Tintguy1980

Example: https://www.pilkington.com/en-gb/uk/automotive/original-equipment/automotive-glazing/automotive-products/thermal-comfort# Yes, it was metered using EDTM 2250(?)

Fair warning: Using anything that can interfere with nighttime (or daytime) visibility out the the front windshield can become a deciding factor, if discovered or reported, in any accident. Insurance can refuse to participate in payouts based on the road worthiness aka legality and visibility factor.

Yes the back looks darker, not by much, but it is darker. The model of your car explains the privacy glass. Usually privacy glass is not found on 4-door sedans, however, there are exceptions for markets outside the US. SUV of any size has privacy glass with clear all around a rarity. Privacy glass can vary from 5%, found in buses and limousines, to 20-25%VLT to those reporting 30%; it really depends on who produced the glass. And, the performance numbers given for privacy glass will vary as well, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say, today they all have values similar to what I wrote in my Jeep reply. What was once used in high-end vehicles eventually trickles down to the everyday family car. I've been retired since 2015 and those value existed even then. A bit of deep-dive research will give values on privacy glass performance. Good luck, because many glass producers are vague in the info they share. There's a powerful meter available through EDTM (if they still exist); I think it's model 2250, and is what I used in 2014 to gather info on auto glass performance. It was my own curiosity that sent me out to car lots. The shocker, then, was to find that Cadillac had greenish glass in like we all know of, but the one front door I measured at VLT 70%, TSER of 47%, and a UV rejection of 98-99%. Automotive glass has evolved in performance since, I believe the late 80's into the 90's, to what can be found on most vehicles today. It's all about cooling the cabin to reduce any AC strain on the motor, leading to reduced gas use, and lowered emissions. Many window tinters, car dealerships (and car owners) may or may not be fully aware of what the glass performance is today, they have a business' to keep afloat. Then there's the variations in where the best performing glass gets used. A crap shoot for the consumer, so it's best to continue using solar film products to cover all bases AND to boost the existing performance the glass may or may not have. Time to zip the keys.

Forgot to mention; instead of tinting the windshield I chose to put a light color dashmat, which helped tremedously given the dash came in black.

Could be worse. Here is the look my 2015 Jeep Cherokee has when under the worst kind of lighting; mist rain days. The front door has 3M Crystalline 40 (8 yrs old) at this point. You can clearly see the mismatch between that film and the privacy glass that has no added film. From the inside looking out, the front doors closely match the privacy color, just lighter. Before the question is asked, that privacy glass is about 20% visible light transmission, 60-65% total solar energy rejection and 95-99% UV reduction. The fronts were 70% VLT light factory tint (green glass) before adding Crystalline 40.

There have been others more knowledgeable than I; Vclimber, Harvey and the retired 3M guy from West Coast Florida (forgot his pen-name), and many others over the years I've been a member. What helped me was always being inquisitive when around the obviously more versed than I. Boy did I ever pay attention to Vclimber (I believe he has since transitioned). Much appreciation for the props.

I look at it from this perspective: Would I rather be legal and comfortable or illegal and risk insurance issues in the event of an accident because of illegality? Even dark spots on my hands as I age irk me and if I keep staring at them, I'll develop a resentment toward them possibly leading to $$ spent to make them go away. If I ignore them, I still have my $$ in my pocket and dark spots everyone my age has. 😆

This is where I sit in class and learn about the shop operation side. Mid-90's is when I left shop ownership behind, so I have no clue what it's like today save a few discussions when I was a sales rep. Great input Dano and Bham and thanks for your props from my own past posting(s).

I have a 15 Jeep Cherokee with privacy and 40% 3M Crystalline on the fronts only. Distinct bluish look in certain lighting compared to the privacy. It irked me in the beginning, but that eventually subsided to, f**k it, I'm not doing it over. Inside looking out is a tad off, but there isn't any bluish hue. Privacy glass varies in color from glass manufacturer to glass manufacturer, so my privacy glass will definitely have a different look than your car's glass. It's crap shoot when adding aftermarket film. Cheers

Simply put: Where the greater light source is, is where one can see to better.

I would return and request the 70% be removed from the rear doors, the small quarter glass and replaced with 50%. This should bring you closer to an in series color match than you see now. The back glass won't be as obvious as looking through the side from outside the car. They likely will charge you for the replacement. Just don't be shy about asking for a break in the price to redo. It's a yes or no question, so the difference is in how you handle the answer. They can also address your 'wonky' issue when there. This may be film edge lift off the border dot matrix. Sometimes pressing the film back to the glass will get it to stay. Like I said, the shop can address that.

Physics really sucks. If you're in a climate zone that demands dual-pane, reflectivity is elevated compared to single pane. Then there's the problem with film products not being able to achieve lower than glass reflectivity without losing two-way visibility. Buying and replacing existing glass with anti-reflect glass is way too pricey and if it were dual-pane, that would be special made and requiring twice the amount of anti-reflect glass. Sucks doesn't it?

If the above product is a film that will mimic anti-reflect glass used in art framing then it may be the ticket. Anti-reflect glass used in framing and protecting art IS rather expensive. I have a piece of art that has that type glass, cracked now, and to replace it would have cost upwards of 200$ for 8" x 30" x 1/8". So I live with the crack. Not sure what your objective is in achieving low-reflective interior surface. Is that all you want or are you looking for solar rejection properties as well? Like you have noted, Harmony is a film that states internal reflectivity at 7%. Keep in mind there is a margin of error of +/- 3% in any manufactured film product parameter. Also, the human eye begins to perceive reflectivity at 11-12% and above.

