Quick Links : Mindat手册 The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Mindat Newsletter [Free Download]

主页关于 Mindat Mindat手册 Mindat的历史版权 Who We Are 联系我们于 Mindat.org刊登广告

捐赠给 Mindat Corporate Sponsorship 赞助板页已赞助的板页在 Mindat刊登广告的广告商于 Mindat.org刊登广告

Learning Center What is a mineral?The most common minerals on earth Information for Educators Mindat Articles The Elements The Rock H. Currier Digital Library Geologic Time

搜索矿物的性质搜索矿物的化学 Advanced Locality Search 随意显示任何一种矿物 Random Locality 使用minID搜索邻近产地 Search Articles 搜索词汇表更多搜索选项

Mindat手册添加新照片 Rate Photos 产区编辑报告 Coordinate Completion Report 添加词汇表项目

Mining Companies 统计会员列表 Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations 矿物展及活动 The Mindat目录表设备设置 The Mineral Quiz

照片搜索 Photo Galleries Search by Color 今天最新的照片昨天最新的照片用户照片相集过去每日精选照片相集 Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Fakes & FraudsBlatant manipulation of color photographs

19th May 2013 03:34 UTCNeal Luppescu

I have found that on eBay, the color of a tourmaline offered for sale may be too good to be true. Here is an example:

Great bright pink color and blue-green termination, right? Well look at the color of the finger tips. Not quite human. I have attempted, using photograph editing software, to readjust the colors in the picture so that the fingertips look human, and alas the tourmaline isn't looking nearly as inviting:

There is another theory: the tourmaline could have been irradiated to enhance its color, and the fingers holding the piece were irradiated at the same time. ;-)

Caveat emptor.

19th May 2013 07:50 UTCDan R. Lynch

I agree that there is altogether too much dishonesty in photography of minerals (and any other collectibles, for that matter), but the first photo you posted may not be the work of a wholly dishonest dealer. While I do agree that your "fixed" photo is probably closer to real life, the seller's photo may have simply been a result of inaccurate lighting. Sometimes you take a photo and think, "wow, that turned out well!" even though it may not be 100% accurate. Of course, if this were the case, the seller should have made note of that.

Just playing devil's advocate here a little bit, but honestly, I agree with you.

19th May 2013 11:59 UTCAlan Barnes (2)

Interesting that half of their thumbnail is a natural pink colour whilst the other half is a yellowish brown colour. The line between the two is in line with the left hand edge of the specimen so definitely suspect some sort of colour manipulation here. Good observation Neal.

Alan

19th May 2013 12:45 UTCSteve Sorrell Expert

Could be a bad case of nicotine staining :-D

Regards

Steve

19th May 2013 12:49 UTCBob Harman

Photo shopping specimens to enhance the mineral specimen's color and general appearance is very pervasive. Much more so than just on ebay. When I first became interested in minerals, I went to several of the larger shows including Tucson and, frankly, was disappointed to see many of the photographed hi end specimens in person compared to their pix in the mineral journals. Many MR photos seemed to me far better than the same specimens in person. Their color in the pix seemed enhanced and, I believe, some specimens had also been oiled to minimize hairline cracks and generally enhance their overall appearance.

Another aspect of all this that disappointed me was the small size of many specimens when seen in person. Photos in the magazines often seem to show the specimens out of size context, even when dimensions are given. When the pictured specimen was seen in person in the display case as a thumbnail or small miniature, that diminished the specimen's impact for me. I had developed a (mistaken) mental image of this small mineral specimen being a much larger full cabinet sized example and to see it as very small was disappointing at first. But that is another aspect perhaps worth discussing. CHEERS........BOB

19th May 2013 13:15 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

The worst case of color manipulation is routinely seen in fluorescent minerals at eBay. For example, hardystonite is very desirable, but the blue fluorescence is hard to see even when you have a strong UV light on it. The eBay sellers get over that problem by greatly exaggerating the color is Photoshop. The buyers refer to this chalky blue haze or aura on the specimens as "eBay blue".

19th May 2013 13:43 UTCNelse Miller

We shouldn't be surprised about such manipulation, especially when money is involved. Our hobby is not immune to trickery. Look at Hollywood's long history of manipulating images. Who would guess that their favorite action hero is only 5'4" tall or that their favorite actress is actually a well preserved middle aged mother. Airbrushing and favorable camera angles have a long history. Photoshop only makes it easier.

