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

PhotosProper Descriptions for Mineral Photos

22nd Aug 2015 00:20 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

When a mineral photo is uploaded, the user is asked to provide information about the specimen, like the minerals that are seen on the photo or the dimension of the specimen or the field of view.

There's a text field on the upload form to enter additional information that could be of interest.

The essential things that should be written here are mentioned on the photo upload form:

Quick List - Click on mineral names to select for this photograph

Mineral not on this list? To ensure approval you MUST include information about how specimen was identified.

and:

Comments

For mineral photographs, please make sure you enter the following in the box below:

1. If more than one mineral species is listed, please make it clear to the viewer which is which.

2. If rare species are shown, please explain how they were identified.

3. If it is not your photograph, please confirm you have permission to post this image.

Feel free to add other comments here about the photograph, such as specimen owner, photographic equipment used, crystallographic information, etc.

In the Mindat Manual http://manual.mindat.org/index.php/Mineral_Photograph

we are a bit more verbose about what we expect to see in a description:

Description

The description should include at least information on the size of the specimens, the minerals, and ideally the method of identification:

1. A scale of the photograph has to be entered in a special form on the photo upload page (preferably in metric units, mm or cm). You can use the width of the photograph (ie. horizontal field of view is 5mm; or horizontal fov 5mm) or largest crystal is 3.0cm high. You are welcome to add that information to the descriptive text, too. Objects that are presented as a scale on the photo with the specimens are acceptable as long as they are not too obtrusive. Coins are probably not a good size guide since most people would probably not know what is the size of a particular coin.

2. Explain what is seen. Do not presuppose that visitors are familiar with the minerals on the photo. If there are a number of minerals on the photograph, you need to describe which crystal is which mineral (e.g. "green crystals of mineral X on white crusts of mineral Y"). You should also include other information such as habit or pseudomorphism if these are applicable.

3. We appreciate information on how the minerals were identified ("visually", "dealer label", "museum label", "analysed with method X by person Y at University Z", etc.). Photos of species that are difficult to identify, rare or unusual may be rejected without this information.

So there are cases in which information about the method of identification must be included in the text.
This does not necessarily mean "analysis". Many minerals can be identified with good confidence by their physical properties (crystal shape, hardness, streak, luster, etc.).

Information on the method of identification is especially important for rare minerals. Often there are only very few photographs in the database, and most people are not familiar with newly approved species. Other minerals are easily confused or are members of solid-solution series that can only be distinguished by adequate methods.

But even for the more common minerals it is interesting to know if and how a mineral was identified, of if the ID was copied from the dealer label (there's nothing wrong with that).

It takes some time to take a good mineral photo.

Please take a minute to enter some information that will make your photo even more valuable.

Even if it is obvious what is on the photo, like a rock crystal, it makes sense to add some minimal text like "Rock crystal" to the caption.

Occasionally - luckily it's very rare - something goes wrong in the database and then a wrong photo gets assigned to the metadata (locality, size, etc.).

The description will help that these glitches do not go unnoticed.

22nd Aug 2015 15:46 UTCAmir C. Akhavan Expert

-- moved topic --

23rd Aug 2015 05:28 UTCMartin Rich Expert

In my experience dealer labels should used only in emergency (in the case of rare species) as reference, because the majority of the dealers have not more mineralogical knowledge as experienced collectors. If the dealer has noted that (rare) species was identified by different analysis methodes (xrd, eds, ...) so it's ok and for newbies or collectors they are not familiar with some species it's also ok.

25th Aug 2015 07:42 UTCDale Foster Manager

I would have to say my biggest issue with descriptions accompanying mineral photographs is the number of times I open the box for the description and find a shedload of technical data about how it was photographed and next to bugger all about the mineral and its matrix, associated minerals or anything else about it.

Without putting too fine a point - this is supposed to be a mineral database not a bloody technical photography site.

25th Aug 2015 17:10 UTCDon Saathoff Expert

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Dale on this point. There is a forum for photography where members can brag about their photo equipment and how they use it!

