The Camera May Not Lie - But it Tells Different Truths

[psadmin]

New Article

The Camera May Not Lie - But it Tells Different Truths

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/74/1/The-Camera-May-Not-Lie---But-it-Tells-Different-Truths-.aspx

Thank You Wink for an excellent article!

 

[strmrdr]

Wink,
You need to set a manual white balance on the Nikon.
The WB changed with the aperture change.

 

[strmrdr]

"In closing, I would simply counsel you to remember that “real-world” photos and videos are useful, but not absolute as purchase-decision makers. They can to help you decide which diamonds you may wish to see live with your eyes, but it is YOUR eyes and not the camera’s that must be happy when the deal is done. To that end the camera may never lie, but it tells different truths."

That is 100% true.

But the "truths" the pictures and videos tell may be the most important factor in a decision to buy a particular diamond online for many people.
Also a photo tells a different story depending on the viewer.
Some will say that looks neat.
Some will say nice arrows/patterns.
Some will use it to look for face up optical symmetry, contrast patterns, if there is under table leakage, table size, lgf%, if painting or digging is present and how much, look for inclusions, star length, and if the upper girdle angles are off and many more things.
Nothing available will give you that much information quickly other than a good photo.
IS/ASET photos make it easier to see but the data is there in a good regular photo also.

But some of the best looking diamond photos are also the least useful for telling anything about a diamond so we have came back full circle to what you wrote.
Interesting topic.

 

[Indira-London]

Date: 6/10/2009 3:18:19 AM
Author: strmrdr
''In closing, I would simply counsel you to remember that “real-world” photos and videos are useful, but not absolute as purchase-decision makers. They can to help you decide which diamonds you may wish to see live with your eyes, but it is YOUR eyes and not the camera’s that must be happy when the deal is done. To that end the camera may never lie, but it tells different truths.''

That is 100% true.

But the ''truths'' the pictures and videos tell may be the most important factor in a decision to buy a particular diamond online for many people.
Also a photo tells a different story depending on the viewer.
Some will say that looks neat.
Some will say nice arrows/patterns.
Some will use it to look for face up optical symmetry, contrast patterns, if there is under table leakage, table size, lgf%, if painting or digging is present and how much, look for inclusions, star length, and if the upper girdle angles are off and many more things.
Nothing available will give you that much information quickly other than a good photo.
IS/ASET photos make it easier to see but the data is there in a good regular photo also.

But some of the best looking diamond photos are also the least useful for telling anything about a diamond so we have came back full circle to what you wrote.
Interesting topic.

Bravo Wink for a very interesting and very useful article. Good commenst from Storm too.

As someone who prefers to sell via showing the diamonds in person, I welcome this article for setting the record straight that not all photos are equal and that photos alone should not be used to decide for or against a diamond though they are a useful input in the absence of seeing the diamond.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/10/2009 3:18:19 AM
Author: strmrdr
''In closing, I would simply counsel you to remember that “real-world” photos and videos are useful, but not absolute as purchase-decision makers. They can to help you decide which diamonds you may wish to see live with your eyes, but it is YOUR eyes and not the camera’s that must be happy when the deal is done. To that end the camera may never lie, but it tells different truths.''

That is 100% true.

But the ''truths'' the pictures and videos tell may be the most important factor in a decision to buy a particular diamond online for many people.
Also a photo tells a different story depending on the viewer.
Some will say that looks neat.
Some will say nice arrows/patterns.
Some will use it to look for face up optical symmetry, contrast patterns, if there is under table leakage, table size, lgf%, if painting or digging is present and how much, look for inclusions, star length, and if the upper girdle angles are off and many more things.
Nothing available will give you that much information quickly other than a good photo.
IS/ASET photos make it easier to see but the data is there in a good regular photo also.

But some of the best looking diamond photos are also the least useful for telling anything about a diamond so we have came back full circle to what you wrote.
Interesting topic.

