarity, and the one has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Karl_K]

I feel that a very well cut and properly graded i1 stone with minimally eye visible inclusions can be h&a and be called high performance.
If 1/4 the stone is dark then of course it should not be considered either.
So a few dots in the image ok, 1/4 of the image dark not.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks everyone.
Kenny it's like the sound of one hand clapping

If inclusions interrupt the pattern in a hearts image, is the stone still a hearts and arrows stone?

I would appreciate expert and consumers views please.

IMO,yes, b/c some stones will have one little dark inclusion under the table and it'll reflect back to all 8 hearts and make stone look really bad but it only contain one little dark inclusion.

Yes DF, a clever cutter that can not avoid a centrally placed inclusion in a piece of rough will try to keep the inclusion as close to the table as possible. If a VS inclusion is placed down near the culet you can sometimes see it 20 to 30 times in a single face up view making the stone actually I1 and definitely dulling the 'life' of the stone.

The opposite is true for the hearts view - the well placed inclusion that you only see once thru the crown side view, can often be seen many times making the hearts view look terrible and ugly.
So
I take it the general consensus is that this is still ok if the stone has great optical symmetry (i.e. AAA hearts aside from the ugly appearance).

Next question
Is it OK if a vendor or manufacturer photoshopped out some or the worst of those inclusions in the hearts view?

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="Garry H (Cut Nut)|1346890169|

Next question
Is it OK if a vendor or manufacturer photoshopped out some or the worst of those inclusions in the hearts view?[/quote]



NO,it is not OK in my book...

 

[Karl_K]

[quote="Garry H (Cut Nut)|1346890169|

Next question
Is it OK if a vendor or manufacturer photoshopped out some or the worst of those inclusions in the hearts view?

NO,it is not OK in my book... [/quote]
ditto!

 

[0-0-0]

Next question
Is it OK if a vendor or manufacturer photoshopped out some or the worst of those inclusions in the hearts view?

No way!

 

[susimoo]

NO!!!!!


No photoshop, ever!!!!!!!!! That is fraud in my book.

 

[Jim Summa]

No, not a good idea.

 

[mimi123]

What?! Absolutely not.

 

[kenny]

NO!!!!!


No photoshop, ever!!!!!!!!! That is fraud in my book.

No photoshopping out inclusions EVER!!!

BUT

Using Photoshop to correct the exposure, retouch out a speck of dust, or correcting white balance to bring the diamond back to how you know it looks is absolutely okay in my book.

I disagree with the idea that ALL photoshopping is ALWAYS bad.
Photography itself is a lie; diamonds are not 2 dimensional, they are 3 dimensional.
Diamonds change their look tremendously as you move them - freezing them in time is another non-truth.

Photoshop is just a tool like a telephone or a car that can be used for good or bad, by honest and dishonest vendors to tell the truth or deceive.

A vendor can use lighting and NO Photoshop to deceive customers by making poorly-cut, leaky diamonds look fantastic.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Absolutely no photoshopping of inclusions. Of course, I try to buy VS1 so I don't have to see them.

 

[WinkHPD]

If inclusions interrupt the pattern in a hearts image, is the stone still a hearts and arrows stone?

I would appreciate expert and consumers views please.

HRD says no, which is one of the reasons I think that their system is not good.

It is easy to have inclusions break the pattern of the Hearts even in a VS quality stone since those images are seen at magnification while they have little to no affect on the performance of the diamond. To penalize the cutter for making a precision cut gem of high performance is ludicrous.

For example, here is the hearts image of a beautiful diamond. The small crystal inclusions break the hearts in many locations, but the stone is an SI1 and incredible to look at with the unaided eye. Why would you penalize the cutting?



Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

I feel that a very well cut and properly graded i1 stone with minimally eye visible inclusions can be h&a and be called high performance.
If 1/4 the stone is dark then of course it should not be considered either.
So a few dots in the image ok, 1/4 of the image dark not.

