- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
would it be better for GIA/AGS to use photos to show inclusions...
- Thread starter Dancing Fire
- Start date
- Status
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 13,350
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2009
- Messages
- 9,845
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
Given a choice (choose one) would you prefer a street map or an aerial photograph? The map is better for some things, the photograph better for others. I believe for a diamond report something like the street map is far more useful than than the aerial photograph.
Now, you said "to show inclusions". I''d certainly like to see the outline on the reports, whether from a photo or based on the scan. And crown and pavilion heights. It would be technically feasible for the plot diagram to represent the actual stone based on Sarin data. But this is unrelated to your original question.
Now, you said "to show inclusions". I''d certainly like to see the outline on the reports, whether from a photo or based on the scan. And crown and pavilion heights. It would be technically feasible for the plot diagram to represent the actual stone based on Sarin data. But this is unrelated to your original question.
Tuckins1
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2008
- Messages
- 8,614
elmo
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2003
- Messages
- 1,160
But the original question was only about inclusions. I think in the context of a lab report, specifically to show inclusions, photographs would effectively be useless. The plot isn't meant to stand alone - it's supposed to be used in conjunction with a loupe and/or microscope, and you're supposed to know how to use them.
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
In the basic sense I'm with Elmo. Anyone who has an iPhone (or top-shelf contender) knows the difference between 'map' and 'satellite' views in the maps function. Without an overlay the satellite view, though real, can be tricky to interpret. When I think of the crazy-different appearances feathers or crystals can take on with little or no difference in implication it's probably better to have the plot, at least for the uninitiated.
A major obstacle would be focal depth. One shot will not put everything in-focus. Do you concentrate on the primary-only, leaving the other characteristics blurry? Providing separate photos for each inclusion would demand more time for lower-clarities (and bumping the prices on those reports up would not be cost-effective). It also risks putting them more out-of-context. Some dealers already feel plots make clarity appear worse than it is. That's one reason dossier reports are available in common sizes. Those feelings could be amplified if a photo were included. I'm not against it, but we must be mindful that the average joe doesn't 'get into this' as much as we might like to, and that's who most of the trade serves. For those who really desire this there are dealers and appraisers who provide the service now.
If the focal depth issue can be resolved maybe a lab will begin offering a service like this. AGSL is putting the diamond's ASET image on their new light performance reports. Going back to iPhone, maybe a hybrid view for clarity could be attempted.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 13,350
When I see an online diamond for sale I look at the plot and then look for the 40X magnification photo to see if I can see the inclusions. Many times when someone asks what we all think of a stone we tell them to see if it is "eyeclean" Having the plot to find the inclusions and then the 10-40X photo answers that question most of the time for me.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Thinking about this is it a case of gemological tool VS diamond id tool.
A photo would make a much better identification tool and a plot a gemological tool.
I feel the average consumer would be better served by a identification tool than a gemological tool.
It is much easier to id your diamond from a photo than from a plot.
As far as the dof issue goes as long as the consumer with a 10x or 20x loupe can verify one inclusion from the photo it will do what it needs to do.
A photo would make a much better identification tool and a plot a gemological tool.
I feel the average consumer would be better served by a identification tool than a gemological tool.
It is much easier to id your diamond from a photo than from a plot.
As far as the dof issue goes as long as the consumer with a 10x or 20x loupe can verify one inclusion from the photo it will do what it needs to do.
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
You're arguing from a PS perspective though. Jump into the mainstream...do you think grading reports are actually viewed as gemological tools by sellers? Not in the most common cases. I see reports used as a way to justify pricing. That's why different labs of different strictnesses and levels of disclosure are chosen to grade diamond X or Y versus Z.
I do hear where you're coming from. Most consumers believe they are gemological tools - and an argument can be made that those from certain labs with high standards & consistency serve that purpose. The problem is the lack of transparency about differing standards. I think you'll agree that many reports floating around are not shining examples of gemological precision or thoroughness. So why use them? To set pricing, not for gemological accuracy.
