The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Mon Jan 18, 2021 3:44 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post a reply
Post icon:
None
Username:
Subject:
Message body:
Enter your message here, it may contain no more than 60000 characters. 

Font size:
Font colour
Options:
BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Disable BBCode
Do not automatically parse URLs
Question
type everything in between the quote marks: "N0$pam" Note the Zero:
This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
   

Topic review - At 'Em Arizona Fans!
Author Message
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
SeanF wrote:
Thanks for sharing that article, Egilman. Sums it all up pretty well, though apparently it's vastly more common in texting circles - which I seldom do either, so the few people I've seen do it in e-mails or message board posts really stand out to me. The biggest surprise is that I would never have made the association with older individuals being more prone to ellipsis use than younger ones!

On the subject of the Hammondsport photo, have any thoughts? I suppose there might be a cloud casting a shadow over the Arizona's mainmast; but barring that, both the darkness and the more neutral color tone relative to the Hammondsport's definite blue tone really lends to 5-D. Though I have heard the argument that Arizona was only partially re-painted as of Dec. 7, and maybe the mainmast and boat cranes hadn't been done yet?

- Sean F.


I don't know, Sean, it just seems natural to me, besides I'm always thinking while I type so according to the article I'm one of those where everything types represents an incomplete thought... And it is much more common than not.... Another example of how the internet and it's capabilities are upturning all the old rules of communication....

As far as the Hammondsport, she is clearly in 5-N the pic dates to June-July '42, and the colors on the AZ in the background match pretty closely to the Hammondsport..... but we know the AZ was never in 5-N... We also have picture proof of a ship we know was in 5-D appearing quite blue, the USS California.... We also know that the 5-D used on the Pacflt was composite 5-D, mixed from standard navy grey and blue-black tinting paste to use up the large quantities of standard pre-war navy grey..... Which chalked and faded rather quickly.... and could be the reason that aged 5-D photographs as dark blue.... Tinting pastes are very powerful colorants....

On the other hand we have crewmembers reporting that she was repainted, at least the areas they were responsible for being painted as blue... and that large quantities of said blue paint were loaded on the ship around the time of her collision repair... one crew member, Lauren Bruener called it "Mediterraneen Blue" (which was never a color used on a US Navy ship) and when offered samples of the colors actually painted on the ships picked out 5-S as the color....

The order or memo which Tracy talks about, keeping enough 5-D for one hull repaint and then substituting 5-S for 5-D as quantities on hand allowed I have actually read... And it explains how officially that all the battleships, (some of which were clearly in 5-S) maintained their Measure 2 scheme and still be in 5-S....

There is no "official" document that states such though, and the only evidence we have after the fact that clearly shows the AZ's color are the life magazine photos of Admiral Radfords flag raisings on the AZ ten years after the fact which clearly and unabashedly show her in bright blue.... so bright in fact that it is hard to argue color shift since the greens are green the reds are clearly reds the white uniforms are white with no tingeing of blue...

The preponderance of evidence leans strongly to the idea that the AZ at some point was repainted in 5-S and was very fresh at the time of the attack...

Most people read this preponderance the same way my logical mind does... but like Tracy and Rick and Mr Doyle and most of the people who have done the deep dive into the archives, without any document directly on point, it can't be said beyond a shadow of doubt....

But we have enough in my opinion that I have changed my opinion to she was in 5-S. The last pic I have seen that has her dark is the one when she is in drydock being repaired in November, there is the pic of her returning from her gunnery practice two days before the attack December 5th, in the harbor channel, and has her in much lighter shades.....

Not a smoking gun I know, but enough to change my opinion....

People who know a whole lot more than me have come to the same conclusion, as evidenced by the color of the "official" model at the memorial.. And I've read an oral account of one of the survivors when visiting and seeing that model brought tears to his eyes and a comment that "they finally got it right"

My opinion is that she was in a fresh coat of blue in Ms.2 scheme retaining her haze grey tops the day of the attack... Not an absolute, and everyone is free to come to the conclusion they wish, but to me the weight of the evidence we do have, agrees with this view...