Storm,

Here is the image of a 1ct + E-I1 that was chosen for its visual performance over four other stones, all of which were SI2 or better, including a VS2. The stones were placed face up in a slotted tray and all six of the people looking at them chose this stone over the other four based on how it looked to the eye. Only after the stone was chosen did any of the lookers know which stone was which.

The inclusions were mostly colorless crystals, but they look black in the viewer. I agreed with the I1 grade even though the inclusions were not visible to the eye of all but one viewer, who still liked it best. Even though I think the Hearts image looks horrible, I agree with you that this diamond should be called high performance!



Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Thanks everyone.
Kenny it's like the sound of one hand clapping

If inclusions interrupt the pattern in a hearts image, is the stone still a hearts and arrows stone?

I would appreciate expert and consumers views please.

IMO,yes, b/c some stones will have one little dark inclusion under the table and it'll reflect back to all 8 hearts and make stone look really bad but it only contain one little dark inclusion.

Yes DF, a clever cutter that can not avoid a centrally placed inclusion in a piece of rough will try to keep the inclusion as close to the table as possible. If a VS inclusion is placed down near the culet you can sometimes see it 20 to 30 times in a single face up view making the stone actually I1 and definitely dulling the 'life' of the stone.

The opposite is true for the hearts view - the well placed inclusion that you only see once thru the crown side view, can often be seen many times making the hearts view look terrible and ugly.
So
I take it the general consensus is that this is still ok if the stone has great optical symmetry (i.e. AAA hearts aside from the ugly appearance).

Next question
Is it OK if a vendor or manufacturer photoshopped out some or the worst of those inclusions in the hearts view?

LOL! What are you fishing for here? You know that it is absolutely not okay in any one's book, except maybe a crooks. Hopefully if you know of someone doing this you will out them to the public ridicule that they deserve.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

NO!!!!!


No photoshop, ever!!!!!!!!! That is fraud in my book.

No photoshopping out inclusions EVER!!!

BUT

Using Photoshop to correct the exposure, retouch out a speck of dust, or correcting white balance to bring the diamond back to how you know it looks is absolutely okay in my book.

I disagree with the idea that ALL photoshopping is ALWAYS bad.
Photography itself is a lie; diamonds are not 2 dimensional, they are 3 dimensional.
Diamonds change their look tremendously as you move them - freezing them in time is another non-truth.

Photoshop is just a tool like a telephone or a car that can be used for good or bad, by honest and dishonest vendors to tell the truth or deceive.

A vendor can use lighting and NO Photoshop to deceive customers by making poorly-cut, leaky diamonds look fantastic.

Well said Kenny!

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

HRD says no, which is one of the reasons I think that their system is not good.

Wink

I agree.
I have seen instances where even vs stones had inclusion reflections in the heart image.
They should not be downgraded in my opinion.

 

[Karl_K]

Using Photoshop to correct the exposure, retouch out a speck of dust, or correcting white balance to bring the diamond back to how you know it looks is absolutely okay in my book.

I disagree with the idea that ALL photoshopping is ALWAYS bad.

I mostly agree, except that a spec of dust the diamond should be cleaned and the image redone if possible.
The reason being it is sometimes impossible to tell if it is dust or an inclusion reflection so making a habit of removing dust in photoshop can lead to inclusions being covered even if there is no evil intent.

 

[DiamondBrokersofFlorida]

If inclusions interrupt the pattern in a hearts image, is the stone still a hearts and arrows stone?

I would appreciate expert and consumers views please.

Do you have a photo of the stone in question? I think you can't generalize this and it would depend on how bad the inclusion is and how much it interupts the hearts and arrows pattern.

 

[kenny]

Using Photoshop to correct the exposure, retouch out a speck of dust, or correcting white balance to bring the diamond back to how you know it looks is absolutely okay in my book.