This is a reason I, and many colleagues, disapprove of telling a buyer the diamond comes with a "certificate." This sounds like a guarantee but most reports, even from top labs, state that they are not guarantees right there on the document (see bottom right). To "certify" something implies, to me, that regulated standards are in use. It's easy to see how a casual shopper would presume that too when, in fact, there is no regulation.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Most buyers in a b&m will never look at the report, unless the seller points something out on it.
It gets put in the closet with the rest of the important papers and never sees the light of day again.
Part of that is that the plot if present is not readily usable by a consumer.
So the report says it has a feather, what is a feather and why do I want to learn this?
With a photo one can say look for this.
I feel a photo on the report and teaching the client to id their diamond would be a tremendous value add for a b&m and the grading lab that sets their product above the rest.
Richard Sherwood
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,924
Although I offer inclusion photos in my Advanced Diamond Analysis (more expensive) reports, I attempted for a while to include them in my Comprehensive Diamond Analysis (less expensive) reports.
Inclusion photography is difficult to master and very time consuming. The depth of field problem John mentioned is a real bear. Proper lighting is also tricky. On many stones you can spend an easy half hour, sometimes up to an hour adequately photographing the inclusions.
I just couldn't manage it and still keep the CDA fee reasonable. The labs can't either. They would have to charge considerably more for a report with inclusion photos.
But I agree, maybe they should offer both, and give the client the choice of whether they want to pay extra for that advanced service. I find that many of my private clients do.
Dealers (who are the majority of major lab clients) generally don't like it though. They feel magnified photos are almost "unfair" in some sense. One dealer complained to me (after doing an ADA report for my client) "Why do you show inclusions at 20 and 30 power, when a diamond grade is assigned at the 10 power viewing?" He was pissed because he lost the sale after one of my photos documented the nature of a feather which broke the surface in the upper girdle, girdle and lower girdle surfaces. I had told the client that the inclusion was a typical feather, and that the grading and pricing was correct, but they just didn't like that triple surface breaking feather.
Which is their perogative. I'd want to know all those details as well if I was shelling out thousands of dollars.
Inclusion photography is difficult to master and very time consuming. The depth of field problem John mentioned is a real bear. Proper lighting is also tricky. On many stones you can spend an easy half hour, sometimes up to an hour adequately photographing the inclusions.
I just couldn't manage it and still keep the CDA fee reasonable. The labs can't either. They would have to charge considerably more for a report with inclusion photos.
But I agree, maybe they should offer both, and give the client the choice of whether they want to pay extra for that advanced service. I find that many of my private clients do.
Dealers (who are the majority of major lab clients) generally don't like it though. They feel magnified photos are almost "unfair" in some sense. One dealer complained to me (after doing an ADA report for my client) "Why do you show inclusions at 20 and 30 power, when a diamond grade is assigned at the 10 power viewing?" He was pissed because he lost the sale after one of my photos documented the nature of a feather which broke the surface in the upper girdle, girdle and lower girdle surfaces. I had told the client that the inclusion was a typical feather, and that the grading and pricing was correct, but they just didn't like that triple surface breaking feather.
Which is their perogative. I'd want to know all those details as well if I was shelling out thousands of dollars.
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Karl,
1)please check visagem.com and https://diamonds.net/News/ExportItem.aspx?ArticleID=23873&Action=Print
2) For my Opinion Photo have a lot of disadvantages ( very costly, misleading, big size, 2D presentation is not adequate for consumer)
3) Did you see inclusion demo in DC3.2?( we have plans to add control depth of sharpness ( to model microscope view, loop, naked eye ) and smooth combination draft model and photoreal models )
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
re:For an identification aid nothing beats a photo.
