The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2016 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
Definitely make more of US32 #27 neutral haze gray, to the WEM formulation of US32. [2016-08-05: Colourcoats product number is corrected to US32]

This is not the same as, nor a substitute for, M03 Modern US Navy Haze Gray. The Snyder-Short chip labelled as "#27 neutral haze gray" erroneously shows Modern US Navy Haze Gray.

Ships in measure 22 in the 1945 USN that wore #27 neutral haze gray include USS Indianapolis on her fatal last cruise and USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. [2016-08-05: My original statement was more categorical but I cannot prove it.]

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Last edited by Michael Potter on Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:45 am
Posts: 24
Michael Potter wrote:
Definitely make more of US28 #27 neutral haze gray, to the WEM formulation of US28.

This is not the same as, nor a substitute for, M03 Modern US Navy Haze Gray. The Snyder-Short chip labelled as #27 neutral haze gray erroneously shows Modern US Navy Haze Gray.

Every ship in measure 22 in the 1945 USN wore #27 neutral haze gray, including USS Indianapolis on her fatal last cruise and USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.


Were they also painted with the neutral Navy gray 5-N and Deck Gray 20?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
re:
Quote:
Were they also painted with the neutral Navy gray 5-N and Deck Gray 20?

According to Alan Raven at http://shipcamouflage.com/5_1.htm, the answer is yes.
I'm painting a 1/350 model to measure 22 in the neutral grays that Alan Raven lists. Approaching completion, this model fits photographs of actual ships in measure 22. #27 neutral haze gray appears much darker than both the early-war 5-H haze gray and the postwar FS36270 haze gray, and only barely lighter than #17 neutral ocean gray. [2016-08-05: Colourcoats product number for #27 neutral gray (1945) is US32.]

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Last edited by Michael Potter on Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 1:45 am
Posts: 24
Michael Potter wrote:
re:
Quote:
Were they also painted with the neutral Navy gray 5-N and Deck Gray 20?

According to Alan Raven at http://shipcamouflage.com/5_1.htm, the answer is yes.
I'm painting a 1/350 model to measure 22 in the neutral grays that Alan Raven lists. Approaching completion, this model fits photographs of actual ships in measure 22. #27 neutral haze gray appears much darker than both the early-war 5-H haze gray and the postwar FS36270 haze gray, and only barely lighter than #17 neutral ocean gray.


Thank you. It has been a long time since I read that article. I need to read it again. I am currently painting some USS Indianapolis miniatures and I was wondering if she might have been painted in the neutral grays.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Oh FFS. Let me offer some factual counter information to Michael's assertions.

It is likely that Indianapolis was painted in neutrals - it is not likely that MIssouri was, and there is no proof for either ship at this point.

Now, to back that statement up. Two things happened to Navy camouflage in 1944. First, the Navy had learned that it wasn't the color that mattered as much as the TONE of the paint. Dark, neutral paint is just as effective as dark, colored paint at a distance. Think about how we talk about "Scale effect" and both lightening and "bleaching" a model's color to simulate how the colors FADE when we get further away from it. Second, the amount of ultramarine blue pigment needed to continue the purple blue based paints was so much that it was getting rare and expensive. So, logically, the Navy decided to reformulate paints. We know this much, but we don't have all of the internal documentation about when and how this happened.

We do have an idea of the evolution and changes - with the start of the Kamikaze attacks at the end of October, 1944, the Navy went on a abrupt course change away from dazzle for anti-submarine protection towards patterns more suited against aerial attacks, namely Measure 21 and 22. If you look through this December 4 1944 Speedletter, CINCPAC warns Puget Sound Navy Yard that camouflage will change but mentions nothing about paints. Another from the Fleet Maintenance Office on December 20 1944 mentioned Measure 21 but again, no mention of color. This December 22 speedleter "in advance of new Pacific Fleet letter" also meantions Measure 21 but not paint.