Don S.

25th Aug 2015 18:40 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

The technical data regarding the photography itself are very welcomed; however, many photo contributors do not provide adequate mineralogical/occurrence data. The technical data should follow the mineralogical data. Many photos clearly show more than 1 species but only have the primary species listed. If the photo is of secondary Cu minerals, there may be only nuances of difference in color - which is the primary mineral?? Dealer labels, especially for rare/obscure species, are only reliable if they come from a dealer who specializes in systematic species sales and has a superior reputation. Any others are of somewhat lesser reliability, but may very well be spot on with the identification. The dealer's source for the material also plays into this sliding scale of reliability. Of course, many dealers will understandably not want to disclose their sources of material in all cases. The best dealers will offer a "no questions asked" return policy if the material turns out to be something else. Virtually all professional dealers have a desire to sell properly identified specimens to build and maintain their reputation and customer base. Mindat has many fine dealers who advertise and support this project.

25th Aug 2015 22:12 UTCEd Clopton 🌟 Expert

We don't want to discourage photographers from sharing technical details that may be of interest or of use to others in honing their own photographic skills, but it should not come at the expense of mineralogical content. Please take a moment to tell us what we are seeing and indicate why it is worth the effort for you to upload and for us to read. (And if it can't pass that test, well, . . .)

Dale's closing line put it very well. Mindat is about photography in service of mineralogy, not vice versa.

26th Aug 2015 15:10 UTCJay I. G. Roland

Though I thoroughly agree with Dale's sentiments I do feel that for those who wish to improve their photographic efforts, some details of equipment/method used could prove to be useful.

My personal gripe regarding many mineral photographs is they read almost like an advertisement to sell the piece. Giving precise measurements and declaring 'no damage at all'. I was of the impression that private ads were not allowed on the site but it appears that some get away with this. Perhaps they are the bigger donors to the site and therefore are allowed certain latitude in this? Also the dealer's photographs invariably head the lists when one looks into a given mineral, again, this makes me wonder how biased the order of listings is.

Just my h'penny worth.

Regards,

Jay.

26th Aug 2015 15:40 UTCRob Woodside 🌟 Manager

Jay, Dealers have kindly supplied probably a few 100K photos from their sales lists and auctions. Your observation is quite right. Since commercial pieces are usually better than what one can find, these photos rise to the top. Many dealers have given us carte blanche to edit the captions rather than bother them with the usual "complaint" process, unless there is a severe problem which they should know about. Some managers have toned down some captions, but that is very time consuming. If you would like to propose better captions, I'll copy and paste them in.

26th Aug 2015 15:48 UTCChester S. Lemanski, Jr.

Jay,

These are good points! Please keep in mind that Mindat is an all volunteer project. There are dealers who advertise on Mindat and are generous enough to share their photos with us. This is almost always after the specimen has sold! These dealers expend resources (time) to load these photos. Taking even more time to redact some of the descriptive data such as "no damage at all" is asking much of them since some of these dealers upload large quantities of photos, already tasking valuable time from their businesses. This speaks well for their business and the quality of their specimens and bodes very well for Mindat. There are limits and there are discussions between Mindat management and dealers regarding just how far they can go. Anything with blatant advertising is strictly prohibited! Since such a great percentage of the photos are from dealers (many high-end dealers), it is only natural that many of their fine photos will wind up on top on species pages, etc. Management selects the head photos in many cases and none of us favors any dealer - we favor Mindat and its best interests. Besides, choosing photos from one dealer over another simply to benefit that dealer would be unfair and lacking objectivity - Mindat has to come first! We thank our contributing dealers for their generosity.

Chet Lemanski

26th Aug 2015 15:50 UTCDavid Von Bargen Manager

Dealers have an incentive to take good photos of specimens and describe them in detail. The descriptions of other peoples photos often are rather short.