Thanks Storm. imagine what I could have done were I a good enough photographer to set a white balance. You say that above as if I had a clue how to do it. I must admit my passion runs to diamonds and gems, not to photography. I will be taking my camera to Antwerp next week, perhaps Jerg (The Infinity web guy) can teach me some better techniques.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/10/2009 5:32:55 AM
Author: Indira-London

Date: 6/10/2009 3:18:19 AM
Author: strmrdr
''In closing, I would simply counsel you to remember that “real-world” photos and videos are useful, but not absolute as purchase-decision makers. They can to help you decide which diamonds you may wish to see live with your eyes, but it is YOUR eyes and not the camera’s that must be happy when the deal is done. To that end the camera may never lie, but it tells different truths.''

That is 100% true.

But the ''truths'' the pictures and videos tell may be the most important factor in a decision to buy a particular diamond online for many people.
Also a photo tells a different story depending on the viewer.
Some will say that looks neat.
Some will say nice arrows/patterns.
Some will use it to look for face up optical symmetry, contrast patterns, if there is under table leakage, table size, lgf%, if painting or digging is present and how much, look for inclusions, star length, and if the upper girdle angles are off and many more things.
Nothing available will give you that much information quickly other than a good photo.
IS/ASET photos make it easier to see but the data is there in a good regular photo also.

But some of the best looking diamond photos are also the least useful for telling anything about a diamond so we have came back full circle to what you wrote.
Interesting topic.

Bravo Wink for a very interesting and very useful article. Good commenst from Storm too.

As someone who prefers to sell via showing the diamonds in person, I welcome this article for setting the record straight that not all photos are equal and that photos alone should not be used to decide for or against a diamond though they are a useful input in the absence of seeing the diamond.

Good morning Indira, thank you for the nice comments.

I too love selling in person, but the reality these days is that I sell much more over the net than through my office here in Boise. Over the years I have taken many many photos, and sometimes when I look at the photo compared to the view in real life I am surprised that I have ever sold anything from a photo.

Now with better cameras and somewhat better skills I am able to take photos that look much nicer, yet still do not show the true personality of the gems I am attempting to show. Still, the photos and videos are an incredible tool that allow me to share my joy in my stones.

Still, I worry that they will be perceived of as the total truth of the gem in question, when the obvious answer is NO! The photos and videos are the truth, from that angle, in that lighting with that aperture and as Storm has pointed out, with that white balance (or lack thereof).

I take photos as close to what I am seeing as I can, yet the visual is never quite the same, especially in a still. That large yellow flash is gorgeous, but I have never been able to hold a diamond still enough to gaze upon such a flash for more than a millisecond, far too short a time to ever enjoy it as I did in the photo in the article.

Anyway, I am just starting my day as you are nearing the close of yours. I wish you were going to be in Antwerp next week, it would be fun to meet you in person.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/10/2009 7:54:45 AM
Author: Wink

Thanks Storm. imagine what I could have done were I a good enough photographer to set a white balance. You say that above as if I had a clue how to do it. I must admit my passion runs to diamonds and gems, not to photography. I will be taking my camera to Antwerp next week, perhaps Jerg (The Infinity web guy) can teach me some better techniques.


Wink

I hope that he can, you will be amazed at the difference taking control of your camera can make.

 

[Judah Gutwein]

Wink,

Thanks for that article.

I would just respectfully suggest that you do not actually prove your own points based on the ensuing photographs which you provided. The provided photos do not lend additional credence to your thoughtful article and it appears by your own admission when you write:

"Thanks Storm. imagine what I could have done were I a good enough photographer to set a white balance. You say that above as if I had a clue how to do it. I must admit my passion runs to diamonds and gems, not to photography".

The salient point to consider here,is that perhaps a camera can indeed be made to tell the truth and only ONE truth all of the time. I submit that this can be done if the photographer would always consider, properly capture and subsequently articulate to the consumer/viewer the natural reaction of the diamond to a specific lighting environment and not the diamonds improper and unnatural reaction to a distorted, artificial and 'virtual' lighting environment, created by the disconnect between the camers settings and the surrounding environment.