As far as the size issue, I have been surprised by the small size of specimens I have purchased online even though the sellers had honestly given the pieces' sizes in their description. I just chalk it up to my difficulty translating numbers into visual images. My mistake one time was mistaking a ruler's divisions as being Engllish units (inches) when they were actually metric (millimeters). My bad.

19th May 2013 13:58 UTCD Mike Reinke

Nelse,

Ouch! Yeah, sad mistake.

When first got aware of the mineral magazines, I was blown away by the photography. But I had to literally clutch a ruler and consult it with each picture, to get used to those dimensions, since I was not raised metric. It took awhile for it to sink in how small some of these beautiful pieces were. But it also made me want to photograph all of my collection!

19th May 2013 14:08 UTCChris Stefano Expert

I am once again offended by the greater Mindat community's Ebay bashing, as though Ebay was the only place to find sellers intentionally misrepresenting specimens! Go to any major (or even minor) mineral show, and you will see dealers, some of them "reputable" (whatever that means), selling misrepresented specimens. Many websites throughout the internet other than Ebay also have some misrepresented material.

In all places you might buy a specimen, you had better be careful what you buy, because misrepresentation is rampant everywhere. Even very smart dealers get duped from time to time, so even if you buy from someone who you know to be honest, there may be a problem that they didn't even know about, because not all of their sources are honest.

As for color in photos- one other thing I would point out- I do my best to get the colors as close to reality as I can on MY computer screen. I have regularly noticed that the specimens look either considerably worse or considerably better on other screens. Every computer screen is calibrated differently and the color representation can vary a lot. This is what my return policy is for- if a specimen comes and it wasn't everything you hoped it would be, return it for a refund. If the ebay (or any other internet seller) does not have a good return policy, don't buy from them.

Ebay is not evil. I have built a significant portion of my collection by purchasing on Ebay, and many other serious collectors also use this valuable tool to build their collections.

19th May 2013 14:41 UTCGary Moldovany

I have to agree with Chris here. I too have purchased many specimens on ebay. I have been satisified with about 98% of them, that's a pretty good rating. One other point that no one has mentioned, most ebay sellers are not expert photographers. As everyone knows, it's very difficult to get a great mineral photo unless you have top-end equipment and lots of experience. Many times I have purchased a mineral with a so-so photo and been surprised by the excellent quality of what I received. It is even more difficult to photograph a fluorescent specimen. As far as the size thing goes, I have a metric ruler on my desk next to the computer so I can put my fingers up to it and see what a 3cm specimen actually looks like.

19th May 2013 15:06 UTCFred E. Davis

Chris is right - eBay doesn't own color problems with minerals, Mindat has some of its own. For example, image 527507 described as a "rich turquoise-blue color":

Really?

Van, what do think of those fingers?

19th May 2013 15:33 UTCPaul Brandes 🌟 Manager

An experienced and well trained person should be able to spot a colour enhanced or "de-hanced" mineral almost immediately, no matter the method by which that specimen is presented be it eBay, Mindat, or any of the specific mineral dealers on the internet.

19th May 2013 15:37 UTCSteve Hardinger 🌟 Expert

Fred, the picture's color balance wasn't manipulated. It was just very very cold in the studio that day.

19th May 2013 15:43 UTCFred E. Davis

Steve - In that case, perhaps the hand model's lips were a rich turquoise-blue color.

19th May 2013 17:23 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

After seeing the ten inch photo of Andyrobertsite on the MR cover, it is a little unsettling to see the 6 cm piece in person.

Photography for vending is a real skill. If the photo is far better you may make faster sales, but you'll get more returns and a bad rep. If the photo is worse than the specimen any purchaser will be pleased. The trick is to honestly document the piece. Fortunately any real dealer does not have the time to muck about with the photo. Collectors however have all the time in the world.

19th May 2013 17:52 UTCVandall Thomas King Manager

Fred, I wonder if they'd been exposed to a lot of UV?

Chris, I'm not sure what you're hearing is eBay bashing. That would suggest a hateful and "pewrsonal" attack. The operative issue is color manipulation. If you need outside the electronic world examples, just look at the amazonites in John Barlow's collection book.

