Ideal scope image of princess on black background

[WinkHPD]

In my conversations with Paul Slegers about why this stone received "only" an excellent grade instead of ideal from AGS I received this comment from Paul.

This is the first one of his new Princess cuts that I have received and it is the most beautiful princess that I have ever seen. He said that when he did the "Pepsi" test on them that a large percentage of people preferred the AGS 1''s and another large percentage preferred the AGS 0''s.

Since the system will not be officially in place until May 1, I don''t have the final cert, but Paul has been informed as to what the grade will be. This stone is Excellent in light performance, and ideal in polish, proportions, and symmetry for an AGS 1 grade.

Here is his reply.

Quote:

Wink,

As far as I am concerned, this is "already" Excellent. If you look at
the data of AGS, the top-3% of princesses are Ideal, and the next 4% (so
the top-7%) are Excellent.
And many people, professionals, have never ever seen a Princess cut as
nicely like this one.

It is definitely a weird thing to talk about "only" Excellent. Certainly
if you think that in the future AGS-system for rounds, many of the
current super-ideals will "only" be Excellent. And I am not even talking
about the wannabe-super-ideals, that someone like xxx is selling.
The problem is that people are taking ''set ideas'' from rounds, to use
them on fancy shapes. Because of this, a pattern of leakage is
considered bad, while it adds to the contrast, in the absence of
obstruction.
Garry Holloway once explained to me that on a princess, one should look
at the idealscope without background lighting, so on a black surface. In
this way, the total contrast pattern becomes more apparent. Maybe, you
can try to picture this, and then start a true discussion.

End Quote

I took the picture. Here it is, and I welcome opinions from any and all, but especially from Gary, and John Quixote as I wish to learn from them what they think. I will post both the black field and the regular photo of the diamond so that you can see a little of its appearance.

Wink

 

[belle]

oh my.....that is one nice looking IS on that baby!

wow.

 

[WinkHPD]

Here is the regular photo.

 

[Maxine]

Now THAT is a beautiful princess....this is very educational...to see the actual stone and the IS....

 

[belle]

again...WOW! you probably can''t give up the specs on that beauty, but could you pleeeaase give the size?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/5/2005 5:7:15 PM
Author:Wink


#1. The problem is that people are taking ''set ideas'' from rounds, to use them on fancy shapes. Because of this, a pattern of leakage is considered bad, while it adds to the contrast, in the absence of obstruction. Why lickeage is not "acceptable" for rounds ? Any idea where the hunt for the all-over-red IS image got strarted ?




#2. Garry Holloway once explained to me that on a princess, one should look at the idealscope without background lighting, so on a black surface. In this way, the total contrast pattern becomes more apparent.

Isn''t this similar to what a H&A viewer would do ? (only everthign that now shows black would show white)

 

[WinkHPD]

Ana,

I am probably the wrong person to ask for details like that. I know that I can get a picture through the ideal scope and have played holy heck trying to do it through the H&A scope.

Richard von Sternberg has a great set up for doing it through the firescope, but it involves higher powered light source than I have in mine and also a great unit to hold the camera in perfect place while he is shooting the picture. Someday when I grow up I am going to be able to buy all the toys to allow me to take great pictures like Richard takes and like John Quixote. Now THOSE guys take some great pics. I wish Richard had the time to post here more.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/5/2005 5:19:57 PM
Author: belle
again...WOW! you probably can''t give up the specs on that beauty, but could you pleeeaase give the size?

The stone is a .78ct.

 

[strmrdr]

Interesting wink,
Im always bugging vendors to take pictures of asschers against a black background.
It makes the patterns stand out because they are formed by leakage and partial leakage.
The added contrast of the black background makes the pattern stand out.
I can see where im going to be bugging them to try is shots with a black background :}

 

[RockDoc]

Wink

Curious...........

If you have a dark background and no light, what causes the white light areas ( light leakage ) to appear?

Also what "light" and from which direction do you get an image based on?

Is it light entering from above the stone? Or is it light entering from the sides?

Unlike the H&A viewers which get the best images from side lighting since little to no light enters through the bottom is there enough to get an analytical image at all?

Gary and Richard seem to have diametrically opposed viewpoints.... one of the comments infers that brighter backlight is required, while the other says minimize the backlight entry....