Just one photo in report is not enough for identification .
if you want use just photos, you need
1) Several photos in report
2) method to receive same( similar) photos like in report
3) Instrument or expert who can compare your photos and photos in report
otherside 3d model
1) can produce any "Photo"
2) has information about position , size, type inclusion.. What do much more easy process ( software) for identification ( same in face identification. You can not create good algorithm to compare photos directly. Much better build model of face by photos and then do identification . 3d face models are giving best result for identification now. If you have 3D model in your ID card( diamond card), then identification by 1-2 photos have very good result( much better if you have just photo in your ID card)
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,745
Dear John, and some others who saw a new method to disclose inclusions with a patent pending method involving digital dispaly of inclusions. I have a video on my 3 year old phone and it is ipod friendly too. You can move the stone and see it from any angle or direction, change lighting type, and we will enable magnifiaction up to a reasonable level.
These are ''built'' not from ''A'' phtograph, but built from multiple photographs and digital data captured during the planning stages in the rough diamond prior to cutting. This process is where the profits (and losses) are made in diamond cutting - Sergey''s company OctoNus - developed amazing technology that uses up to 120X to polot inclusion placement in the rough and allow the operator to decide to cut smaller flawless diamonds or larger SI, or much bigger Imperfect stones based on their order demand or the price for goods offered to the market.
The system for clarity grading is based on that developed by HRD more than a decade ago but never implimented commercially (because logical clarity systems do not match current clarity grading systems).
Someone might be able to find some images I put up somewhere about 3 years ago describing the planning process?
Anyway, this system is close to ready now to work within Gem Adviser (GAI) and for people like most pricescopers it could be more useful, and for some even replace, current clarity grading systems.
We envisage some of the more receptive labs could adopt this technology along with their current grading standards and set the grade.
Other vendors might choose to let the buyer be-Aware. How people use new technology is up to the users (be they vendors or buyers).
Anyway I have emailed the video to Andrey.
If anyone wants their very own copy please email me
These are ''built'' not from ''A'' phtograph, but built from multiple photographs and digital data captured during the planning stages in the rough diamond prior to cutting. This process is where the profits (and losses) are made in diamond cutting - Sergey''s company OctoNus - developed amazing technology that uses up to 120X to polot inclusion placement in the rough and allow the operator to decide to cut smaller flawless diamonds or larger SI, or much bigger Imperfect stones based on their order demand or the price for goods offered to the market.
The system for clarity grading is based on that developed by HRD more than a decade ago but never implimented commercially (because logical clarity systems do not match current clarity grading systems).
Someone might be able to find some images I put up somewhere about 3 years ago describing the planning process?
Anyway, this system is close to ready now to work within Gem Adviser (GAI) and for people like most pricescopers it could be more useful, and for some even replace, current clarity grading systems.
We envisage some of the more receptive labs could adopt this technology along with their current grading standards and set the grade.
Other vendors might choose to let the buyer be-Aware. How people use new technology is up to the users (be they vendors or buyers).
Anyway I have emailed the video to Andrey.
If anyone wants their very own copy please email me
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
I agree with you on your whole opinion in 2)...
But..., "misleading and big size" are truth to a few factors/issues...
When a Diamond vendor shows or displays actual pictures of "a" Diamond on its website..., isn''t it too misleading as when comparing to the actual size?? (Even if clarity in a non-issue?)
Can a picture capture the reality play/conduct of reflection? The answer I suspect is no.
What happens when an inclusion is positioned in a way that it is reflected multiple times when observed face up IRL?
How many vendors will show these type of images containing inclusions in multiple reflections or are they going to avoid them?
Same goes the other way...., a lab may attach a non-complementing picture to its Diamond report just as it can (and does many times) attach non-complimented plots.
I believe images on Lab reports are time consuming and realy not to helpful..., but if a client prefers it..., it should be an option at an added cost.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,745
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2004
- Messages
- 5,096
True..., and I dont have a problem with it as long as it is an option for a consumer to request after completion of the sale (ID purpose?) and as an add-on cost. I believe it will be less of a Lab issue and more of a appraisal issue.
