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

Minerals by Properties Minerals by Chemistry Advanced Locality Search Random Mineral Random Locality Search by minID Localities Near Me Search Articles Search Glossary More Search Options

The Mindat Manual Add a New Photo Rate Photos Locality Edit Report Coordinate Completion Report Add Glossary Item

Mining Companies Statistics Users Mineral Museums Clubs & Organizations Mineral Shows & Events The Mindat Directory Device Settings The Mineral Quiz

Photo Search Photo Galleries Search by Color New Photos Today New Photos Yesterday Members' Photo Galleries Past Photo of the Day Gallery Photography

Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

╳Discussions

💬 Home 🔎 Search 📅 Latest

Groups

Recent Images in Discussions

Techniques for Collectorspicture w/ light source on side magnified

29th Aug 2012 11:58 UTCmitch delgado

Hello, Forum;

29th Aug 2012 20:49 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

Mitch,

The quality of these photos is so poor that they convey no information about the pieces you are photographing. I suggest that you go to the photography section found here under the How To topic and read through posts that discuss equipment used for photos. It can range from simple to complex and covers a wide range of prices. Another source of info on this type of photography is http://www.photomacrography.net/ under the forums and galleries tab.

Doug

30th Aug 2012 00:22 UTCmitch delgado

HELLO , THAKS FOR RESPONDING, HERE ARE 3 PICS USING A CANNON DIGITAL NO MACRO LENS

THANKS! THEY DO FEEL GREASY AND COLD TO THE LIPS AND EYELIDS

30th Aug 2012 01:59 UTCMichael Hopkins

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA! Why do you keep posting the same pictures? Put the camera on the little flower symbol.

30th Aug 2012 03:35 UTCDennis Tryon

If you have a digital camera, you have a macro setting. Get someone who knows about cameras to help you.

Dennis

30th Aug 2012 04:02 UTCDean Allum Expert

bb l u u rr rr y y

bB L U R R Y y

bbbllll uu r r r r y

30th Aug 2012 13:33 UTCOwen Lewis

Mitch,

The second and third shots are 'getting there - but are not there yet. Check for a self-timer function in the camera's shutter release and set the camera to use it. Place the camera so you don't have to hold it. Wth the camera placed, then carefully frame and *focus* your shot then trigger the self timer. Now take your hands off and stand/sit perfectly still and don't move until after the camera has exposed the shot.. Make sure that the image of your stone is sharp before you start the self-timer. Alternatively, if the camera has a build in flash unit, you could try using that (you can hand-hold the camera if you use flash).

FWIW, the colour banding seen is not the spectral dispersion that one expects to associate with faceted Diamonds. The type of colour display your stone is showing is called irridescence and it has several causes and is sometimes found in a range of stones when special conditions occur. From this, plus the fact that the stone is near colourless, I'll guess that your stone is most probably colourless Labradorite - a species of Plagioclase Feldspar that is frequently of gem quality and quite often shows this sort of play of colour. THis stone is pretty and is sometimes cut for specialist collectors - but thing of value in terms of under USD 100.

Here are shots of a piece of this stuff to show what I mean and that you can compare to what you see in your hand. The first shot is taken with the camera clamped to a stand and with my hand holding the piece pressed down on the bench so it didn't shake too much. The second two shots are taken through a microscope, trying to capture this beautiful phenomenon in detail (not altogether successfully - it's like trying to take a close-up shot of a rainbow!). Pictures don't have to be perfect to be interesting - but the more you practice and the harder you try the better they will get :)-D

If these are not a reasonable match with what you see in your stone, come back with better pics! ;-)

31st Aug 2012 07:40 UTCmitch delgado

here are 3 more

If WARMER, I have some that i did outside with overhead clouds.

Appreciate ypur time !Thank U!!!

31st Aug 2012 14:13 UTCOwen Lewis

Mitch,

That last shot is beginning to show the sort of detail that is useful. Think of it as looking at people. Unless you can see their features, how can you tell them apart in a photo? And when you can see the features, you then have to know them well enough to remember which features each person has. That's how you tell 'em apart.

