The Ship Model Forum

Reproduction of images at NARA has been changing. For about 20-years (give or take), there were at least five vendors authorized to scan prints and negatives/transparencies IN-HOUSE at NARA-College Park for customers for a fee. Before the Vendor Program, NARA staff did the reproduction via the good "OLD" film-to-print processing. The Vendors did excellent work, if the original was in good shape. (Some negatives at NARA were actually made by using a camera to copy the original print so that more prints could be made, when the original negative was unavailable) However, the vendor program was ended in September 2016.

Researchers have been allowed to go to NARA and scan B&W prints at no cost, other than buying scanning equipment and getting to NARA for years. Or you can use a digital camera to copy a print at poorer quality than via scanning. But, B&W Negatives can ONLY be scanned with authorized equipment AND only if a GOOD print doesn't exist in one of the print collections. You have to VERIFY that there is NO PRINT available, and that can take work to research through multiple collections. Color images from the USN 80-GK and US Army Signal Corp (SC-111) collections can only be scanned from the copy slides made many years ago, unless special authorization is given. And then ONLY from the NARA furnished scanner and software. Negatives and Transparencies are kept in cold storage to preserve them. It is extra work for the NARA staff to retrieve and bring back to room temp before they can be scanned.

You can also "hire" a NARA registered "Pro-Reseacher" to scan prints for you. But, they will charge for researching (finding it if it exists) and then scan it to your requirements (dpi, digital or print, etc).

Things have certainly changed since I was sending print requests. Many of the changes happened because of budget and related staffing issues. Other measures were taken to preserve the collection and to try to curb rampant pilfering that was allegedly happening. In the end, it became too much of a hassle to try to do it by mail from the left coast.

There were also changes in the paper used for prints, going from the much more detailed bromide prints that had to go through the drum driers, to the resin-coated film that air dried. I still marvel at details and depths of field captured by the large-format 8" x 10" cameras used at Mare Island. I have one photo of Holland in 1943 where you can see the logo of the refinery on the storage tanks far in the background.

It's an odd paradox that more stuff is being found, but it's much harder to get to now.

Thanks for the insights, Rick.

At least it is still possible to find some historical information. A lot has been lost.

The USS Oklahoma City CLG-5 fired the first successful combat surface-to-surface missile and the first ARM (anti-radar) shot in US Navy history, but the Navy and the Archives have lost all records of it. It happened in February 1972 off North Vietnam. No one in the Navy Historical Center gives a damn.

Phil

_________________
A collision at sea will ruin your entire day. Aristotle

I'm building Pensacola in 1942 and one thing has me a bit stumped. Where are the directors located for the 1.1" quad mounts on the bridge wings?

_________________
Vlad

It is possible that she didn't have any. Not all 1.1 mounts had directors. Quincy had them, Vincennes did not. Astoria got 4 director tubs when the 1.1's were installed, but she only got directors a month before she was lost, and then only on the bridge. Her stern director tubs were empty when she was sunk. Yorktown never had any.

Interesting, thanks. I just assumed they had to be there but I guess I'll leave them out. There are definitely director tubs for the 1.1" quads on the stern, but I can't work out if they're empty!

_________________
Vlad

Anyone know of and/or have plans for the Pensacola around late 1942?

_________________
- Chris

If anyone is interested, I've got the HP Models 1/700 USS Pensacola (1941), available in the trade section of the forum. Check the post out if interested.

thanks
Mike