Wow...Check Out this JA True Heart....

[sledge]

Browsing JA looking for a stone to help another user here, and came across this TH.

Mind you, search parameters were fairly tight.....AGS lab, 54-56 table, 60-62 depth, ideal/true hearts.

Imagine my surprise when I wondered on this hot mess.



Since JA switched over to their new system where they block certs, I haven't really dealt much with them so I figured it was a good opportunity to see first hand what another user might experience. So I popped open a chat window and said I was interested in the above stone (gave SKU number) and asked if they would email a cert.

Rep was friendly, and said no problem. Had it almost immediately (after I released from my junk mail).

He asked if I had any questions. I said, why so dark. He responded leakage. About this time I had gotten the cert from junk mail and popped it open. Then I spouted back the proportions to him, and said they looked so promising and I was confused how this stone could have made the TH collection. He was just as shocked and confused. Our best guess was the video was a mismatch to the actual cert and listing. He was reporting to management for further analysis and I asked him to let me know the results, which he gladly obliged to do.

I'm sure this is a fluke. Just caught me off guard is all.

On a positive note, I was glad to see the rep not try to BS me and the speed at getting me the cert.

 

[rockysalamander]

Eek. That picture and ASET do not match.

 

[OoohShiny]

Could be a videographer error, with the camera too close and therefore causing excessive obstruction? (I don't believe it's leakage!)

 

[flyingpig]

The camera is too close. There is no issue. It is a beautiful stone.
Looking at the inclusions, the report, video, and IS all match.

 

[kenny]

Darkness from the camera being too close was mentioned more than once.
Here's is the solution to that for serious gem photographers with a DSLR and real macro lens ...

Diamonds are tiny boxes of multiple facets that function as windows and mirrors.
For maximum magnification from your macro lens you must rack the lens' focus to the extreme close position, then move the diamond closer or further from the lens to focus.
But when the camera lens is very close the diamond will naturally show more darkness because it will reflect more of that big black camera and lens which are right in it's face, rather its table.
But if the lens could be further away the diamond would show less of that black reflection.
But using the same lens further away means the diamond will be smaller on your sensor, and using fewer pixels means lower resolution.

Solution ...
For a DSLR (the likely camera type most serious macro-photographers will use for gem photography) the least-expensive true macro lens will have a focal length of around 50 to 60 mm.
Full magnification with a 55mm macro lens results in the front of that big lens being only about 3 inches from the diamond.
The solution is to get a macro lens with a longer focal length.
The front of a 200mm macro lens will be 10 inches away from the stone.
Further away is WAAAYY better because the diamond "sees" and reflects LESS of the black camera and lens - it's an angle thing.

I use a Nikon D810 and have 4 macro lenses, the shortest is Nikkor's 55mm f2.8, and the longest is the holy-grail of macro lenses, Nikon's AF Micro Kikkor 200mm F4 D, designed in the 1960s and still in production - all metal and built like a tank.
My 200mm can focus at full macro 1:1 ratio when the front of it is a full 10 inches from the diamond - that's awesome.
Besides gem work it's also groovy for insects which are less scared away by something 10" away than 3".
Unfortunately it costs around $2K.

In addition to less ugly reflection of black from the camera/lens, a greater working distance lets you position your lights to get more light into the front of the diamond, a real problem when you have only 3 inches working distance.

Next and even better yet, get a bellows to achieve much higher magnification from your macro lens.
This will use more of your sensor's pixels instead of just the 10% in the sensor, for eye-popping resolution.

Bellows have no glass elements, they just move the lens further from the sensor for much higher magnification.
A used Nikon costs $200 or so on KEH.com.
I recommend the PB-6 model.

FWIW, here's my setup without the body:

 

[sledge]

Holy smokes @kenny, thank you for the awesome response and lesson on macro photos and lenses. Job well done sir!

Also, thank you to @flyingpig and @OoohShiny that have pointed out this could be a camera issue. Honestly I was so shocked to see the video that I didn't try to verify the inclusions. I also forgot to post an actual link:

0.98 Carat round diamond

This True Hearts TM diamond, 0.98 carat E color si1 clarity has ideal proportions and a diamond grading report from AGS

www.jamesallen.com

Assuming this is a photo/video error, I do wonder what happened. Not long ago, JA gave a big spiel how they spend lots of dollars to have their photo and videos, and how they do so at multiple locations. I've seen other setups where a machine is used to perform repeatable results and any shifts, etc would be minor. Technology aside, it seems logical someone would have reviewed and approved the video for release. Were they sick that day? And how many more of these might exist but just not found yet?

All that said, JA does a large volume of stones. One error out of all those stones is pretty good. That said, how many people haven't bought this stone because of the error? I hope they implement a better QA system as a result of the findings.

 

[kenny]

Thanks Sledge.

Here on PS people post gem pics a lot, but the best gem photography is a real challenge.

I realize this is not a photography forum, and few would dive into it this deeply.
But I do like to post this tome from time to time.
Some find it interesting, and it may reach a tiny few who would actually pursue this specialized field as a hobby or profession.

 

[WinkHPD]

Wow! Kenny, I am so glad you are back and sharing with us from time to time.

Not only do I love your explanation of the bellows, but that head on your tripod looks like an amazing piece of equipment too.