If you are going to get any further with this you *must* try to order your information and the flow of it better.

1. Keep all of your posts about these stones under just one thread (heading). Its boring to have to chase about over several threads (new ones popping up all the time) just to keep up with you and not everyone gets to read all the input - or remenber where it is). Continually starting different threads is simply counter-productive.

2. If you are asked questions, please answer them as the feedback is helpful in assisting you further. So, please say whether, when turning your specimens in your hand and under a strong light, you can see 'play of colour' coming back from one or both or your pieces. I gave you an example of 'play of colour' above, so you now, pretty exactly, know what you are looking for. Please take that as a direct question and needing an answer.

3. Do you need to wear spectacles? If so, wear them when taking your photos. Make sure the image is pin-sharp before pressing the shutter release (that starts the self-timer). There's no point in posting any more pics here unless you have made them at least as sharp as in your third pic above and, preferably, much sharper than that.

4. It's better not to use all capital letters as some folks see this as the written equivalent of noisy shouting ;-)

Now, let me know about that 'play of colour' and we'll see what follows on from there.

Best,

Owen

31st Aug 2012 15:40 UTCStephanie Martin

Mitch, there is a lot of information on mineral photography here and it can be overwhelming. But without getting too in depth, I can offer a couple of tips that might help from my own trial and error using an average point and shoot camera.

Use the flower button on your camera, this will allow you to focus better on smaller objects. This is not always enough, however, and you may also need to use your zoom in addition to the flower button. This will magnify the subject, but at the cost of making the photo more grainy, so the lighting has to bright enough to compensate for this. If your item is not in focus, you are either too close or too far. You will need to find the "Goldilocks zone" where it is just right. This will also depend on the the surfaces of your subject and how much light it will reflect, as well as the background. Digitical cameras have a mind of their own, so even when you think you have it in focus, the camera software may change your focus. This is annoying but if you take enough pictures you will get it eventually.

For white stones a grey or beige background works well, black background can sometimes hinder the ability to focus as the camera tries to compensate for the darkness. The grey or beige background will give enough contrast to the white stone in order to see the important features.

Good luck.

regards,

stephanie :-)

2nd Sep 2012 19:15 UTCmitch delgado

Thank you Owen,

I will do as suggested.

Respectfully,

Mitch D.

Will re-focus on approach, (ha ha) and re-submitt.

Have a good day!

5th Sep 2012 00:27 UTCmitch delgado

Hello,

I would like to present a specific aspect of looking at specimen.

Taking photos of different specimens for comparision..

The similarity of material based on photo characteristics .

I basically put together a at home microscope. ; ie, using lens and cheap double loupe.

2 very small led lights underneath 4” dia. lens w/ lighting on top of specimen with a slight entrance angle

When you microscope you aren't ever seeing the entire object at once, seeing a small range at any given time.

I noticed that even the slightest little movement was like the wind blowing or my own my own breathing threw focal point out of focus.

With the optics of my eyes, flashes of color (radiating out) changed as I moved my head position up/down – lt/rt.

I was told ; at last test the hardness of specimen.. I have diamond encrusted (particles) drill bits.

So, a thought came !

See what this looks like under same set up. (photos attached) ( 2-diamond bit) (1 -specimen)

Without relaying all my thought

I would like to present that one aspect .

With the optics of my eyes and definite lack of any knowledge about what I am doing.

The drill bit and specimen looked the same, ie, Drill bit image looked like small round diamond thru circular focal point

P.s. May I use drill bit to conduct the harndess test? I would scratch specimen with bit.

5th Sep 2012 01:20 UTCOwen Lewis

Mitch,

As Stephanie said, you need to read a bit - or join a camera club - to understand why what you have been trying to do is useless.

With regard to seeing any play of colour in one or both of your stones, you need need no magnification and no camera - just a strong light. Just turn them in your hand under the light. It's an easy matter; the answer is either 'yes' or 'no'. There are no maybes; if there is play of colour in one or both of your stones you will see it. In fact, you should have seen it by now anyway, so I'll guess that the answer is 'no', In which case, and along with everyone else, I'll say too that what you have is, most likely, Quartz.