In other words, the fact that you can derive different results and different 'looking' photos for the very same diamond, does not have to mean that the "camera is telling a different truth", it could simply mean that the camera is blatantly lying as a result of an improperly captured photograph.

A camera can indeed tell different truths when photographs are taken correctly under uniquely different lighting conditions (.."uniquely different" ...is probably redundant.

). However, when this is not the case, there is NO truth whatsoever, it is all misrepresentations..

 

[Todd Gray]

I interpret the title "The Camera May Not Lie - But it Tells Different Truths" in combination with the insight provided by Wink's article as a way of pointing out that a photograph is not an absolute way to judge the visual performance of a diamond online or necessarily obtain clear insight into the inclusions within the diamond. Wink takes an interesting approach to explaining this by sharing his personal experience trying to master the art of photographing diamonds both externally and internally. Something of an art which I think every one of us marketing diamonds via the internet is trying to master and continually improve upon.

The photographs contained within the article certainly do lend credence to the point that Wink is trying to make, he is demonstrating how camera quality and operator skill impact the quality of the picture and the viewers ability to identify the characteristics within a diamond.

Personally I've noticed that a lot of factors contribute to the quality of the clarity photographs that I take including the time of day and how much light is present in the room - even when the room is basically dark, because there is always ambient light creeping into the room from somewhere and that light finds its way into the diamond and effects the way the camera lens interprets the subject, which ultimately affects the photograph.

I once spoke with a professional photographer who shot the cover photo for the phamphlet of a well known brand of Hearts & Arrows diamond, the photograph was spectacular and the diamond out performed anything I had ever seen in real life. I asked the photographer how he did the shot and he informed me that it was a combination of 13 images which were overlain on top of one another and that they had directed several pen lights at the diamond from different angles for each shot... A perfect photo. A perfect fraud. I take a lot of photographs that are not diamond related, I like to play with filters and tweak things in photo shop and as a result I'm pretty good at looking at a photograph and figuring out what was tweaked where and how the shot was created - it takes all the fun out of the Sports Illustrated Swim Suit edition.

I think the point to be made here is that the clarity photographs provided by vendors should be used by consumers as merely a reference to the inclusions within the diamond and not as some sort of indication of what the diamond will look like in real life. Suffice to say that it is impossible to detect the body color of a diamond from a photograph online even if the camera is perfectly calibrated, the fact is that the average computer monitor is limited to 70 dots per inch and I'd be amazed if 1% of online diamond buyers have calibrated their monitor to correspond with Adobe Photoshop and the like.

Hey Wink, I can't believe you didn't say something like "A diamond can't Wink at you from a photograph or a computer monitor, it has to Wink at you in real life... High Performance Diamonds - Wink!" ha, ha!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/10/2009 10:57:44 AM
Author: Judah Gutwein
Wink,

Thanks for that article.

I would just respectfully suggest that you do not actually prove your own points based on the ensuing photographs which you provided. The provided photos do not lend additional credence to your thoughtful article and it appears by your own admission when you write:

''Thanks Storm. imagine what I could have done were I a good enough photographer to set a white balance. You say that above as if I had a clue how to do it. I must admit my passion runs to diamonds and gems, not to photography''.

The salient point to consider here,is that perhaps a camera can indeed be made to tell the truth and only ONE truth all of the time. I submit that this can be done if the photographer would always consider, properly capture and subsequently articulate to the consumer/viewer the natural reaction of the diamond to a specific lighting environment and not the diamonds improper and unnatural reaction to a distorted, artificial and ''virtual'' lighting environment, created by the disconnect between the camers settings and the surrounding environment.

In other words, the fact that you can derive different results and different ''looking'' photos for the very same diamond, does not have to mean that the ''camera is telling a different truth'', it could simply mean that the camera is blatantly lying as a result of an improperly captured photograph.