Can you re-image the stone using white backlighting for us? Perhaps IS photos as well as Firescope images, using the built in light, bright surrounding light and using some black material between the FS light and the diamond?

Thanks,

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This idea was taken out of context from something I wrote in another thread.

The ASET scope desinged by AGS has been used to take non-backlight photo''s. I do not propose this idea for the Ideal-Scope.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/5/2005 9:48:16 PM
Author: RockDoc
Wink

Curious...........

If you have a dark background and no light, what causes the white light areas ( light leakage ) to appear?

I cut a piece of black cardboard and put it over the light in Gary''s $25 light source. The ideal scope was put into an image dome and the light came from the top and sides through the plastic red cone of the ideal scope. I suspect that the white lights were reflections from the white interior of the image dome and the black areas are where the areas of light pass through are.

Also what ''light'' and from which direction do you get an image based on?

Is it light entering from above the stone? Or is it light entering from the sides?

Unlike the H&A viewers which get the best images from side lighting since little to no light enters through the bottom is there enough to get an analytical image at all?

How the HECK would I know? I do not have the training or experience to comment on this issue. I think that Gary''s comment, in spite of apparently being taken out of context as per his comments in the post just above this one is excellent as it allows me to see clearly the contrast of the bright and the dark areas in the stone which are part of what makes it so incredible looking to the eye.

Gary and Richard seem to have diametrically opposed viewpoints.... one of the comments infers that brighter backlight is required, while the other says minimize the backlight entry....

Can you re-image the stone using white backlighting for us? Perhaps IS photos as well as Firescope images, using the built in light, bright surrounding light and using some black material between the FS light and the diamond?

Oh sure, I will just get up a couple hours early tomorrow and figure out how to do all that...

Hmmm, probably not. I have a very full plate for the next few weeks, I do have a standard ideal scope picture that I posted in the thread about consistency in lighting started by John Quixote yesterday and there is also a much better picture taken by Elmyra that can be located by going to Paul Antwerp''s web site and going to the .78 E-SI1 princess cut located in the stones section. It will have a lot of the information you might want there.

Thanks,

Rockdoc

Wink

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 4/5/2005 5

7:15 PM
Author:Wink

{Quoting Paul: "The problem is that people are taking ''set ideas'' from rounds, to use them on fancy shapes. Because of this, a pattern of leakage is considered bad, while it adds to the contrast, in the absence of obstruction.

Garry Holloway once explained to me that on a princess, one should look at the idealscope without background lighting, so on a black surface. In this way, the total contrast pattern becomes more apparent. Maybe, you can try to picture this, and then start a true discussion."}

I took the picture. Here it is, and I welcome opinions from any and all, but especially from Gary, and John Quixote as I wish to learn from them what they think. I will post both the black field and the regular photo of the diamond so that you can see a little of its appearance.

I think that Paul''s statement about ''set ideas'' from rounds is crucial. Though I am a fan of IS, it''s not simple to apply to fancies.

The photo you''ve taken with the black background is interesting. I may be thinking something similar to Strm - regardless of what it tells about return/contrast it helps to see particulars of facet construction. In that sense Ana is correct in that this functions like a H&A viewer.

I took the liberty of compiling all 3 photos (didn''t bother to rotate).

 

[Stephan]

Very funny to see the biggest flash of fire appear in a zone that is white on the IdealScope.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

While we are at it Stephan, this is another reason why I would like people to photograpgh the realistic shots with no bck light - like in the tray we make.

Leakage in the pavilion has a very high chance of showing as fire. Do I make my point?

This is the same objection i have had with many people (David Lauren, Brad and Jan etc)

Unfortunatley there are many honest Pricescope vendors doing this too.

It is no accident that they get better results leaving the pavilion open and the stone resting on its pavilion.

It is not the very worst issue - but it niggles me a bit.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/6/2005 2:41:32 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
While we are at it Stephan, this is another reason why I would like people to photograpgh the realistic shots with no bck light - like in the tray we make.

Gary, this stone is on its side in a photo dome and the light is coming primarily from the top, there is no direct back lightling, but there is side lighting. The fire came from the light at the top, I moved the light enough to reduce the fire as it almost looked like a photoshop artifact from some angles. I am not sure that this is necessarily caused by leakage from the rear when it is adjustment of the light on top that shows the dispersion.

