My Ultima Experience

Danforz said:
i dont think that bird will lend itself to a clean interior ;) your car looks fantastic, thank you for taking the time to write all this out. I visit this thread daily so I appreciate any further input you might have
Click to expand...



That's The Parrot That Ate The Charger. A story of an interior repair job that has yet to be told. :)



The UPGP saga continues..
 
SpoiledMan said:
Just about every black car that I've posted in my C&B's since July has PGP on it. The lone exception was the Rav4. I also *have* a black car with PGP on it and don't see anything milky.
Click to expand...



Are you comparing it to prepped bare paint or another product or itself?
 
NSXTASY said:
Good point, however, this thread is focused on SB's evaluation of Ultima, not the ability of



SB's paint preperation (while excellent). Considering this is a website, your first assertion



is a matter of perception, not a conclusive fact. If you take your first assertion as a fact,



then how can you tell the level of preperation? Your assertion implies that a digital



picture cannot accurately represent the intracacies of an object, if that was the case,



opinions of preperation or aesthetics cannot be properly drawn.
Click to expand...





No all I am saying is that I guarantee no one on here could see the difference in paint that was prepped by superbee versus that same paint with LSP by a digital picture.



Sure if it was a poll, about 50% would be correct, but thats just based on guessing. Unless it he posted 10+ pictures and only one with wax, then I bet the percentage of accurate guesses would be very low.
 
Well my experience has been a bit different. On the one hand, you should not base your conclusion on the performance of an lsp *just by pictures* alone. Good digitial pics are very good tools for observing optical range between different finishes, and they can reveal range and color differences between finishes and lsps (given equal prep between the two).



On the other hand, the reason you cannot solely rely on the pics is because the viewer doesn't know for sure, for example, what type of prep process a finish has gone thru or how many *layers* of an accumulating lsp that a finish may have.



The real acid test must come from the in-person, right in front of you and in your driveway or garage, result. Your eye and perception will determine whether one product performed better for you than another. With your eye, and with the help of good digital pictures, you will then be able to tell with a reasonable view how well a product performed against another.
 
SuperBee364 said:
I think your logic is a bit flawed... He said that it was difficult to tell the differences of *LSP's* in digital pictures, *not* the ability to see how well paint has been prepped. A completely seperate assertion from the statement, " you can't tell how well a surface has been prepped in digital pictures." Kinda makes the rest of your logic fall apart, ya know?
Click to expand...



First, Ron, didnt say it was difficult to tell the differences of LSP in pics, he said you wont see a difference. Given that statement, judging Ultima by your posted pics is not possible. Therefore, comparing the first set of pics against the second set is futile.



Second, what my post stated was that if you cant evaluate the different looks of LSP's by digital photo, than digital photos do not properly capture other intricacies of the paint, i.e. level of prep, swirls, so on and so fourth. Logically, taking the contrapositive would conclude that if digital photos do capture the intricacies of the paint, than you can evaluate the differences of LSP's and prep/swirls/etc.



Finally, I certainly notice subtle differences in good quality pics regarding LSP and paint condition. Do you?



SuperBee364 said:
It's quite easy to see how well paint has been prepped via photos. I hope the pictures I have taken show it well.
Click to expand...



I agree, however, we are evaluating the look of Ultima.
 
SuperBee364 said:
.........I wish the instructions had a bit more to them... Maybe something like "to bring out the very best in your UPGP finish, wait X amount of time, and follow up with an application of UDSP." Or your favorite QD, or a traditional car wash..........
Click to expand...
That has been my limited experience also. The first time I used UPGP on my street rod was a couple of weeks ago before a show in Indiana. The first coat went on too heavy.... I am an admitted over-applier of WOWA products. I didn't worry about it too much and just applied a second coat the next day, knowing I'd have to wash the car after my 300 mile trip anyway. I get up there and wash the car that night in a coin-op bay, dried it off and headed back to the hotel.... the car beaded like crazy and looked great. The next morning at the park I went over the car with UDSP and it really amped up the looks and slickness.



Fast forward to today. This morning before a local show I applied a quick coat of UPGP, once again using a bit too much in some spots. I figured that tomorrow I'd QD it with UDSP, but on the way home I ran through a swarm of tiny bugs and/or pollen that got all over the car. It hadn't been 12 hours since I applied the Ultima, but since the car had been in the sun on a low humidity day I took a chance that it was cured and hit it with a foam gun. I used Poorboy's S,S &S in the gun (about 2 ounces of soap in my 1/2 gallon gun). All of the crud just flowed right off, and after a filtered rinse and dry it looked pretty good. I then broke out the UDSP and once more I was pretty pleased with how well it took the looks and slickness up a few notches. I guess I need to experiment with QS or S&G and see if they have the same effect, but since I had the UDSP I wanted to stay within the same family of products for a few more applications.
 
wannafbody said:
Anyone try UPG on black? I've read the milky issue is easier to see on black.
Click to expand...



