Which type of Picture is more useful to you?

[WinkHPD]

I was showing this Picture to Ana and she sent me the following picture.

Which type of picture do you find most useful in looking at someones site?

Why?

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Here is the one she sent me

 

[noobie]

Wink,




Sorry, but I prefer AnA's. Ilike the 3D pictures because it gives a feel for what I would see in a store. I'm not as big a fan of the diffuse light 2D one becasue I find inclusions are hard to see. I much prefer darkfield shots for inclusions and a real photo if they are not white. To see H&A patterns the viwer shot is the best and of course the firscope or idealscope is very handy. Let me see if I can dig up some old ones that highly helped in my purchase decision.

 

[ep6585]

I like them all for different reasons. The picture from the side was nice. It's a pic you don't often see on websites.

 

[glitterata]

I very much dislike the photoshopped shadow added to the first set of images. It makes the pictures look fake.

I like the 3D pictures Ana sent, but it would also be nice to see an idealscope view to get a clear sense of the symmetry and arrows pattern (if any).

Most onlline vendors don't include a side view, but I like the idea. After all, we do look at the side views of our diamonds in real life.

 

[Diamondsbybree]

More detail in #2.

 

[questionsRus]

i personally like all of them together. Some sites don't offer you a very good visual of what a diamond looks like. For instance, blue nile offers a top view and a side view only, dirt cheap diamonds offers a top view, whiteflash also shows a semi top view, and diamonds.com shows a fairly small picture for each diamond. Obviously, all of these vendors will supply you with more pictures if asked. Three that do a really good job of having pictures for all their diamonds are dirt cheap, gold old gold, superbcert. of course, there are others, but those are the first three that come to mind. I also like your 3d models wink. that's about all i have to say, hopefully this was helpful.

 

[strmrdr]

The most usefull ones to me are the darkfield inclusion pictures that GOG and niceice have up.
Next is the h&a pictures
Next is the red-scope pictures.

Very very importaant is full sarin data.

The full on pictures like the very top one I find less than usefull because the focal lenth can hide inclusions but some people like them.
They are more usefull on asschers to see if the diamond has the 10 mile deep look.
On rounds they are pretty much useless.

Lay off the photoshop the quickest way to lose a good reputation is to doctor images and get caught.
Contrast and brightness adjustments are ok except on iscope images.
Any other filters are a huge NO NO in my book.

 

[WinkHPD]

As for the photoshop,

When I take a photo I separate the stone from the background because it is inside a photo dome and the stone tray is very unnattractive. Then if I do not add a drop shadow it looks very flat. I do no other adjusting. If I did I would take out the horrible yellow tint that my lighting adds to the stone...

10k worth of photo equipment and I still get lousy photos... Sheesh!

I do have a call in to Dave Atlas scheduled on my calendar for tomorrow to order one of Gary holloway's light sources so that I can get better Ideal Scope pictures.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

P.S. Keep those answers coming, this is very illuminating.

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 7/15/2004 11:31:30 PM Wink wrote:

As for the photoshop,


When I take a photo I separate the stone from the background because it is inside a photo dome and the stone tray is very unnattractive. Then if I do not add a drop shadow it looks very flat. I do no other adjusting. If I did I would take out the horrible yellow tint that my lighting adds to the stone...


10k worth of photo equipment and I still get lousy photos... Sheesh!


I do have a call in to Dave Atlas scheduled on my calendar for tomorrow to order one of Gary holloway's light sources so that I can get better Ideal Scope pictures.


Wink----------------

If the shadow is not eye visible on the article at the time the photo is taken its image doctoring.
Thats my bottom line :}

As far as removing the background id rather see it in there it gives a reference and often a lot can be told about the lighting by the looks of the background.
Im not as fussy about this one though but id rather see it as shot as much as possible.

 

[chrono]

I agree with Strmrdr. Here's what I'd like to see:
1. Darkfield inclusion pictures
2. H&A pictures
3. Red-scope pictures.
4. Sarin data.
5. A true life picture of the diamond (as I would see it in a B&M)

So in short, I vote for AnA's pictures.

 

[fire&ice]

A caveat - I'm not a big fan of looking at pics of diamonds. I prefer the dealer to describe the stone. Also, one comment - it would be helpful if the vendor can somehow show the inclusions - specifically for a SI stones.

That said, Ana's told me more about the stone - I think.

 

[Hest88]

Ana's. Not only does it give me more info, but it gives me a much better sense of what the stone would look like to my eye. Also, Ana's pictures would appeal not only to cut geeks like us, who know what all those fancy tools do, but also to some casual buyer who just wants to get a stone that looks good.

 

[WinkHPD]

Which is why I ask questions. I rarely seem to get it right when I think I know what people want.

Back to the drawing board on photos! I shall have to learn to do better pictures and maybe also I shall have to spend the time to do some through the microscope photo's for better illumination of the inclusions.

