Oct. 24 to 26:SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA: Wholesale and retail show; Gem Faire Inc., Sonoma County Fairgrounds
Welcome to the GemologyOnline.com Forum
A non-profit Forum for the exchange of gemological ideas
It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 8:39 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:17 am 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Posts: 1338
Location: PA
Well, even though I'm not a reputable dealer as explained in another thread by Vesselovski, I think I'm going to start using the Gemwizzard color descriptions on my site. Maybe this will make me even less of a reputable?

All this talk about monitor calibration is blow way over board. If various monitors were that useless, then Photoshop and color printers would never sell.

_________________
Precison Gem
www.precisiongem.com


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 12:33 am 
Offline
Gemology Online Übergod
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:24 am
Posts: 4999
Location: McDonough GA
Ohhhhh would that most reputable dealers sold the candy that Gene does. Thank God reputation is based on size of inventory and not on personal character and quality of goods! Gene, would qualify otherwise! We mustn't allow that!

J-

_________________
http://www.selectgem.com


Last edited by Jason on Fri Jan 25, 2008 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:18 am 
Offline
Established Member

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 36
Location: London, UK
Precision Gem wrote:
I think I'm going to start using the Gemwizzard color descriptions on my site. Maybe this will make me even less of a reputable?
.


Well done. Also consider using GIA clarity grades, instead of your own numeric system.


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:53 am 
Offline
Established Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:33 am
Posts: 19
Location: London, UK
Instead of making another imaging software and reinventing the colour wheel, they should improve and produce GIA master set ( plastic stones).

_________________
Pearlera


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: blown way overboard
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:12 am 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 83
Location: San Francisco/Holland
My FINAL conclusions:

Quote:
All this talk about monitor calibration is blow way over board. If various monitors were that useless, then Photoshop and color printers would never sell.


I am not sure I get this one. What has photoshop got to do with monitors.

So if you warn someone to eat healthy... he/she can say.. ahh this is all bullocks. If a proper diet is that necessary, then why do so many people eat hamburgers ? Ofcourse, obesity is not a problem right ? Ofcourse I do not (always) eat healthy. However I do not use the argument of health care experts to be "theorists", "scientists". "so called experts", "way overboard" to justify that choice ? No. I CHOOSE not to listen to their arguments because I am in the mood for... (you can fill in a whole list of unhealthy stuff here. ALL TRUE. TOO OFTEN.).

Just because an industry has a habit of "doing things in a certain way" doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean there aren't any better solutions to a problem. It doesn't even mean that the present solution, is a solution at all to the existing problem.

I am not saying no business can be done because of habits. On the contrary. But my point has never been: can person A and B do business or not. My point was: is GEW a reliable tool, does it deliver the precision it claims it does, are there better ways of doing it, strenghts/weaknesses etc. Whether you choose to use any kind of system with your business partners is between you and them. If you choose to do so, it may behoove you to post an accompanying disclaimer about the use of GEW and its limitations just as with any other type of "reference material".

The stakes are notably raised however when (end-) consumers are involved. They may or may not feel that the use of GEW scales by a dealer or a jeweler creates a level of "scientific certainty" and gives them a certain level of security and "precision" which does not exist.

Either way, all of the above does not invalidate the objections raised against their methods. To say: "well at least they try", doesn't cut it for me. Getting high grades for "effort" is great for elementary school. In the real world, you get high grades for showing results.

If GEW wants to convince people then it starts with education. Where is the education, where is the proof and where are the test results that show their software works. When I look at their website I do not see it.

I am sorry that I do not find the hype in their press releases, or the "Don't worry technology has evolved" at their booth or their frequent "endorsed by the GIA" or "using GIA scales !" convincing. On the contrary. From my experience: it sets off a lot of alarmbells if a technology company needs to resort to these type of tactics so early on in the game. As I said before: ripping other manuals and lumping them together and putting that in your FAQ does not constitute education, nor proof of concept. In fact, ALL it is, is a copyright violation.

It actually raises a trust issue. What trust can I place in a company that is not able to clearly articulate their methods, address these concerns and educate their audience, after having been in existence for 3 years ?

That is going to be my final say on this. Back to work.

PS: In my postings I use the word "you" liberally as in "one" and not aimed at anyone in particular. I do not imply nor have I ever done, that someone's business practices are unethical with or without the use of GEW.


Last edited by Patrick on Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:15 am, edited 25 times in total.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:24 am 
Offline
Established Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 3:33 am
Posts: 19
Location: London, UK
Precision Gem wrote:
All this talk about monitor calibration is blow way over board. If various monitors were that useless, then Photoshop and color printers would never sell.


Nobody uses monitors to accept/approve colours done in Photoshop and you can't really do that because colour system for printing is different from what you see on the monitor. You always print mock-up to check the colours. It's called colour proof.