That said..., it will be "practically impossible" to be implemented before hand as each consumer would want a different focus in the image, add that to the fact that cutters will not participate as it will make sense only within the retail environment....
Am I missing something??
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,745
DG the inclusion demo is available in the latest version of DiamCalc beta3.2 available here http://www.octonus.com/oct/download/diam_demo_down.phtmlDate: 2/2/2009 6:40:03 AM
Author: DiaGem
True..., and I dont have a problem with it as long as it is an option for a consumer to request after completion of the sale (ID purpose?) and as an add-on cost. I believe it will be less of a Lab issue and more of a appraisal issue.
That said..., it will be ''practically impossible'' to be implemented before hand as each consumer would want a different focus in the image, add that to the fact that cutters will not participate as it will make sense only within the retail environment....
Am I missing something??
here is a screen print to show how to get there - Sergey had to explain to me - did not know it was there yet.
(lots of other amazing tools too, like fire stuff that shows why the intensity of fire is more important than the potential for fire).
Have a play and you can see the inclusion from any position, and its reflections. Consumers will be able to do this, but only to a certain level of magnification.
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
Garry, if you will be 'dear Johning me' please pass that bottle of wine on to Drena and Vanessa
I seem to recall this video (?) I don't find the idea surprising, as I've largely been a fan-of and have touted the Helium rough planner in past threads. Is it possible to stream it here?
Your statements are at odds with each other. As much as I like the theory I worry about the practicality for the reasons I and DG have stated above; how most sellers - not our niche group - view & use grading reports. It's not for their gemological accuracy.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
The plot may not be on the report, but it is on the in house notes that the graders made.
I do not belive that the technology is yet there for adequate photos that will show the includions accurately without making them seem huge and hideous when often they are totally invisible to the eye. John has already addressed the depth of field issues, but some inclusions will show clearly from one face up angle and disappear completely with a little tilt. (think feathers that may not show from perpendicular yet seem huge from 80 degrees.)
Wink
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Storm,
I think you make a great point here. Many plots will be similar or even inaccurate, but many inclusions will be absolutely unique, to the point even where they might be allowed in a court of law.
While I still think the use of photos on a report is not yet ready for prime time, I will acknowledge that a good photo could be proof of identity in some cases. Ironically this would be less useful for the higher quality stones as one VVS1 pinpoint might look pretty much like another in a photograph.
Wink
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,745
A few comments re some issues:
Depth of field is an issue with digital inclusions - beacuse you can see all and all reflections at once.
We have envisioned a slider or tool to enable racking up and down through the stone like a scope or louping - otherwise an SI1 could appear to look worse than a !2 under blow up size.
Wink you are right - a lot of labs do internal plot work - but it is to protect them from loosing face if the same stone comes back for grading without them knowing.
John, I dont think the is a red and green issue. Both can exist with consumers who care to find out more having additional info.
And finally - Andrey already had put the video up on the 8-8-2008 - a good date!
http://diamondscope.pricescope.com/
The 2mb email version allows you to turn the stone manually, and is clearer / bigger if anyone wants it.
Depth of field is an issue with digital inclusions - beacuse you can see all and all reflections at once.
We have envisioned a slider or tool to enable racking up and down through the stone like a scope or louping - otherwise an SI1 could appear to look worse than a !2 under blow up size.
Wink you are right - a lot of labs do internal plot work - but it is to protect them from loosing face if the same stone comes back for grading without them knowing.
John, I dont think the is a red and green issue. Both can exist with consumers who care to find out more having additional info.
And finally - Andrey already had put the video up on the 8-8-2008 - a good date!
http://diamondscope.pricescope.com/
The 2mb email version allows you to turn the stone manually, and is clearer / bigger if anyone wants it.
- Status
300x240.png)