Why is this important? The only difference between Measure 11 and 21 was the paint color. The pattern (solid blue) was exactly the same, the difference was the color used (Sea blue for Measure 11 versus Navy Blue for Measure 21). When the Navy decided to switch Navy Blue in as a substitute for Sea Blue, they made sure to say "Measure 12, using Navy Blue. In January of 1945, when BuShips sent a memo to Puget Sound Navy Yard defining Measure 12, it again re-iterated that Navy Blue be substituted in Measure 12 and referred the Yard to copies of camouflage instructions from 1942, more than two years before the neutral paints were considered or in production.

At the end of January, 1945, the Supervisor of Shipbuilding says the specifications are not yet in print and gives formulas to match paint chips from the TEST laboratory. The Pacific Fleet Maintenance Office defines aircraft carrier camouflage as Measure 21 and 22 USING NAVY BLUE on February 3, 1945. This is roughly a month and a half after Missouri left the Pacific coast for the war zone.

It is not until February 20, 1945 that the Pacific Fleet orders the neutral paints be used in most cases. For Measure 22, note that it specifically says "#7 Navy Gray (5-N), if blue not available." Battleships weren't allowed to carry paint on board (paragraph 5) and would only be able to repaint when at anchor in a major harbor. There was an immense supply chain with lots of paint stored in forward bases that needed to be used up before the new paint would be used - we have no idea how long it took for any of the bases to use up their old stocks at this point.

Missouri certainly did not leave the west coast in neutral paints as Michael asserts. There's a chance her hull was repainted in the neutral paints when she was anchored at San Pedro, Philippines for two weeks at the end of June, but had the new paints arrived yet and the old ones used up? I have yet to find evidence that any records of supplies of any type were ever considered to be important enough to be turned over to the National Archives.

Michael offers only color photographs as "proof", but the photos he offers are washed out and contradicted by others of the same event (The deck kinda looks blue here, eh?) - he also cannot speak to how true the colors are. Photography lies a lot when it comes to color and tone. Take any color photograph with a grain of salt until you know more about what lighting, lens filters, film type, processing, paper, storage, generation from original, etc. were used in what you see in your book or on your screen.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Last edited by Tracy White on Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 10:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
Tracy, I and I'm sure many other modelers and illustrators appreciate your research. But it's only you that offers "washed out and contradicted" photographs to support a conclusion. You knew at the time you posted the link that you falsely attribute to me that in fact I have not cited that photograph; you did. The vibrant photographs I have cited are these, in which the topside gray matches Colourcoats US32 #27 neutral gray; not 5-H, not postwar haze gray, not washed out, and not contradicted:

< Color photograph of USS Indiana and USS Massachusetts in #27 neutral gray, 9 August 1945 >

< Color photograph of USS Missouri in #27 neutral gray topside, 2 September 1945 >

For models of USN ships in measures 22 or 31 in 1944-45, is a paint correct if that paint matches these photographs above? Colourcoats US32 #27 neutral gray matches the photographs. 5-H haze gray and postwar haze gray do not match the photographs.

Monochrome image < USS Missouri in April 1945 > shows that the topside gray is consistent with #27 neutral gray; not 5-H, not postwar haze gray, not washed out, and not contradicted.

We also have color footage on YouTube.com of many ships in neutral grays in the PTO in early 1945, including "US Naval Forces at Iwo Jima in Japan".

It defies the definition of "random" to say that these vibrant images have all randomly deteriorated so that today they randomly match a paint that researchers for ColourCoats already identified as accurate for the USN as of 1945.