The order photos are displayed are ranked on managers votes as best, other mindat users votes as best, and finally (which is most photos) are ordered by how often they have been viewed.

26th Aug 2015 16:04 UTCDale Foster Manager

Jay I. G. Roland Wrote:

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

Though I thoroughly agree with Dale's sentiments I do feel that for those who wish to improve their photographic efforts, some details of equipment/method used could prove to be useful.

I am not saying it doesn't have a place, but it should not be in preference to giving detail about the mineral specimen. The camera gear in this instance is only a means to an end.

27th Aug 2015 11:50 UTCJay I. G. Roland

Dale, I for one have taken onboard what you say and shall endeavour to add such info in the future along with minor equipment details.

Chester, the reason that dealers are so willing to share their images is not one of generosity or altruism but by so doing they promote their wares and stay at the forefront of folk's minds as sources of rare or particularly nice specimens. The mineral collector who goes out in all weathers and scrabbles about on spoil heaps to realise that lucky find they have sought for months, comes home, cleans the piece and photographs it and uploads said photograph is the one who is being altruistic. He has nothing to gain whatsoever other than to show other potential collectors what may be found at any given location. That is what I would call being generous.

That all said, the photographs uploaded by dealers are very nice to look at for sure but I hardly think they are representative of what the average Joe is likely to happen upon in the field which is why I often skip the 'pretty' pictures and home in on the more down to earth images.

Regards,

Jay.

7th Sep 2015 01:07 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert

We talk about having people say something about their photos. Are we going to do anything about this issue, or not?

The first photo posted for 7 September 2015 has no description (see below). It is a photo of a marvelous specimen of spessartine, but I don't know what it shows. I don't know why it looks this way. Perhaps the poster has not been following the discussion about proper descriptions for photos, or perhaps he does not know why it looks this way. If so, he might say that, and then perhaps we might all benefit from feedback.

8th Sep 2015 13:32 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

We certainly should ask for more info

10th Sep 2015 07:46 UTCAndreas Schmid

hello to all

up to now i am not familiar with the rules here. my intention to show my photos was only to show nice (i hope for you too ) pics of good specimen. honestly speaking i thought the pics are selfexplaining together with the mineralname location and size. in future i will try to add some info.i wish you all the best and hope you enjoy mindat and my pics.

best regards

andreas

10th Sep 2015 12:02 UTCLarry Maltby Expert

Andreas, Thanks for the explanation that you have now added. I think that many of us were wondering about the appearance of the edges of the crystal faces. It seems from your explanation that they are not the result of a color change but rather the result of reflected light off of unique faces on the edges. I also enjoyed looking at the beautiful photos in your gallery. You are a master of the application of light to crystal faces. You must have spent a considerable amount of time positioning multiple lights to achieve this beautiful picture.

Larry,

10th Sep 2015 14:03 UTCNorman King 🌟 Expert

Andreas,

Your explanation is perfect! Now I know exactly what you have. And, your work has so much more personality now.

I have studied crystal forms as much as anyone in this group, and I was not sure what I was seeing. But I did presume that these are unusual faces that also differed from the others by just a few degrees, as your lighting. Perhaps there is even more to the story? For example, did you stitch together several shots with lighting varying by a few degrees for each shot? With those faces showing at just the right angle(s?), I would not expect to see them nearly all around the crystal with a single set of angles for lighting. But I am not saying that you need to go into that much detail in your explanation–what you have now is good. We all learn bit by bit, and this photo is the sort that might inspire questions and discussion by the group, as I indicated in my earlier post. We like that.

Thank you!

14th Sep 2015 20:14 UTCAndreas Schmid

larry you are right. sometimes it takes a lot of time to make a good pic. in a few cases i need more than one day. thank you very much for your compliments. its good motivation to continue posting some of my pics.

andreas

14th Sep 2015 20:18 UTCAndreas Schmid

norman thank you for your words. you had a good idea. i will try to make a serial of pics to show how that reflection appears and disappears depending on the angle. i will post it if i succeed.

