What is micro marring?

[Kotsios]

I'm not a pro here, but for me, micro marring is any sort of scratch in the finish that is so minute that you have to look at it from different angles, or in direct sunlight to see it. This would include swirls, buffer trails, etc. I guess what I'm saying, is to me, micro marring is a general, overall category of scratching that is not detectable by the average person just standing in front of the car looking at it. It's something you have to look hard for. Something like swirls would then be the "scientific" definition of a certain type of micro marring.

We have the same definition of micro marring.

 

[Accumulator]

Guess the functional definition of that "micro" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Nth Degree]

The problem here is that all these terms get thrown around and tend to be used interchangeably and the fact is they are all different.



Reading the above you are basically saying that the super fine "micro marring" installed into the paint by a rotary buffer is the same as the super fine "micro marring" instilled into the paint by a DA. I strongly disagree with that and feel they need their own classification, just like "Pig Tails" and "Tracers" have their own term. While they are all defects in the paint, it's necessary as detailers to understand the difference between them.



We as detailers also need to start agreeing on a standard for these terms that get thrown around so loosely, which is exactly what Mike P has attempted to do in the thread I posted above....(and he did a great job at it too IMO). If we continue to use these terms so loosely, people like the original poster are only going to continue to be confused and also makes it more difficult do diagnose issues that people are seeing in their paint.

IMO there are 3 factors that are used to classify/name scratches: depth, frequency & pattern.





If there were a consistent way of measuring the depth of a scratch then there would no longer be a need to start with a less aggressive method and move up until the right combo is found. We would be able to say "Pad X with polish Y with Machine Z at speed S."



Classifying tracers differently than pigtails is a bit confusing to the layman. They are both scratches that are caused by sanding. Provided the sanding medium and the object that caused the scratch are consistent, then the only difference is the pattern they take. Each will require the exact same procedure to remove.



"Swirls" are called so because of the repeated pattern they appear in. But if only a few those scratches existed in different directions they would simply be called “marring.” The only difference is frequency and pattern.



Micro marring caused by a rotary versus a DA using the same pad/polish combo is truly the same scratches, again differing only in their pattern.



In the photograph below the louvered engine cover appears as swirls or holograms would; all reflecting the light at the same, repeating angle.

If each of those louvers were set at a different angle the appearance would be very different, even though their depth, size and nature were still the same.





I see 3 basic types of scratches:

RIDS

Wash induced marring

Polish induced marring



The problem is the blurred line between each. For example: The difference between swirls and holograms is the depth and frequency. Where does it cease to be one and become the other from a technical standpoint?







I will submit the following as a jumping off point:



Classify first by Depth, then by frequency, then by pattern. Example: Wash induced marring (depth), high frequency, consistent pattern = Swirls.





RIDS:

Random scratches caused by trauma

Sanding scratches: By hand = Tracers By DA or other machine = Pigtails





Wash induced marring: (To include all forms of washing, drying, QDing, etc.)



Low frequency = Marring

Medium frequency/moderate pattern = Spider webbing

High frequency/consistent pattern = Swirls





Micro Marring:



Random: Low frequency, no pattern. Likely same cause as wash induced marring, but on smaller scale



Polishing induced: (This can vary widely due to countless paint/pad/polish combos)

Depth and frequency will always be consistent. The machine used will determine the name.



Rotary = consistent pattern = Holograms



DA = random or no pattern = Hazing (mechanical only. Chemical hazing excluded.)







I am not sure if my thoughts came out as clearly in writing.

Feel free to debate this. Does anyone have a better method for categorizing?

 

[Accumulator]

Low frequency = Marring



Feel free to debate this. Does anyone have a better method for categorizing?

If we agree to disagree that's OK, but for me, "marring" is the most general/umbrella term, the overall category of what we're talking about here (i.e.,uhm....kinetically/mechanically/abrasively-induced imperfection).



As in "that surface isn't perfect, it's marred".

