Hello PG and here are some of my pearls...

[CLICLASP]

For the luster, when you see the light reflection and it starts to fuzz out to the sides, this indicates a medium to lower level of luster, not medium to high. This is most apparent in the lighter-color pearls that show slightly off-green.

Jeremy, could you give a definition of the way pearls must reflect the light when having medium to high and very high luster?
Thanks

 

[lionlaw]

Gorgeous collection! I love Elana's pearls and have succumbed to her sale more than I should have lately.

 

[Amrita]

Lovely pearls, Diadiva! And you are such an elegant model too! Enjoy them!

 

[Pearlgully]

BTW, all the pearls are from the same seller.

Are they from Japster?


Gail

 

[jshepherd]

Jeremy, could you give a definition of the way pearls must reflect the light when having medium to high and very high luster?
Thanks

Luster is the quantity and quality of light reflected from the surface of a pearl. You can see the quality of the light in the shape of the reflection. The smaller and tighter the point of light, and the clear line of the light in the reflection indicates the quality of the luster. Like a small, tight perfect "O" is high luster. When the light reflection starts to fuzz around the edges, this indicated a medium to poor luster.

In the image below, I would describe the pearl on the left as medium to poor luster, and the pearl on the right as poor luster.

 

[MsT]

Thanks for the education Jeremy, and for explaining the "O".
How do you determine luster if you can't see an "O"?
Or, would the light reflection be described as a large O?

Case in point:

 

[claudenancy]

I understand how comparisons among pearls could be made with some consistency of ranking within a photograph or between two photos taken under exactly the same conditions, equipment etc..

However, is it not difficult (using a photograph) to make such comparisons or even judgements based on past experience when those conditions are vastly different or even unknown?
Although I can see how the luster that is shown in the photograph could be compared to that shown in other photos. I guess my question is really whether variation in external factors, such as lighting, equipment, etc. affects the validity of photographic representations of luster as well as other characteristics such as base color, overtone etc.

Thanks so much for all of your clear and concise explanations Jeremy

 

[Diadiva]

Jeremy, I've taken better shots in natural light so you can review this strand again because I noticed that when I photograph it with flash and without, the necklace looks very different. The lustre of the necklace looks better when it's taken without the flash.

With flash:

Without flash:

What do you think of it now?

 

[Diadiva]

Good eye, ladies! These are Japster pearls.

 

[jshepherd]

I understand how comparisons among pearls could be made with some consistency of ranking within a photograph or between two photos taken under exactly the same conditions, equipment etc..

However, is it not difficult (using a photograph) to make such comparisons or even judgements based on past experience when those conditions are vastly different or even unknown?
Although I can see how the luster that is shown in the photograph could be compared to that shown in other photos. I guess my question is really whether variation in external factors, such as lighting, equipment, etc. affects the validity of photographic representations of luster as well as other characteristics such as base color, overtone etc.

Thanks so much for all of your clear and concise explanations Jeremy

I agree that lighting can make a difference. But a pin-point direct light is the easiest to determine the luster, as you can see the outlines or lack of outlines of the light. The strand in the earlier photo had a direct, single light source.

 

[GemGeek]

Just because they don't have top luster, doesn't mean they aren't beautiful. All of your pearls are lovely. Personally, I am lusting over the ring!

 

[jshepherd]

Thanks for the education Jeremy, and for explaining the "O".
How do you determine luster if you can't see an "O"?
Or, would the light reflection be described as a large O?

This one is much more difficult because it doesn't have a single direct light source. But from the photo, the luster looks nice.

 

[Cassiopeia]

Hi DiaDiva. Welcome to PG You have a gorgeous collection!! Thanks for sharing your pictures with us.

Jeremy, thank you for that great piece of information.

 

[pearllove]

Dear DiaDiva,

You have some beautiful pearls. Your metallic silver strand looks especially pretty on you.

Btw, welcome to the Pearl-Guide. I am also on tPF and share your love of purses and pearls.

 

[Diadiva]

Thanks, pearllove ...are you also pearllove on TPF?

 

[pearllove]

No, I'm parisbloom on tPF. I have never posted on tPF; I just lurk and look at the photos.

 

[pearldreamer]

I just love your pearl collection and had to come in an drool over it again!

Thanks for the lesson in luster Jeremy!

 

[ShashiRatna]

Very nice collection Diadiva. And yes - that is a beautiful neck. Honestly, when I saw the pics - I noticed the neck first.

Jeremy, thanks for the education.

Cheers,
SR

 

[ShashiRatna]

BTW Diadiva, what is TPF?

-SR

 

[Caitlin]

The Purse Forum.