shape
carat
color
clarity

Photoshopp-ed Diamond Images?

songo1234

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 13, 2012
Messages
12
Hi,

Please review these diamond and data pictures. My question to the other vendors or experts who are familiar with diamond image capturing devices is, can state of the art technology or equipment able to give such nice crisp pictures or could they have been edited to look good?

actual067evvs2ags104059303020.jpg

This looks OK.

ideal067evvs2ags104059303020.jpg

Idealscope looks Ok as well.

hearts067evvs2ags104059303020.jpg

Is such a clear nice picture with contrast possible? Look at the distinctly clean white color hearts.

aset067evvs2ags104059303020.jpg

Bright colored single tone red and blues. Looks pretty artificial and computer generated to me.

I had been researching other big names online like James Allen, Whiteflash, Brian Gavin. None of their hearts patterns NOR ASET images come close to the color and contrast of the images i see above.

Any inputs are welcomed.

Sonny
 
Photoshopping can be good or bad, honest or dishonest.
There is noting natural, correct, or superior about using pics straight out of the camera.

Photoshop is just a tool just like the telephone or automobile, which can be used by criminals and by saints.
Telephones and cars are not bad.

I edit every pic I take to bring the diamond closer to how it looks in real life.

Photography itself is artificial.
It distorts 3D into 2D and stops time.

A couple years ago I caught a vendor photoshopping out an inclusion on their website.
That's dishonest use of photoshop.

All the images above demonstrate cut quality.
IF the vendor increased contrast or color saturation on those pics that does not deceive the customer about cut.
But if they MOVED arrows and hearts around to make them more symmetrical or reshaped them with photoshop THAT would be deceptive.
 
The ASET does look super saturated to me though... the IS looks like it was doctor'ed up a bit, as well as the live pic.. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if they did PS it a "bit"


I get Kenny's point though
 
that's what i am worried about. everything is too clean and neat. And this is something i don't come across amongst other sites and i seeked opinion on. They are touting this as a super ideal diamond. Along with it comes a premium price. When it comes to thousands of dollars, how do i know whether stuff that kenny mentioned weren't omitted to make their diamonds look better.

At least in the case of Brian gavin or james allen where they use untouched photos, i would probably be getting what is presented. If i am looking at a good james allen hearts pattern, thats how i am going to receive it.

sonny
 
From reviewing the images I have very little concern about them being photoshopped.
The vibrancy of the red in ASET has no bearing on the cut quality of the diamond and is of little concern, however their photo setup makes it a little difficult to see fine details. I would just want to confirm this is indeed the imaged stone you are purchasing and these are not images taken or simulated from a general design or a prototype.

Make sure you are buying from a reputable vendor who understands what these images are displaying and provided a reasonable return policy but I see nothing that indicates deception of any kind and it looks like a branded cushion with excellent cut quality.
 
TitanCi said:
The ASET does look super saturated to me though... the IS looks like it was doctor'ed up a bit, as well as the live pic.. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if they did PS it a "bit"

I actually have to disagree with this.

The IS looks almost all red because the girdle is severely painted especially on the corners. (See the green parts in the ASET).
The IS looks very accurate to me and is showing the characteristic features of a square hearts and arrows cut with the signature heavy painting on the corners.

The ASET is a bit too saturated but thats prettty common for non backlit images.
 
songo1234|1344876026|3250657 said:
that's what i am worried about. everything is too clean and neat. And this is something i don't come across amongst other sites and i seeked opinion on. They are touting this as a super ideal diamond. Along with it comes a premium price. When it comes to thousands of dollars, how do i know whether stuff that kenny mentioned weren't omitted to make their diamonds look better.

At least in the case of Brian gavin or james allen where they use untouched photos, i would probably be getting what is presented. If i am looking at a good james allen hearts pattern, thats how i am going to receive it.

sonny

There is nothing superior about unretouched photos.
I can take a pic of a diamond that windows and leaks light like a strainer but adjust the lighting to conceal the leakiness.
Then I can publish the pic untouched and it looks like a well cut diamond, no photoshop needed to deceive customers in this case.

How do you know james allen and brian gavin never retouch?
Retouching can be blatant.
Good retouching is subtle.

I repeat, there is nothing inherently wrong with ALL photoshopping of diamond pics.
Photoshop is just a tool that can be used for honesty or deception.

Again the vividness and strong saturation we see above has nothing do do with the cut of the diamond, which is the purpose of these pics.
I personally would not let this influence my buying decision.
 
sixweekoldson|1344880093|3250696 said:
TitanCi said:
The ASET does look super saturated to me though... the IS looks like it was doctor'ed up a bit, as well as the live pic.. All in all, I wouldn't be surprised if they did PS it a "bit"

I actually have to disagree with this.

The IS looks almost all red because the girdle is severely painted especially on the corners. (See the green parts in the ASET).
The IS looks very accurate to me and is showing the characteristic features of a square hearts and arrows cut with the signature heavy painting on the corners.

The ASET is a bit too saturated but thats prettty common for non backlit images.

I can appreciate that.

It's more of the vibrancy that gets to me or the contrast/saturation or whatever. I'm not a photo guy, but I see OP's point that it doesn't look as "natural" as some other ones. The live pic looks odd to me, like it's lacking details because the "contrast was turned way up" sort of deal... I have not taken any pics of stones thru these tools so I won't comment much, but I do see his point. So perhaps to the lay person in terms of photos and such it seems to be the case. The Aset looks ALMOST super fake though, like computer generated almost because of the color/lack of details... I can't describe it, but perhaps I'm seeing what OP is seeing. :shrug
 
I can speak from experience that reflector photos are extremely difficult to take- and there's really no "set method"
I can't speak about another vendors photos- but this difficulty in photographing reflector images does make it very difficult, if not impossible to compare one vendor's pics with another. Also, from my perspective reflector photos go by different rules than regular photos as they are not even trying to look "realistic".
With respect to photoshop on diamond images presented for sale- I think it's a HUGE no no.
Personally I believe that once a photos is touched , all bets are off- who knows what has been corrected..

I don't recall a vendor admitting it's use- although experienced eyes can see it used in many cases. For that reason alone, I think it's a problem for consumers.
 
kenny|1344871977|3250590 said:
I edit every pic I take to bring the diamond closer to how it looks in real life.


And THIS is OK, I would agree.
 
TitanCi said:
kenny|1344871977|3250590 said:
I edit every pic I take to bring the diamond closer to how it looks in real life.


And THIS is OK, I would agree.

Rules should be different for consumers publishing photos for entertainment, and vendor's photos that are used to make buying decisions, no?
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top