maxim wrote:
In my opinion are the photos of De Ruyter typical examples how colours could be recorded by camera to be different on hull and superstructure, but actually are not different. There are likely at least very similar colours to Tromp's, indicating that on Tromp there are similar effects. And that casts severe doubts on different colours on hull and superstructure in case of Tromp. The much more simple interpretation for Tromp is that one darker colour were added on top of the pre-war grey.
If we compare the "intermediate" and "light" colour on Tromp with the starboard photo of De Ruyter the colour impression is actually very similar - indicating these are actually the same colours, i.e actually only one colour.
That starboard side photo of the De Ruyter is a red herring in this discussion. It was taken with a different camera, on a different day, with different lighting, which changes about everything about the colors in it. As I said before, while occasionally, the upperworks of a ship are lighter than the hull, this is an exception, not the rule. If we truly wanted to find out if the camera is doing that, we should compare to another photo of a different ship that we know the camouflage of 100% to find out if that is happening. Fortunately such a photo does exist, as David Goodwin also took a photo of the Java on the same day, at the same time, with the same camera. And in that photo the colors on the hull clearly match the colors on the superstructure showing Java to be in the two tone camouflage we know her to be in. Thus I don't think that comparison with the starboard side of the De Ruyter can be fairly included in this discussion whatsoever. The colors also match up between the central hull on the port picture on the De Ruyter and the upperworks, once again showing that in that photo of the Tromp, the hull paint can be compared fairly with the upper work painting.
Quote:
Therefore, I wrote that the three colour interpretation is based on several assumptions.
Tromp having only two tones is based off of several assumptions as well. The first is that the camera has to tricking us in the colors it shows, in spite of it accurately showing the Java's colors being the same on the hull and superstructure the same day, and in spite of pictures usually correctly showing the same colors between hull and superstructure in general. This again seems to be an argument being made solely from a conclusion looking for premises (Tromp had to be in two tones, thus this must be a rare case where the camera tricked us)
The next being that color on the stern being not caused by paint, despite it having every indication of being an intentional paint job.
The last assumption is that even if there are three apparent colors, this can just be explained by there being 'bad paint' on the Tromp. This is disproven by the fact that the Java photo clearly shows that we can compare the hull and superstructure photos (as they were both taken with the same camera on the same day) we have of the Tromp, and when we do that, it is clear that the funnel is painted in that intermediate and light color, which would make both clearly intentional colors, rather than random deterioration of the same one color.
And I would hardly call my arguments in favor of three tones to be assumptions at this point, they are pretty logical conclusions based off the evidence we have.
My argument is pretty simple
1.) The pictures can be taken at face value in that they show the proper contrast between the hull and the upperworks (which I believe we have every indication to believe at this point)
2.) These two pictures show every indication of Tromp having three distinct colors
3.) Tromp was in a three tone camouflage
While this argument could end up being incorrect if we find more photos in the future, based off the pictures we currently have, an argument for three tones is at the least logically solid, even if you disagree with it.
Quote:
The only hard fact is that line near the stern, for which there at least three alternative explanations. Different paint jobs or the use of paint of different quality and/or colour on different parts of the ships can explain such lines. Hull buckling which can cause visible colour effects is not visible itself on such poor quality photographs. We do not talk about massive bending of the plates, but rather subtle changes, which are only visible from certain angles and close distance - but can cause light effects.
Again the photo of the stern is a actually a fairly decent photo and the stern shows 0 indications of buckling, and also shows every indication of being the result of a different paint color, to say it was buckling would require the buckling to follow a perfectly vertical line, but also then have horizontal bucking which does not follow a vertical line, but rather perfectly imitates wear from the ocean, which interestingly enough is also present on the dark part of the camouflage directly in front of it. Again, buckling only seems to be a part of this this conversation if one starts with a conclusion (the hull has to have two tones), and then tries to find premises for it (any third color must be explained some other way), rather than from moving from data we have (there are three distinct colors, all of which show distinct signs of being intentional paint work) to a conclusion (Tromp is in three tones).