Fancy Yellow Radiant Cuts Any Preference?

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Comments welcomes on what you based your decision upon.

 

[kenny]

Neither is acceptable.
The plane of focus and/or depth of focus is very different and neither has the entire diamond fully in focus, top to bottom.

The solution is to stop down the lens aperture down more (larger f-stop number means a smaller hole).

Also turn off that deceptive backlighting please.
Notice the front of the tweezers is dark.
Shining light into the pavilion is deceptive because it can make poorly cut diamonds look better.

Everything in this post is opinion, so get your panties out of that wad.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Left


Right

 

[clgwli]

It's the same stone.

One of the picutres focuses in such a way that you get an idea of what you eye might see. Or best possible given 2D look. The other one focuses in a way where you can more easily see how the stone is cut and/or inclusion that the stone may have.

Not really hard to see that it can easily be the same.

I admit I am not sure of the point of this thread. Given Kenny's comments I really have to wonder......

ETA: Given shadows I would guess that the lighting is coming from above and to the left. Not behind. I'm sure the onwer of this stone could tell you for sure though.

ETA2: not sure why you think there are chunky facets in the one on the right either. I see tons of pinfire flashes in that photo as well even though they are more "in the background" look than in your face.

 

[tyty333]

I would definitly ask for more photos.

 

[Rockdiamond]

They are indeed the same diamond- and clgwli also totally nailed the focus aspect.
Although a straightforward discussion on photography would have been more direct, the subject is a good one.
How would one take a photo of "crushed ice"?

This effect is caused by a huge number of virtual facets which basically confuse the eye. You really can't tell if you're looking at a direct reflection, or a reflection of a reflection.
This is basically opposite to H&A where the facet patterns are very clear.

What I've found is that photos which are ever so slightly out of focus - such as the photo on the left- give the best representation of what "crushed ice" looks like in person.
By getting the sharp focus, such as the stone on the right, we can better see the actual facet pattern.
tyty brings up a great point- if someone is shopping with ANY online vendor and can't get an idea from existing photos, ask for more!

We handle that aspect by providing a large amount of photos, and even video clips of most stones.

Kenny, Kenny, Kenny- no matter which undergarments you are wearing, you can't say for sure what the back of the tweezer looked like when the photo was taken, can you?
The ironic thing is, I have a lot of respect for your photography skills Ken, my man.
I don't know an F stop from a bus stop- and I'm sure you're correct in discussions of apertures and things.
But it's not necessary to know all the technical details if one can use eyes, hands and camera well.

As far as Kenny's "opinions" about lights behind the diamond....old story, and totally untrue.
Yet when I answer his points - such as the tweezers ( what does the back look like)- or show photos of diamonds in rings where shining this theoretical light into the back of a diamond is impossible, he simply does not respond.

In any event, I'm interested about how folks feel about the focus issue- is it better to have photos in sharp focus on a thing you're eyes can't focus on?

 

[LGK]

If a seller provides a large group of pictures for one stone, I do like to see one or two slightly off focus. IMO you can see fire a bit better that way, for some reason. I do think a slightly out of focus shot adds to the puzzle picture of how a diamond looks IRL, as long as there's a bunch of others in focus and in different lighting conditions. As best as can be done from 2D pics on a computer screen, of course. (Videos are even better of course.)

 

[kenny]

With a real macro lens it is not hard to get the depth of focus to reach from the table to the culet.

1. Use a small aperture.
2. Leave the shutter open longer to compensate for lower light.
3. Focus 1/3 below the table, because depth of focus reaches more behind the plane of focus than in front of it.

Easy.
No knowledge of bus stops required.

 

[Amys Bling]

hmmm, I get the feeling that this post is directed at the previous post where there was a heated debate regarding a specific vendor, their lighting, and the words "think" "opinion" and "know"....

Next question/poll please...

 

[clgwli]

With a real macro lens it is not hard to get the depth of focus to reach from the table to the culet.