You say you picked these up near the Wyoming/Colorado border. Well there's plenty of Quartz (and some Labradorite too) in that area. But no one has ever seen a Diamond anywhere near there that I know of - let alone two such big ones. And no, your stones do not in the least look like any diamond-coated drill bit.

Sorry but I think this is now played out. There's nothing more to say that has not been already said in at least one (probably in most) of your threads on this topic.

Good luck!

5th Sep 2012 06:11 UTCmitch delgado

Hello, Owen

I understand your comments! except

"And no, your stones do not in the least look like any diamond-coated drill bit.

I never thought about just looking at them under a general light source

This was originally done at the jewler's ,and his response is what started this whole excersise.

So later on , I went into kitchen, and turned on the lights to overhead fan, and looked at specimen thru double magnify glass.

I did see the following by rotating and turning stone:

Small groupings of colors: violet, blue (aqua), yellow, and small ends of red, also a myriad of white radiance across surface of stone

Also I scratched with 80 grit aluminum oxide sand paper. no surface indentations.

Your time in responding is (was) appreciated. Thanks!

Also at this time I need to state the following:

My photo submittals included randomly; actual photos of "Real Rough Diamond" as follows

mindat-rev.jpg (14.5 K

mindat-rev3.jpg (35.9 KB)

MINDAT-REV5.JPG (132.1 KB)

mindat-rev2.jpg (21.1 KB) previous

merge_dia_pic_specimin.jpg (107.7 KB

blc-wht-cannon.jpg

I meant no deception, just a systematic approach for random placement of quality (?) control samples

Respectfully,

Mitch

5th Sep 2012 14:49 UTCOwen Lewis

mitch delgado Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I did see the following by rotating and turning

> stone:

>

> Small groupings of colors: violet, blue (aqua),

> yellow, and small ends of red, also a myriad of

> white radiance across surface of stone

Well that's something concrete. You should not see this in a rough Diamond, only in cut stones when the light can bounce around inside the diamond before coming back out. So no change in opinion there.

There's a pic near the beginning of this thread that shows you the way that play of colour in some Feldspar is quite bright and tends to show in bands and not in spots. If you are seeing coloured spots of different colours - and milkiness too - it's quite possible that you have some Opal. This is also found a lot in Colorado and some up towards the border with Wyoming. OTOH, if the spots of colour are so small you need a magnifying glass to see them there are several other options that may be more likely. To give a considered opinion would need much better pictures than it seems you can provide. But you do now seem to have some play of colour and that is interesting. Check your local directory and find your nearest 'rock and gem' club. There's sure to be someone there who will be happy to take a look for you and give you an properly considered opinion as to what they are. There are other possibilities too but, on what you say and show, there is no way to speculate further. Get them into the hand of someone who is knowledgeable about rough stones (not the average jeweller).

>

> Also I scratched with 80 grit aluminum oxide sand

> paper. no surface indentations.

There are those who try this. It's useless. At best, all you have shown is that your stones are tougher than the adhesive that holds the Corundum to the paper. Once more.... no Diamond.

> Your time in responding is (was) appreciated.

> Thanks!

De nada! Try to show them to someone who can see them in the hand.

Best,

Owen

5th Sep 2012 16:51 UTCWayne Corwin

mitch

You might try taking them to your local mineral club, and let them take a photo for you, or ID them ;-)

http://www.rockhounds.com/rockshop/clublist.shtml

Wayne

6th Sep 2012 07:30 UTCmitch delgado

Hello Owen , Would like to wrap this up , and if I may some ?? for future ref.

Wth regard for tell tale indicators concering what to look for in holding say " a rough diamond of the alluvial type"

up to the light what would u wanr to see based on your earliar reply

>>

>With regard to seeing any play of colour in one or both of your stones, you need need no magnification and no camera - just a strong light. Just turn them in your hand under the light. It's an easy matter; the answer is either 'yes' or 'no'. There are no maybes; if there is play of colour in one or both of your stones you will see it. In fact, you should have seen it by now anyway

What to use for harndness test?