I hope that clarifies my thoughts on the matter....
Post Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2020 7:36 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Ron Smith found and read to me over the phone about 12-14 years ago excerpts from a memo from CINCPAC (Kimmel) stating that battleships were to keep enough 5-D for one complete painting of the hull below the main deck and turn the rest in. At that point ships were to paint as needed above the main deck in either 5-O or 5-S - this means that it could have been just an individual bulkhead or piece of equipment. It was described as a modified Measure 2.

Ron got fed up with all of the negative attention from the controversy and shipped his paper copies to me when he moved a number of years back, but one of the boxes never arrived and I don't have an actual copy of that document, so it's not something I stand behind. I have looked but not found a copy yet, so it's up to the reader to decide what they want to put faith in. But if true, it could explain why sections of some ships look lighter than others.
Post Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:21 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Thanks for sharing that article, Egilman. Sums it all up pretty well, though apparently it's vastly more common in texting circles - which I seldom do either, so the few people I've seen do it in e-mails or message board posts really stand out to me. The biggest surprise is that I would never have made the association with older individuals being more prone to ellipsis use than younger ones!

On the subject of the Hammondsport photo, have any thoughts? I suppose there might be a cloud casting a shadow over the Arizona's mainmast; but barring that, both the darkness and the more neutral color tone relative to the Hammondsport's definite blue tone really lends to 5-D. Though I have heard the argument that Arizona was only partially re-painted as of Dec. 7, and maybe the mainmast and boat cranes hadn't been done yet?

- Sean F.
Post Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2020 2:21 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
SeanF wrote:
Gotta say, whether USS Hammondsport is in 5-S or 5-N in those photos, Arizona looks quite a lot darker - those photos lead me to believing she was still in 5-D.
And... I can't take it anymore. Egilman, PLEASE stop ending every sentence with ellipsis. It's REALLY annoying, and renders the effect meaningless.

- Sean F.


https://theoutline.com/post/3333/why-do ... i=zsgxujlj

Sean, thank you for commenting...

Now I don't text at all, I don't even own a cell phone to text on...

And it appears that there are two basis's of using ellipses in text type conversations... (since the advent and explosion of texting)

And after some ten years of typing this way online, your the first to have mentioned it. I will take it under advisement.

Thank you....
Post Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:21 am
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
ddoyle wrote:
...... Sorry to be coming into this late - but someone just pointed the above out to me asking me to justify the above positions falsely attributed to me.
Best wishes,
David Doyle
http://www.DavidDoyleBooks.com


Hi David, This was a statement made quite a while back when I had just restarted my research into this and was completely unaware of the whole bruhaha over the AZ's color at the time of the attack.... At the time I was in the 5-D camp I suppose, as I didn't know there were different "camps" concerning her color on that day.... Then came the discovery of Don's AZ and it's big reveal which led me to investigate the whole rather dismaying debate.... Those statement came a few weeks after some initial forum reading in which I plainly read that people were discussing that Life magazine photo... And how, in the article they manipulated the photo to make the claim the ship was 5-D based upon their opinions of the rust colors on the Turret 3 Barbett and the ventilators in the foreground of the pic..... Their claim was that the modified picture came from your work.... And based upon that, you were of the 5-D "camp"

I have since learned, with a lot of help from Tracy and Rick, of my errors in stating something that I had incomplete information on and failing to preserve the linkage to that forum post....

I should never have posted or commented based upon that posting without the linkage to establish that the discussion exists.... I know it exists and will update the posting when I find it.... But I now realize from reading your book and other sources more closely that you do not take a stance and that the posters in that thread were in error in claiming you did....

You have my humble and sincere apologies for continuing the erroneous discussion and bringing here...

I will eat all the crow needed for that....

Egilman.....

I have no intention in restarting the debate, my position is that between her late November trial from her collision repair and December 7th (two weeks) is the only period where she could have been repainted, and the preponderance of evidence says she was.... But officially we still do not know for sure.....
Post Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2020 12:16 am
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Gotta say, whether USS Hammondsport is in 5-S or 5-N in those photos, Arizona looks quite a lot darker - those photos lead me to believing she was still in 5-D.
And... I can't take it anymore. Egilman, PLEASE stop ending every sentence with ellipsis. It's REALLY annoying, and renders the effect meaningless.

