What I mean by controlled environment is essentially taking pics under controlled lighting - ideally meaning a well let garage where you can make sure the lighting is the same every time - but at least possibly outdoor shots where you checked to verify the clouds, sun, time, etc were pretty consistant from shot to shot.

I'm just interested to see how much of a visual difference multiple coats of Zaino makes?

I'm tempted to strip the hood of my silver Audi of the wax it has on it now, clay it, clean it thoroughly, and tape it down the middle, then do one side with a single coat, and the other side with some ridiculous number of coats. Say maybe 8 or 10. Then take pics and see if y'all see any difference.

We already did this once on my dad's red '02 F150 but only with 1 layer vs 2. I want to try taking things much further.

Predicitons on the results? Any guidelines I should be sure to follow other than no more than 3 coats of Zaino layers per day? I'll try to do this over the weekend if I get any decent response - that way I can drive my wife's car if I need to go anywhere and let the Audi sit.

 

I think it will be hard to capture something like that through a camera.

 

The difference between zero coats and one coat is huge when on camera, so why should the difference between one and ten coats be difficult to see?

Honestly I've never been able to tell much of a difference when 'layering' zaino - in the end I've kinda questioned whether I just wasted a couple hours and a few dollars worth of zaino or not when doing a second coat. When layering, say, 3 coats one after another... other than the supposed visual gains, will there be any noticable increase in durability as well?

 

Your camera and/or photography skills must be superior to mine. I've taken tons of pictures of detailing and differences are *usually* subtle.

Make sure to post your findings though; it will be interesting to see.

 

You'll find diminishing returns as far as depth and shine after 3-5 coats. The main reason to add the occassional layer is to maintain the finish and add more protection. With using the Z-8 you won't notice as big a difference after finishing off coats with it.

 

Maybe if you were to use a pro 11-20 mp camera, of course the problem then would be finding a monitor good enough to see the difference. We shot some pixs several years ago showing one coat vs 5 coats, that was done using an 8 mp camera, and while you could see the difference in person, you could not see much difference on the computer.

 

You must not be into photography/PCs much. The megapixels captured by a camera, past a relatively early point, (like the point that even the cheapest camera has surpassed today) makes no difference at all on most modern day PCs, as its far higher resolution than the native resolution of that monitor anyhow. What does matter is the camera's capturing system itself, the lense, the settings used on the camear to capture, and the lighting. My boss has a Canon digital SLR camera (~$1500) with some fancy 800 dollar lense. Maybe that will be enough?

 

Doesn't do any good to talk theories...just show us...

 

Probably not, my GF uses a Cannon camera with 16+ mp, I have a 6 mp camera that most of the pixs on my web site were taken with, her pixs are 100% sharper than mine. That 1500 dollar camera just will not cut it for what your are looking to do. You can also get PC monitors that offer much better resolution like Ultrasharp from Dell, I have one and it's some much sharper that the old TV tube type monitors of the past.

 

The highest MP prosumer model they sell at the moment is 8MP. Which model does she have that is 16+ MP?

Look at the lense and capturing method on hers and compare it to yours... you'll see a huge difference. In fact, as an experiment, go set her camera to capture at 6MP (any digi cam should let you lower the capture res) or lower. Then take a picture of the same thing in the same lighting and compare. Hers will still look much sharper.

Well, I guess this is my question. If layering Zaino is said to produce such great results, then why can't it be captured on even a 1500 dollar camera? I mean, I can capture the improvement between no wax and one layer of wax with my friggin' camera phone. So why would a 1500 dollar camera not allow us to appreciate the addition of several more layers? I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just asking if the difference is that subtle that a high end camera can't capture it... is there really any difference at all?

Really? You mean like the 24" Dell ultrasharp I'm typing this post on?

 

Who's talking theories?

 

You are - theories, opinions, whatever...stop talking about it and do it, since that's the reason you started this

 

Oh I see - just been too busy, really. Maybe I'll get started on it tonight if I get home at a reasonable time and don't see a bunch of additions to the honey-do list.

 

If I'm reading this correctly, and I believe that I am, I would be very interested in seeing/hearing the results if you are willing to set aside some time for all of us.

And regardless of the monitor vs. camera vs. whatever discussion going on, more than anything, I'd like to get your own visual opinion on it. Something like, "You know what, there is a difference." Or "I wasted my entire weekend."

Above all, If you don't mind doing it, I'd be very appreciative to see what happens.

Cheers,

Jeff

 

You won't do it. You said a very similar thing back when you had your Lexus.