Also; are scratch plates fool proof and if so ,, what type

With regard Diamond -vs- Quartz

If Diamomd weighed 1 gram = 5 carat w/ S.G =3.52

How much larger in volume /carat size would Quartz be for the same weight 1.5 x larger?

Vaya con dios amigo!!!!

Mitch

6th Sep 2012 15:55 UTCOwen Lewis

mitch delgado Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hello Owen , Would like to wrap this up , and if I

> may some ?? for future ref.

>

> Wth regard for tell tale indicators concering what

> to look for in holding say " a rough diamond of

> the alluvial type"

> up to the light what would u wanr to see based on

> your earliar reply

See the very beginning of this discussion, here. http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,100,169298,page=2

The first pic I posted has the 'text-book' appearance for an alluvial Diamond. A 'water-worn' irregular but generally rounded form. This stone is said to be from Namibia where the Diamonds are alluvial and are mainly dredged off the sea floor just off the beach or by strip mining of the coastal strip itself. It's translucent and not transparent because of the finely pitted 'skin* on it and with an unusually large amount of light being reflected off that microscopically uneven surface. This is called a high 'lustre' and is a particular characteristic of Diamond and a few other kinds of gem. It is not a characteristic of Quartz to anywhere near the same extent. It's important to know that the stones shown are all absolutely dry. Most crystals gain lustre when wet and give a false impression.

In the second pic, the crystal shows much less uniform luster, because of the different surface patina but it's seen in patches. This becomes clearer as the stone is rotated. The stones pictured here are all of half a carat or less.

The octahedral crystal in the third shot is only about 0.02 ct and my concern was to hold it securely and show the crystal form rather than to show off lustre/reflectivity. Where there is no patina to cause the lustrous glow seen in the first shot, high lustre can be detected in a different way by rotating a transparent crystal with smooth planar surfaces under a light. With a little experience, it's possible to assess by eye that the high level of reflectance or lustre seen with Diamond is present as it is a property shared with only a relatively few other natural crystals and these have other characteristics that can separate them from Diamond in testing.

>

> >>

> >With regard to seeing any play of colour in one

> or both of your stones, you need need no

> magnification and no camera - just a strong light.

> Just turn them in your hand under the light. It's

> an easy matter; the answer is either 'yes' or

> 'no'. There are no maybes; if there is play of

> colour in one or both of your stones you will see

> it. In fact, you should have seen it by now

> anyway

You will note that I make no mention of 'play of colour' in the above description of the way that rough Diamonds look. That's because it is not a characteristic. I.e. if you see substantial play of colour in in a piece of colourless rough, it's far more probably something else and not Diamond..

>

> What to use for harndness test?

Use a scratch test against Mohs's scale only with caution, Too many people really do not understand its very real limitations and therefore don't use the test only within its limitations. 'Testing' is too apt to become 'wish fulfillment'. Too big a topic to open up here and now. If you really must test for Diamond in this way, buy yourself one or two pieces of synthetic Corundum, either in the form of cut gems (Verneuil flame fusion process Ruby or Sapphire) or colourless as a replacement watch faces for some expensive'scratchproof' time pieces. Either of these will give you a piece of decent size and with a flat surface for less than USD 100 (probably a lot less if you shop wisely). Then test your mystery crystals on this by trying to scratch the surface of your known test material. Do not use excessive force. If your mystery stone has any points to it, it should need very little force to make this test correctly. Keep away from the edges of your Corundum sample. If you do get success in this little test, then pay up and give your mystery stone to a lab for thorough testing.

>

> Also; are scratch plates fool proof and if so ,,

> what type

I think you mean streak plates? Another trap for 'fools' and a sometimes useful guide to the better trained in reducing the range options when ID-ing a mystery stone, This test is not (for gemstones) ever diagnostic and is little used. If you want to know more about testing to ID gemstones, I can recommend 'Gemmology' by Peter Read, it's cheap and is simply the best beginner's guide (and a useful aide-memoire to the more experienced too). If you decide to take up a broader interest in all minerals, others here can recommend appropriate more appropriate 'get-you-started' reading, I'm sure.