19th May 2013 18:50 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

I remember a display in Tucson many years ago with Min Rec covers and the actual specimens. The photos probably beat out the specimens in 3/4 of the comparisons. It probably was due to the opportunity for the photographer to control the lighting (it was before the widespread use of Photoshop) versus the general lighting in the Convention Center and the case.

19th May 2013 19:39 UTCTim Jokela Jr

Nothing manipulated in the first photo.

Smoke 3 packs a day for a decade or two and your fingertips will look like that.

I'd like to see an x-ray of the poor bugger's lungs.

19th May 2013 21:05 UTCSteven Kuitems Expert

Rob, I like the idea of having a ruler by the computer and possibly with you in transit. The reason I say that is that the cluster of andyrobertsite was 18mm long and the specimen was about 3 to 3.5 cm long in totality... I used to own it.

Steve.

19th May 2013 21:21 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Things do grow in my memory. We have it posted here http://www.mindat.org/photo-230609.html at 4.1 cm.

And Yes a ruler by the screen is essential when shopping the net.;-)

19th May 2013 23:01 UTCTimothy Blackwood

Hello,

I uploaded photo 527507 to the galleries. I did not personally take the photo and have no knowledge of the camera used. Also, I did nothing to the color of the photo prior to uploading it. I've never even seen the specimen in person. It is apparent to me that different cameras may sense and render colors differently. What appeared to be turquoise-blue in person may be made to look very different by the camera's sensor. I've uploaded several photos of specimens from my own collection lately and have noticed variations in color depending upon the color of background, whether or not I used the camera's flash and whether or not I used additional backlighting. Just some thoughts. But please do not assume that all photos have been manipulated. I still haven't figured out how to accurately show a specimen's true color in every case. Returning to quietly lurking now until I have something else to say.

Best wishes,

Tim

Cohasset, Minnesota, USA

20th May 2013 00:31 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Tim B. - the issue isn't the color, its the size, with regards to the andyrobertsite - the color looks dead-on to me, but slightly oversaturated on my display, so its OK. The perspective makes it look bigger than it really is, especially on the Min Rec cover. I saw the specimen a long time ago, in transit. It is surprisingly small when the mind wants it to be larger, especially after looking at the published images.

As far as blatant or inadvertent image manipulation, I could name names and some have made POTD as well; but I could also name many who do a good job with accurate color and color balance/saturation rendition.

As far as the tourmaline image that started this thread, the image is either over saturated or strongly backlit, making the crystal more attractive than it appears - the image should have an associated note stating that it is backlit, otherwise, buyer beware and quite whining.

Tim J. - the acerbic comments here and elsewhere are greatly enjoyed!

20th May 2013 02:17 UTCTimothy Blackwood

Jeff,

I was actually referring to the amazonite shown in the message from Fred Davis on page 1 of this thread (I did reference the photo ID number given in that message).

Tim B.

20th May 2013 02:24 UTCJenna Mast

My photo setups are usually less than perfect and I spend most of my time in photoshop trying to get the photo to look how the specimen actually does. This usually involves color, and various techniques to bring out the detail that a standard camera lens can't pick up because the camera shop wants a $1200 deposit to rent their supermacro lens.

When viewing photos of specimens on computers, one thing people should keep in mind is that different devices aren't necessarily properly color calibrated so what looks one shade of blue on my monitor might be another shade of blue on your monitor. Or what might look purple on my monitor, might look pink on yours.

20th May 2013 05:11 UTCAndrew Johns

Everyone sees light waves differently, therefore everyone perceives color differently. My wife and I perceive blue in different shades.. We are not color blind at all, the way color is perceived through each our eyes is different, that's all.. For the billions and billions of people out there do you think all our eyes see the same?? Absolutely not!!

Andrew.

20th May 2013 05:21 UTCTimothy Blackwood

My photo set up is very simple and definitely not ideal. My background is a large sheet of either white or black poster paper placed on the kitchen countertop. Primary lighting is from the overhead fluorescent light coming from over my shoulders. A smaller incandescent lamp is sometimes used for backlighting. And sometimes I use the camera's flash. Depending on the combination of lighting, the color in the photo can vary widely. I don't have Photoshop, but Picasa (freeware) offers a variety of tools to adjust photos. In Picasa I find the features to adjust the color and contrast to be most useful. Tools to adjust the sharpness of the photo and adjust the saturation of the color to also be helpful. Using information from the camera Picasa selects what it considers to be appropriate levels of adjustments, but these can be changed with sliding buttons. You can preview the results and undo any changes you don't like. Wow! I can't imagine anyone paying a $1200 deposit just to rent a supermacro lens. My camera is a Fujifilm model and it has a very good supermacro setting. I just try not to use the digital zoom feature available using the supermacro feature (it can get kind of grainy). I love viewing the photos posted by everyone and am in awe of the photographic skills being demonstrated. I'm just a novice and am learning as I go, through trial and error.