A camera can indeed tell different truths when photographs are taken correctly under uniquely different lighting conditions (..''uniquely different'' ...is probably redundant.

). However, when this is not the case, there is NO truth whatsoever, it is all misrepresentations..

If you watched the video then you saw the same diamond under the same lighting conditions look like three different diamonds. Which was "the truth".

If you looked at the photos you saw the same diamond shot with two different cameras looking entirely different when with five of the photos all that was changed was the aperture of the camera. I do not see any disconnect or improper or unnatural reaction there at all. You could send me all of the most detailed instructions in the world and I could use your identicle light source and placement of the diamond and we would still get different results, as unless you had a mechanical arm to insure facet by facet placement exactly as you shot it then we are still going to get a slightly different look.

We both know that is not possible to prevent. Consider also that any still picture is going to be static and thus will not capture the scintillation that makes a diamond exciting, no matter how good it is. Now add in the FACT that my photography skills are never going to match those of a professional and you have now prooved the point of my article, that photos can be a great tool, but they can not be a replacement for looking at the diamond with your own eyes. (And that is before we take into consideration the things a pro can do to make a picture look even better than the actual diamond, further making it necessary to look with the eyes.)

I totally discount your comment that if I am not a perfect photographer that there is no truth what so ever. I constantly strive to take the best photos that I can, and when I believe that the photo does not show what I am seeing, especially in my videos, I will comment right during the presentation on how it differers. My point was definitely NOT that I am a good photographer, it was, continues to be, and will be true long after I have passed, that photos are a tool, nothing more and nothing less!

Wink

P.S. When I come back from Belgium I will still not be a professional photographer, but I will know how to set a white balance and I will bet HUGE sums of money that I can have the diamond be color balanced, white balanced, what ever and STILL make them look completely different by changing the aperture of the camera. Which look will be the truth? All of them? None of them? Any of them?

 

[Judah Gutwein]

I believe you are attributing unwarranted 'intent' to my points above and placing special emphasis on this inference in order to "discount my own comments".

It would have been petty and unfair for me to attempt to paint you as a simply 'bad photographer', just as it is petty and unfair of you to read and excerpt as much from my posting. I was doing no such thing and neither should you. Instead, I expressed appreciation for your "thoughtful" article.

My point was and still is (I believe Storm made this point as well, which I quoted and which you actually responded to earlier) that the title is IMO a bit of a misnomer and that your provided pictures (IMO) does not serve to further support your already valid points and cogent argument, plain and simple.

Nobody (certainly not me) is arguing the point that photos cannot do adequate justice in accurately mimicking reality in all instances. This point has been made countless times by myself and others. We are also all in agreement as to the vital role of photos for online shoppers.

 

[strmrdr]

Pictures and videos when done in a consistent manner give more information to people who are familiar with them and have compared them to other information.
They are a tool as Wink says, a very important one.

The level of information available in them will vary a lot.
or to use Wink''s term:
The level of "truth" they tell will contain will vary a lot from picture to picture and vendor to vendor and viewer to viewer.
Some of the best looking pictures are also the least informative.

For example I get asked from time to time how did you get that information from that picture.
When I add arrows and explain it some will say I still don''t see it, others will say oh I see it now.

 

[Judah Gutwein]

edited***

edited to simply concur with above and with no interest to beat a dead horse

I already made my points and this (my) last one didn't add any value IMO

Suffice to say, there was one point Wink mentioned earlier which I think deserves highlighting.
That is, the fact that pictures are static and diamonds worn on a finger are not. This consideration alone warrants the entirety of this article.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/11/2009 11:44:15 AM
Author: Judah Gutwein
edited***

edited to simply concur with above and with no interest to beat a dead horse

I already made my points and this (my) last one didn''t add any value IMO

Suffice to say, there was one point Wink mentioned earlier which I think deserves highlighting.
That is, the fact that pictures are static and diamonds worn on a finger are not. This consideration alone warrants the entirety of this article.