I disagree with the idea that ALL photoshopping is ALWAYS bad.

I mostly agree, except that a spec of dust the diamond should be cleaned and the image redone if possible.
The reason being it is sometimes impossible to tell if it is dust or an inclusion reflection so making a habit of removing dust in photoshop can lead to inclusions being covered even if there is no evil intent.

I agree IF it is impossible to tell whether it is dust or an inclusion.
With a bellows and a good macro lens the diamond fills the screen and uses all the pixels so the pics are so sharp that it is always obvious to me what is dust.
I realize many vendors don't have this luxury (or are not aware a Nikon bellows is only $200 http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Bellows/1/sku-NK190074999990?r=FE )
This uses only perhaps 5 or 10% of their camera's pixels.
Here's an example.
I took this pic on a Nikon D7000 using a 105mm f2.8 Nikkor micro lens using no extensions or bellows or other close-up optics.
Even though this is a very fine macro lens, look how small this 0.27 ct diamond is and how few pixels were used.



They have to blow up and crop in AFTER the pic is taken - and when in doubt I'd say do not photoshop out something that MAY be an inclusion.

But if you are certain it is dust, then it's okay to retouch it out IMHO.
And yes retaking the pic would be preferred, but getting a diamond perfectly clean, and good macrophotography is VERY time consuming.
If I was a photographer for a high volume business I'd fire me for being so slow.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hopefully if you know of someone doing this you will out them to the public ridicule that they deserve.

Wink

Hi Wink, thanks for the photo's and contribution.
Thanks to everyone else too.

I have been aware many years ago of vendor(s?) who were playing tricks. One I believe even used a series of photo's of a few stones and rotated, took different exposures and focus etc to get a big range of photo's for the least cost. I have not heard much about that company in years. Not even sure if they still exist.

I do not believe any current Pricescope vendors are doing anything wrong.

But if I may continue the hypothetical - what if the Hearts image was done the way AGS do theirs?
There are no inclusions, and can be no inclusions because the images are produced from a 3D scan of the outside of the diamond.
Is this acceptable?
It clearly shows the symmetry of the stone, which is what the H&A's is all about, and the report has the inclusion plot right there.

 

[WinkHPD]

Using Photoshop to correct the exposure, retouch out a speck of dust, or correcting white balance to bring the diamond back to how you know it looks is absolutely okay in my book.

I disagree with the idea that ALL photoshopping is ALWAYS bad.

I mostly agree, except that a spec of dust the diamond should be cleaned and the image redone if possible.
The reason being it is sometimes impossible to tell if it is dust or an inclusion reflection so making a habit of removing dust in photoshop can lead to inclusions being covered even if there is no evil intent.

I agree IF it is impossible to tell whether it is dust or an inclusion.
With a bellows and a good macro lens the diamond fills the screen and uses all the pixels so the pics are so sharp that it is always obvious to me what is dust.
I realize many vendors don't have this luxury (or are not aware a Nikon bellows is only $200 http://www.keh.com/camera/Nikon-Manual-Focus-Bellows/1/sku-NK190074999990?r=FE )
This uses only perhaps 5 or 10% of their camera's pixels.
Here's an example.
I took this pic on a Nikon D7000 using a 105mm f2.8 Nikkor micro lens using no extensions or bellows or other close-up optics.
Even though this is a very fine macro lens, look how small this 0.27 ct diamond is and how few pixels were used.



They have to blow up and crop in AFTER the pic is taken - and when in doubt I'd say do not photoshop out something that MAY be an inclusion.

But if you are certain it is dust, then it's okay to retouch it out IMHO.
And yes retaking the pic would be preferred, but getting a diamond perfectly clean, and good macrophotography is VERY time consuming.
If I was a photographer for a high volume business I'd fire me for being so slow.

No wonder your photos are so good! Do you give photography lessons and photoshop? I can just imagine how much fun it would be to spend a couple of days with you!

Wink