_________________
Pearlera


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:20 am 
Offline
Gemology Online Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 12:33 pm
Posts: 683
Location: Gemologist/dealer & author
All,

Interesting thread. I got my desktop shortcut this morning and took a look.

I think that the software is a very useful tool to teach budding gemologists and connoisseurs the language of gem color. For those who have trouble understanding hue/saturation/tone and the new GIA color description shorthand this should solve your problem giving you a visual representation to clarify.

The main problem I saw other than those already mentioned is that there are simply not enough samples to represent gem colors particularly at the higher end of quality. In blue, for example it jumps from vivid blue vB to vivid blue violet. vbV What happened to vivid purplish blue vpB? There are several nuances of color that occur in fine sapphire between the two parameters in their sample inventory. The same is true of green and red.


The distinction between the hues, purple and violet continues to plague those who would put out color grading systems. The Tanzanite Foundation doesn't even use purple in its descriptions, how is that possible? Anyone who has ever looked at a fine tanzanite knows the the secondary is purple not violet.

_________________
Author: The French Blue: http://www.thefrenchblue.com and Secrets Of The Gem Trade: http://www.secretsofthegemtrade.com


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 9:37 am 
Offline
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Posts: 1338
Location: PA
My point about Photoshop was this... people all over the world use it and similar programs to work on digital photo's they have taken. They then print from these. Very few people have the spiders to calibrate their monitor, yet they still print from Photoshop and are quite happy with the results. The arguments above that Gemwizzard is useless because the monitors are not calibrated correctly would then need to apply to Photoshop. Photoshop would then too need to be considereed useless.

Printers varry also! So you need several test prints depending on the printer. But then again film and photographic paper vary. When I used to photograph weddings proffesionally, I would only shoot on Kodak Verchrome S II film. This gave a softer color than the non professional film. So which was the true color?

Do you make "proof prints" for each image you use on websites you develope? How can you be sure the colors are correct? Would it really matter? I can tell you right now that the "reputable" dealers enhance the hell out their photos. I think that an honest Gemwizzard color description is certianly better than these enhanced photo's. I have heard from many people that the stone in person didn't look like the photos. MJO sent me a stone he bought online to heat. The photo had a tone of maybe 7, the actual stone was 3. Was that a problem with my monitor? I don't think so.

I don't grade clarity on my site for color stones using basically the same system develeped for diamonds, because I dont think it makes any sense too. I can't tell the difference between a VS1 and VS2. I think if you sent the same stone to 10 different people, you wouldn't get all 10 to agree on this ether.

_________________
Precison Gem
www.precisiongem.com


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 10:50 am 
Offline
Valued Contributor

Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 189
Richard W. Wise wrote:
I think that the software is a very useful tool to teach budding gemologists and connoisseurs the language of gem color. For those who have trouble understanding hue/saturation/tone and the new GIA color description shorthand this should solve your problem giving you a visual representation to clarify.
Hi Richard, I am glad you concur on this aspect. I had found that the program as we used it in the color grading lab helped me understand tone and saturation, though the plastic color stone sets helped more with hue as I compared actual stones to them. I would think that had more to do with comparing apples and oranges (gems to plastic to monitor images to charts in books and then fitting into a system). At the time I was also struggling with understanding the concepts in your then new book which I had brought out to Carlsbad with me. All this was augmented with discussions on color with an artist friend who is a painter and the real life experiences of colored stone dealers. Whatever the medium, color is so complicated to articulate for the uninitiated until one begins to understand the language(s) used. In the end I got distracted by the causes of color and went down a different path :wink:


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: REALLY Final
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:13 am 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 83
Location: San Francisco/Holland
OK this is the REALLY FINAL comment.

Richard: I think you touched on a good point and I completely agree with using it for educational purposes. You are touching on another good point: nuances of color.

Now this is a real catch 22: if you (software company) imply you can handle these nuances of color, you'd have to make sure, other influences do not overwhelm these nuances. If you choose not to handle these nuances than that makes your software much less useful for two reasons:

1) it cannot handle the high end of the market where accurate descriptions of color are most important
2) it handles the low end of the market, where, in fact, these subtle nuances are less visible in pricing, where the program performs well, but... where you can therefore use a photograph (or any other free online color patch) with similar inaccuracies.

In either case.. I do not need GEW.

Precision Gem: first of all, I would suggest re-reading the threats. They were NOT about calibrating screens. I pointed out in my first response that there is decent technology to do that. My point was in handling either digital images and the many problems of digital cameras, or actually in real life putting a stone to the screen and guess the color. Backgrounds, Lighting conditions, etc etc.