1. Use a small aperture.
2. Leave the shutter open longer to compensate for lower light.
3. Focus 1/3 below the table, because depth of focus reaches more behind the plane of focus than in front of it.

Easy.
No knowledge of bus stops required.

I do know photography (though my macro lens broke when my DS was a baby by him on accident so I haven't been able to do anything grand with my new stuff... most of my prints were of nature not stones before that broke) and I have to say something here. Your work that you take of your stones are like art. This may be what you like to see in a stone, but honestly when it comes to showing what a stone is like, I don't like it. It makes the stone lose a lot of personality. Yes to me, stones have personality and it takes more than an artistic yet sterile looking photo for me to want to buy a stone. Now everything I've seen of yours is beautiful. But to me it is so artistic and that is great too for being art. Don't be insulted by that because I so do NOT mean it to be. It is a style and I do appreciate it a lot!

Have you thought that maybe David's style works for what he is selling? Personally I find his photographs more engaging than many of the other vendors out there. Not saying that his are God's gift to the world, but they are great for what I want to see. ETA: And obviously their photos are not crap or bad, but I just like to see "more"

I love vintage cuts and I look a lot online as well. I got my vintage round for a steal because I could see the stone the way I wanted to and knew it had personality. The photos on that one weren't all that grand, but I could see it all so to speak. I find that a few of the vintage sites I look at are much like that. I find them to be perfect since stones wind up "speaking" to me.

I appreciate seeing the different focal lengths on a stone. I want to see the cut & possible inclusions. I can tell a *lot* about a stone by them. But when looking at color I need more than a light box and a fixed focus. I need sunlight. I need bright lights. I need dim lights. I need it all. I need to "see" what the stone will be like and I need to see what the stone is like under very close macro.

IMO there is no right or wrong to this. I prefer my style and you obviously prefer yours. Can't it simply be that both are fine depending on who you ask?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

The poll was intended to determine how many people (who weren't aware of the actual diamond listing or where it came from!) could tell that both images were of the the same diamond. I bet if I tried this again and if you bozos (who already knew the answer) didn't comment so quickly the majority would not have realized this. I sent this to couple of veteran PS members privately and neither could tell the diamonds were the same.

These two images are strikingly different. This is not a perfectly contrasting example because the image on the right while it mainly shows only the physical facet structure (NOT big virtual facets) does show some small virtual facets of lower intensity that appear almost in the background. The majority of the light enters from the pavilion, but some does get in from elsewhere.

The image on the left shows more accurately what the stone will look like when worn and is setup where most light originates from and exits through the crown, namely the "crushed ice" look in this particular radiant cut.

RD thank-you for acknowleding now that you are aware of the distinction in the two images, and how to achieve each look by varying the amount of light that enters from either the pavillion or crown. As you have said several times it isn't an all or nothing but if the majority of the light is originating from one part of the diamond or the other the appearance will be dramatically different.

With a dominance of crown lighting an accurate illustration of the size of the virtual facets is seen which is noticeable absent if the majority of the light originates from the pavillion.

Kenny I also agree with you stopping down and narrowing the aperture to get a greater depth of field is crucial if one wants to show in focus the entire diamond. A totally in focus diamond is crucial for a customer to assess the beauty of the stone as a whole as opposed to only parts of it.

I beleive a vendor who truly wishes to offer a thorough and balanced representation of the diamond they are selling will provide both views to their potential customers which include sharp focus of the entire diamond.

 

[Fly Girl]

I like the photo on the left better. The one on the right looks out of focus to me. I knew it was the same diamond and I figured it was DBL, who sells lots of yellow radiants.

And, I'm absolutely not interested in any of the other politics behind this "poll".

