Megs #105 vs D151

[jono20]

This is an image I threw together for my website, I though it would be good to put it on the forum as well for reference purposes.



Just demos my two basic packages, single pass with orange pad and D151, or a full correction with M105, D151, and #21 Sealer.



http://jpd.squarespace.com/storage/Package%20Demos%20500.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSI ON=1276740850721



Full pic here: http://jpd.squarespace.com/storage/Package%20Demos.jpg

[rdorman]

As a consumer of detailing services I think it is a very good demonstration of what to expect. Most folks would have no clue what to expect when talking in percentages such as 80 or 90% correction. Of course, a `results may vary` disclaimer to go with it might be prudent!

[Autogeek]

Just a word of advice; you might want to finish with 205 after 105 as the picture on the right shows significant micromarring. But other than that, I think it`s a good concept.

[todd@bsaw]

Just a word of advice; you might want to finish with 205 after 105 as the picture on the right shows significant micromarring. But other than that, I think it`s a good concept.



I was going to say the same thing, but I love the concept. I may have to do something similar on my services.

[rdorman]

Is Micromarring the slight haze that appears in the last photo?



I would think I would do say a four corner type photo of a hood or trunk lid. Mask off four squares. One would be untouched and they other varying levels of correction such as a AIO/on step, two step and two step with a final `jeweling` (hopefully I used that word correctly!). I would have no sealant or wax on any panel to show that it is the polishing that gives the shine and not the wax/sealent. I would then be tempted to wax/seal the same panel in the original picture to further illustrate the point and to show that while wax/seal alone will improve the appearence, once it wears off you are right back to the first picture.

[Autogeek]

Yes, if you zoom in you will see the marring around the light. Again, don`t take offense to my scrutiny...just trying to help! :)

[gmblack3]

For $250 the pic on the right looks fine. I`d say add another pic for $325 after adding 205 to the mix.

[Autogeek]

For $250 the pic on the right looks fine. I`d say add another pic for $325 after adding 205 to the mix.



If he`s using 105, 151, and 21, replacing 151 with 205 will not add any additional work to his process and will achieve better overall results IMO.

[todd@bsaw]

rdorman, I`m not sure how well that would work because you really need the direct light on each section to show the full paint condition.



Just as an example, here`s a simple before/after that I made:



http://www.ts-detailing.com/images//before-after.jpg



Not to side track, but for those that frequently take pictures of paint work (I do not), what is your technique to get the best images? I always have such a hard time properly reflecting the actual condition of the paint and am a photography dummy. I don`t usually show people that before/after image because I feel I could do much better. Whenever I try taking a picture of damaged paint work, the camera focuses on the plane of the surface and the after pictures focus further away on the light.

[rdorman]

I don`t take these kind of shots but it seems to me that you may be able to use four lights, or one right where they intersect or place the camera on a tripod and take four exposures while moving the light and then combine them. Not sure!

[jono20]

I use a DSLR to take my photos. The key is to have the lens focus on the paints surface, not on what it`s reflecting, it makes a big difference. For examply, in the photo above, to focus on the paint was a focal distance of 2 ft, if I were to use the autofocus on the camera it would have focused to 5ft and you wouldn`t be able to see the damage clearly.



I totally forgot I was going to do this on this vehicle, so the only spot I had left to split it off was the rear quarter panel. Next black car I do I will mask off a part of the hood and it will be a lot easier to see.



And good on me for finally capturing micro-marring in a photo! Ha ha, I would have gone over that a little more with D151 after that, but not much more. I put 8-10 hours in to a $250 job, I`d have to jack my prices a lot more to get better results than that. I can tell you the customer was more than happy :).



Here are a couple other pics from the job.



http://www.jpdetail.ca/picture/img_6565.jpg?pictureId=5749596

http://www.jpdetail.ca/picture/img_6564.jpg?pictureId=5749595

[imported_Ivan Rajic]

This is an image I threw together for my website, I though it would be good to put it on the forum as well for reference purposes.



Just demos my two basic packages, single pass with orange pad and D151, or a full correction with M105, D151, and #21 Sealer.



http://jpd.squarespace.com/storage/Package%20Demos%20500.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSI ON=1276740850721



Full pic here: http://jpd.squarespace.com/storage/Package%20Demos.jpg



Very good idea. I actually planned on doing that for my new biz, but it`s overall a great idea. I would only suggest to either explain that paint hardness and severity of defects plays a big role on the after photos. I plan on doing that same thing on a couple different paints and showing the before and 2-3 afters for different services. Good plan though!




Not to side track, but for those that frequently take pictures of paint work (I do not), what is your technique to get the best images? I always have such a hard time properly reflecting the actual condition of the paint and am a photography dummy. I don`t usually show people that before/after image because I feel I could do much better. Whenever I try taking a picture of damaged paint work, the camera focuses on the plane of the surface and the after pictures focus further away on the light.



Todd I usually put a microfiber on the paint, focus on that, then just move the lens over and take the photos. This way you focus on the surface of the paint and not the actual light in the "background", unless that`s what you`re after of course. That`s one of the reasons I don`t trust sun shots 100% when I view them online. If you focus "into" the paint, the surface swirls that might be there don`t show and you see perfect paint. I`m speaking from experience after detailing a few black cars and taking photos in a few different ways... when I looked at the photos on the computer, the light swirls left over were not seen, even though they were on the paint.

[Autogeek]

Good advice here. Mike Phillips usually puts his finger on the paint, focuses on that, then takes the shot. You want the focus to be on the paint surface itself, not what`s reflecting off of it.

[todd@bsaw]

Thanks for the tips! I guess I`ll have to mess around with taking pictures a little more.

Normally I`m not the type to photograph and document a detail other than a couple "before" and a couple "after" pictures. I had a friend of mine that is a big into amateur photography trying to explain how to use the custom white balance settings and other technical stuff on my DSLR and he lost me.

[jono20]

I always try to take at least one 50/50 shot on every car I do, that way if you get one of the customers who tend to question exactly what they payed for, I can bring it up on the computer and show them.