Here you go - Blk 911, no 'milky' issues:



IMG_4267.jpg




IMG_4269.jpg




IMG_4271.jpg




IMG_4274.jpg




IMG_4275.jpg




Chris.
 
SuperBee364 said:
It's quite easy to see how well paint has been prepped via photos. I hope the pictures I have taken show it well.
Click to expand...



1st off, I think your car looks incredible! :goodjob I've never seen another yellow car look that way here. I really think your car is a classic example of one that is properly prepped. I'd also assume that your car didn't require an extensive amount of correction to achieve this level. I doubt your vehicles get that bad. On the other hand, I'd never place a bet on whether or not a vehicle was properly prepped just by pictures. Pictures just can't show the true finish that can be see in person. We can only assume when we give our opinions when being virtual car finish judges on the net.
 
NSXTASY said:
First, Ron, didnt say it was difficult to tell the differences of LSP in pics, he said you wont see a difference. Given that statement, judging Ultima by your posted pics is not possible. Therefore, comparing the first set of pics against the second set is futile.



Second, what my post stated was that if you cant evaluate the different looks of LSP's by digital photo, than digital photos do not properly capture other intricacies of the paint, i.e. level of prep, swirls, so on and so fourth. Logically, taking the contrapositive would conclude that if digital photos do capture the intricacies of the paint, than you can evaluate the differences of LSP's and prep/swirls/etc.



Finally, I certainly notice subtle differences in good quality pics regarding LSP and paint condition. Do you?







I agree, however, we are evaluating the look of Ultima.
Click to expand...



I'm not gonna sit here an argue over (flawed) logic, but that statements is just plain incorrect.



There is a level of detail that a digital photo can obtain. The level of surface preperation (swirls/defects/scratches) is within that range as long as the picture is lit correctly. The level of detail necessary to see differences between LSP's is *out* of the digital pictures range of detail. It's like having a microscope, and having a scanning electron microscope; one is capable of seeing things the other can not. Yes, digital photographs capture the level of detail *to a degree*, and not beyond it. Just because it is capable of catching one degree, does not mean it is capable of the other.
 
David Fermani said:
1st off, I think your car looks incredible! :goodjob I've never seen another yellow car look that way here. I really think your car is a classic example of one that is properly prepped. I'd also assume that your car didn't require an extensive amount of correction to achieve this level. I doubt your vehicles get that bad. On the other hand, I'd never place a bet on whether or not a vehicle was properly prepped just by pictures. Pictures just can't show the true finish that can be see in person. We can only assume when we give our opinions when being virtual car finish judges on the net.
Click to expand...



Thanks, David, I appreciate it. :)



Unfortunately, it really was that bad. :( *ONE* dealer wash hammered the crap out of my car. It looked like the wash kid had a small rock stuck under his wash rag at one point. There were circular scratches all over the roof and trunk. Accumulator suggested that I talk to the dealership about it, and I did. They did offer to detail my car, as long as it was done in-house by their staff. I asked him why in the world he would think I would want the same guys that hammered it in the first place to have another go at it. He said that was all they could do, but that they would add a note to my account that said to never wash my car.



And while I do agree that digital photographs cannot show differences between LSP's, I certainly think that proper lighting (sun, halogens, Brinkmans, etc) can give a pretty darn good idea of defects and swirls (or the lack thereof) in a photograph. We only need to take a look at the click and brag section to see proof of that, right?
 
Eliot Ness said:
That has been my limited experience also. The first time I used UPGP on my street rod was a couple of weeks ago before a show in Indiana. The first coat went on too heavy.... I am an admitted over-applier of WOWA products. I didn't worry about it too much and just applied a second coat the next day, knowing I'd have to wash the car after my 300 mile trip anyway. I get up there and wash the car that night in a coin-op bay, dried it off and headed back to the hotel.... the car beaded like crazy and looked great. The next morning at the park I went over the car with UDSP and it really amped up the looks and slickness.