 

[clgwli]

The poll was intended to determine how many people (who weren't aware of the actual diamond listing or where it came from!) could tell that both images were of the the same diamond. I bet if I tried this again and if you bozos (who already knew the answer) didn't comment so quickly the majority would not have realized this. I sent this to couple of veteran PS members privately and neither could tell the diamonds were the same.

These two images are strikingly different. This is not a perfectly contrasting example because the image on the right while it mainly shows only the physical facet structure (NOT big virtual facets) does show some small virtual facets of lower intensity that appear almost in the background. The majority of the light enters from the pavilion, but some does get in from elsewhere.

The image on the left shows more accurately what the stone will look like when worn and is setup where most light originates from and exits through the crown, namely the "crushed ice" look in this particular radiant cut.

RD thank-you for acknowleding now that you are aware of the distinction in the two images, and how to achieve each look by varying the amount of light that enters from either the pavillion or crown. As you have said several times it isn't an all or nothing but if the majority of the light is originating from one part of the diamond or the other the appearance will be dramatically different.

With a dominance of crown lighting an accurate illustration of the size of the virtual facets is seen which is noticeable absent if the majority of the light originates from the pavillion.

Kenny I also agree with you stopping down and narrowing the aperture to get a greater depth of field is crucial if one wants to show in focus the entire diamond. A totally in focus diamond is crucial for a customer to assess the beauty of the stone as a whole as opposed to only parts of it.

I beleive a vendor who truly wishes to offer a thorough and balanced representation of the diamond they are selling will provide both views to their potential customers which include sharp focus of the entire diamond.

CCL sorry I messed with the poll then. I am very used to the style of DBL since that is where I went to buy mine. I spent a LOT of time looking at pictures over the course of literally years. Not only on his site but a multitude of other places that sold colored diamonds (some were for yellow only too) Given the photos were held almost the exact same way and looked the same in shape & size compared to the tweezers I guessed. I did confirm after though (and it was easy to find when looking for loose radiants).

Also given your last poll and how you did that one, it was an easy guess even if they didn't look so identical side by side. Not an attack there at all, just saying history repeats itself a lot LOL I think if I hadn't seen your poll about the cushions and if you had picked two different angles of the stone I wouldn't have guessed it.

I very much agree that a diamond in focus is very important to see because it really can tell a whole lot about the stone. The slightly out of focus diamonds are nice to show what your eye sees, but I like seeing the absolutely in focus because it does give a very good idea to me as to what I might see. However I do appreciate looking at both. And really enjoy learning how a different cut can make for a different look.

Obviously even better is to get video of a stone. I prefer "normal" lighting where you can see a relatively accurate representation of the diamond's color. And then if you can add in low lighting as well as a brighter light it's pretty much "ideal" for me.

ETA: I did want to say I showed my husband the pictures too out of curiosity and I didn't tell him anything. He couldn't tell they were the same either. His comment back to me was something like "you spend too much time looking at gems" I laughed at him on that one but I have to agree. For the record he chose the more out of focus stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hello fellow Bozos! ( thanks for the laugh CCL- btw are you insulting clowns, or us participants?)

CCL- if your intent is to discuss photography, I believe it's a great subject.
However using deceptive tricks, or trying to fool people helps no one- and does not promote an informative discussion.

I'm sure we can find a myriad of examples where multiple photos taken of the same subject look different.
In the case of diamonds, I believe it's a good thing.
A single photo- or even two or three taken using the same methods and lighting are not nearly as informative as multiple images IMO

I'm sure many people have preferences about diamond photography- and it would be informative to hear them- if the discussion was not framed in a trick based on your own personal bias.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Hello fellow Bozos! ( thanks for the laugh CCL- btw are you insulting clowns, or us participants?)

CCL- if your intent is to discuss photography, I believe it's a great subject.
However using deceptive tricks, or trying to fool people helps no one- and does not promote an informative discussion.