Wink

 

[kenny]

Thanks Wink ... or ... Thanks LOL

Bellows are like magic.
This diamond girdle inscription is an example of the high magnification a bellows offers with any standard true macro lens.
This has not been cropped in closer; it's the full frame.



That cool tripod head is a Manfrotto 3-gear head, Model 410 Junior.

Amazon.com : Manfrotto Junior Geared Head (410) : Tripod Heads : Camera & Photo

Amazon.com : Manfrotto Junior Geared Head (410) : Tripod Heads : Camera & Photo

www.amazon.com

It's a god-send for macro gem photography, especially with the very high magnification achievable with a bellows.
It allows very fine and controlled movements in 3 axes.

Here's a good video on it.

Sledge, sorry for the threadjack.

 

[WinkHPD]

Awesome photo.

 

[distracts]

Darkness from the camera being too close was mentioned more than once.
Here's is the solution to that for serious gem photographers with a DSLR and real macro lens ...

Diamonds are tiny boxes of multiple facets that function as windows and mirrors.
For maximum magnification from your macro lens you must rack the lens' focus to the extreme close position, then move the diamond closer or further from the lens to focus.
But when the camera lens is very close the diamond will naturally show more darkness because it will reflect more of that big black camera and lens which are right in it's face, rather its table.
But if the lens could be further away the diamond would show less of that black reflection.
But using the same lens further away means the diamond will be smaller on your sensor, and using fewer pixels means lower resolution.

Solution ...
For a DSLR (the likely camera type most serious macro-photographers will use for gem photography) the least-expensive true macro lens will have a focal length of around 50 to 60 mm.
Full magnification with a 55mm macro lens results in the front of that big lens being only about 3 inches from the diamond.
The solution is to get a macro lens with a longer focal length.
The front of a 200mm macro lens will be 10 inches away from the stone.
Further away is WAAAYY better because the diamond "sees" and reflects LESS of the black camera and lens - it's an angle thing.

I use a Nikon D810 and have 4 macro lenses, the shortest is Nikkor's 55mm f2.8, and the longest is the holy-grail of macro lenses, Nikon's AF Micro Kikkor 200mm F4 D, designed in the 1960s and still in production - all metal and built like a tank.
My 200mm can focus at full macro 1:1 ratio when the front of it is a full 10 inches from the diamond - that's awesome.
Besides gem work it's also groovy for insects which are less scared away by something 10" away than 3".
Unfortunately it costs around $2K.

In addition to less ugly reflection of black from the camera/lens, a greater working distance lets you position your lights to get more light into the front of the diamond, a real problem when you have only 3 inches working distance.

Next and even better yet, get a bellows to achieve much higher magnification from your macro lens.
This will use more of your sensor's pixels instead of just the 10% in the sensor, for eye-popping resolution.

Bellows have no glass elements, they just move the lens further from the sensor for much higher magnification.
A used Nikon costs $200 or so on KEH.com.
I recommend the PB-6 model.

FWIW, here's my setup without the body:

I so missed your photograph posts while you were gone!

 

[kenny]

 

[OoohShiny]

Ooh, is that a Fancy Green?

If so, is the 'chip' on the girdle damage or the 'skin' that cutters leave on to prove it's not modified?

 

[kenny]

Ooh, is that a Fancy Green?

If so, is the 'chip' on the girdle damage or the 'skin' that cutters leave on to prove it's not modified?

GIA graded it Fancy Intense Green.
Instead of a chip it's called a natural, and part of the original skin of the rough diamond.

Instead of highjacking Sledge's thread further please see post #4 on this thread.

2 new fancy colored diamonds, blue & green

I couldn't decide which to get. 0.12 ct Fancy Deep Blue (no color modifiers) per GIA. 0.26 Fancy Intense Green (no color modifiers) VS2 per GIA. In this pic, and in several other I took, neither stone is color-accurate per my eye. I'll post more pics later, and I guarantee the color will be all...

www.pricescope.com

 

[sledge]

GIA graded it Fancy Intense Green.
Instead of a chip it's called a natural, and part of the original skin of the rough diamond.

Instead of highjacking Sledge's thread further please see post #4 on this thread.

2 new fancy colored diamonds, blue & green

I couldn't decide which to get. 0.12 ct Fancy Deep Blue (no color modifiers) per GIA. 0.26 Fancy Intense Green (no color modifiers) VS2 per GIA. In this pic, and in several other I took, neither stone is color-accurate per my eye. I'll post more pics later, and I guarantee the color will be all...

www.pricescope.com

No worries mate, enjoying the pics and info. Carry on.

 

[OoohShiny]

GIA graded it Fancy Intense Green.
Instead of a chip it's called a natural, and part of the original skin of the rough diamond.

Instead of highjacking Sledge's thread further please see post #4 on this thread.

2 new fancy colored diamonds, blue & green

I couldn't decide which to get. 0.12 ct Fancy Deep Blue (no color modifiers) per GIA. 0.26 Fancy Intense Green (no color modifiers) VS2 per GIA. In this pic, and in several other I took, neither stone is color-accurate per my eye. I'll post more pics later, and I guarantee the color will be all...

www.pricescope.com

Thanks for the link to the info in the other thread!

They are really nice, that green has a lovely kozibe effect as well

 

[kenny]