Fast forward to today. This morning before a local show I applied a quick coat of UPGP, once again using a bit too much in some spots. I figured that tomorrow I'd QD it with UDSP, but on the way home I ran through a swarm of tiny bugs and/or pollen that got all over the car. It hadn't been 12 hours since I applied the Ultima, but since the car had been in the sun on a low humidity day I took a chance that it was cured and hit it with a foam gun. I used Poorboy's S,S &S in the gun (about 2 ounces of soap in my 1/2 gallon gun). All of the crud just flowed right off, and after a filtered rinse and dry it looked pretty good. I then broke out the UDSP and once more I was pretty pleased with how well it took the looks and slickness up a few notches. I guess I need to experiment with QS or S&G and see if they have the same effect, but since I had the UDSP I wanted to stay within the same family of products for a few more applications.
Click to expand...



Man, I'm glad to hear that. Ease of cleaning is the most heavily weighted score for me. If I can't use my touchless wash to get it completely clean, it just doesn't pass. Really glad to hear about this.



It rained here today for most of the day. I took the opportunity to get the car nice and dirty. I'm going to have it out in the weather again all day tomorrow. The following day, I'm going to give it it's first touchless wash. I hope I get the same results you do. :)
 
Guys, it's important to note that the milky/hazey areas could *only be clearly seen on the glass*. Assuming that the stuff cures the same on paint as it does on glass, would mean that it would also be that way on the paint, even though it's difficult, if not impossible, to see the effect. The pictures on page one show that the sun's light is not being correctly reflected off of the paint. See the small ring of rainbow colors around the sun spots? *That* would be the milky effect, and is the only way of really seeing it. No, it *does not* look milky, but it *does* mute the finish a bit. Either washing the car or going over it with QD completely eliminates the milkiness and makes the car's finish look even better than it did after the UPGP was applied.



And once again, it is probably attributed to the fact that my application wasn't flawless.
 
SuperBee364 said:
And while I do agree that digital photographs cannot show differences between LSP's, I certainly think that proper lighting (sun, halogens, Brinkmans, etc) can give a pretty darn good idea of defects and swirls (or the lack thereof) in a photograph. We only need to take a look at the click and brag section to see proof of that, right?
Click to expand...



*Maybe* for the small area that's being photographed. Alot of people can make a 3 X 3 area look "perfect" in pictures, but I think proving a total perfect correction is inspecting the whole car under different lighting, from different angels with your own 2 eyes. Making the whole car look the same is a completely different story. What looks perfect is only contingent on what we are willing to accept though pictures. Example = When's the last time someone captured minor acid rain damage still in the finish after a correction? I'd be willing to bet that alot of vehicles in the Click & Brags have it, but won't show up in pictures, but I can spot it in person.
 
SuperBee364 said:
There is a level of detail that a digital photo can obtain. The level of surface preperation (swirls/defects/scratches) is within that range as long as the picture is lit correctly. The level of detail necessary to see differences between LSP's is *out* of the digital pictures range of detail. It's like having a microscope, and having a scanning electron microscope; one is capable of seeing things the other can not. Yes, digital photographs capture the level of detail *to a degree*, and not beyond it. Just because it is capable of catching one degree, does not mean it is capable of the other.
Click to expand...



+1



NSXTASY's logic is the one that's flawed IMO. Paint defects can easily be photographed, given it is properly lit. The difference between LSP's on the otherhand is probably impossible to achieve with a camera. You can have the most expensive camera and the most expensive lens in the world, and it still cannot capture what you see with the human eye.
 
BlackElantraGT said:
+1



NSXTASY's logic is the one that's flawed IMO. Paint defects can easily be photographed, given it is properly lit. The difference between LSP's on the otherhand is probably impossible to achieve with a camera. You can have the most expensive camera and the most expensive lens in the world, and it still cannot capture what you see with the human eye.
Click to expand...



It's all about lighting - and lighting a large, multi-surface, reflective object, like a car, is very very difficult to do.



See here - waited until after sunset to get a 'flat' sky:



IMG_4442.jpg




Then walked around to the front and ended up with cloud reflections!



_L3O7089.jpg
 
SuperBee364 said:
OMG, that is a beautiful car... great photography, too. Is UPGP the LSP in those pics? You could drown in that paint.
Click to expand...



Yep - single coat of PGP on this car after prep with PPP



These shots were taken after driving 450 miles through the AZ desert, and then washing the dust and baked-on bugs off at the other end of the drive.



PGP just rocks! - finish was slick, bugs came off easily, as did the dust, and the result looks like I just sealed it. :D :D :D



IMG_4438.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top