I'm sure we can find a myriad of examples where multiple photos taken of the same subject look different.
In the case of diamonds, I believe it's a good thing.
A single photo- or even two or three taken using the same methods and lighting are not nearly as informative as multiple images IMO

I'm sure many people have preferences about diamond photography- and it would be informative to hear them- if the discussion was not framed in a trick based on your own personal bias.

Mr. Freidlander,

I had no intention of mentioning who the vendor was (ie leave your name and politics out), but in the future if you have nothing better to do than attacking me by calling my examples "tricks" you can refrain from posting in my threads.

Interestingly enough from this poll, the majority actually dislike the type of lighting in the shot on the left, because while it shows the physical facets the whole diamond has been described by some as looking glassy and opaque. That was an interesting observation I hadn't thought of when I posted the comparison.

Since you have an website full of examples of loose colored stones please feel free to contribute to educational content by providing additional "better" examples instead of derailing this thread with guesses on "bias" or personal attacks.
Feel free to provide examples of other loose stones and describe the lighting used and why you prefer it. It is my general impression that in the majority of your loose stone shots you tend to omit the look of the shot on the left thus the customer has no idea about what the virtual facets look like.

CCL

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Obviously even better is to get video of a stone. I prefer "normal" lighting where you can see a relatively accurate representation of the diamond's color. And then if you can add in low lighting as well as a brighter light it's pretty much "ideal" for me.

If the video has the same predominant pavillion lighting you still won't see the virtual facets.

ETA: I did want to say I showed my husband the pictures too out of curiosity and I didn't tell him anything. He couldn't tell they were the same either. His comment back to me was something like "you spend too much time looking at gems" I laughed at him on that one but I have to agree. For the record he chose the more out of focus stone.[/quote]

My wife said the same thing to me a few months ago about looking at gems too much. I think one of the reasons why diamonds look like diamonds is because of the efficient way they create virtual facets and return light to the viewer. By allowing most of the light through the pavilion a diamond no longer performs like a diamond and the quality of the light return may be why the average person would prefer to see the shot on the left.

 

[Fly Girl]

Interestingly enough from this poll, the majority actually dislike the type of lighting in the shot on the left, because while it shows the physical facets the whole diamond has been described by some as looking glassy and opaque. That was an interesting observation I hadn't thought of when I posted the comparison.

Currently the poll shows 8 respondants prefer the photo on the left, 3 prefer the photo on the right, and 4 picked neither photo. I don't understand your conclusion that the majority dislike the shot on the left.

ETA- I selected the shot on the left because it looked more in focus. That's why I didn't pick the pinfire answer.

 

[Rockdiamond]

CCl- I'm sorry if I used harsh categorizations of the poll.
I am totally sincere in my desire to discuss anything with you- or anyone here- in a such a way that we respect each other.
Sometimes I make a joke too- I honestly thought the "bozo" reference was funny, and not insulting at all.

Please remember that vendors are generally not allowed to post photos of their own products.
Non trade members are free to do so- I have no objection to any photo or video from our site being used for demonstration or educational purposes...although I request credit if our content us used, I can't enforce that. I do go ballistic when the photos have been stolen by shifty sellers to represent who knows what. Watermarking is basically useless as it's easily removed

I use a point and shoot camera, natural lighting and high intensity lights, and (obviously) little set up.
What works for me is that I've been louping diamonds for so many years I have a deft hand, so I can focus with the tweezers and camera well.
In a real sense, my photos are an extension of how I look at diamonds.

I'm honestly thinking of getting an SLR......but I'd still likely use it in the same manner.

I can stand any criticism- I've gotten used to it- regardless, the photos are "my babies"- as an artist, I see them as an extension of my vision.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Interestingly enough from this poll, the majority actually dislike the type of lighting in the shot on the left, because while it shows the physical facets the whole diamond has been described by some as looking glassy and opaque. That was an interesting observation I hadn't thought of when I posted the comparison.