Thank goodness I asked before I spent the ten or fifteen hours I was planning to spend this weekend doing photos of all of my diamonds!

I wish the company that does Paul Slegers diamonds was here in the states, here is what you get to see with each of his stones. You may have to accept a plug in to see every thing, but it is awesome information!

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

So, is this type of picture more in line with what you want? Obviously not all three will be jammed into one from like this...

 

[Hest88]

Sure Wink, but the pictures have got to be really high quality. Basically what I'd like to see is something like Jonathan's, but with the addition of a real photo as well. (My only gripe about his site is that I can't tell what the real diamonds actually look like.)

 

[strmrdr]

The last set looks good to me.
The inclusion pic looks very yellow are you picking up some color from the surroundings? tinted light?

 

[get_cut_not_ripped]

Those last pics look great, and would be perfect in addition to the other info provided. One side note: on the pavilion photo, might want to get the camera more level with the diamond, it looks as though it's shot from a slight angle

 

[WinkHPD]

Re the yellow,

Yes, the lighting in my microscope is NOT daylight, but incandescent dark field illumination. It will impart yellow to the stone unless I photoshop it, and I already know what y'all think about that!

Wink

P.S. The pavilion shot is at a slight angle, that is all the further down the armature on my photodome will take the camera. If I tilt the platform the diamond slides off. Life is FULL of little challenges...

 

[WinkHPD]

Warning, the bottom photo has been desaturated! Does this look better? Is it allowable? Perspiring minds want to know.

Wink

P.S. Desaturated means that all color has been removed. No other enhancement has been done.

 

[strmrdr]

Wink, on the inclusion pics i wouldnt have a problem with it.
As long as you dont go so far that it changes dark inclusions to light ones.

like i said up above sight adjustments for clarity are ok just dont add anything that isnt there allready and try to stay as close to the real thing as possible.

 

[strmrdr]

also see if ge reveal lightbulbs are made in the size it uses it will take a ton of the yellow light tint away.
They are white enough that some pro photgraphers i know are using them in place of the more expensize bulbs for studio work when shooting digital.

 

[quaeritur]

----------------
On 7/16/2004 2:14:08 PM Wink wrote:

Which is why I ask questions. I rarely seem to get it right when I think I know what people want.

Back to the drawing board on photos! I shall have to learn to do better pictures and maybe also I shall have to spend the time to do some through the microscope photo's for better illumination of the inclusions.

Thank goodness I asked before I spent the ten or fifteen hours I was planning to spend this weekend doing photos of all of my diamonds!

I wish the company that does Paul Slegers diamonds was here in the states, here is what you get to see with each of his stones. You may have to accept a plug in to see every thing, but it is awesome information!

Wink----------------

Wink - I really like the setup for the Venus diamonds, my only gripe is that sometimes I can't get all of the info from the same link. Sometimes the IS images are at a different URL, and that's a pain.

I have no prob with the desaturated images. Also, when shooting digital, many cameras have white balance adjustments. Even if one isn't perfectly matched to the darkfield illumination, there might be a less yellow option. I'd try all the settings and see which one looks most realistic. I agree w/strmdr about any changes - I feel they all constitute doctoring. Even if it's just removing the background. Cropping is fine by me, as long as nothing relevant is cut out. I like Ana's pics because they do give me a "feel" for the diamond. I'd suggest creating very small thumbnails, or only having links from the main diamond page, for those folks who have dial-up. I don't generally believe in catering only to the slowest common denominator, but a very clean page with only small images that are linked to full-res larger pics might be a happy compromise.

Just my $.02, and my undying gratitude for you asking the questions!

 

[strmrdr]

ge reveal lightbulb specs

most hardware stores have the common sizes and the more uncommon ones are available online from a bunch of places.

 

[WinkHPD]

RE: the reveal bulbs. I will be able to try them in my lights at the office, but my microscope takes a small bayonet type insert, not a screw in, so I am not sure that it will be available. I will look though and I thank you for the information.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

----------------
On 7/17/2004 7:00:10 PM quaeritur wrote:

----------------
Wink - I really like the setup for the Venus diamonds, my only gripe is that sometimes I can't get all of the info from the same link. Sometimes the IS images are at a different URL, and that's a pain.

----------------

That is true for the older pictures. On all of his new stones Paul was able to get them to do it all at one location, which will make it better. In a few months you will never know that the old ones existed.

Wink

 

[kevinng]

I tried some lightscope picture taking myself.

It's done using my old Sony 2.1MP digicam.
The picture look grainy because the camera cannot take micro shots at that distance. Guess I'll need a better camera with a micro lens to do a better job.

Anyway... if I have to do it more often, I'd invest more in it.

 

[kevinng]

It was done using this setup. Haha!

 

[kevinng]

This one is done by Jon from GOG, whom I bought the diamond from.
Well... I guess it shows pretty clearly that it's the same diamond.