Which material details survive a try-on

A jewelry try-on is produced against an instruction, and that instruction does not say hold everything. It names items. A universal ruling instructs that mirror images and duplicates are held, and that openings, links and closures are held. Each category then adds its own: the earring instruction on its own carries the ruling about a single earring versus a pair, and the necklace instruction on its own names the neck and the upper chest as the region the piece belongs to.

Reading that as a closed list is the whole method of this page. If an attribute appears in it, something in the flow was told to hold that attribute. If it does not appear, nothing was. That is not a criticism of the instruction — a list that named every property of every piece would name nothing usefully — but it does mean the boundary is real and you can work with it.

One thing about the list has to be inherited rather than argued again here, because it is set out in full elsewhere on the site: preservation is instructed, not guaranteed. The list tells you what was asked for. It is not a promise attached to any particular image, which is why the checks below happen on your side of the upload.

Two things on the named side are about material rather than about shape: how many stones there are, and what colour the metal is. Both are also named reasons on the report sheet a result screen carries, which is the clearest indication the product gives that it treats them as its own attributes. The ring page owns the point that stone count is a named failure mode, and that is where the detail belongs.

Now list what is not there. The colour of a stone. Its clarity. What is visible through it. The finish of a surface — polished, brushed, hammered, matte. Plating. Patina. The lustre of a pearl. None of these are named, so none of them have anything in the flow that was instructed to carry them. They arrive in the result only to the extent that they were already unambiguous in the file you uploaded.

This is where the photography guides take over rather than this page. The rings guide sets out why colour needs neutral light before it can be believed, and why a transparent stone shows whatever is behind it; the background remover page sets out why polished metal carries the room it was photographed in, and why a translucent stone has a background inside it. Those mechanisms are theirs. The only thing this page adds is the reason they now matter more: they describe exactly the properties the instruction is silent about.

Two constraints narrow what a try-on can show of a material, and neither is a setting you adjust afterwards.

The first is size. The output resolution is a fixed constant, and the option lists that would have offered a size, a background or an aspect ratio are dead code that nothing in the interface renders. There is no larger version to request, so a texture that is too small to read in the result was already too small in what you sent.

The second is framing. There are four categories — ring, bracelet, necklace, earring — and close framing exists for rings and bracelets only. For a necklace or an earring the framing follows the body region the instruction names, which puts the piece in a scene rather than under inspection. That is the right behaviour for showing how something wears, and the wrong tool for showing a surface. A detail that decides a sale needs its own frame, taken by you.