20th May 2013 13:46 UTCVincent Rigatti

In my experience I will paste the photos of minerals I am interested into photo editing software and then scale it to actual size. But I also keep a ruler by my monitor for the same reason. If I am really interested in a piece I have asked the seller to take addition photos without enhance lighting or from different angles, or with backlighting. I learned this like everyone else, after being surprised that the mineral in the mail didn't look quite like the one in the high resolution photograph. Even samples in my case at home look different depending on the time of day, if the lights are on, sunlight outside, etc. Most times it is not intentional manipulation by online sellers just a function of the fine photographic equipment available these days. Buyer beware...

20th May 2013 15:09 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Tim - sorry, my mistake - the andyrobertsite is fine, certainly there is something goofy with the microcline. I did a quick adjustment in Photoshop Elements, trying to get the background neutral and the fingers "normal", assuming the person holding the crystal does not have an issue with excess silver consumption; still not satisfactory - probably the camera was set to a color balance that did not correspond to the illumination being used.

20th May 2013 18:47 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Getting color right is a complex process. The eye can see colors differently than the camera. The most critical part is the light source and white balance. Most fluorescent lamps are not very good for accurate color rendition. The best fluorescent lamps are "Daylight" with color temperatures of 5000K or 6500K. But even these are not as good as tungsten or tungsten-halogen or actual daylight. LED lighting in its present state of development, are similar to fluorescent lighting and can result in color mismatch.

Most digital cameras have a white balance setting, but these are only approximate. The best method is if the camera has a "custom" white balance setting that uses a gray card to establish the proper white balance. The gray card should be a spectrally neutral card, not any old white, gray, or black paper or cloth. A lot of white paper has brighteners in them which enhances blue to remove the yellow cast of paper. Gray paper, cloth, etc. are not exactly gray and will look gray under certain lighting but change the lighting and they are no longer neutral gray. The eye and the camera will view these as different and you will have a color "mismatch". There are several companies that make spectrally flat gray cards for the photo industry, e.g., Kodak, Gretag-McBeth, Robin Meyers Imaging, etc. (You can google for more).

Computer displays have there own color rendering problems. The old CRT displays are roughly equivalent to the sRGB color space that many digital cameras default to. More expensive DSLR cameras can and should be set to AdobeRGB color space. This space is a better match to the modern LCD color displays. Your computer display can usually be set to a "default color profile", but for very critical color matching the display should be measured for color and a specific "profile" created. The display profile setting affects the translation of color values from the camera to what the display can handle. The AdobeRGB color space has a larger color gamut than the sRGB color space, i.e., it can reproduce more saturated colors.

In general, for reasonable color rendition,

1) set the white balance properly (preferably with a spectrally neutral gray card),

2) do not use fluorescent or LED lighting,

3) use natural daylight or tungsten lighting,

4) do not mix different types of lighting,

5) set camera to AdobeRGB color values, if possible,

6) set LCD displays to AdobeRGB profile.

This should reduce any necessary color tweaking considerably.

I follow these steps for my photography and I do not have an issue with the appearance of the minerals on my display, even with some of the more problematic minerals like dioptase.

Ron

20th May 2013 18:52 UTCTimothy Blackwood

Hi Jeff,

I definitely think the corrections you made to the amazonite photo better represent the true color. In taking photos, I usually set the camera to "Auto". It doesn't always give the best results. I really need to review the manual about how to change the color/white balance. I'm still learning.

Best wishes,

Tim

20th May 2013 19:14 UTCA. M.

I agree with Chris... My photos look true to life on my screen, awesome, right? Well, I was absolutely horrified to see the same photos on my friend's computer - everything was saturated in green and made my green willemite crystals totally unrealistic!!! I can only hope that whoever looks at these pictures sees the hue permeating the entire photo and realizes what's going on.