My point is that by using GEW you create the sense of accuracy which does not exist. The point you want to make by using it does not go beyond what a good photo will show. When it is argued that many other factors influence this "sense of accuracy" people are telling me "But it sure beats dealing with crooks" or an "AAA Ocean Blue description" or "photoshopped images" or "At least he is doing an effort to benchmark and not mislead".

Are you kidding me ?

If ALL I need to do is outperform the crooks and the misleading merchants, then a photo + good description would suffice.

Doesn't this comparison tell you more about the archaic quality standards in this industry ? Of which other trade or professional would you find such an argumentation acceptable ? I can think of none.


Last edited by Patrick on Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:28 am, edited 2 times in total.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:24 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:22 pm
Posts: 14776
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
The main problem I saw other than those already mentioned is that there are simply not enough samples to represent gem colors particularly at the higher end of quality. In blue, for example it jumps from vivid blue vB to vivid blue violet. vbV What happened to vivid purplish blue vpB? There are several nuances of color that occur in fine sapphire between the two parameters in their sample inventory. The same is true of green and red.


I am in total agreement.
It is my understanding that the original (and current lab version) of GeW has far more colors available. The GIA determined the final colors available in the Gem Square.
Also remember that this nomenclature was not developed by GeW...it was developed by the GIA! GeW merely provides software to support the GIA's color grading terminology.
Perhaps someday a better system of terminology will be developed, but the GIA's Diamond Color Terminology D-Z, has certainly held up to the test of time. Yes it can be misused as well...can't anything?


Last edited by Barbra Voltaire on Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:30 am 
Offline
Established Member

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 1:28 pm
Posts: 36
Location: London, UK
Precision Gem wrote:
My point about Photoshop was this... people all over the world use it and similar programs to work on digital photo's they have taken. They then print from these. Very few people have the spiders to calibrate their monitor, yet they still print from Photoshop and are quite happy with the results. The arguments above that Gemwizzard is useless because the monitors are not calibrated correctly would then need to apply to Photoshop. Photoshop would then too need to be considereed useless.


I am not sure what is your point about Photoshop and people all over the world who work on digital photo's. Does this people sell their photos? Or perhaps their photos go up in the value because they got deep blue colour of the sea where they swim during the vacation?

Anyway, party A distance selling gemstone to the Party B. ( Distance selling, because in the scenario when sale happens face to face, you don't need to describe the gemstone). In order to ensure that Party B understands colour grade ( colour description) of the gemstone, both parties must use the same colour grading system and be familiar with it. But most importantly, in my opinion, is the integrity of the assgined colour grade. Therefore, both parties should have an access to the master set of colours or colour pallete against which colour grading of the gemstone was done and which can be used to validate colour grade. The biggest flaw of the computer (software) based colours set is that colours will look different on different computers. There are many factors which will affect the colours, for example: video card of the computer, monitor type, brightness settings of the monitor. I was testing Gemwizzard last night on my Lenovo laptop ( APG Intel ), iMac (ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT) and Sony Vaio (nVidia GeForce 6200) and got 3 different grades for the same stone. It may be Ok if we were colour grading T-shirts or photos for the family album, but completely unacceptable for the gemstones.


Precision Gem wrote:
Do you make "proof prints" for each image you use on websites you develope? How can you be sure the colors are correct? Would it really matter?


No, I don't. I use "safe" colours which look more or less same on every computer. And as for the images, there is no point in achieving any kind of colour precision, unless you talking about product images, which is completely different story.

Precision Gem wrote:
I can tell you right now that the "reputable" dealers enhance the hell out their photos. I think that an honest Gemwizzard color description is certianly better than these enhanced photo's.


I am not sure who you talking about. If someone would "enhance the hell out their photos" they will have high ratio of gemstone returns and will go out of the business pretty fast. All gemdealers I work with are pretty healthy, happy and growing rapidly.


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: comparitive tests
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:43 am 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 83
Location: San Francisco/Holland
Many on this forum seem convinced that GEW will work sufficiently.

So here is my question: are there any tests available, by the GIA, GEW, or anyone else, where a specificic batch of stones has been tested, with a group of different screens, computers, experts and compared to a control group. I would prefer a double-blind test in that case.

If noone can come up with even the most basic of tests, how can you feel that such a program can be safely used and not taint your reputation as honest people ?

Would you not have your car tested by AAA before buying a second hand car ? Would you not have the foundation of your house surveyed before buying a house ?


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:49 am 
Offline
Platinum Member

Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 2:02 pm
Posts: 2647
We get it Patrick. You don't like GemeWizard. So don't use it. Use whatever works for you.


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 11:54 am 
Offline
Active Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 7:36 pm
Posts: 83
Location: San Francisco/Holland
JB Yeah sometimes I can go on a tangent a little bit *grin*.. glad you got my point though ;-)


Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Gemology Style ported to phpBB3 by Christian Bullock