View Full Version : How about using compact flourescent lights (CFL`s) for detailing?
Passrat
10-16-2009, 01:22 PM
I got my first quartz halogen light the other day and I really don`t see swirls in it the way I`ve seen some of you guys post in pictures. In fact I couldn`t see any no matter how I held it. But as I was looking I saw that the CFL in the regular light fixture on the wall of the garage was lighting them up nicely! So I was thinking perhaps a couple of those big 300watt equivelant CFL`s in drop lights would do the trick for detailing out swirls. Does anybody else use them? And was I maybe using the halogen wrong somehow?
RickyMartinZ28
10-16-2009, 01:25 PM
Distance from the surface to the lights make a big difference for me. I set my lights back about 6 foot or more... Up close I use LEDs... I had to learn how to focus as well....
now anytime I look at anything, all I see are defects... kinda sucks...
Passrat
10-16-2009, 01:33 PM
LOL, I`m already like that! :sadwavey:
Unfortunately my garage is too small to put lights 6 feet away. The most I can do is probably 3 to 3-1/2.
the thing with halogen is that they are too bright up close and blind you if they are used too close to the working area, basically any type of light shined at the correct distance and angle will show the paint imperfections, as a photographer i know...
Bunky
10-16-2009, 04:32 PM
I used this set up. It is not the best for evaluating correction but it is cooler and adds more light to sides.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2564/3998221838_9f48a8ef86_o.jpg
jfelbab
10-16-2009, 05:38 PM
Swirls seem more visible under a point source of light. CFL`s are not a point source. A clear incandescent would be better in that regard. A high wattage LED is very good for close inspection.
I find it useful to have both high output fluorescent tubes and halogen lighting in my garage. I switch between them based on what I am trying to accomplish.
Accumulator
10-17-2009, 10:41 AM
Swirls seem more visible under a point source of light. CFL`s are not a point source. A clear incandescent would be better in that regard..
Exactly, that`s a great example of taking the words right out of my mouth :D
All the different types of lighting have their uses, but I find fluorescents best for texture/gloss issues. They do show certain types of marring, but usually *not* what I`m concerned with.
Passrat
10-20-2009, 12:19 AM
OK then I`ll experiment some more with these points in mind. I still havent actually done anything yet with the new PC and pads. Maybe I`ll start on the shower doors and then move on to the GF`s Nissan with the water spots.
Nice rig there Bunky. I may try that.
imported_WhyteWizard
10-20-2009, 07:40 AM
When it comes to swirls the more you can cut down on indirect light the better off you`ll be. The place I have that has the best lighting is an underground garage where I can turn all the lights off and use nothing but my headlamp and halogens on stands.
I hope someone can come up with a light that shows things up like a halogen but doesn`t generate so much heat.
Robert
Accumulator
10-20-2009, 10:41 AM
When it comes to swirls the more you can cut down on indirect light the better off you`ll be...
Yeah, that`s *very* important, good point :xyxthumbs
bill57
10-20-2009, 07:05 PM
I`ve found tiny scratches and minor marring under incandescent light that I never saw under other light sources (especially under the sun).
Accumulator
10-21-2009, 10:04 AM
I`ve found tiny scratches and minor marring under incandescent light that I never saw under other light sources (especially under the sun).
Yep, that`s the way it works for me too, especially on metallic paints.