Some hardystonites are associated with highly fluorescent willemite - I don't have a specialized equipment, it's a simple digital point & shoot camera. In those cases it's hard capture the much darker hardystonite blue - the willemite will overexpose. I make a note about that in the description, so again, I can only hope that the viewer will read, see and understand. I don't do it intentionally, it's just what it is with what I have.

As for the size - whenever I think of buying something I take out a ruler and see what 2 centimeters or 2 inches looks like on my hand. If the piece is measured within reason then there are no surprises when it arrives.

ATSM

20th May 2013 19:43 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Ron gives a good work flow - well worth following and basically what I do as well.

You can also get a Gretag color chart, or similar, to help in post processing, these include both black, white and grey, as well as primary (B/G/R) and secondary (M/C/Y) and other colors all in one chart - just make sure that you photograph the grey card and/or photo-quality color chart with the same illumination as your specimens, and that there are no hot-spots or unwanted reflections off of the card.

LED or fluorescent light sources, by definition, are not full spectrum and os will not accurately capture certain colors; I use either tungsten lamps for larger rocks or off-camera electronic flash for micros - both options are full spectrum and give equally good results, especially when using the color charts and grey cards for post-processing adjustments. With the post-processing and RAW conversion software provided by Canon, you can adjust the color balance on one image, then apply those corrections to all of the images taken at the same time, automagically. I'd also suggest shooting camera RAW in addition to JPG; in this way the color balance of the RAW can be adjusted at will, not relying on the camera's settings. I would not recommend mixing light types, as this could result in muddy colors and backgrounds, and make a good color balance almost impossible.

Finally, for the case of a wide exposure range, such as what Sofia described - a weak fluorescent response in a specimen with strong fluorescence, such as willemite with hardystonite, or in high contrast subjects in general, I have gotten good results by making multiple exposures over a 4 to 6 stop range, then combining in photoshop via layers, this is commonly referred to HIgh Dynamic Range (HDR) imaging - some cameras or software now does this automatically. Just make sure nothing moves, camera, light, or subject, between exposures.

Anyone serious about photographing minerals should get either GIMP (freeware) or Photoshop Elements (about $100 - but easier to use)

21st May 2013 20:03 UTCRonald J. Pellar Expert

Jeff,

Your point about using RAW is well taken. JPEG is a very lossy compression technique and should not be used for anything that you might want to "manipulate" later. Changing white balance, doing any color correction on JPEGs can yield very bad results. You essentially throw away colors and cannot get them back when you work with JPEG.

One other point, if your camera has the capability to change the bit depth, set it to the maximum, e.g., most cameras come set for 8 bits per color, but some higher end cameras allow for a setting of 12 or 14 bits per color (R, G, and B). The higher the bit depth the more manipulation you can perform on the image without serious loss.

When you have the image in final form, only then can you convert to the very lossy 8 bit JPEG for display, print, or upload to MinDat and you will have better quality images.

Ron

9th Jun 2013 03:34 UTCAnonymous User

Color altering in photographs is used often by legit, honest gem cutters all the time here in the states. I know many man who alter the photograph to show what the camera can't capture and what the eye shows in reality. When color shades that are just ever so slightly varied can mean thousands of dollars in gain or loss then color is critical. Today's camera sensor's on average can't capture the hue as seen IRL. Jamey Swisher relates this very well on his camera sensor write-up's.

Many oversea's seller routinely enhance photo's I used to see this on ebay all the time. It doesn't take an idiot to spot most of them, ya know.

I did a little essay a couple years back focusing on lights and their respective Kelvin temp.

I have yet to find any bulb that even comes close to natural sunlight, which most of you know already.

I never buy or even consider daylight spectrum bulbs or anything claiming to be "daylight equivalent" or "full spectrum". Bulbs with the 5000K claim still lack the kick sunlight does.

I actually prefer to use two different bulbs when photographing specimens, gemstones, etc. If I have a blue or green stone I use my 6200K Ott fluorescent lights(the ones GIA used to use to grade stones) and for red and yellow stones and specimens I use my Solux 4700K bulb.

They both add that little amount of similar color to give the specimen more depth, less tone, and more saturation. I want my blue or green stones to stand out more so I use a light that adds a slight blue/green component and vice versa with the other end. Nothing wrong with that since both light are something you encounter every day from Wal-Mart overhead fluorescents, classrooms, and offices or in the family room with an incandescent or grandma's house in the bathroom with it's 2700K bulbs.