>

> With regard Diamond -vs- Quartz

> If Diamond weighed 1 gram = 5 carat w/ S.G =3.52

> How much larger in volume /carat size would Quartz

> be for the same weight 1.5 x larger?

No :) Their relative volumes for equal weights are represented by their relative SG, 2.65:3.52

6th Sep 2012 17:02 UTCStephanie Martin

Mitch, here is a link to a thread that discusses several ways to do a specific gravity test. Scroll to page 2 to get the simpler method noted by Reiner. If you do this test correctly you will get a good enough result to determine the SG and since quartz and diamond are significantly different this should give you your answer. Failing that, take it to the club or university as was also suggested.

http://www.mindat.org/forum.php?read,11,250282,page=1

As far as the photos go, I think you are trying too hard. When I first started using a digital camera my biggest mistake was getting too close to the specimen. The camera has a focus range, just like our eyes, and if you are too close it just blurrs. Don't bother trying to get a microscopic type photo with your equipment as it just isn't adequate. Try the instructions I gave you above. Personally I can get decent pictures of 1mm diamonds with this method. I am not at home right now however, so I can't post a photo to show you. But if you try this method you should be able to get decent enough photos for the kind of detail that is helpful for identification.

good luck,

stephanie :-)

7th Sep 2012 10:14 UTCmitch delgado

Hello Owen

Without further ado

I express a sincere respect for all the typing and explanation. you and the rest of the gang have extended me.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see.

- Mark Twain

-------------------- Our dialogue has been written ; yet I have seen behind the words'; everyone's kindness to me.

Here are 3 photos, indoors at night w/ one over head light approx. 4 feet overhead - 50 watt gu 10 reflector bulb (track lighting)

I turned the other 3 bulbs away from area.

This will be my last submittal of photos on this issue. {14 year old camera}

Please look at these and respond with point blank input. { photos had to be cropped and compressed) loss some detail

Once again,

Respectfully,

Mitch Delgado

7th Sep 2012 15:22 UTCStephanie Martin

Mitch,

You are a trooper. Your first and last photo are much improved, but the middle photo unfortunately is still out of focus. Based on the 2 better photos I would agree the others with saying quartz or possibly opal, which is still basically quartz. If you have a decent kitchen scale and are able to do the SG test that would help confirm.

regards,

stephanie :-)

7th Sep 2012 17:29 UTCOwen Lewis

mitch delgado Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hello Owen

>

> Without further ado

>

> I express a sincere respect for all the typing

> and explanation. you and the rest of the gang have

> extended me.

> --------------------------------------------------

> --------------------------------------------------

> ---

> Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear

> and the blind can see.

> - Mark Twain

> -------------------- Our dialogue has been

> written ; yet I have seen behind the words';

> everyone's kindness to me.

Thanks Mitch, that was kind of you,

All of us once needed to make a beginning and none of us yet knows it all. Hence, we all have received and continue to receive help from others. One can only rarely return help to someone who has given it. So one does the next best thing and pass it on to someone else in need of it. That's how things improve in general. Besides, we all enjoy chatting about what interest us:)-D

>

> Here are 3 photos, indoors at night w/ one over

> head light approx. 4 feet overhead - 50 watt gu 10

> reflector bulb (track lighting)

> I turned the other 3 bulbs away from area.

>

> This will be my last submittal of photos on this

> issue. {14 year old camera}

Your first photo is useable but not good. In my view, the remaining two are useless. In the first one, you have solved the problems of a correct exposure and light balance. In all three (but mostly in the last two) you continue to have a real problem with sharpness of focus. It is not impossible that this us due to a fault in your camera but is more likely to be caused by the difficulty of making a highly automated 'point and shoot' camera focus perfectly on a small object placed in the foreground. This is a 'specialist' type of photography and older and cheaper models make not deal with it at all well - though most modern ones will handle it OK. Since they (almost) all have a 'closeup' setting (that 'little flower pot' setting that Stephanie and other have been talking about. That is in a 22 year old digital camera I have that still focuses well down to about 6 inches- but in it day, that was an expensive camera and the cheaper ones could not do this.