16th Feb 2017 10:05 UTCDale Foster Manager

Well, I see there is no real improvement in captioning.

Looking as of this morning, 55 new photos uploaded today and only about 20 of them have captioning that relays any information about what is visible in the view.

Most of the others have information about how the picture was taken or who the specimen was obtained from.

Quite frankly it is a bloody disgrace the objective on this database is the minerals not the photography.

This abysmal level of captioning does sod all to improve understanding of the minerals found at locations and the nature of the hosting rocks - which would actually have some benefit to collectors and researchers alike.

16th Feb 2017 16:54 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Amir's guidelines in the first post of this thread are not being followed or enforced, much to the detriment of the site. If the issue is "not enough time and/or managers for timely approval", then additional individuals could be found to help out in the approval process.

Perhaps automatic approval should be restricted to only those that follow Amir's suggestions.

Also, perhaps adding a mandatory entry into the photo upload form, something along the lines of - for each mineral selected, please enter a short (1-5 word) description of that mineral, which could include color, habit, morphology, etc... If this entry is not completed, than the photo upload will not proceed.

One last point, as a reviewer of scientific articles that are published in peer-review journals, if presented with some of this images, I would suggest to the editors of the journals that these submissions be sent back to the author for minor to major revisions to correct inadequate or irrelevant information in Figure captions prior to publication. Since MinDat is in some respects a peer-reviewed entreprise, similar standards of approval should be considered; rather than the current extremely uneven presentation of our information in terms of format and descriptive qualities.

16th Feb 2017 17:04 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

I am not picking on anyone here, but some recent examples done well, OK, and not so well

https://www.mindat.org/photo-803526.html - for the uninformed, they would not know what is the chloritoid

https://www.mindat.org/photo-803596.html - adding some color / habit information would be helpful

https://www.mindat.org/photo-803591.html - good, brief description that is highly informative

https://www.mindat.org/photo-803532.html - again, the uninformed and/or beginner may not know which is the chromite

https://www.mindat.org/photo-803477.html - minimal information but allows clear idenfication of the mineral. Perhaps a separate field in the photo upload form can be added for image creation / photography information?

17th Feb 2017 16:45 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

For the adamite photo of mine that you pointed out, the adamite, to me is obvious as the green/white crystals. I guess I am not very good at stating the obvious so I guess I will reevaluate what I photograph and share. I am one of those using the catalog system that wish we could designate photos for but that wish has turned out to be a lost cause.

17th Feb 2017 17:36 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Doug - I am more than guilty of doing the same in my captions, though I am getting better. No worries.

17th Feb 2017 22:22 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

Good point, some may be going through automatically, but we need to be more vigilant, it is annoying when you don't know the location or mineral, and all you can read is about the photo setup ( who cares?). I have sent a couple messages to uploaders today reminding them. I agree the photo setup needs to go in a separate field that can be accessed when you go to full view, quite unnecessary in the specimen description with the thumbnails.

18th Feb 2017 13:03 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Ralph,

That would be excellent if the photographic information could be seen in the full view but not in the thumbnails. Yes, a few are interested - but of what value will that information be to someone researching minerals ...or 20 years from now? The same might apply to comments like "a gift from..., a trade with...", etc.

What would improve and help the reputation of Mindat (as a mineralogical database) is a good description of the matrix, associated minerals, and environment in which it was found. Without good information, Mindat is simply accumulating a pretty photo gallery of "sparklies". Quality...not quantity. I hope that Mindat takes the long view as a database.

(And Jeff, I agree about the journal standards for descriptions of figures, etc. - it makes me laugh to think of submitting a paper with figures captioned something like "Printed with a Kodak CSP C110 printer"!)

18th Feb 2017 13:53 UTCTimothy Greenland

Becky,

when you say "The same might apply to comments like "a gift from..., a trade with...", etc. ", I am not sure that I agree. It can add (or subtract) veracity to the identification etc. Perhaps we could try to produce a sort of 'template' with a mineralogical description of the 'photo for a start, then comments on the locality, then origins of the specimen. The first should be obligatory; the second and third to be used only if pertinent... I agree that photographic details could well be in a separate section...

