Tintguy1980

Dano, this caught my eye and reminded me of the early days ... well, five years in should I say.

Me and my crew began doing tint tattoos for any glass back in the mid-80's. We used overhead projectors to enlarge-to-fit any picture a person brought us. It started by tracing a pic's lines with super fine sharpie onto liner material (we saved liner when doing large commercial glass for this purpose). Film would be installed, liner taped to the other side and begin cutting away unnecessary film to achieve the end goal. Layering in colors, if they wanted it in color.
 
I've attached a couple 3 pictures showing the liner trace of one particular picture somebody was interested in, an entry door to a radio station in Estero FL and one with all of us pictured at window film art tint-off held in Orlando by Gila Films. We took first place in both auto and flat glass categories, blowing everyone else out of the water to the extent we were not invited back unless we bought their film.
 
Oddly, we eventually heard about a guy in Tampa doing the same type film art of commercial glass. His company was Solar Graphics and was sold to Solar Gard a few years later. I think Richard, the owner, was working for SG after the sale.
 
Fun days for sure. The picture with the three of us, well, I'm the long drink of water, Lee with his submission to the contest (we lost Lee a couple years ago) and Donna, who tagged team with me on the Blazer's back glass.

This is from almost 20yrs ago.
 
15gal of paint, $300 of vinyl, old classroom projector and a stack of cards. Everyone can do it if they are motivated. Wash, rince, repeat.
 

Thanks TD. 
Shop for paint/prep/base coat...1day
 
Blend colors and project/stencil...1day
 
Cut cardboard template/air brush diamonds/clean up...2days
 
About 30hrs total, most of it after installing all day and early beforehand. 

Unless you have a really high dollar meter you aren't measuring any thing worthwhile. 
 
It's also likely that the "96%" or whatever is a narrow band of IR..... 

So you aren't measuring IR but a generic "solar heat". I've got the old analog btu meter and it was a cool tool but I don't use it and have not for probably 20 years. 
 
You are way overthinking this.  

How long the shop has been around helps but the work they do is more telling.  There are shops I know that have been "around" longer than I have but I was killing them in quality from the start.  Here I am 24 years in. 
 
Go look at the work they do. 

Sorry Randomwalk101, but a BTU meter was specifically designed to measure performance of HVAC units, therefore is unreliable in measuring the sun's electromagnetic radiation.
 
As it has been stated by Ryker: "Unless you have a really high dollar meter you aren't measuring any thing worthwhile." The film manufacturers rely on a $100K+ spectrophotometer to conclude solar performance of window films. If you want the best in accuracy during field testing you'll pay a hefty price for one the the following hand-held devices. https://www.edtm.com/

Here's an explanation from a previous thread that may shine some (solar) light on your quandary:
 
~ The chart attached shows electromagnetic radiation range in terms of Visible 48+%, Ultraviolet <2%, and Near infrared (NIR) 49+/-% light (using the red line). Publishing one wavelength/nanometer number really does not give the big picture.
 
Let's compare 3M's published single wavelength in NIR is at 950nm (nanometers) to Xpel's at 1025nm: you will see by the linear charting that there's a pronounced dip (bottoming out) at 950 and a peak at the 1025 position.
 
The peaks and valleys are representative of the 'intensity' of the NIR radiation. A dip is low intensity, a peak is high intensity. Neither of these two numbers fall within the most intense NIR radiation found between the 780 and 1000nm range. So, if someone were to publish an 800nm range (a high peak in intensity), it stands to reason 800 will be a better published performance number to that of 950 or 1025.
 
That said, the entire NIR range (considered to be 780-2500nm) is already accounted for in each films' published TSER (including visible and UV light radiation).
 
Hopefully this should point out the 'why' it's not reliable to state a single wavelength as any films' performance capability.
 
Edit for the sake of Joe Public reading this: the entire electromagnetic radiation range of the sun (UV, NIR, Visible light) is responsible for 'heat', however, only after it strikes, is absorbed by a surface and is re-radiate off that surface as far-infrared (FIR). FIR IS known as heat.

The reason behind any use of NIR wavelength(s) is because the human body senses NIR conversion to FIR much quicker than UV or Visible light energy. NIR travels beneath the skin closer to nerve endings, which is where water, being highly absorptive of NIR, heats up.
 
Now, if a reported 88% NIR rejection at 1025nm is brought into perspective by using NIR's 49% of 100% of the sun's radiation, in reality it's such a minuscule number when accounting all wavelengths from the sun, combined. Sure sounds good to say 88%, but the (TSER) big picture tells the truth in film performance values. And, it makes stating 88% heat rejection misleading at best. ~

Just for shiggles and recharge my memory of,
 
The chart attached shows electromagnetic radiation range in terms of Visible 48+%, Ultraviolet <2%, and Near infrared (NIR) 49+/-% light (using the red line). Publishing one wavelength/nanometer number really does not give the big picture.
 