 

[Nth Degree]

If we agree to disagree that's OK, but for me, "marring" is the most general/umbrella term, the overall category of what we're talking about here (i.e.,uhm....kinetically/mechanically/abrasively-induced imperfection).



As in "that surface isn't perfect, it's marred".

I don't disagree with you. But since the conversation has become about a consistent classification of defects I went into more detail. IMO we really only need to know how deep a scratch is (as well as the paint hardness and thickness) in order to correct it. Beyond that it is a matter of semantics about what to call it.

 

[Accumulator]

I... IMO we really only need to know how deep a scratch is (as well as the paint hardness and thickness) in order to correct it. Beyond that it is a matter of semantics about what to call it.

Right, I agree completely :xyxthumbs

 

[RaskyR1]

IMO there are 3 factors that are used to classify/name scratches: depth, frequency & pattern.





If there were a consistent way of measuring the depth of a scratch then there would no longer be a need to start with a less aggressive method and move up until the right combo is found. We would be able to say "Pad X with polish Y with Machine Z at speed S."



Classifying tracers differently than pigtails is a bit confusing to the layman. They are both scratches that are caused by sanding. Provided the sanding medium and the object that caused the scratch are consistent, then the only difference is the pattern they take. Each will require the exact same procedure to remove.



"Swirls" are called so because of the repeated pattern they appear in. But if only a few those scratches existed in different directions they would simply be called “marring.” The only difference is frequency and pattern.



Micro marring caused by a rotary versus a DA using the same pad/polish combo is truly the same scratches, again differing only in their pattern.



In the photograph below the louvered engine cover appears as swirls or holograms would; all reflecting the light at the same, repeating angle.





If each of those louvers were set at a different angle the appearance would be very different, even though their depth, size and nature were still the same.





I see 3 basic types of scratches:

RIDS

Wash induced marring

Polish induced marring



The problem is the blurred line between each. For example: The difference between swirls and holograms is the depth and frequency. Where does it cease to be one and become the other from a technical standpoint?







I will submit the following as a jumping off point:



Classify first by Depth, then by frequency, then by pattern. Example: Wash induced marring (depth), high frequency, consistent pattern = Swirls.





RIDS:

Random scratches caused by trauma

Sanding scratches: By hand = Tracers By DA or other machine = Pigtails





Wash induced marring: (To include all forms of washing, drying, QDing, etc.)



Low frequency = Marring

Medium frequency/moderate pattern = Spider webbing

High frequency/consistent pattern = Swirls





Micro Marring:



Random: Low frequency, no pattern. Likely same cause as wash induced marring, but on smaller scale



Polishing induced: (This can vary widely due to countless paint/pad/polish combos)

Depth and frequency will always be consistent. The machine used will determine the name.



Rotary = consistent pattern = Holograms



DA = random or no pattern = Hazing (mechanical only. Chemical hazing excluded.)







I am not sure if my thoughts came out as clearly in writing.

Feel free to debate this. Does anyone have a better method for categorizing?

Well, clearly we are not all going to agree on classification here. Mike has already done the leg work on this one and he's been around longer than most...people can choose to adopt it or continue to come up with their own names/classification.



I'm a firm believer that how the defects are instilled into the paint needs to be the main part of the classification. Tracers are different then pig tails just like micro marring is different than holograms. Tracers are typically deeper and more difficult to remove. Mike's pictures of "micro marring" were intentionally on the severe side for the sole purpose of capturing them in a photo. Typically they are very faint and only visible in certain light and they also may not be seen until after IPA wipe downs. At the end of the day it's still micro marring that was instilled by a DA polisher and it IS different than the ones left behind by a rotary, or washing and drying.



Changing the classification by depth/severity only adds confusion and it also leaves the door open to user opinion. Throwing depth into the mix is also like saying we need 3 new terms for a car that was keyed based on how deep it went.



Keep it simple! If you want to add (heavy, moderate, light) before the term that is fine, as that's easy for people to understand, but giving each it's own term just doesn't make sense IMO.





I'm out.



Rasky