Highlighted and agreed with.

Wink

 

[John P]

For the record: Minus some minutia I don’t see significant dissention in the comments here.

I see agreement that pictures are an important tool but not absolute. I also see the suggestion that methods can be employed to make things more (or less) consistent. I don’t think those sentiments are in discord.

On another note, wouldn’t it be nice if eBay published a link to this discussion?

Thanks for taking the time to produce the media and write the article Wink.

 

[Todd Gray]

Date: 6/11/2009 1:41:23 PM
Author: John Pollard

On another note, wouldn’t it be nice if eBay published a link to this discussion?

Did Hell freeze over?!?!

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/11/2009 11:44:15 AM
Author: Judah Gutwein
edited***

edited to simply concur with above and with no interest to beat a dead horse

I already made my points and this (my) last one didn''t add any value IMO

Suffice to say, there was one point Wink mentioned earlier which I think deserves highlighting.
That is, the fact that pictures are static and diamonds worn on a finger are not. This consideration alone warrants the entirety of this article.

Actually I am sorry you edited your post. In this comment, which I received in my email notification that a post had been made, "If I understand the premise of this article which essentially points out the fact that pictures do not necessarily prove a finite truth (for whatever the reasons..), then by definition and extension, how can you possibly prove this case by use of images and certainly when those images have admitted flaws?" (Emphasis mine).

Now I see and understand what you were saying when you first responded. I am thinking that absolutely the images prove my point and you are agreeing that I have a valid point and I can not prove an absolute with an insufficient photo. I think I am perhaps looking a little less complexly at this and that we pretty much agree and at worst we have a small dissagreement in semantics.

I apologise for taking umbrage at what I thought you were saying when I did not truly understand what you were actually saying.

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

Excellent article Wink, and interesting discussion.
I think Judah makes some very good points.
Realism in photography is generally, in my eyes, a good thing.
Be it a diamond, car, or anything I am going to consider buying.

it's really part and parcel of taking photos- the difference from being a photographer, or just a picture taker.

For sure, the clinical photos of diamonds serve a great purpose.
Especially when combined with ASET and IS images. This is especially true for buyers looking for stones with hearts and arrows patterns.

There's a totally different set of considerations when representing fancy shaped diamonds- and even more so for fancy colored diamonds.

It will always come down to preference.
Some want the clinical type of representation- while others would like a photographer to use the best means to transmit what they see.

 

[T L]

If you think it's difficult to get the full truth with pictures of colorless or near colorless diamonds, then talk about colored gems. OMG, I wish someone would write an article on that!! Vendors have the most difficult time trying to convey color properly, and since many colored gems shift color in various lighting, that adds to the level of complexity in capturing the true color digitally.

 

[WinkHPD]

So true! Not only do many of them shift shades and intensities in different lighting, but some of them, especially those colored with agents like chromium, are just plain bashful about showing well in a photo.

One of the most beautiful chrome tourmalines I ever owned was photographed by three separate professional photographers, not one of them could get a photo that did not look like a brown lump rather than the radiant green that the stone actually appeared to the eye.

This was long before digital photography, I would that I had it now to try again...

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

I agree guys- colored Gemstones are near impossible to capture realistically.

But natural colored diamonds are completely different.
Where the light seems to get..."clogged up" in an emerald Ruby or Sapphire- or tourmaline, a natural diamond- in almost any natural color- really allows a lot of light to be used in the taking of photos, without looking dull.
Rubies, in particular seem impossible to capture.
A wonderfully translucent ruby turns opaque when you hit it with enough light to take a close up.......

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/29/2009 12:56:07 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I agree guys- colored Gemstones are near impossible to capture realistically.

