Please Help for my Idealscope Image!!! I am so confused!!

[sweatgem]

I am very confused now

. Is the following picture an real Idealscope image? As I post it in another thread, Rhino from GoodOldGold said,
'I am curious as to how to interpret the gemological information from this picture. Did the person who took the pic tutor you in how to interpret the data from this image? I am not saying it's bad nor am I saying it's good either. The thing is how does one know? The white or pale reds under the table, no black arrow heads, white on some arrow shafts, what does this mean regarding this stone? I'd be curious to hear the interpretation as this image is not typical of most is images I've seen. Curious.'

I really need honest opinions about this picture in advacne, please, coz I am going to purchase it very soon.

I am very very confused

. Thanks a lot

 

[valeria101]

That is not the most clear piecture one can ask for. If I believe my eyes, that would be the "signature" of stone with good light return but low contrast and little fire. Is it a relatively shallow cut within or near the "ideal" range? No, you can't see alot of detail there, but if the diamond would not have at least decent optics, no way that splash of red could occur, and I would not worry too much about whatever less saturated patches are there: this still looks like a front runner to me.

 

[pricescope]

These white patches are caused by much stronger than usual white light underneath. That's why you could see all other details, which are usually hidden with traditional (weaker) light source.

 

[Mara]

First off, sweatgem aka cherry...it'd be so helpful if you would only post under ONE name. I am so confused each time I read a post and think...hey didn't I just see someone else say the same thing. Why have two nicknames anyway?




Secondly, you need to find out from Brian what sort of light source they used. That makes a huge difference.




The image looks like it has great light return, possibly less contrast and fire as Val notes. Is it a superideal stone? Doesn't really look like it. But then again, hard to tell from the image as the entire image is PINK instead of being red with some pinks and blacks.




Possibly see if WF can send you another picture with less strong light.




Lastly, Brian's eyes when it comes to stones are better than yours and mine...so if he says its an amazing stone, I would definitely believe him. The image could not be representing the stone in the best 'light' (hehe).




Let us know what you find out.

 

[strmrdr]

Iv noticed that whiteflash's ideal-scope images look different than any of the other vendors ideal-scope pictures.
It makes it hard to compare them.

AS leonid points out it is likely the light source that makes the difference.

 

[pqcollectibles]

="padding-bottom:0;marginTop:0;marginBottom:0;">----------------
On 1/24/2004 9:48:02 PM Mara wrote:

Let us know what you find out.

----------------[/quote]


I second that!! Brian absolutely, positively will tell you the truth! Brian has a great eye and if he says the diamond is a good performer then it's a good performer.

 

[valeria101]

As far as I rememeber Jonathan also found this confusing on another thread, and that guy surely knows a few things about diamonds

This diamond can be a great one with a bad picture (given the extra strong lighting and the tilt of the stone which may account for that white patch to the left), or something like the AGS0 pictured on THIS page. Neither option is barking though...

If no one (regardless of expertise, by now) finds this picture clear, I surely can't wait for the clarification in this case!

 

[pqcollectibles]

Rhino does know his stuff, Val. The difference here is Brian can look at the diamond and Rhino can't.

I would trust either Brian or Rhino to tell me the truth about a diamond that they are discussing with me over the phone.

 

[Rhino]

Dear sweatgem,

Please understand it is not my intent to cause a stir.

I have been using the FireScope since June of 2000, have photographed hundreds of diamonds under it. In 2001 I developed my own LightScope to build upon the foundation I had learned using the FireScope except to show me greater detail and have also photographed hundreds more diamonds under it. Since we have been featuring these images online, other websites are attempting to duplicate our work (which is noble) but some of the images we have seen either lack detail, resolution or the information presented in the image misrepresenting the actual stone (ones we've been able to personally inspect). Let me state that any retailer who is willing and wanting to share further information about the diamonds they sell is great! Even if the device/lens or the photograhy is lacking at least the person is trying to do the right thing and that is to be praised.

However having said that it is equally important (IMO) to present data as accurately and precisely as possible. If a retailer is going to present images that show different data from what already known research has proven then there must be correlating research and data to show or prove otherwise and at the very least a tutorial must be presented to show the client how to interpret such images. From my knowledge there are 4 others who have a great amount of experience using red reflector technology and the interpretation of the images. Those being

1. EightStar Diamond Co. Richard Von Sternberg inparticular has photographed many many diamonds under his specially made FireScope and is probably only 2nd to Takanori Tamura in using the device. It would be my guess that Richard has photographed more though.