Currently the poll shows 8 respondants prefer the photo on the left, 3 prefer the photo on the right, and 4 picked neither photo. I don't understand your conclusion that the majority dislike the shot on the left.

ETA- I selected the shot on the left because it looked more in focus. That's why I didn't pick the pinfire answer.

Too small a sample, but its 8 to the left and 3 to the right. There are two choices for the left and two for the right. The poll doesn't really matter its the comments I got privately that made this observation. The poll was clearly ruined once it was said and confirmed it was the same stone.

 

[clgwli]

Interestingly enough from this poll, the majority actually dislike the type of lighting in the shot on the left, because while it shows the physical facets the whole diamond has been described by some as looking glassy and opaque. That was an interesting observation I hadn't thought of when I posted the comparison.

Currently the poll shows 8 respondants prefer the photo on the left, 3 prefer the photo on the right, and 4 picked neither photo. I don't understand your conclusion that the majority dislike the shot on the left.

ETA- I selected the shot on the left because it looked more in focus. That's why I didn't pick the pinfire answer.

Too small a sample, but its 8 to the left and 3 to the right. There are two choices for the left and two for the right. The poll doesn't really matter its the comments I got privately that made this observation. The poll was clearly ruined once it was said and confirmed it was the same stone.

I'm going to say something that I don't mean as a flame.. But maybe next time you want a poll don't try to pretend they are different stones. you've done it twice now and the last time you really upset the owner of the stone. I think it's kind of crappy to play games like that. If you want a real poll just say "which photo do you like better?" Not "which stone do you like better" because it's kind of deceitful and I know I do not respond well to that. It's why I actually didn't respond very well to this thread at all. I am sure you want a blind survery but I really think that will be hard to get here no matter what. Being more upfront would at least get someone like me to respond better to a thread like this.

 

[petrock<3]

I like the photo on the left. I am a fan of the "crushed ice" look and love yellow radiants.

I am however, very confused by this post! Is it bad if we can't tell they are the same stone? Is someone trying to pass the stone off as two different stones? Is the photo on the left used to market the stone one way, and the one on the right used to market in another way? I didn't see the other post, color me confuzzled

 

[Hera]

I like the photo on the left. I am a fan of the "crushed ice" look and love yellow radiants.

I am however, very confused by this post! Is it bad if we can't tell they are the same stone? Is someone trying to pass the stone off as two different stones? Is the photo on the left used to market the stone one way, and the one on the right used to market in another way? I didn't see the other post, color me confuzzled

I was too! I was wondering what the hidden agenda was, was it a critique of Rockdiamond's photography? Is it deceptive that the two diamonds faceting appear so different but are the same stone?

I'm not as much a fan of the crushed ice look so I guess I'm more attracted to the photo on the right. I feel like it's giving me more information while the pic on the left is more of a glamour shot.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Please remember that vendors are generally not allowed to post photos of their own products.

RD just so you are aware for educational and non promotional purposes you ARE allowed to post images especially in a thread about photography methods which is purely for educational reasons. If in doubt just ask Andrey and I'm sure he will preclear anything you want to post if it is for educational purposes only. The goal of pricescope is not to stifle the proper support of opinions by tradesmembers as long as they don't abuse it for self promotional reasons.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I'm going to say something that I don't mean as a flame.. But maybe next time you want a poll don't try to pretend they are different stones. you've done it twice now and the last time you really upset the owner of the stone. I think it's kind of crappy to play games like that. If you want a real poll just say "which photo do you like better?" Not "which stone do you like better" because it's kind of deceitful and I know I do not respond well to that. It's why I actually didn't respond very well to this thread at all. I am sure you want a blind survery but I really think that will be hard to get here no matter what. Being more upfront would at least get someone like me to respond better to a thread like this.

Clgwli,

The next time you write to me using the words "flame" or "deceit" or "crappy" and referring to any of my posts in a negative way I am going to report the post and put you on my foe list, which removes my ability to read any of your posts from that point forward.