- Sean F.
Post Posted: Fri Dec 25, 2020 1:05 am
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Egilman wrote:
Jeff Sharp wrote:
Hi Timmy, I did not claim it to be 5-D. I said "Nothing here gives any indication of any other color than 5-D here." Please don't twist my words.
EG, if you have David Doyle's book "USS Arizona" Squadron At Sea, go to page 113. He has the exact photo you just posted. Notice how much darker the paint is in his photo compared to yours.


Yes I have his book, I have also read one of the forums where he was explaining his editing of that shot into what his opinion of what it should be based upon the rust colors.......

His pics are heavily edited to support his argument.... therefore very unconvincing to me....

His pics show the blue edited to appear black.... Photoshop can do wonderous things to pics, make them appear anyway you like....

My copies are not edited.... (and I absolutely refuse to edit them, my expert friends in photo retouching say Mr Doyle's pics are not realistic given the pics he started with)

If I can find the link to the online discussion I'll post it. Mr Doyle is on the grey/black side of the argument and has been since the beginning of the controversy... guess what? so was I until I learned a few things here....


Respectfully, Egilman clearly has me confused with someone else, because I have never made any of the statements attributed to me above. This no doubt as why there has been no link posted to the statements attributed to me above.
I have not taken a position, either in the book or on a forum, as to the color of ARIZONA on 7 December. That is because I have not found enough documentation to feel I could reach an informed conclusion.
Further, I did not edit the photos in any manner (and certainly not to support a position - since my position is "I don't know.")
Any editing of the photos was done by either Getty or Life (I don't recall the licensor) - or the then-photo editor at Squadron, whose credentials in this area were beyond reproach. Neither party would be attempting to support any position.
Ultimately, this leads me to believe that Egilman has confused my book with another, or me with another author, or perhaps someone who was using the images in my book to support their own position.
Sorry to be coming into this late - but someone just pointed the above out to me asking me to justify the above positions falsely attributed to me.
Best wishes,
David Doyle
www.DavidDoyleBooks.com
Post Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2020 11:52 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Tracy White wrote:
One of my "If I win the lottery" projects is to gather as many photos of Pearl Harbor as I can and try and establish the camouflage patterns on the buildings and crane and come up with probable colors based on the swatches.


Now that would be one heck of a job.... It's bad enough trying to do the ships... {chuckle}
Post Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2020 2:40 am
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
One of my "If I win the lottery" projects is to gather as many photos of Pearl Harbor as I can and try and establish the camouflage patterns on the buildings and crane and come up with probable colors based on the swatches.
Post Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 11:30 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Tracy White wrote:
Egilman wrote:
(definitely not red and white, imho, probably 5-N & 5-H)


Not likely - there was camouflage for shore facilities.


Hi Tracy,

Not surprising, they had a specification for everything.... I was basing my opinion on the pictures..... {chuckle}

Haven't a clue what the actual colors were....

Thanks...
Post Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:33 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Thanks!!

Well that does narrow down the date/period of time. From other salvage images I thought all of the turret parts had been removed long before summer? I also thought that the guns were still in the turrets from this photo, but it certainly isn't very clear at this distance. The 14-in guns were removed in February 1942.

This photo I overlooked before was dated 14 March 1943, showing turrets #3 and #4 without the guns still there on that date, but the main mast was gone by then. Other photos show turret #3 being removed in April 1943. I have not found when the mainmast was removed? Found it!!! The tripod mainmast was removed on 24 August 1942. The stern aircraft crane was removed on 3 December 1942.

... http://navsource.org/archives/01/039/013943t.jpg ...

John Chiquoine found in USS HAMMONDSPORT's War Diary that she arrived at Pearl Delivering aircraft on 16 April (moored at F1) and discharged cargo 17-22 April, departing on 22 April. Then again she delivered more planes from 29 May to 5 June 1942 (moored at multiple locations). DANFS said she made four trips to Pearl from California, from March to August 1942. Next stop at PH was 2-23 July 1942 and a fourth trip 15-19 August 1942.