Tickled a memory of something I learned when I was at a mfg'ing sales seminar. These three things comprise the law of sales/selling and not necessarily in the numerical order listed here: 1. (Low) Price 2. (Excellent) Service ... Service includes warranty or follow through, not necessarily the big smile at intro. 3. (Product) Quality A customer can only receive two. Some will say it's possible to get all three.

The attached picture should be enlarged, framed and hung on a wall where you discuss the cost with your clients.

My first two years were as you describe. Didn't have the internet in 1980 so it was more about networking related industry and getting a PT job in the evening. I was available 8-4 during the day 6 days a week and PT'd at a side job 5-9, 5 days a week. Right around the two year mark my word of mouth reputation began paying off big time; to the point of quitting my PT job and doing only tint. From there I expanded into doing flat glass. One feeds the other (auto/flat) Signs placed roadside around town were against ordinances so that avenue wasn't much help to me. Dramatic price increases can negatively impact sales. Try smaller incremental increases. Yeah, it doesn't help your dire straights in the immediate, but it does long term. You raised your price 25%. That has to be justified when someone comes asking and that can be a hard sell. Been there, done that, too. My 2cents.

I'm going to presume you've done a Google search? Even 3m documents are extremely vague to zero info on removal. Some takeaway I found: 1. Olfa trim as much away from the frame (and film to the point you can pull the bulk off like a rope. If removing film, trim frame contact point only. 2. Spray edge with WD40 or any other penetrating product like WD. 3. Begin scraping with a blade (scary!), pushing away from yourself. I'd consider plastic blades or LiL Chizler. 4. Once all is removed, use Iso alcohol to remove remaining residue and to clean away WD40. Simple Green was mentioned in one the reads I ran across. 2cents worth. Sounds very labor intensive! My add on: I'd have some Scotchbrite Green pads or a fine steel wool (000 or 0000) handy for scuffing any marks made to the frame surface. I use the Scothbrite green to take away marks on our aluminum kitchen sink and to buff stainless steel pots and pans. Lots of luck!

You're smarter than you give yourself credit for. I thought I put a blurb about fish seeing themselves in the tank glass, however, I should have gone into it more so. Thanks for catching it and backing this discussion up.

Well, we all know how to calculate VLT after applying tint to glass, so in this case you are looking through 50% +/-. Hell, I had trouble in my mid-30's at night with that combo. Today, at 68.5 yo, forget it! I now understand why elder folks don't like driving after dark. I've been through cataract surgery a couple yrs back and a follow up laser clearing of scar tissue this past Thurs. One eye the headlights have a star burst look, which has me going back to the old rule of thumb; look toward the road edge when a car approaches at night. F**k tinting the WS. I haven't been out at night to see what improvement might be present after scar tissue was removed. During daytime I can see a grey hair on a fly's azz at 20 feet.

Balancing act for sure. As long as the dark side is dark enough and the bright side is bright enough your subject will see the group. Then there's the trick of the group not seeing its reflection. I would be surprised, if what you're asking can be achieved using any film greater than 55-60% VLT. Not to mention VLR on the shiny side should be approaching 10 numerical points different than the VLR on the dark side to achieve a good one-way application (Pro opinion). The human eye detects reflectivity at 11-12%. Fish??? All I can say is you may have to do multiple installs on multiple glass and begin with the lighter DR's, which I failed to mention before, come in 40%, 50, possibly 60% VLT. I am unsure where the tech is these days, but I do know that when someone requests an interrogation room setting for security purposes, 30%, 25%, 20%, 15%, 10%, 05% are choices depending on how secure you want to interrupt viewing toward the darkened room.

DR film has metallized film laminated to a dyed film and is same as one way. Effectiveness is regulated by VLT of each layer; the denser the more reflective it gets. This produces VL reflection much higher viewing the metal side of the film (which also has the mounting adhesive counting) as compared to the dye side muting the metal. It produces the one way mirror by lighting adjustment and placement of the shiny side and the density of the metallic particles.

Maybe a clear film would work, it too absorbs UV at the same level as dye, metallized, or ceramic colored film.

Yours is the answer. I would suggest a means of placing a light block on top of the mirror area and at each end. This would keep room lighting from hitting the dark side of your glass. This will improve the subjects view to the group(s). You already know the higher lighting needs to be on the mirror side. Lastly, the tanks inside glass surface may increase in reflectivity once you blacken out above and ends on the central apparatus. This may require you to provide no lighting to the subject tank.

If I misunderstood the placement of group and subject in the picture, please let me know. Seems my posted image is the layout but my words answering the lighting question is reversed. According to what you seek the image is what you go for in set up; mirror side toward the group with increased lighting on the group; lower on the subject side. Also, window film absorbs UV up to 99.5 - 99.9%. I am unable to wrap my mind around how the blocking of UV will play out in your experiment, because birds see in the UV range as well, yet they still fly into filmed glass. You would think the UV absorbed by film would create a solid obstruction look, to the point of not seeing beyond.

I have attached a picture of what my mind conjured up as to placement of fish and glass.