Cheers

Tim

18th Feb 2017 17:01 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Tim, that is a reasonable point (adding to identity verification in some cases).

18th Feb 2017 19:21 UTCJason Evans

Unless it is something you have collected yourself it;s not always possible to add much more information other than what it says on the label, which usually is nothing more than the main mineral of interest.

I do find it a bit annoying sometimes when I look at a mineral photo on mindat and there is something else visible that interests me but it is not mentioned, if it is known what it is i think it should be added to the description, but at the same time it might put people of from adding photos if they are forced to try and find out additional info, which isn't always easy to do.

18th Feb 2017 20:08 UTCMaggie Wilson Expert

Jason Evans Wrote:

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

> Unless it is something you have collected yourself

> it;s not always possible to add much more

> information other than what it says on the label,

> which usually is nothing more than the main

> mineral of interest.

Agreed. I'm very much a newbie at this pursuit, and besides generic terms like "matrix" I'm not going to be able to add much else to the description.

That said, I do recognize the benefit of saying something rather than leaving the field blank. Going forward, I will try to add enough information so that by reading the description only, the reader will get at least some sense of what the picture is about. In other words, like the good old days before the internet and all you had to work with was the dealer's description.

18th Feb 2017 20:50 UTCBecky Coulson 🌟 Expert

Jason, you are certainly right in saying that you can only add information that you know - no one could expect more of you. But we do have collectors and dealers who could add some information about the rock matrix and associated minerals for their specimens. (Actually, I just had a peek at some of your photos and your captions are good - you do indeed tell us whatever you know and I wish we were seeing more of that, rather than just photographic techniques.)

19th Feb 2017 00:44 UTCRalph S Bottrill 🌟 Manager

I agree we can only write what we know, but if you describe an associated mineral as unknown, someone is likely to respond with a suggestion.

I also like the idea from Becky and Tim of a template for photo texts, with mineral descriptions, occurrence/matrix and provenance sections.

19th Feb 2017 15:39 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

As to adding how the photo was taken, that was requested by Jolyon a number of years back. I used to do it but discontinued when it became an issue. I started to go back and remove that data from my photos but never completed the task.

As to descriptions, I am not good at describing the obvious as I mentioned in reply to Jeff. The last two photos I posted were of pyromorphites from Germany. To me, they are as obvious as your throbbing thumb after smashing it with your hammer while collecting. I am not a creative writer nor will I ever be. I do try to provide a description when it is needed.

19th Feb 2017 15:56 UTCReiner Mielke Expert

I agree with Doug obvious photos don't need description. However that is not to say that more information would not be welcome just not necessary. Also in some cases no description would be better, especially when words such as "better in person", "sharp", "scintillating" etc. are used.

19th Feb 2017 17:29 UTCAlex Earl 🌟 Expert

I am still somewhat new to my camera system, I used to take photos with my iPhone, which didn't have much detail. Now that my new camera allows for much higher resolution and detail, I decided I needed better descriptions to fit the photos. Sometimes they are still simple when things are obvious as Doug pointed out, but other times such as in this photo (https://www.mindat.org/photo-794890.html) there is a lot going on. When making descriptions, I try to answer questions that I ask myself, that someone might if they had never seen any of the minerals before.

With this photo the obvious first question would be "what is that light blue mineral?", Scorodite, next would probably be "what are those green crystal sprays?" Arthurite, and if you zoomed in a bit, you might ask "what are those little cubes?" Pharmacosiderite. Finally you might wonder what the matrix is, it is a rhyolitic matrix.

Now that the obvious questions have been answered I can now make a fitting description, and if needed, address any minerals present on the specimen, that are not in the photo, as well as when it was collected or who I got it from, and any other interesting information. (Less important, but still useful sometimes).