From March until August Hammondsport made four voyages from California to Pearl Harbor with general cargo and aircraft for further transfer to the forward areas. Departing from San Diego 1 September 1942, the ship then sailed into the western Pacific area, carrying cargo and aircraft to Noumea, Espiritu Santo, and Efate, New Hebrides Islands before returning to San Diego 3 November 1942.


So the earliest "possible" date of the photo, given completion and "early" camo painting of the tower in May 1942, would be during her 29 May to 5 June visit. Then depending since the mainmast came down on 24 August 1942, maybe one of the stops in July and August.

UPDATE; John C. had found that the portside boat crane was removed on 19 July 1942. So that narrows the potential date range of the photo to 29 May to 19 July 1942.
Post Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:54 am
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Egilman wrote:
(definitely not red and white, imho, probably 5-N & 5-H)


Not likely - there was camouflage for shore facilities.
Post Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2020 12:18 am
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Rick E Davis wrote:
That's interesting. That is one of the images I scanned from original color transparencies, in September 2018. I made a close crop scan of USS ARIZONA's wreck, besides a scan of the full frame of the 4x5 Kodachrome transparency, aka 80-GK-464. Our group of NARA researchers of Naval Subjects (the new hire NARA employees call us the "NARA Boat People") that went to NARA in group trips about twice a year (I went more often to NARA and scanned several times a year) had been scanning the original color transparencies and B&W negatives (when there were no prints available), every since NARA did away with the contractor scanning program that charged for transparencies to be scanned. Our problem was we needed to use specific "approved" scanner equipment ... aka very expensive. Fortunately, NARA soon got a high quality scanner for researcher use (eventually they added a second scanner) with rules limiting us to pulling only ten transparencies/negatives per day and use of the scanner to about one hour at a time (unless no one else was waiting to use the scanners). It normally takes the full hour to scan ten of these large transparencies at hi-res dpi in color TIFF files. Anyway we setup a combined database of scanned images that we shared among ourselves and as needed to others.

Our scans are quite large TIFF files. The few I post, have been converted to JPEG's and reduced in size so they can be posted. The majority of color transparencies of Naval Subjects at NARA are 4x5-in in size. But some are as large as 10x10. As for myself, I soon ran out of color images that I thought were worth scanning . There are about 24,000 transparencies and negatives (most negatives are "copy negatives" made originally from transparencies) in the NARA Official USN Color image collection ... 80-GK. But, a very large number of them are "red". Some are color transparencies that have shifted to red. Others are likely IR Film. IR Film was used for mostly aerial recon over jungles to spot enemy installations. All in all I'm guessing that much less than 5,000 transparencies are still good quality color. Many of the good color transparencies are portraits, which I don't scan. Some of the turned red or shifted blue transparencies were still worth scanning because the subject was one rarely photographed. I shifted to scanning original B&W negatives of "missing" prints.

Anyway, back to how NARA was posting one of my images. In discussions with NARA staff on the 5th floor Photographic Collections, it was understood that it would be beneficial if NARA could have access to the scans that researchers made so they wouldn't have to repeatedly pull the same images for people to scan. There were concerns that repeated pulling and scanning (taking from cold storage, letting them warm to room temperature, and the act of handling the originals) risked the originals. Eventually the NARA staff asked if we were willing to share what we had scanned. After discussing with the "image cartel", those willing to share their images (the images in our database included images some of us had paid to be scanned under the previous arrangement with contractors) were put in a folder which I provided the NARA staff on a large Flash-Drive with the images. They said they planned to eventually make reduced size images available online. I guess they did.

As far as being blurry, you have to realize this close crop is a quite small segment of a larger image. Not bad actually for a likely hand held 4x5 camera with a relatively slow speed film taken from a small boat (based on the angle of the camera to the subjects).

One of the things a couple of us are trying to solve, is when was this transparency taken? The original transparencies come in paper sleeves, many with ID and date info. The date info is almost ALWAYS WRONG, and ID's are spotty. The main subject in this image, the auxiliary ship USS Hammondsport (APV-2) War Diaries available online don't start until about March-April 1942. It is suspected that this photo dates from about February 1942. Since NARA is closed, her Deck Logs are not available unless they get scanned in the ongoing effort at NARA.


