Clearkote (all products) vs Menzerna/Souvern Paste detail pictures

T

Todd03Blown

New member
At the end of 2005 I detailed my black 2003 cobra with the full suite of clearkote products (compound moose, VMG, RMG, yellow moose and CMW) which I have been using for over 2.5 years and love); but as of late I wanted to experiment and try something else on my black paint so I went the route of menzerna IP, FP, wolfgang finishing glaze and souvern paste wax. Below are the pictures both taken on a very sunny day with the same camera on the same settings. You can clearly see the Menzerna/Souvern combo produces a wetter, deeper black. Thought I would share for those who would like to see a comparison.

Clearkote Picture

03cobraleftside.jpg




Menzerna/Souvern

passsidesunny4_.jpg
 
I would agree that the Souveran pic looks wetter, but I still say CMW is tops for a deepening effect. My midnight blue metallic GTO has never looked better than OP/RMG/YCW/CMW and then a little Quik Shine for good measure.



To me, the Souveran pic looks more 'hard candy' than the CK.
 
Never used Menzerna or Souvern, but I've used VM and CMW there very nice products. Easy on/easy off and leave a nice deep wet look.
 
Souveran is the wettest and deepest product I have used on black paint so far in the dozens of products I have tried. It is a special product.
 
SilverLexus said:
Souveran is the wettest and deepest product I have used on black paint so far in the dozens of products I have tried. It is a special product.
Click to expand...

Lee - I agree as well. This morning in my parking deck Ihave had like 10 people come and ask me who detailed my car and what did they use :spot .
 
...both taken on a very sunny day with the same camera on the same settings
Click to expand...



Both look great! :2thumbs:



No offense but not everything is the same in the two pics. The first picture has a high cloud layer the is muting the sun where the bottom pic is full sun. Also the camera shutter speed is different - on the first pic it's 500 where the bottom is 650.



I've used both and IMO the differences between the two is very hard be picked up with a camera. CMW darkens the paint and give it a "rich" look and Souveran has a bit more clarity and reflection, Both produce great finishes....it's just which look you prefer.
 
for what it is worth. The camera settings have not change at all between these pictures not sure where you got the 500 and 650 settings from. The first the sky was 95% cloud free and in the 2nd picture as well. The only difference was the first pic was taken in my driveway at an incline and the 2nd pic was taken at our tennis courts on a level surface. Just my thoughts.
 
White95Max said:
I agree that there is some variance in the photo conditions, but both shots look incredible! :xyxthumbs :drool:
Click to expand...



Same. Souveran is an awesome wax but with CMW, you get 95% of the look at less than 1/3rd the price, plus better durability.



Souveran over CMW gives me the best of both. :)
 
Todd03Blown said:
for what it is worth. The camera settings have not change at all between these pictures not sure where you got the 500 and 650 settings from. The first the sky was 95% cloud free and in the 2nd picture as well. The only difference was the first pic was taken in my driveway at an incline and the 2nd pic was taken at our tennis courts on a level surface. Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...





Your picture stores all the info about your camera and settings..



==============================================

1st image:



[Image]

Image Description = OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Make = OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD

Model = C3000Z

Orientation = top/left

Software = v353u-75

Date Time = 2005-06-25 17:51:04



[Camera]

Exposure Time = 1/500"

F Number = F4.5

Exposure Program = Normal program

ISO Speed Ratings = 100

Exif Version = Version 2.1

Date Time Original = 2005-06-25 17:51:04

Date Time Digitized = 2005-06-25 17:51:04

Exposure Bias Value = -0.7EV

Max Aperture Value = F2.83

Metering Mode = Pattern

Light Source = unknown

Flash = On

Focal Length = 8.3mm

Maker Note = 460 Byte





==============================================



Second image:



[Image]

Image Description = OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Make = OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD

Model = C3000Z

Orientation = top/left

Software = v353u-75

Date Time = 2006-03-14 10:51:02



[Camera]

Exposure Time = 1/650"

F Number = F4

Exposure Program = Normal program

ISO Speed Ratings = 100

Exif Version = Version 2.1

Date Time Original = 2006-03-14 10:51:02

Date Time Digitized = 2006-03-14 10:51:02

Exposure Bias Value = -0.7EV

Max Aperture Value = F2.83

Metering Mode = Pattern

Light Source = unknown

Flash = On

Focal Length = 8.8mm



==============================================



You can see the high clouds in the reflection of the first picture (that are muting the sun) that aren't in the second.