A stone and specimen's color is a function of the light it's viewed under. All stones color shift to some degree. All stones are color shifters.....gemstones and minerals alike.

11th Jun 2013 00:49 UTCNeal Luppescu

This thread has digressed away from the point that I was making when I first started the posting, that certain sellers on eBay are not accidentally distorting the color of their pieces. Thery are deliberately manipulating the color to make the piece more attractive.

I have taken two more pictures posed by the dealer from eBay. The first is of a colorless pollucite. Note the color of the person's skin: normal.

Then look at the skin color in the second photo. The skin tone is a deep yellowish brown, done very easily with picture processing software by increasing the color saturation. The tourmaline is freakishly phosphorescent in color.

This is not an accidental, innocent mistake.

Caveat emptor.

11th Jun 2013 08:37 UTCJolyon Ralph Founder

I understand your frustration Neal, but what do you expect can be done about it?

Photos can always be distorted. If you search for bargains on ebay you inevitably put yourself at risk from unscrupulous traders. Either stick with traders you trust or only buy things you see in person.

12th Jun 2013 02:15 UTCNeal Luppescu

Jolyon, I haven't bought a rock on eBay in a long time. I don't even browse on eBay, but this dealer for some reason has postings on facebook that I see from time to time, and I just marvel at the fact that he has the nerve to falsify his offerings so blatantly. He can do whatever he wants to, but doesn't he realize that he is harming his business by misrepresenting his wares?

12th Jun 2013 03:10 UTCDoug Daniels

It's more likely that most viewers don't pay attention to those color details, don't complain about the odd colors, and thus those sellers continue the practice.

12th Jun 2013 06:03 UTCJohn M Stolz Expert

Neal,

Your passion for integrity is clear, but you do yourself a disservice. Worry about the stuff you have control over; don't worry about the things you can't change.

When someone does something that sits wrong with you, simply don't do business with them again. What you can marvel at instead, is how cheaply they sell their reputation.

12th Jun 2013 08:20 UTCJesse Fisher Expert

Although the digital processing of color photographs does allow for all sorts of manipulations of an image, I would suggest that before accusing of trying to create a false or misleading image, one should try creating realistic, color balanced digital photographs of a good selection on minerals yourself. Digital sensors, much like color film will respond differently to different colors and lighting sources. Add to that the wide variability of the millions of color monitors out there that an image posted to the internet may be viewed on (along with a certain variability in color perception by all those human eyes). Even if one tries to create what looks like a faithful reproduction of a mineral when viewed by a certain person on a certain monitor there is no guarantee that others will see it the same way.

I have taken lots of mineral photos and have found that certain minerals are difficult to get right no matter what you do. I suspect that most folks selling on ebay do not have the skills or experience of a professional or even advanced amateur photographer, and are simply trying to get some images with an automatic "point and shoot" type of camera. I do not expect that these people will be able to get good images of many minerals with their limited skill and rudimentary equipment. Yes, it is very easy to select the "Enhance Saturation" function in the photo editor and make a tourmaline crystal look as if it has a deeper color. I think, however, that most of the inaccurate photos on ebay (and other sales sites) are likely the result of a lack of skill or attention to detail on the part of the photographer rather than purposeful deception.

12th Jun 2013 09:03 UTCIbrahim Jameel Expert

Neal,

And it's more than just color manipulation. That second tourmaline has probably been irradiated. When I see their treated minerals for sale on Facebook, I always post a comment pointing out the treatment.... unfortunately, People keep buying, so they keep selling.

12th Jun 2013 12:49 UTCMarcus Voigt

@Neal,

"He can do whatever he wants to, but doesn't he realize that he is harming his business by misrepresenting his wares? "

(June 12, 2013 01:15AM)

:-S

Either I do not understand you......or there is more to this thread .

25th Jun 2013 19:35 UTCAmanda Hawkins

I have found that fluorite and blue and purple minerals are the hardest to photograph. The fluorite come out a lot duller than the specimen actually is. Blue minerals always come out dull. I try and adjust the colour on photoshop so it is more accurate - a rather hard thing to do for some reason! Orange minerals seem the easiest to photo accurately, for me anyway!

Go to top of page