Rick,

The painting of the control tower didn't happen until after May 8th 1942, so the pic of the Hammondsport has to be early summer June, July or August..... In the Pic it is clearly in camo as the Historical Association's records reveal beyond any doubt.... It can't be in February.....
Post Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:12 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Jon C Ryckert wrote:
Shouldn't the control tower on Ford Island have red and white stripes?


In short, No....

According to the Pearl Harbor Historical Association, the Ford Island Tower atop Bldg. S84, was not complete on December 7th, It was completed May 3rd, 1942 and was painted in a "Sinuous" style of camouflage ...... (definitely not red and white, imho, probably 5-N & 5-H)

As completed, May 8th, 1942

Attachment:
PH FI Tower May 8th 1942.jpg
PH FI Tower May 8th 1942.jpg [ 49.17 KiB | Viewed 609 times ]


By August it was painted in camo, it remained this way throughout the war.....

August 10th, 1942

Attachment:
PH FI Tower August 10th 1942 Sinuous Camo not red and white.jpg
PH FI Tower August 10th 1942 Sinuous Camo not red and white.jpg [ 42.08 KiB | Viewed 609 times ]


November 10th 1943

Attachment:
PH FI Tower November10th 1942 Sinuous Camo not red and white.jpg
PH FI Tower November10th 1942 Sinuous Camo not red and white.jpg [ 37.62 KiB | Viewed 609 times ]


June 1944....

Attachment:
PH FI Tower June 1944 still in camo.jpg
PH FI Tower June 1944 still in camo.jpg [ 34.16 KiB | Viewed 609 times ]


They have no information on when it was repainted into red and white stripes, except that it was between the end of the war and 1969 when it first appears on film in red and white stripes in the movie "Tora, Tora, Tora"

As you can see the camo is not even square stripes, and the historical association says it wasn't red and white....

https://www.pearlharboraviationmuseum.o ... rticle-ii/

Sorry....
Post Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:03 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Shouldn't the control tower on Ford Island have red and white stripes?
Post Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2020 7:36 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
And another note about pictures of oceans or water from oceans.....

In the mid latitudes water generally appears blue, deep royal blue to aquamarine, in the extreme northern and southern latitudes it normally appears slate grey, shiny black to very dark bluish grey, depending on atmospheric conditions... It can appear dark blue anywhere though...

Take a look at the color of the Hammondsport, that is 5-N Navy blue and compare it to the water color, it's a very close match in both hue and tone........

Now to aircraft and sub commanders that repeatedly said that surface ship camo seen from their duties was only mildly able to disguise ships on the surface, and in no way prevented them from doing their job, this is what the surface sailors saw and they reported that it could be very deceptive especially at a distance even if it didn't completely hide the ship... (which was eventually considered to be impossible)

But this image of the blue water and the blue ship which surface sailors were seeing all the time is what prompted and drove the whole ship camo paradigm during the war..... It's why King insisted on a darker blue and why the chalking and fading of 5-D was such a failure..... Against a blue like that, 5-D would stand out like an marked aiming point in a very short time.....

And, the full picture convinces me even more that there is very little color shifting going on with this image... It's just a very good, well preserved, shot of what it looked like in early 1942....
Post Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:47 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Another lesson about color images. When the USN Photo Center was turning over possession of the WWII (and into 1950's) of their color transparencies and photos to NARA, Chuck Haberlein the Photo Collection head at the then NHC, had color PRINTS made for the most desirable transparencies to put in the NHC collection. Chuck scanned these images when he started to establish the NHC website. At that time the prints still were in pretty good condition. After Chuck retired, the new administration created a new website and contracted for the scanning of ALL the NHHC photos in the NH# series (however the L-File prints were not scanned). By this time the color prints that Chuck had made, had faded and the contractor scanned them as grayscale images.

Here are the "downsized" versions of my scans of 80-GK-464. Note that neither the main subject USS HAMMONDSPORT or USS ARIZONA are in prefect focus.

Image

Image
Post Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:01 pm
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Rick E Davis wrote:
That's interesting. That is one of the images I scanned from original color transparencies, in September 2018.