FWIW, even now and using a high qualityup-to-date camera equipped with a lens optimised for closeup work I always keep the automated focusing gizmos switched off and do all my closeup focussing manually. But I'll guess that optic is not selectable with your camera.

The first pic is interesting. If the stone was dry then it's certainly showing good lustre. From that and the general broken appearance of the crystal my first guess would still be a translucent Feldspar and there are several varieties that it might - but there are knowledgable and experienced mineralogists who gather here - and they may well conclude differently.

I can't see enough in any of your pictures to say why I think your stone is not a Diamond. All I can say is that, from your best picture, I can't see enough to give me reason to think it *might* be. There is also the fact that despite pretty heavy mineral prospecting for many years, in and around the general area in which you found it, not one has found any Diamond. Nor (AFAIK) is there the geology and associated mineralogy there to make a Diamond strike likely. As said. both Feldspar and Quartz are found there extensively and these seem to be the betting favourites :)

If you do get a local university or enthusiast club to have a look at this, please don't forget to come back and give us their verdict. Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted :-)

Good luck!

7th Sep 2012 18:29 UTCOwen Lewis

mitch delgado Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hello Owen

>

> Without further ado

>

> I express a sincere respect for all the typing

> and explanation. you and the rest of the gang have

> extended me.

> --------------------------------------------------

> --------------------------------------------------

> ---

> Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear

> and the blind can see.

> - Mark Twain

> -------------------- Our dialogue has been

> written ; yet I have seen behind the words';

> everyone's kindness to me.

Thanks Mitch, that was kind of you,

All of us once needed to make a beginning and none of us yet knows it all. Hence, we all have received and continue to receive help from others. One can only rarely return help to someone who has given it. So one does the next best thing and pass it on to someone else in need of it. That's how things improve in general. Besides, we all enjoy chatting about what interests us:)-D

>

> Here are 3 photos, indoors at night w/ one over

> head light approx. 4 feet overhead - 50 watt gu 10

> reflector bulb (track lighting)

> I turned the other 3 bulbs away from area.

>

> This will be my last submittal of photos on this

> issue. {14 year old camera}

Your first photo is useable but not good. In my view, the remaining two are useless. In the first one, you have solved the problems of a correct exposure and light balance. In all three (but mostly in the last two) you continue to have a real problem with sharpness of focus. It is not impossible that this is due to a fault in your camera but it's more likely to be caused by the difficulty of making a highly automated 'point and shoot' camera focus perfectly on a small object placed in the foreground. This is a 'specialist' type of photography and older and cheaper models make not deal with it at all well - though most modern ones will handle it fine, since they (almost) all have a 'closeup' setting (that 'little flower pot' setting that Stephanie and others have been talking about. That said, a 22 year old digital camera I have still focuses perfectly down to about 6 inches - but, in its day, that was an expensive camera and the cheaper ones could not do this.

FWIW, even now and using a high quality up-to-date camera equipped with a lens optimised for closeup work I always keep the automated focusing gizmos switched off and do all my close-up focussing manually. But I'll guess that option is not selectable with your camera.

The first pic is interesting. If the stone was dry then it's certainly showing good lustre. From that and the general broken appearance of the crystal my first guess would still be a translucent Feldspar and there are several varieties that it might - but there are knowledgable and experienced mineralogists who gather here - and they may well conclude differently.

I can't see enough in any of your pictures to say why I think your stone is not a Diamond. All I can say is that, from your best picture, I can't see enough to give me any reason to think it *might* be. There is also the fact that, despite pretty heavy mineral prospecting for many years, in and around the general area in which you found it, no one has found any Diamond. Nor (AFAIK) is there the geology and associated mineralogy there to make a Diamond strike likely. As said, both Feldspar and Quartz are found there extensively and these seem to be the betting favourites :)

If you do get a local university or enthusiast club to have a look at this, please don't forget to come back and give us their verdict. Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted :-)

Good luck!

Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 19, 2024 20:54:17

Go to top of page