Leakage in the pavilion has a very high chance of showing as fire. Do I make my point?

This is the same objection i have had with many people (David Lauren, Brad and Jan etc)

Unfortunatley there are many honest Pricescope vendors doing this too.

It is no accident that they get better results leaving the pavilion open and the stone resting on its pavilion.

I have tried photographing my stones in a tray, but they look almost universally flat, with no dimension. Laying them on their side allows for a three dimensional photo, complete with the subtle shadows that give it that three dimensionality. I do not think this to be deceptive, but rather allows me to show the stone to look more like it looks in real life. I used to lift the stone from the background and put on a drop shadow, but this was decried as obvious photoshopping even though the only enhancement was the drop shadow to add three dimensionality. I finally found that I could get an attractive photo by laying it on its side, so that is what I now do. The stones still do not show the beauty that they show to the eye, but at least they look somewhat more like they do to the eye.

I am going to have to respectfully dissagree with you that this is in any way unethical.

It is not the very worst issue - but it niggles me a bit.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wink can you photograph the setup please - or draw a rough sketch so we can understand your description a little better please?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/6/2005 2:30:56 AM
Author: Stephan
Very funny to see the biggest flash of fire appear in a zone that is white on the IdealScope.

From my study of lightscope photos vs b-scope photos that is often the case.
The areas that show black contrast and the areas around leakage are the areas that show the most fire.
My thoughts are that they are often at points where there is a large change in facet construction and when you get large changes fire is produced because the light is broken up into colors by the multiple paths it takes in, out and thru that area.
Also white light return is reduced in those areas making the fire/colored light more visible.

Comparing lightview 6 in the 3rd generation b-scope photos with the others photos will show this also.

 

[strmrdr]

This b-scope images proves my point :}

 

[strmrdr]

Lightscope image...
See where the greatest areas for fire in the b-scope photos are on and around the areas that show up white and black here.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

storm that need not mean anything as there is stray light floating around the Bscope area behind the pavilion. Ask Rhino to re-do that shot with a little black cardboard cap covering the stones pavilion. He might do it for you personally. (Unfortunately it seems that no-one with a bscope will perform such tasks and tests - like the challenge to run very well cut and very poorly cut CZ''s and publicly discuss the results)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

For the record here is a ray trace through the leaky zone on the princess.
Note that the exit ray is very well dispersed.
There is not an exact, but a similar expectation that a beam of light travelling in the reverse direction would make a nicely dispersed exit ray in that same area that we see in winks Photo.
So that is why i would like to know if there is any light able to enter in that direction in your setup Wink, if you have a little time to spare us

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 4/6/2005 8:48:52 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wink can you photograph the setup please - or draw a rough sketch so we can understand your description a little better please?

Sure...

I am sending up three pictures, a global view, and up close and down the angle of the camera view and the picture I took with it in this setup.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Here is the down the camera shot

 

[WinkHPD]

And this is the picture I was taking at the time.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

That did not work well. let''s try this one

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

As I thight Wink - a lot of light is able to get into the pavilion of the diamond - from the reflected light off the dome - and if you have the carriage lamp on - from there as well.

I personally would not like to buy a diamond based on this type of photography - although i know it is far easier to make a nice looking shot this way.

I have rotated that previous image to show where that firey facet was getting its light from - yu can see it is from a well lit area.

 

[valeria101]

Cool !

It may be that the realistic photos are not as informative in a technical way, but they do put that diamond in your hand... and look friendly. Compared with the very informative diamonds-from-Mars 'scope shots.

Just a thought...

Beauty mags do not show biometric shots against calibration grid !

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

So Ana you would be happy to buy this diamond?
And when you get it it looks nothing like the photo?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/7/2005 1204 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
So Ana you would be happy to buy this diamond?
And when you get it it looks nothing like the photo?

(assuming "this diamond" is the one in the IS pictures, not Wink''s )

If the store could take that photo, sure they could take a normal one, no ? Besides, that''s not a photo but GA model... as much as I can tell. Of course it doesn''t look like a diamond. So I would not expect the product to look like that either.