It is also ok to say if something is unknown, sometimes you can get help in identifying things when someone else knows more about a particular locality or mineral.

I have chosen not to include details about my camera system in my photos, if anyone is interested it is on my homepage. It saves me a lot of time, and most of the details are automatically uploaded into the system by mindat anyways. I personally don't mind seeing camera details in descriptions, but I do think that properly describing what the photo is of, is more important, and should come first. This is after all a mineral information database.

Try to keep in mind that not everyone who visits the site knows what you do about minerals, things that may be obvious to you, may not be obvious to others. I try to remember when I first came across mindat, and when I was looking through all of the photos and trying to learn by reading descriptions, some were very helpful, others less so.

19th Feb 2017 17:48 UTCGregg Little 🌟

We just had a post of a rather good native gold in a quartz vein. There was no locality with it so any further investigation is highly unlikely and probably nearly impossible to pursue. The specimen has little value other than for general teaching or feed stock for a smelter, that is, if it doesn't end up in landfill.

Locality should be the first " *required field " in any submission, if unknown then it should be stated as such.

20th Feb 2017 08:01 UTCDale Foster Manager

Jason Evans Wrote:

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

Unless it is something you have collected yourself it;s not always possible to add much more information other than what it says on the label, which usually is nothing more than the main mineral of interest.

Jason, whilst a dealer label may only mention the mineral of interest, the experience you have gained by being a collector should mean you can provide a brief overview description of the specimen.

Here is an example:

This is a purchased specimen, obtained at the Sussex show several years ago and this is the caption I added relating to it:

Old time specimen of Cassiterite from Trevaunance Mine, St Agnes. Specimen supplied with Barstow label. Cassiterite crystals are coating a joint surface with quartz. Underlying matrix is a metamorphosed clay-slate rock.

Four brief sentences that give a reasonable description.

Reiner Mielke Wrote:

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

I agree with Doug obvious photos don't need description.

Reiner - what might be obvious to you may not be so to a novice - a brief description that allows anyone to know what they are seeing is always beneficial.

Alex Earl Wrote:

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

Try to keep in mind that not everyone who visits the site knows what you do about minerals, things that may be obvious to you, may not be obvious to

others. I try to remember when I first came across mindat, and when I was looking through all of the photos and trying to learn by reading descriptions, some were very helpful, others less so.

Alex - you have hit the nail squarely on the head, this is precisely why a description is useful.

20th Feb 2017 08:48 UTCDale Foster Manager

Douglas Merson Wrote:

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

I am not a creative writer nor will I ever be.

It is not to do with 'creative' writing, rather an overview based on factual observation.

Leave the creative to the dealers who are looking to sell specimens.

20th Feb 2017 10:30 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Jeff Weissman Wrote:

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

>

> https://www.mindat.org/photo-803591.html - good,

> brief description that is highly informative

>

As I understand, this description is based on descriptions of two another and different samples (https://www.mindat.org/photo-387558.html and https://www.mindat.org/photo-422475.html / https://www.mindat.org/photo-422473.html). This description may to be incorrect, because of it based on analitical data of two different associations, don't including heulandite, mentioned by OT. Moreover in the second description clearly stated, that churchite-(Y) is untypical and extremely rare for the locality. besides that this second association don't contains lemmleinite-Ba.

I am think this not the best example of 'creative' approach to existing analytical data/literature.

20th Feb 2017 12:33 UTCJohn Collins

Here two examples from my mineral collection. I trust the descriptions are what we are looking for:

https://www.mindat.org/photo-800956.html and https://www.mindat.org/photo-682621.html

Re the photos themselves, I usually have to take 3 or 4 (+ photoshop) before I get one that is worthy of posting.

20th Feb 2017 13:08 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

John,

I have some doubts about possibility of tinaksite presence in the last your sample. It isn't typical for fedorite associations.