I'm not trying to argue with you, you probably see exactly what you are saying...I'm just stating that unless it's a controlled environment it's almost impossible to compare LSP and even under a controlled environment it's still very difficult to see the subtle differences in pictures
 
blkyukon said:
Your picture stores all the info about your camera and settings..



==============================================

1st image:



[Image]

Image Description = OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Make = OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD

Model = C3000Z

Orientation = top/left

Software = v353u-75

Date Time = 2005-06-25 17:51:04



[Camera]

Exposure Time = 1/500"

F Number = F4.5

Exposure Program = Normal program

ISO Speed Ratings = 100

Exif Version = Version 2.1

Date Time Original = 2005-06-25 17:51:04

Date Time Digitized = 2005-06-25 17:51:04

Exposure Bias Value = -0.7EV

Max Aperture Value = F2.83

Metering Mode = Pattern

Light Source = unknown

Flash = On

Focal Length = 8.3mm

Maker Note = 460 Byte





==============================================



Second image:



[Image]

Image Description = OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Make = OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD

Model = C3000Z

Orientation = top/left

Software = v353u-75

Date Time = 2006-03-14 10:51:02



[Camera]

Exposure Time = 1/650"

F Number = F4

Exposure Program = Normal program

ISO Speed Ratings = 100

Exif Version = Version 2.1

Date Time Original = 2006-03-14 10:51:02

Date Time Digitized = 2006-03-14 10:51:02

Exposure Bias Value = -0.7EV

Max Aperture Value = F2.83

Metering Mode = Pattern

Light Source = unknown

Flash = On

Focal Length = 8.8mm



==============================================



You can see the high clouds in the reflection of the first picture (that are muting the sun) that aren't in the second.



I'm not trying to argue with you, you probably see exactly what you are saying...I'm just stating that unless it's a controlled environment it's almost impossible to compare LSP and even under a controlled environment it's still very difficult to see the subtle differences in pictures
Click to expand...

I did not think you were trying to argue :D just new to the digital camera world and had no idea how you those shutter speed settings; but I learned something!! I will ask my wife if she has used the camera and made changes since they are certainly different. Very good info by the way, thanks!!
 
Scottwax said:
Same. Souveran is an awesome wax but with CMW, you get 95% of the look at less than 1/3rd the price, plus better durability.



Souveran over CMW gives me the best of both. :)
Click to expand...

So there are no issues scott with doing Souveran over CMW? Never thought of that...Thanks :xyxthumbs
 
Todd03Blown said:
So there are no issues scott with doing Souveran over CMW? Never thought of that...Thanks :xyxthumbs
Click to expand...



Over the last few months, I started with CMW as a base, then have topped it in this order every couple to three weeks:



Souveran

Natty's Blue

Carnauba Jett x 2

Meguiars #16



The depth is just unreal. :)
 
Yeah, that's also something to consider in general with regard to before and after photos. If you want a true apples-to-apples comparison, you really do have to have identical lighting, identical camera settings, and the camera and subject must remain in EXACTLY the same position in relation to each other.



The easiest way to achieve it is obviously to shoot inside under controlled lighting, put the camera on a tripod and lock it down right where it stands, and leave the vehicle in precisely the same position. Even a slight variation can, and likely will, skew the results tremendously.



I'm a television producer, and you'd be amazed at how much even the slightest changes in lighting can change the look of a shot... and this is with comparatively flat-textured objects like clothing and furniture and walls. You start dealing with something as reflective and glossy as a highly polished car finish and a few inches one way or another can create a vastly different look.



Speaking of, since I've been moaning about not having much to share here by way of tips, here's one I do have... If anyone really wants to capture the depth and vibrance of your finish in photographs, get a polarizing filter for your camera. It should run you around $30, and it's designed to allow you to cut down reflected light. It works on basically the same principle as polarized glasses in blocking out glare.



They're usually two glass discs loosely connected to allow the front to rotate in front of the other. By turning this disc, you can adjust the level and angle of reflected light that your camera sees.



Obviously, you wouldn't want to kill all the reflections coming off your finish, but you can knock down the "scattered" white light reflections coming off your car that can mute and white-out the color, resulting in richer, more vibrant and saturated colors. It can also be used to kill the refection from the windshield, which can be distracting.
 
Sadly I've never had any luck with compound moose or blue moose

Lots of swirls with foam pads and did not match menzerna

Of course that could be just my technique which is fine for every other million polishes I have

Remember everett saying to use blue with lambswool but there ain't no way I'm using them on modern paints.

All other CK's gear is great



Superb paint finish
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top