Thanks to those of you who provided some input. I also don’t feel as if my images would be of enough accuracy to feel confident in charging for such services.
There sure seems to be alot of variables involved with pressurized tank imaging as well as alot of stuff that can throw someone off if they aren’t familiar with the science behind it. For example, one would think that the lower portion would be the cooler portion as if you were reading the cooler liquid temperatures. Instead the cooler portion shows up as the warmer portion. Matt/Snell’s paper states this has more to do with reflectance than emission which basically makes my images useless.
My first thoughts were that I was simply reading the sky’s reflection on the upper portion of the tank(mostly true). I can definitely understand what Scott is saying about the benefits of being able to image tanks in the vertical position. The curvature of a horizontal sitting tank offers about the worst conditions available for overcoming reflectance.
The one thing I’m still confused about is if I’m seeing the inner valve stem within the tank. What I’m referring to is the hose sprayer shaped object on the left side of the tank. Every position I took an image from clearly showed this object within the tank. I didn’t see any objects around the tank to where I’d be getting that shaped reflection(confirming it’s within the tank). Seeing this within the tank was giving me the impression that my liquid levels were a bit accurate.
My only other options are heating and cooling the tank, wrapping some tape around it, or flipping it up into the vertical position and trying to obtain better images. For now I’ll continue experimenting with some smaller tanks.