The poll question was:

Do you have a preference between these two images??

Did you miss that or the last choice in the poll which was the right answer. Did you miss that the images are the same size and view, they are not edited in any way and were put side by side for clarity?

As for your opinion, on controversial topics I just don't agree with you. Showing an example and telling people what they should think or blasting them with details rarely works in these forums. I prefer to give minimal information and let people draw their own conclusions before I give my answer.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Duh- I finally get it.
I had my eye on the wrong ball- since you mentioned pinfire and faceting, my impression was that you wanted people to compare stones- the question did indeed ask about which image they liked better.
That being the case, pointing out that the images are the same stone should not need interfere with the poll at all!

ETA_ I'm not in agreement that giving minimal info is best.
If people know what the photos are, the responses are more informed.

Heres' two photos of the same diamond- which do you like better?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

To Conclude This Thread:

http://www.screencast.com/users/WinkJon ... ece73200f6

At 8:41 Paul Slegrs interrupts the presentation by Peter Yantzer director of the American Gem Society to make the following comment:

"Many Diamantaires make a mistake when they refer to the life of a diamond because many diamantiares are used to looking at diamonds under their desk lamps with backlighting and they are describing life while they are looking at the inclusions or for the inclusions at the same time. .. Many Diamantaires have the incorrect idea that a stone which is leaking a lot of light, but is very bright when looking at it under their desk lamp when it is lit up from the back, a lot of them ... describe a stone as lively stone while looking at one that leaks a lot of light."

This sums up exactly why I don't reccomend using the photograph on the right(which is predominantly backlit) to illustrate the life, sparkle, or beauty of any diamond.

Further I suggest that less experienced posters be very wary of judging the beauty of a diamond from one or several photographs or a video with the same lighting source and direction especially when they see dark tweezers which may be indicative of partial or predominant back lighting.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Paul speaks and it's law?
You have no idea where the light is coming from yet you continue to make statements of "fact" ( your implication that the diamond is backlit)
IT IS NOT LIGHT FROM BEHIND

IN fact, both photos were taken in the identical lighting situation, a few seconds apart.
I do not agree with Paul's assessment- nor is it up to you , CCL, to decide when a discussion is closed


And it does seem clear that your motivation was not learning the results of a poll, can you at least be honest about that?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Paul speaks and it's law?
You have no idea where the light is coming from yet you continue to make statements of "fact" ( your implication that the diamond is backlit)
IT IS NOT LIGHT FROM BEHIND

IN fact, both photos were taken in the identical lighting situation, a few seconds apart.
I do not agree with Paul's assessment- nor is it up to you , CCL, to decide when a discussion is closed

And it does seem clear that your motivation was not learning the results of a poll, can you at least be honest about that?

RD,

What do you think causes the appearance to be so dramatically different in the two shots if its not a change in lighting?

I'd be happy if you were to be more precise and could clarify the conditions upon which you shot both photographs:

Describe the position of the light source in each shot?
Descriibe the tilt angle of the stone relative to the light source?
Describe which parts of the diamond receive the majority of light?

Any of these will help clarify your position and educate.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Last time I looked, this was Pricescope, not CCL-scope.
Instead of answering the questions about your motivation and how you frame this discussion- you stay on one track.
Let's get some other vendors up here, and have them describe their methods first.

And while you're doing that, round up the folks who've gotten DBL stones, based on our photos, that were unsatisifed.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Paul speaks and it's law?
You have no idea where the light is coming from yet you continue to make statements of "fact" ( your implication that the diamond is backlit)
IT IS NOT LIGHT FROM BEHIND

IN fact, both photos were taken in the identical lighting situation, a few seconds apart.
I do not agree with Paul's assessment- nor is it up to you , CCL, to decide when a discussion is closed


And it does seem clear that your motivation was not learning the results of a poll, can you at least be honest about that?

why the secret of where's light the coming from??