1. Black paint + great surface prep. + possibly less reflective LSP = The black paint itself disappears. The reflection from the paint overwhelms any reflection from the surface of the LSP, and the eye's focus is drawn into the distance. This is "Depth".
2. White paint + same prep. = The white paint will not itself disappear and the light from it washes out the image of the distant objects. The eye is not drawn to anything especially distinctive about this, since most reflective surfaces reflect partially, like this.
3. Compromises for white, choose one:
a. Use a very reflective LSP to get surface reflections. This "unsaturates", or "dilutes" the light radiated from the white paint itself, an effect which some might not like, especially on reds, I've read. Also, the top surface of a transparent polymer or wax cannot reflect nearly all of the incident light, as a mirror-finish (and opaque) black paint can, and thus this option can never equal the depth of black anyway (except possibly at a very low angle of incidence, which would be why so many photos are taken at such angles.)
b. Go for "wet" or "oily". This catches the attention, and is beautiful.
"B" involves high surface reflectivity, but does not "unsaturate" the underlying color (according to pictures I've seen) because of, I speculate, the higher index of refraction of the media between the surface of the paint and the air, such as oils or carnauba. I could give a geometrical argument for this. I think this is the heart of the difference between "plasticy" and "wet".
(Note: clearcoat or any uncooperative polymer might partially interrupt this mechanism.)
4. So, according to my theory, a polymer product described as "plasticy" would (itself) have higher reflectivity and lower index of refraction, while "carnauba" would (itself) have lower reflectivity and higher index of refraction.
(Incidentally, according to what I've *actually seen myself*, NXT would have a degree of high reflectivity and a *high* index of refraction. When I, a beginner, used NXT for the first time on my wife's truck, I was struck by the relative disappearance of the surface of the truck, compared to the other product I used right beside it, and good "wetness" too.)
All of this gives me a reason to be glad that my new white Toyota does not have any clearcoat, as I was surprised to learn, and to make the most of it by going for "wet".
Now I can go to work on my new truck, since I think I know what to use and why.
2. White paint + same prep. = The white paint will not itself disappear and the light from it washes out the image of the distant objects. The eye is not drawn to anything especially distinctive about this, since most reflective surfaces reflect partially, like this.
3. Compromises for white, choose one:
a. Use a very reflective LSP to get surface reflections. This "unsaturates", or "dilutes" the light radiated from the white paint itself, an effect which some might not like, especially on reds, I've read. Also, the top surface of a transparent polymer or wax cannot reflect nearly all of the incident light, as a mirror-finish (and opaque) black paint can, and thus this option can never equal the depth of black anyway (except possibly at a very low angle of incidence, which would be why so many photos are taken at such angles.)
b. Go for "wet" or "oily". This catches the attention, and is beautiful.
"B" involves high surface reflectivity, but does not "unsaturate" the underlying color (according to pictures I've seen) because of, I speculate, the higher index of refraction of the media between the surface of the paint and the air, such as oils or carnauba. I could give a geometrical argument for this. I think this is the heart of the difference between "plasticy" and "wet".
(Note: clearcoat or any uncooperative polymer might partially interrupt this mechanism.)
4. So, according to my theory, a polymer product described as "plasticy" would (itself) have higher reflectivity and lower index of refraction, while "carnauba" would (itself) have lower reflectivity and higher index of refraction.
(Incidentally, according to what I've *actually seen myself*, NXT would have a degree of high reflectivity and a *high* index of refraction. When I, a beginner, used NXT for the first time on my wife's truck, I was struck by the relative disappearance of the surface of the truck, compared to the other product I used right beside it, and good "wetness" too.)
All of this gives me a reason to be glad that my new white Toyota does not have any clearcoat, as I was surprised to learn, and to make the most of it by going for "wet".
Now I can go to work on my new truck, since I think I know what to use and why.