Your hypothesis that neutral grays were rare in the US fleet before late 1945 is fully one year late. I concur with you that some color photos show blue tints, which are explicable as artifacts of the lab that chemically developed or reprinted photographs. But these color photos of USS Missouri in measure 32 show unambiguously that (in New York Navy Yard in the summer of 1944) she was painted in neutral grays, definitively including #17 neutral ocean gray, not blue-gray 5-O:

< USS Missouri in camouflage measure 32 with neutral grays, 1944 >

< USS Missouri in camouflage measure 32 with neutral grays, 1944 >

For models of USN ships in measures 31, 32, and 33 in 1944-45, is a paint correct if (for ocean gray) that paint matches these photographs above of USS Missouri in camouflage measure 32? Colourcoats US31 #17 neutral gray matches the photographs. 5-O ocean gray does not match the photographs.

I ruined two otherwise nice, hard-worked models by accepting what I now recognize as nonsensical advice to use violet grays instead of neutral grays. The photographic record substantiates that Colourcoats US31, US32, and US33 are applicable grays for the USN during 1944-45. Your documents are incomplete as an archive to support your assertions about violet grays in late WW2.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Last edited by Michael Potter on Fri Aug 05, 2016 1:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
I'll read and respond later tonight, but for now I"d like to put in a request to the mods to split this discussion out so we're not high-jacking Sovereign's thread any more.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 12:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Michael, the foundation of your position is the photographs you posted - which begs the question: why are those photographs considered (by you) to be any more accurate than ones that show the ship paints with blue hues?

My particular concern is that none of the photos you use to support your claim of neutrals contain a sky colour that is consistent with what one might expect of an accurately reproduced photograph. If the sky is not "true" blue, then how can you expect the greys on the ship to accurately show the presence or absence of purple-blues?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
The sky color in the photos depends on the particular chemical film's ability to absorb brightness. Chemical films use concepts like ASA numbers and camera shutter speeds to obtain color saturation. To capture terrestrial colors on chemical film the photographer chooses a low-ASA film, like ASA 25. (ASA rating numbers for films were later identified as ISO numbers when the International Standards Organization adopted the ASA specifications.) The film ASA speeds are for the negatives. The prints from the negatives result from further chemical processing in photo shops (far in time and distance from the photographed scenes), which can also affect color representations. You already knew all that, I should think.

Your alternative hypothesis is that the sea-level colors, in particular the neutral grays on the ships in the images I have cited in this thread, are visual errors. But how can random errors render the photographed grays as exact matches for multiple products from other researchers? E.g., #17 and #27 neutral grays as represented in Colourcoats US31 and US32; Lester Abbey's drawings in Shipcraft 17 book about the Iowa class; and a lot of Squadron/Signal books? Why should anyone accept that all those researchers all randomly made exactly the same error in rendering neutral grays--but you have something else right?

Are model paints that visually match the photos I have cited in this thread correct for late-WW2 USN measures 22 and 31-33? If not, then instead which grays are correct? You and Randy Short give modelers mutually contradictory advice: You say to use early-war violet grays; Randy Short tells me to use postwar haze gray (which is erroneously in the Snyder-Short USN set 2 for WW2 with the label "#27 haze gray"). Randy also says that Colourcoats US32 is supposed to be postwar haze gray--but instead consistently matches the WW2 photographs because of random factory errors during manufacture of the Colourcoats product (which in yet another error, then also must have escaped product-quality checking). If violet-gray imagineers actually believe that you are right, then first convince Randy Short. You cannot both be right. You can both be wrong.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Michael Potter wrote:
The prints from the negatives result from further chemical processing in photo shops (far in time and distance from the photographed scenes), which can also affect color representations.

Exactly - and so, I ask again: what makes you think the photos you chose for being accurate are actually accurate? Do you know the exact progeny and steps used in the development of those photos that you reference? If you don't, then how can you say one photo is any more accurate than another?

Michael Potter wrote:
render the photographed grays as exact matches for multiple products from other researchers?


Can you post your method for determining the presence of an exact match between the photos and the neutral grey samples?

Or indeed, that all of those other sources you mentioned (the Colourcoat paints, the Abbey drawings, and the Squadron books) share the same depiction of the neutral grey colour?