20th Feb 2017 16:21 UTCJason Evans

There is a big difference in your example Dale, you have specialized interest in cassiterite from Cornwall (and elsewhere) so you already have a great deal of knowledge in the locations and the matrix, associated minerals etc. Not everyone has this in depth knowledge especially when they have a much broader range of minerals they collect, and from localities they are unlikely to ever visit themselves.

20th Feb 2017 17:35 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert

Dale

What Reiner is referring to is photos where the mineral is frame filling leaving no doubt as to what is what as there is nothing to confuse it with. To me, trying to describe what is obvious in this situation is not needed.

20th Feb 2017 21:23 UTCJohn Collins

Pavel,

You may be right but tinaksite is found in the area and the specific locales (plus coordinates) are not mentioned in mindat.org. The combo of minerals was told to me by a Russian dealer at "The Russian Stone". I assumed he had his sources.

Regards,

John

21st Feb 2017 00:34 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

John, yes tinaksite is abundant and typical mineral of charoite associations of Murun massif. But you may to found it not in any charoite specimen. Particularly in samples with fedorite it absent. Brown mineral in your stone may to be (I don't speak is) rather mizerite or altered pectolite.

I am specially interested by mineralogy of Murun and have in my collection 82 minerals from 200 ones known here. I received Murun material from leading mineralogists investigated the massif - A.A. Konev, E.I. Vorob'ev, N.V. Vladykin, M.G. Dobrovol'skaya and collected myself on charoite stores of Quartzsamotsvety company in Yakutia. The first sample from Murun appear in my collection in 1976.

If you want my advice - delete tinaksite from caption to the specimen. In any case its grains are too small and low quality to be mentioned even if it indeed would be tinaksite. It is directly connected with the topic of this thread - Proper Descriptions for Mineral Photos.

What about your the first photo, more important diagnostoc property allowing to distinguish millerite from pentlandite is not cleavage or its direction/angles but color of these minerals (which is quite different). Mineral at your photo has color of pentlandite, not millerite one. So It is obvious that we have pentlandite on your photo and your description is wrong. Othervise color reproduction of your photo is wrong, and in this case its value (of the photo) is quite low. In other words, image at your picture is in sharp contradiction with its description.

21st Feb 2017 07:12 UTCDale Foster Manager

Jason Evans Wrote:

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

There is a big difference in your example Dale, you have specialized interest in cassiterite from Cornwall (and elsewhere) so you already have a great deal of knowledge in the locations and the matrix, associated minerals etc. Not everyone has this in depth knowledge especially when they have a much broader range of minerals they collect, and from localities they are unlikely to ever visit themselves.

Yes, I do have a specialised interest and a reasonable level of experience in the particular area you mention, but that is to some degree irrespective.

I am sure that your interest is not solely in creating a collection of different minerals just because they exist, look pretty and have different names i.e. you are a collector not a hoarder. You have a deeper interest in minerals and by this point in time you should know enough about them to provide a basic description by in effect 'saying what you see' about a specimen.

I do not think it is so difficult to write a brief, factual description of what is to be observed in a picture, after all if it is your own specimen you have photographed, you will have that specimen sitting in front of you, so describe it in a way that your picture has meaning to anyone viewing it, whether they are novice or expert. If something is unknown just say you do not know, there is no shame in that and by saying you don't know you may find that others can offer advice.

Becky Coulson was quite correct you already do a good job of putting descriptions to your pictures and as most of your specimens are likely acquired by means other than personal field collecting, in effect you're defeating your original statement by your own actions.

21st Feb 2017 07:12 UTCDale Foster Manager

Douglas Merson Wrote:

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

Dale

What Reiner is referring to is photos where the mineral is frame filling leaving no doubt as to what is what as there is nothing to confuse it with. To me, trying to describe what is obvious in this situation is not needed.

Doug,

If the photograph is in your own private album that is perfectly fine.

However, the photos here are mostly in a public gallery that can be viewed by all - novice, expert and all levels of skill in between.

Do not just assume that everyone shares your view of what is obvious.