2. Pete Yantzer (CEO of AGS). In one of his most recent articles "The Optical Design of Gemstones" he discusses the interpretation of the blacks and the reds as observed under the FireScope. Artile can be found on the MSU site. http://www.cutstudy.com/cut/english/optical/index.htm

3. Our own Garry Holloway.

4. Moscow State University. Serg and Yuri, while I'm not sure of how long or if they actually have a FireScope the software they developed portrays with great accuracy what is observed under it. Observing the virtual models produced by the Octonus software also demonstrates with great accuracy what just about all of us agree upon (which I'll get to in a sec).

5. Hehe... I know I said 4 but if I had to include a 5th it'd be lil ol me.

What 4 of the 5 agree upon without question is the interpretation of the blacks (Gary has a slightly differing opinion from what I understand, WHICH I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE). But what we 4 do agree upon (and the MSU software also demonstrates) is that the areas observed under red reflector technology are those facets within the diamond that are exhibiting reflections within the diamond that exit the crown at what would be considered the "high angles" ie. directly in your face.

Here is the quote from the "Optical" article. "Under a Firescope, light leakage through the pavilion appears white and high angles appear black."

So if we are to take the experience and research of those who are familiar with the instrument and the information it is presenting to us we can only arrive at one of 2 conclusions regarding the image portrayed here.

1. Either the device is giving bogus information. or

2. The lack of blacks in the arrow heads indicate a serious reduction in light exiting at high angles thus reducing fire.
The whites under the table and also in the arrow shafts are notable points of leakage.

On a more positive note the elimination of white around the girdle perimeter indicate to me that the upper girdle angles are in the neighborhood
of around 36-39 degrees thus eliminating leakage in those areas (see our tutorial on the minor facets for further explanation).

When I commented on the image in the other thread I was not aware that it was taken by WF. Let me state in terms that are as clear as I can make them that I do not question or doubt the integrity of WF or Brian or Lesley. They are personal friends of mine. Knowing them and also you sharing the Sarin dimensions of your stone I think I could say that option #1 above is the case although I do not personally guarantee anything I do not personally inspect. When I come onto the forums my goal is to share, help and comment in an unbiased manner so what I have said, I say with all my experience using the device and photography I have taken under it. Many times I refrain becuase I don't want to appear as being too critical but this image really caught my attention and if we are to take into account all prior research then it would be wrong for me not to comment because this image, if we are to take it's results seriously, show a diamond that is among the worst of H&A's. I do not believe this is the case but that the device is seriously lacking in design and especially in the information it is providing.

Brian... Lesley... as a friend, my advice would be to ditch that lens and find a better alternative. If people are to go on the prior research of all who are experienced in this technology those images do a terrible job of representing your product. Please do not take my criticism personally. I only think the best of you guys.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This stone is clearly one of Brian's special tweaked stones poorly photographed with very strong light.
it will be one of the most amazing stones you have sen and has no proportion problems.

I feel bad that we have taken so long to complete a projet that has just kept growing and growing.

A phototgraphic system that is consistant no matter who uses it. And it automatically exposes, focuses files to 2directory's, makes 300 and 72 dpi versions and crops to size. The stone holder trays are all the same.

So far Sergey's software team have spent +20 days writting canon G2 controling code.

I hope we finish it soon - but vacations held us up for 1 month.

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 1/25/2004 4:08:11 PM Cut Nut wrote:





I hope we finish it soon - but vacations held us up for 1 month.
----------------

Who approved those?!

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 1/25/2004 4:08:11 PM Cut Nut wrote:



A phototgraphic system that is consistant no matter who uses it. [...]
So far Sergey's software team have spent +20 days writting canon G2 controling code.
----------------

The logical next step! best of luck with the "ever growing" project?

Who would complain of it !?

 

[BWise]

I am no expert on idealscope - but I agree the lighting in the picture looked too bright. The only thing I can learn from the image (again with my limited idealscope experience) was that the light return was even.

Anyone can tell me how to take an idealscope picture? Any special equipment needed? I have bought the scope and the new lighted viewer from ideal-scope.com. My camera is Cannon G5. Thanks!