Let's compare 3M's published single wavelength in NIR is at 950nm (nanometers) to Xpel's at 1025nm: you will see by the linear charting that there's a pronounced dip (bottoming out) at 950 and a peak at the 1025 position.
 
The peaks and valleys are representative of the 'intensity' of the NIR radiation. A dip is low intensity, a peak is high intensity. Neither of these two numbers fall within the most intense NIR radiation found between the 780 and 1000nm range. So, if someone were to publish an 800nm range (a high peak in intensity), it stands to reason 800 will be a better published performance number to that of 950 or 1025.
 
That said, the entire NIR range (considered to be 780-2500nm) is already accounted for in each films' published TSER (including visible and UV light radiation).
 
Hopefully this should point out the 'why' it's not reliable to state a single wavelength as any films' performance capability.
 
Edit for the sake of Joe Public reading this: the entire electromagnetic radiation range of the sun (UV, NIR, Visible light) is responsible for 'heat', however, only after it strikes, is absorbed by a surface and is re-radiate off that surface as far-infrared (FIR). FIR IS known as heat.

The reason behind any use of NIR wavelength(s) is because the human body senses NIR conversion to FIR much quicker than UV or Visible light energy. NIR travels beneath the skin closer to nerve endings, which is where water, being highly absorptive of NIR, heats up.
 
Now, if a reported 88% NIR rejection at 1025nm is brought into perspective by using NIR's 49% of 100% of the sun's radiation, in reality it's such a minuscule number when accounting all wavelengths from the sun, combined. Sure sounds good to say 88%, but the (TSER) big picture tells the truth in film performance values. And, it makes stating 88% heat rejection misleading at best.
 

Xpel came to the market with paint protection film within the last couple decades or so and only started selling window film inside the last decade. I am unsure if Xpel equates to the manufacturing history of this next candidate.
 
Pinnacle is a film made by a manufacturer who is one member of the industry's genesis group of 4 or five and has been known for the quality of their automotive film products since the late 80's to early 90's. Never mind they've changed hands several times and are now a division of Eastman Chemical.
 
88% heat rejection IS a misleading statement. It relies on a number taken from a small portion of the near infrared (NIR) energy of the sun, which makes up only 48 +% of the sun's electromagnetic energy --- combine that with visible light 49 +% and ultraviolet light 2 +/-% adding up to 100%. All of these percentages are responsible for 'heat' and is why TSER is the true measure of every films' performance capability.

NIR, visible and ultraviolet light are not heat, it is electromagnetic energy. Once it strikes, and is absorbed by, a surface it converts to far infrared radiating off said surface. Far infrared IS defined as heat.
 
Shop selling Pinnacle is a win win; best installer and best film.

Both great films, Formula One will have the more accurate IR rejection numbers since they measure across the whole 780-2500nm spectrum. XPEL only measures at a singular wavelength, 1025nm. So across the whole spectrum, that number is much lower; otherwise, they would advertise it.
 
On a side note, it is funny how many people on here used to trip about 3M rating their IR rejection from 900-1000nm but I don't see any posts complaining about XPEL or Global only metering at 1025nm. 🤣

Xpel came to the market with paint protection film within the last couple decades or so and only started selling window film inside the last decade. I am unsure if Xpel equates to the manufacturing history of this next candidate.
 
Pinnacle is a film made by a manufacturer who is one member of the industry's genesis group of 4 or five and has been known for the quality of their automotive film products since the late 80's to early 90's. Never mind they've changed hands several times and are now a division of Eastman Chemical.
 
88% heat rejection IS a misleading statement. It relies on a number taken from a small portion of the near infrared (NIR) energy of the sun, which makes up only 48 +% of the sun's electromagnetic energy --- combine that with visible light 49 +% and ultraviolet light 2 +/-% adding up to 100%. All of these percentages are responsible for 'heat' and is why TSER is the true measure of every films' performance capability.

NIR, visible and ultraviolet light are not heat, it is electromagnetic energy. Once it strikes, and is absorbed by, a surface it converts to far infrared radiating off said surface. Far infrared IS defined as heat.
 
Shop selling Pinnacle is a win win; best installer and best film.

Since I'm an older user/seller of SolarGard products, I'd have to say, 'go with that one'.

This window is one where the bottom gets shrunk first, then the entire sheet is lifted and re-positioned with the top edge of the film below the vinyl's edge.
 
Reset the horizontal anchor working remaining shrinkable excess to the top and go.
 
The bottom (already shrunk) should be carefully smoothed out to ensure anything needing to be heat formed ends up on the upper half; all the while avoiding what overlaps the bottom framework.
 
It's trick but easy enough not to cause too many headaches at install.
 
Oh and ah, run some painters tape along the vinyl's edge that meets the glass to shield it from the heat. Two layers might be best. Tape it off as though you are going to paint.
 
I've used and shown folks this method on newer cars that have top edge tucked well under an air spoiler.