This is the full image as posted online by the Naval History and Heritage Command, (in low res) and they only post B&W online.....

Attachment:
80-G-K-464.jpeg
80-G-K-464.jpeg [ 150.05 KiB | Viewed 213 times ]


https://www.history.navy.mil/our-collec ... K-464.html This is the page and you can download a B&W tiff which is much much larger....
Post Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2020 4:50 am
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
That's interesting. That is one of the images I scanned from original color transparencies, in September 2018. I made a close crop scan of USS ARIZONA's wreck, besides a scan of the full frame of the 4x5 Kodachrome transparency, aka 80-GK-464. Our group of NARA researchers of Naval Subjects (the new hire NARA employees call us the "NARA Boat People") that went to NARA in group trips about twice a year (I went more often to NARA and scanned several times a year) had been scanning the original color transparencies and B&W negatives (when there were no prints available), every since NARA did away with the contractor scanning program that charged for transparencies to be scanned. Our problem was we needed to use specific "approved" scanner equipment ... aka very expensive. Fortunately, NARA soon got a high quality scanner for researcher use (eventually they added a second scanner) with rules limiting us to pulling only ten transparencies/negatives per day and use of the scanner to about one hour at a time (unless no one else was waiting to use the scanners). It normally takes the full hour to scan ten of these large transparencies at hi-res dpi in color TIFF files. Anyway we setup a combined database of scanned images that we shared among ourselves and as needed to others.

Our scans are quite large TIFF files. The few I post, have been converted to JPEG's and reduced in size so they can be posted. The majority of color transparencies of Naval Subjects at NARA are 4x5-in in size. But some are as large as 10x10. As for myself, I soon ran out of color images that I thought were worth scanning . There are about 24,000 transparencies and negatives (most negatives are "copy negatives" made originally from transparencies) in the NARA Official USN Color image collection ... 80-GK. But, a very large number of them are "red". Some are color transparencies that have shifted to red. Others are likely IR Film. IR Film was used for mostly aerial recon over jungles to spot enemy installations. All in all I'm guessing that much less than 5,000 transparencies are still good quality color. Many of the good color transparencies are portraits, which I don't scan. Some of the turned red or shifted blue transparencies were still worth scanning because the subject was one rarely photographed. I shifted to scanning original B&W negatives of "missing" prints.

Anyway, back to how NARA was posting one of my images. In discussions with NARA staff on the 5th floor Photographic Collections, it was understood that it would be beneficial if NARA could have access to the scans that researchers made so they wouldn't have to repeatedly pull the same images for people to scan. There were concerns that repeated pulling and scanning (taking from cold storage, letting them warm to room temperature, and the act of handling the originals) risked the originals. Eventually the NARA staff asked if we were willing to share what we had scanned. After discussing with the "image cartel", those willing to share their images (the images in our database included images some of us had paid to be scanned under the previous arrangement with contractors) were put in a folder which I provided the NARA staff on a large Flash-Drive with the images. They said they planned to eventually make reduced size images available online. I guess they did.

As far as being blurry, you have to realize this close crop is a quite small segment of a larger image. Not bad actually for a likely hand held 4x5 camera with a relatively slow speed film taken from a small boat (based on the angle of the camera to the subjects).

One of the things a couple of us are trying to solve, is when was this transparency taken? The original transparencies come in paper sleeves, many with ID and date info. The date info is almost ALWAYS WRONG, and ID's are spotty. The main subject in this image, the auxiliary ship USS Hammondsport (APV-2) War Diaries available online don't start until about March-April 1942. It is suspected that this photo dates from about February 1942. Since NARA is closed, her Deck Logs are not available unless they get scanned in the ongoing effort at NARA.
Post Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2020 1:15 am
  Post subject:  Re: At 'Em Arizona Fans!  Reply with quote
Jeff Sharp wrote:
Here's the National Archive link to this photo. I've never seen the harbor water THAT purple blue. Makes me leery that the photo is a bit blue shifted. Thoughts?


Actually, aside from being a bit blurry, the colors of the temporary sheds on the barges, the brownish red brick wall and bluish grey roof in the background and the sailors in whites tells me that it isn't shifted much if at all....
Post Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:18 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group