Look of LSPs - depth, warmth, gloss, etc.

[ko1234]

I asked this on another detailing forum and got one reply, so I'm trying here as well.



There seem to be two basic schools of thought on LSPs:



One group maintains that certain waxes and sealants add gloss, depth, and/or warmth. Some LSPs mute flakes while others make the metallic pop.



The other camp seems to think the majority (if not all) of the shine comes from prep (i.e. polishing), and LSPs add little or no gloss, warmth, etc. To this group, LSPs add protection and not much else.



I am in the process of conducting my own test. I applied 4 sealants to different sections of my car. Over the coming months, I will test the longevity of each to see which sealant I will use over the life of the car. After that, I will test topper waxes to see which LSP I like (if any) to go over the "winning" sealant.



To my eyes, there was no discernible difference in appearance between the 4 sealants. That doesn't necessarily mean I count myself among the group that thinks LSPs are for protection only. Perhaps my eyes just aren't trained to detect subtle differences in LSP appearance.



For you guys in the first camp ("LSPs affect appearance"), what do all of these terms (gloss, depth, warmth, pop, etc.) look like to you?



Video or photos would be most helpful, if they are available. If not, a detailed description would be helpful.

 

[Dan]

I'd have a hard time believing anyone could tell the difference on a single panel. I usually split a car down half way, and its even hard then.

 

[ko1234]

I'd have a hard time believing anyone could tell the difference on a single panel. I usually split a car down half way, and its even hard then.

I divided my car into 4 sections:



1. Driver side hood, front fender, front door, mirror, window, and roof (panoramic sunroof).

2. Passenger side hood, front fender, front door, mirror, window, and roof.

3. Driver side rear door, window, quarter panel, roof, rear bumper, and trunk lid.

4. Passenger side rear door, window, quarter panel, roof, rear bumper, and trunk lid.



I applied a different product to each section.



After I buffed all product off, I closely examined every panel, especially the panels where two different products are adjacent (for example, the front and rear doors, middle area of the hood, etc.) and my eyes could not tell the difference.



My goal with this thread is to get tips from others with more experience to tell me what to look for. Maybe it's the 4 products I'm using; or maybe my eyes/brain just don't know what depth, warmth, and similar terms look like.



On various detailing forums, I read things like, "this product really adds warmth but it doesn't have much depth." I'm trying to test this for myself, but I'm not sure I'm looking at the paint properly.

 

[chrisguga]

I'd have a hard time believing anyone could tell the difference on a single panel. I usually split a car down half way, and its even hard then.

This.



I can't tell the difference when viewing a single panel, but I will split the car down the middle when testing products and just observe the car when walking up to it from a variety of angles. Usually, I start to prefer one side over the other.



This is how I realized just how nice Wet Glaze 2.0 looked.



:edit: Overall, yes. The compounding and polishing steps are far more important than the LSP. You can put 3 layers of glaze and 3 layers of wax over some swirled paint yet I'll make bare polished paint look 10x better.

 

[ko1234]

Thanks guys. I had a feeling LSPs made a very subtle difference. Maybe it's not my eyes after all.

 

[stiffdogg06]

I think LSP's make a slight difference. Souveran on my old black civic made it look really wet, but when I used Opti-Seal (I think), it made it have a "hard candy" coating look to it.

 

[imported_PiPUK]

As a formulator, LSP makes a massive difference. I could even tell you exactly how to make a formulation enhance colour, how to make it more reflective (i.e. glossier), how to give greater depth... but I won't because that's how I make my living



In practice, a lot of products are actually very similar in what they contain. There are certain general 'rules' a formulator will follow and it will often mean two formulators will come to a very similar result in order to achieve a good balance of characteristics. Try to focus on one characteristic and often there are compromises elsewhere which is where the likes of WG2.0 comes in (it is a love/hate product and, contrary to marketing, is definitely NOT a glaze). If you don't see any differences between products, you just are not casting your net far enough out there.



The exception is true super sealants. These will do rather less for the surface and are not inherently 'tweakable'. Chances are, if your super sealant does wonders without a major prep first, the marketing is the most super element. Prep here is absolutely key, you get the surface perfect and then lock it in. The ingredients we use to adjust the look of a product are simply not compatible with these technologies.