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2016 11:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Michael Potter wrote:


Screen shotted, dropped into Photoshop, and dropper tool used to take samples of hull and superstructure paint. Here's your "neutral" colors:

Attachment:
Neutral.jpg


No manipulation on my part, just a simple selection of hull color from a region underneath the starboard Kingfisher and superstructure under the forward Mk 37.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
Answer my questions. They're in bold in my posts here. Either "yes" or "no".

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Michael Potter wrote:
Answer my questions. They're in bold in my posts here. Either "yes" or "no".


Ah, I see. You won't answer our questions but demand we answer yours. They're not not yes or no questions and are more like

Attachment:
Microphone.jpg


But I'll give you an answer since I know you're going to try and hold this "line of defense."

Michael Potter wrote:
For models of USN ships in measures 22 or 31 in 1944-45, is a paint correct if that paint matches these photographs above?


In the context of accuracy you have to first determine if the photograph is correct. Whether the paint matches is immaterial until that has been established.

So, please tell us what steps you have taken to certify to acceptable standards that the colors I pulled out of that top link are correct. Did you go and have 80-G-K-15394 re-scanned as Rick Davis suggested? I'm tempted to do so if you haven't.

Folks, let's step back for a second and look at that second photo Michael linked to. 80-G-K-15394does show a fairly cool gray, but is it neutral? Once again, I took a sample in photoshop - this one is from the barbette near the pipes:

Attachment:
ColorPicker.jpg


The very left of the scale is neutral and as we move to the right the chroma increases and we move away from neutral. As you can see, we're not talking about a neutral color. Moreover, Michael has never commented on as requested on US Army Signal Corps image C-2719 (111-SC-2719 would be the full number similar to the 80-G-K number cited above) or this video, which shows pretty strongly what appears to be deck blue decks (and a pretty nifty ball court as well that I'm pretty sure was painted out for the ceremonies, but I digress). Please keep in mind that I am not claiming that these two sources are color correct. They do, however, contradict Michael's evidence and unless Michael can show how his are proven to be correct they cancel his out and we are left with no proof either way. That's all I'm trying to assert here.

Michael Potter wrote:
For models of USN ships in measures 31, 32, and 33 in 1944-45, is a paint correct if (for ocean gray) that paint matches these photographs above of USS Missouri in camouflage measure 32? Colourcoats US31 #17 neutral gray matches the photographs. 5-O ocean gray does not match the photographs.


See my above response - are these photos correct? The color picker is less blue, but it ain't neutral:

Attachment:
ColorPicker2.jpg


The left half is your top link, the right is the bottom one, where the ship is much further away. Notice that we're closer to neutral the further away we go, but still in the blue range. Almost as if there's something to that "scale effect" thing I hear all the kids talking about these days....

There's all sorts of color issues with those photos and I'm not even talking about dazzle schemes here because to me it's off the table. Give me a text record that says when Norfolk Navy Yard started manufacturing neutral paints or was even ordered to and I may consider it. She painted in Dazzle in the middle of the year and we don't have any evidence that the Navy made any serious movements to change formulas until the end of the year. Your photographs are not proof and you must provide source textual documents as an acceptable response.

Back to the point of Missouri and the fleet in 1945. A document I forgot to mention in my initial response (it was a couple of hours past my bed time) is this January 1945 document which says that the Navy's paint manufacturing yards had switched production to the new paints but that the commercial companies had not received the new paint specifications and would not "for a couple of months." In the Pacific fleet, that was Mare Island. When the Navy switched from pre-war gray to Measure #1 in 1941, the order to start production of the new paint went out in January, and yet at the beginning of June we still see battleships in the prewar gray (to be clear, not all of them were - I photo I have on June 2 shows about 2/3 in Measure 1 and 1/3 in prewar gray still). Six months later. So we're to believe that a Navy that exploded in the number of ships (how many carriers were we operating in 1945 again?) is going to magically change and repaint everything in a month or two?