21st Feb 2017 11:15 UTCSteve Rust Manager

I tend to agree Mindat is not a site on how excellent the photo was taken although it is important as an addendum to the description of the specimens.

And can contributors please include associated species in the description lots of photographs with obvious other minerals on the specimens. It will greatly advance the use of Mindat.

21st Feb 2017 13:59 UTCJason Evans

That is my biggest gripe, when there is a photo with more than one species shown but only one named, if additional minerals are known, please include them! There have been instances where I have got a specimen from the same locality and on closer examination I have noticed additional minerals which visually match what I see in other photos from the locality, but they are not mentioned so I cannot identify what I have. Of course making identifications based on visual appearances alone is not the best practice but for some species its good enough, and can help rule out some of the other possibilities, if time is taken to search through the list of minerals occurring at that locality then it can at least give a good idea what is the most likely candidate.

I think the biggest issue is really time, I often spend quite a bit of time looking through the locality lists, but not everyone has as much free time as I do, and even then I still often end up putting "some unknown mineral" or "might be" which isn't really of much use to anyone.

I don't really bother asking for identity help now as the majority of the material I need help with is a tiny speck of something which is impossible for me to get a decent image of, or to be able to do the usual tests which can help identify a mineral, hardness, SG and so on

21st Feb 2017 14:43 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

One of my frustrations is seeing a very nice crystal/mineral image that fills the frame, but no context for that mineral - what is the matrix and what does it look like, what are the associates and even if not named specifically, what do they look like. Having information on the context of an occurrence greatly helps in identifying unknown or uncertain minerals, provided the locality is known.

For example, I recently posted barbosalite xl from Barker-Ferguson Mine, which is nice, but someone trying to get some contextual information on the occurrence would not have further information:

I also posted a quick "snapshot" of the specimen, in which the matrix and the various minerals present can be observed:

Quartz, etc.

Barker-Ferguson Mine, Keystone, Keystone Mining District, Pennington County, South Dakota, USA

I hope that in this way someone trying to ID a similar specimen from Barker-Ferguson would find this type of specimen photo survey useful for their needs.

22nd Feb 2017 01:08 UTCJohn Collins

Hi Pavel,

Thank you for the time you took for the great description of the mineralisation in the Murunskii massive.

I will defer to your expertise re the minerals associted with the charoite and will modify the description on that page soon. I gather you were fortunate to get to see this site as it seems rather remote.

Regarding the my millerite photo, take a look at the sample from the Levack mine:

http://www.davidkjoyceminerals.com/pagefiles/specimen_detail.asp?ProdID=15293

It is very similar to mine. BTW, I determined the angle between the two surfaces as described using reflection of light off the edge and used the law of reflection. My measured angle was very close to that for millerite.

Regards,

John

22nd Feb 2017 22:12 UTCJeff Weissman Expert

Here is another one recently posted - https://www.mindat.org/photo-805578.html

8 minerals listed in the caption, I can see maybe 4 or 5 in the image, the others are not apparent. In my opinion, this should not have been approved for public galleries without even a brief/cursory explanation of what is what.

22nd Feb 2017 22:57 UTCPavel Kartashov Manager

Hi John,

even on the David's photo this millerite looks too bronze. Usually it is much more light colored - straw-yellow with greenish tint (similar to cubanite). On both photos it is brownish, very similar to usual pentlandite. All this is very strange for me. I don't know the locality at all, but saw a lot of both millerites and pentlandites.

Can you photograph your sample under slightly another angle for better the mineral color visibility?

22nd Feb 2017 23:51 UTCRichard Gunter Expert

Hi Jeff:

I agree there needs to be much more description for so complex a sample. There is some debate as to the original mineral for the Catapleiite pseudomorphs. It may not be Sodalite (no Zr) but a Eudialyte Group phase (Zr for the formation of Catapleiite); both would form similar pseudomorphs.

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 25, 2024 11:56:02

Go to top of page