 

[Ch96067]

Some thoughts



- prep is key for me as well.

- Flakes look differently with different products. This has been more evident on my wheels. Same prep, different sealants, different flake pop.

- In terms of terminology, warmth for me equals to a light darkening of the paint color. Depth is when the reflection of something on the paint looks like it resides below the clearcoat. Mirror look is easier I guess to understand.

 

[togwt]

The oils that are formulated in Carnauba waxes provide gloss, which causes jetting (a ‘wetting’ of the surface) this distorts the light reflectance, giving the surface the ‘look’ of rippling liquidity, likened to a mirror in shallow water reflecting a three-dimensional deep, rich colour, in contrast, bees wax, paraffin and many synthetic waxes and polymer sealants tend to occlude (cloud) An optically perfect crystalline shine is the result of combining a polymer sealant for its reflective shine properties with a Carnaubas three-dimensional jetting properties.



Shine - a perfectly ‘flat’ levelled surface is obtained by polishing the paint surface. Shine an easily understood concept of light reflection / refraction (in simple terms the light reflectance from a mirror). Unless the paint surface is cleaned and properly levelled the surface will not have ‘shine’ (its ability to reflex light) and the other attributes (Colour, Depth and Clarity) are meaningless



Colour, Depth and Clarity- the three factors Concours d’élégance judges look for when scrutinizing paint film surfaces. So much depends on proper surface preparation, a clean and level surface, and product clarity, which allow the natural gloss of the paint to show through, as without transparency the true colours of the paint surface cannot be seen. Waxing a surface that has not been properly cleaned will only result in a shiny layer over dull, dirty paint - not the deep smooth, optically perfect crystalline shine that is obtainable.



Some products will maximise metallic flake, others reflectivity, or depth of shine and colour richness (wetting, also known as jetting). Factors such as durability are objective and are an easily quantifiable part in the process.



There is no one product that can produce all of the properties for an optically perfect shine, however; for high surface gloss and surface reflectance-a polymer sealant, which also provides durability. Detailing enthusiasts consider shine as only one attribute of a protective wax or sealant. They are equally concerned with; ease of application, resistance to abrasion, atmospheric contamination and weathering as well as strong cosmetic enhancement characteristics





The final result can only be as good as the surface it’s applied to. It really is all dependants upon, process over product; 85% surface preparation, 5% product suitability, 7% application methodology and the balance is in the ‘guy’ of the beholder. The other variables are; a detailer’s knowledge of the paint type, experience with a given product and skill level and experience with machine polisher.





The aesthetics of a vehicles appearance is very subjective to say the least, the only best wax or sealant that really matters is what looks 'best' to you...

 

[ko1234]

Thanks everyone for responding. TOGWT, I think your post is exactly the response I was looking for. Thank you for that detailed explanation.

 

[sztjsyujian]

I'd have a hard time believing anyone could tell the difference on a single panel.

 

[Scottwax]

I'd have a hard time believing anyone could tell the difference on a single panel.

I went out to a customer's house about a month ago. Initially he wanted me to show him how to use is DA, pads and polishes to correct his dealer trashed Murano. At the same time, I applied 3 different LSPs to his SUV so he could see how they looked. Opti-Seal to the driver's door, Clearkote Carnauba Moose to the passenger door and Collinite 476 to the rear fender. OS was wetter right off the bad, CMW darkened the paint the most. 476 was pretty much in the middle of the two. A few days later, the owner contacts me to say he has decided to have me correct the paint rather than have to buy more polishes, more pads, plus find time to do the work. About two weeks later, I went out to do the paint correction. Looking over the 3 panels, CMW was still the darkest but OS had by far the most depth and wetness. The owner obviously agreed because he'd already ordered some. I was just surprised it was so noticeable...and it was on the one panel of the 3 that I hadn't done any polishing on, the other two had been at least partially polished with Meguiars M100 and 3D HD Polish. The fact that it looked better than the other two despite the only one applied over unprepped paint was the biggest shock to me. Obviously, once the lights hit the paint, the other two sections looked better due to the lack of swirls.



I think tests like this work best on vertical panels where engine heat and environmental fall out will have little to no effect. Plus, since the sides get dirtier, you can see how each LSP sheds dirt.