But natural colored diamonds are completely different.
Where the light seems to get...''clogged up'' in an emerald Ruby or Sapphire- or tourmaline, a natural diamond- in almost any natural color- really allows a lot of light to be used in the taking of photos, without looking dull.
Rubies, in particular seem impossible to capture.
A wonderfully translucent ruby turns opaque when you hit it with enough light to take a close up.......

David I spent some time with sergey and our associate Janak recently.
We are working on a light box and photgraphic system, which like everything Sergey does will be the new state of the art.
Attached is an image from a recent shot of a nice yellow diamond (that was cut using DiamCalcColor and Helium - a contract cutting service that Janak is running very successfully in Surat).
This is one shot from a video.
What you will find interesting, and I owe you an apology for, is that my first impression is that the back ground shows the image has been photoshopped. Sergey has explained to me that if the white balance is adjusted to make the background white or light grey, the color of the diamond will go greenish yellow and not the representation that is accurate for this stone (which is GIA Vivid).

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Garry,
Does this mean we will be going for that beer next time you''re in New York!

I hope so as I accept your apoogy, and also want to say that I welcome the opportunity to find that we do, in fact, have some common ground.

The photo you mentioned did not appear in the post though...I''d LOVE to see it!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/1/2009 1:38:25 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI Garry,
Does this mean we will be going for that beer next time you''re in New York!

I hope so as I accept your apoogy, and also want to say that I welcome the opportunity to find that we do, in fact, have some common ground.

The photo you mentioned did not appear in the post though...I''d LOVE to see it!

Oops, sorry.
This is one of a series from a video.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Garry,
I LOVE LOVE LOVE the cut of that stone- it looks gorgeous.
Buuut... I was honestly dissapointed at the hue- it looks a little brown.,
Here's a photo I recently took of a vivid yellow cushion

 

[T L]

Here's a vivid yellow that Moh_10 (a PS'er) took at the GIA museum.

Here's the thread with some nice shots. Some capture the gems pretty well, except for the ruby necklace.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/i-went-to-the-gia-today-p.118997/

 

[strmrdr]

colored diamonds and gemstones are another kettle of fish.
I really feel sorry for vendors of them because no matter what they do current technology guarantees that what they see is not what the customer will see on their monitor.

 

[Serg]

Date: 7/1/2009 6:15:19 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI Garry,

I LOVE LOVE LOVE the cut of that stone- it looks gorgeous.

Buuut... I was honestly dissapointed at the hue- it looks a little brown.,

Here''s a photo I recently took of a vivid yellow cushion

re:I was honestly dissapointed at the hue- it looks a little brown.

Do you like green hue for same diamond? I did not use Photoshop


You can see full movies for this diamond here

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 7/2/2009 5:47:27 AM
Author: strmrdr
colored diamonds and gemstones are another kettle of fish.
I really feel sorry for vendors of them because no matter what they do current technology guarantees that what they see is not what the customer will see on their monitor.

It''s so good to have you feel our pain Storm..heheheh

But actually, although there is no guarantee, it''s quite possible to create a fair representation.

We have to keep in mind that the diamonds themselves will look different based on the viewing conditions- so there will never be an "exact" photo- of anything for that matter.
AS Serg points out, you can take a photo of a vivid yellow that makes it look green- or brown. Without question it''s possible to have photos that are either not representative, or flat out deceptive.

Yet, if the goal is accurate representation, then it''s possible to pick a photo- or series of photos that is representative.

Yes, computer screens vary, but we all have some sort of "color reference" built into our perception.
If our computer screen was way off, it would be easy to see that looking at other things on the screen which are familiar to us,
Like skin tones, for example.
So, although photographing diamonds is never going to be an exact science, our experience is that it''s possible to give an adequate representation of a colored diamond with a photo or series of photos.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Serg- I did not see a movie at the link- rather a series of photos.
Additionally, the stone is identified as "Fancy Yellow"- which is a leap from "Fancy Vivid Yellow"

Here''s a photo showing the shade of a Fancy Yellow.