(Closed) Online pics contribute to shrinkage

posted 4 years ago in Rings
Post # 3
7315 posts
Busy Beekeeper
  • Wedding: October 2011 - Bed & Breakfast

I agree with your premise. I think that seeing rings online and then seeing them in real life is often a letdown. For me, what I liked in photos and what I actually liked on my hand ended up being 2 very different things. So it wasn’t so much size that suprised me, it was style. Mr. LK, on the other hand, definitely experienced stone size shock. We looked at stones online at James Allen just to get started, and then when we looked at stones in person he was mystified by how small they really were. He had no concept of actual size. He was also astonished at their prices, but that’s a whole other story. haha

Post # 4
6046 posts
Bee Keeper
  • Wedding: September 2017

@FauxPas2012:  I think for me the shape really was what was different. I really liked emerald cut in photos but in person I wasn’t a fan. I also think that in photos it’s hard to imagine it on the hand. So seeing things in person was kind of a shock. I think you get an idea by seeing an online photo and then it goes on your hand and you’re like oh…. well that isn’t what I thought it was gonna be! lol So yes, the size can be misleading based on photos you see online.

Post # 5
1183 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: July 2002

@FauxPas2012:  Yes, definitely!  I mean, you see these diamonds 40x magnified, and then you see them in real life,  and they’re so tiny for so much money, Lol.  That’s a beautiful ring!! 

Post # 6
2609 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: September 2011

I find that hand photos are deceptive too.  I know when I photograph my ring and post the pics, it looks HUGE compared to how it looks IRL, and I’m sure that the perspective shift applies to others hand-shots too.

Post # 7
3221 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: April 2015

@MissNoodles:  agreed. My ring also looks bigger in photos (or even if I notice it in passing in the mirror) than it does in real life.

Post # 8
1220 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: April 2014

@FauxPas2012:  I agree totally!  I had been doing research online and decided (with FH) on a 2 carat diamond. We ordered one based on the GIA specs alone. Upon seeing it, my first thought was “it’s so tiny!” For some reason, I thought it would be bigger.

Post # 9
478 posts
Helper bee
  • Wedding: January 2015

Absolutely, styles also look deceiving to me.  I love solitaires in photos but IRL I think they’re underwhelming.

Post # 10
8044 posts
Bumble Beekeeper
  • Wedding: December 2013

Yes, definitely. Especially when I kept at looking at zoomed in photos to see tiny details.

I am still at times astounded just how expensive small sparkly rocks can be 😉

I also am guilty of looking at celebrity engagement ring photos… those are definitely supersized and can skew perspective a bit.

I remember going to Tiffany’s during our ring hunt and trying on 2 ct. solitaires and thinking “this it it?!”.

Post # 11
3736 posts
Sugar bee
  • Wedding: September 2014

@shortie1848:  It will look bigger in the setting. You will love it. My center is a little over 2 and it’s lovely. YAhoo for you!

Post # 12
6365 posts
Bee Keeper

There’s a lot that doesn’t come through in photos. It can set up a lot of inaccurate expectations if they’re the main thing someone’s trying to go off of. I think this is true for many things, like clothing and handbags, but especially true for gems, because not only do zoomed-in photos tend to make them look bigger than they are, but more importantly, all their most important qualities are about exactly how they look like in person, their exact color, the exact way they react to light, etc. etc. and these are the things that are obscured.

You know what I find the absolute worst? Trying to figure out everthing you need to know about making a colored gem purchase, online. No number of photos, videos, whatever, is ever the same as having it in your own hot little hands for just 10 minutes.

Post # 13
2000 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: October 2015

I actually had the opposite experience! 🙂 

I looked online and thought everything looked kind of small. Then we went to Tiffany’s for the first time and the sales lady put a 0.32 tcw, 0.22 center princess cut ring called “Grace” on my finger and it was love at first sight – I was stunned at how significant that tiny thing looked on my finger. 

I think that’s probably because most online stores’ “hand view” features use an average size finger (a US 6?) and my ring size is only 3.25. I have baby hands! lol 

ETA: that ring is gorgeous! Just give me a 0.5 carat version and I’ll be a happy cat for ever and ever and ever 🙂

Post # 14
1290 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

Yes TOTALLY agree. Had I known how “micro” the micropave was on my set I would have probably upped the ante a bit, off the bat. It looked way bigger on the computer screen! We are going a completely different direction (no pave at all) on my upgrade and I agree – 2 carats sounds a lot bigger based on the price tag than it looks, especially in a loose stone, IMHO!


Post # 15
1771 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: August 1997

@FauxPas2012:  I know what you mean, this is my latest upgrade but it’s just not giving me enough finger coverage…..

LOL Laughing 

Post # 16
1290 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2012

@gemgirl6:  Oh my gosh, I totally have one of those! THAT is why my ring seems small! LOL!!!

The topic ‘Online pics contribute to shrinkage’ is closed to new replies.

Get our weekly roundup of the best of Weddingbee.
I agree to receive emails from the site. I can withdraw my consent at any time by unsubscribing.

Find Amazing Vendors