kaval said:
Thanks for taking the time to critically analyze my work. I'm not sure of the tone upon which you're posing these questions, but I'll assume it's just questions. After all, I welcome criticism, suggestions and questions.
Of course it's just questions of clarification, and my observations - I'm not intending to be hostile at all. Regardless, that doesn't sound very welcome, particularly with what you said to me later...
The composition of this picture was created with the intention to capture the area which had defects before (sanding marks), and not to capture reflectivity shots. I could have just backed up the focus a bit on my lens and would have had a sharp reflection.
I figured, and yes I also figured your camera did it, but I was not sure. Since I didn't see a really, really clear shot of the surface, I wasn't sure what the camera was focusing on.
The top left area is actually a clearcoat blotch. This car turned out to be a vehicle purchased as damaged, and was repainted.
You should have mentioned that.
I'm surprised that your critical eye didn't pick up my mention of a 3M clearbra before posting this question. As a mentioned previously, a 3M clearbra was installed prior to the detail. The angle at which the picture was taken unfortunately highlights the seam line.
Honestly, it looked like a hair on the lens to me, and I didn't even think of the clear-bra. I guess I just thought it was more photo troubles. I must have missed that particular photo of the taping of the clear bra, or I didn't notice the location of the tape.
Okay, now I am starting to get slightly annoyed. As I mentioned earlier, the optics and composition of the pictures have a very large bearing on how 'reflective' a surface is. I could easily process the picture in photoshop, add some contrast, maybe step down the exposure slightly and add some offset, and you may feel differently about the picture. Furthermore, plastic painted panels CAN look different, in my experience, even after a thorough multi-step correction process.
I know they can look different, I was just asking for clarification. If you can't take the criticism, and aren't willing to kindly give your end of the story, then I won't bother you with it. It's not like I didn't genuinely compliment your work as well.
Thanks for the compliment on the picture. I cleaned the plastic with APC, and protected it with 303....after the pictures. We took the pictures, without the license plates on, then the owner took me out for breakfast.
Technically I did not COMPOUND the panel. I used Super Intensive Polish, which is low on cut in comparison to a compound such as PowerGloss or M105. I am guessing you are inexperienced with a couple of things, such as 1) Hard paint, and 2) Using Super Intensive Polish. As Todd (TH0001) says himself, SIP finishes down extremely well. He uses SIP to jewel the paint on Ferraris (with a lower cut pad). I have never worked on a Ferrari yet, but I would imagine the paint is softer than Audi's. With that said, polishing the RS4 with a yellow pad and SIP left the paint defect free and quite glossy. Also, as I stated in my write up, I felt that more gloss could be achieved, hence my follow up with PO106FF on a white pad. I also see that you made an incorrect reference to me using a yellow CCS pad. If you have used one of these before, you will know that they really haze up the paint with their rough composition. I used LC yellow pads, and Sonus yellow pads (which are made by LC). I find these give the same cut with SIP.
You're right, I realize you didn't compound it. SIP is my polish of choice, and I'm curious as to how you would respond by clarifying your specific procedures, and to accuse me of inexperience in such an unprofessional manner is uncalled for. I meant not to make personal attacks against you, so please don't take it as such.
Yes, I know they haze the hell out of the paint - that's why I sent my yellow pads back to my supplier.
Yes, Ferrari paint, particularly the older paints, are some extremely soft paints.
Yes, I have experience on hard clears such as Audis.
If you read the write up, you would not be asking this question.
No - considering I did read it and took the time to link photos and give my observations kindly, I'll ignore this, because I've got nothing against you. I'm really sorry if it came off the wrong way, but that's no reason to say these things. I honestly felt you clarified well until you took things personal.
Look, I'm not bashing you, and I'm not going to start by trying to attempt to bash your credibility with the same fallacious argument.