This window is one where the bottom gets shrunk first, then the entire sheet is lifted and re-positioned with the top edge of the film below the vinyl's edge.
 
Reset the horizontal anchor working remaining shrinkable excess to the top and go.
 
The bottom (already shrunk) should be carefully smoothed out to ensure anything needing to be heat formed ends up on the upper half; all the while avoiding what overlaps the bottom framework.
 
It's trick but easy enough not to cause too many headaches at install.
 
Oh and ah, run some painters tape along the vinyl's edge that meets the glass to shield it from the heat. Two layers might be best. Tape it off as though you are going to paint.
 
I've used and shown folks this method on newer cars that have top edge tucked well under an air spoiler.

As long as the glass is tempered, there is zero risk of thermal breakage, however, dark, highly absorptive, film products pose a risk for seal failure, tempered and or annealed.
 
Usually, the factory dark units have the dark glass layer to the exterior and a clear layer as the inner layer; reversing that structure using film has higher risks.
 

As long as the glass is tempered, there is zero risk of thermal breakage, however, dark, highly absorptive, film products pose a risk for seal failure, tempered and or annealed.
 
Usually, the factory dark units have the dark glass layer to the exterior and a clear layer as the inner layer; reversing that structure using film has higher risks.
 

As long as the glass is tempered, there is zero risk of thermal breakage, however, dark, highly absorptive, film products pose a risk for seal failure, tempered and or annealed.
 
Usually, the factory dark units have the dark glass layer to the exterior and a clear layer as the inner layer; reversing that structure using film has higher risks.
 

express for film, get the hp in 40x50 if needed to save a $ stick to trucks for a while. Learn on cheap old cars watch videos, @flat rock stan has dvd’s for a price. What we do, especially auto can be hard to pickup, and you expose yourself to damaging a customer’s vehicle in new and creative ways. Be careful, research before you take on a job. Good luck.

+1
 
The best value for $ is the Global HP from express imo. It is easy to shrink and handles great when installing. 20% is usually the most requested flavor. Find some older Honda's and pickups to practice on. Good luck and welcome to the industry.

It looks like there's a scattering of tiny air trails that occur when the tinter was installing the film.
 
It happens during the installation process of pushing the slip solution out by squeegee. If the liner gets peeled and the adhesive is not sufficiently saturated before applying to the glass surface, any dry area on the adhesive will grab the glass.
 
As the installer squeegees the slip solution out, the solution in front of the squeegee blade carries small amounts of air which can easily be forced into the adhesive structure at the dry spot; trapping microscopic air pockets in a streaked fashion. Redo is the only way to know for sure.
 
Air scattering can also occur when finding an air bubble after one thinks they are done with the window and an attempt to push the air out only splinters it into streaks in the adhesive because the adhesive has tacked.

Chinese film is very good lasts upto about 2 years. ✌️

A lifetime ago I would hand a box of film to an installer and payout 20-30% depending on the difficulty. Sales would get another 15-20% based on material and labor inputs. I would gross net about 25% after sales/labor/film and then start winding down my internal expenses like accounting, advertising and cost of waiting for payment. 
 
This was all on a w9 and subs had to carry their own liability with a cert proof before going on site. 

This is such a vague question and impossible to answer without more detail as to the situation. Are you a hired gun or a sub working on a 1099. Do you have your own insurance and tools, your own vehicle ? ..Or are you a 40 hr a week employee that’s paid on performance ? A good hired gun will hang 750 sf or more on a daily basis. More if it’s commercial with large openings of similar size. When we hire a hired gun, We figure 1.50 for simple work, but we also have a prep person going in front of them and again behind them doing clean up. So basically the installer just cuts, and installs. No cleaning the glass no moving obstacles, and no picking up scraps. ..just lick and stick. 

Proper way to clean any spray bottle used for installing window film is to dump unused at the end of each day, thoroughly rinse, and set upside down overnight to drain and dry.

Residuals of many soaps used by tinters can and will build up on the internal surface of these bottles and congeal over time only to release as tiny globules and show up under the film.
 
Someone can chime in and point you to slip agents best suited for installing film and lessen the production of these specks. Even so, it is still best to rinse each and every time you are finished for the day.

A keg runs more than a day or two depending upon vehicle flow-thru. Not good as the slip solution tends to loose its slip over that time. Day one with new mix may be great, using same mix on day 3+, not so good.
 
Bubble bath, I'm sure has been tried by others along with various other soaps, which turn out to be harmful to the film's adhesive life over the long haul. This is why products such as Tintslime, Film-on, and knock-offs were created. They may not have the slip-ability of the ones the industry prefer you avoid, but it's as simple as increasing the dilution ratio to meet the season.
 
Also, less push against when positioning goes a long way. Fingertips and palms can and will act as tiny squeegees, pushing the moisture out and pressing the adhesive into contact with the glass before its time.