Michael ignores the realities of supply chains in his beliefs. Pearl Harbor would have received new stocks before Ulithi, which would have received stocks before Guam or Leyte. Paints are not something the Navy was shipping by air in the Second World War. If the commercial paint yards were not given the new formulas until the end of February (just as a wild guess based on the orders and memos we have), how long would it take them to get the supplies necessary in quantities necessary to start manufacturing the new paints, how long would it take initial shipments to be delivered to the Navy for shipping, for the Navy to then find space on a cargo ship, said ship to transit to Pearl Harbor or beyond, and how many "hops" were there with any sort of associated delays before the new formulas were delivered? Once delivered, how much paint stock for the old paints were on hand that the base would need to use up before using the new stock. No one that I know of has been able to find any such information. There are records for the various bases, but so far all I've seen that they turned over are administrative commands for things like which ships were in port, which sailors or officers were attached or detached, and not down to minutia of supply shipments. Not saying they don't exist somewhere, just not in the records seen so far.


So, to reiterate my last question to Michael, since you are sure that the above photograph shows Missouri in Neutral paints, is "what day and year did the east coast start manufacturing neutral paints either from Norfolk Navy Yard or the Philly Navy Yard (which was the yard responsible for formulation and testing of new paints)?" The documents I've linked to all have the source from the National Archives, so naturally I'd expect you to respond with a like source.


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 3:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
Multiple consistent photographs and videos (I cite them in my previous messages in this thread) show what everyone has seen for over seventy years: USS Missouri in measure 32 in 1944 and in measure 22 in 1945, and a lot of ships at distant Iwo Jima in early 1945, wore paints that match wartime neutral grays, only; not violet grays, not postwar haze gray. The images, high-quality paints from ColourCoats, and credible books are consistent and make sense beyond reasonable doubt. Purple freaks are free to say you have doubts; but as a modeler and historian I reject your doubts as unreasonable.

My questions are simple and on-topic for this site and for this specific board. You don't need my questions further simplified but I'll do that anyway: Suppose a model in color looks like the actual ships in the photographs I posted; is that model authentic--yes or no? Any child knows that ships are complex structures with all sorts of shadows and variations in reflections. So has the 3-D model.

Instead of answering, your reductio ad absurdum method shows the absurdity of your own statements, e.g., that wartime USS Missouri was purple (sic). Your statement here simply confirms my earlier observation that your archive of documents is too incomplete to substantiate your assertions:
Quote:
So, to reiterate my last question to Michael, since you are sure that the above photograph shows Missouri in Neutral paints, is "what day and year did the east coast start manufacturing neutral paints either from Norfolk Navy Yard or the Philly Navy Yard (which was the yard responsible for formulation and testing of new paints)?" The documents I've linked to all have the source from the National Archives, so naturally I'd expect you to respond with a like source.

I was willing to presume that you have impartial expertise but at this point the words that involuntarily come to mind about you include, "can't see the forest for the trees," dilettante, and charlatan. I hope the modelers that visit this board for sound information are not deceived by you.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 5:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
As a reminder, personal insults are not permitted on this board.

Besides, Tracy is hardly acting a "charlatan" by simply asking for you to clarify your methods for determining why some photos are more accurate than others! It's a simple, straightforward question that is fundamental for your hypothesis - as it is right now, all you're saying is "these self-selected photos are neutral to my eye on my computer screen, and therefore Missouri was in neutral paints in real life". Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and do accept your overall research design that these photos can be used to accurately determine the absence of purple-blues, the very images you claim are neutral are, as demonstrated via the colour picker, in fact NOT neutral.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Michael,

As a self described historian you should be able to provide your proof. Not just say it is so. Tracy provided you with documented evidence as to why it was that USS MISSOURI was certainly painted with the earlier paints in 1944 before she left for the war zone ... the paints didn't exist yet!!! Arguing about when the new paints GOT to the forward areas is one I will not join in. But, I have researched many USN destroyers during WWII and when something is AUTHORIZED and when it is available and gets applied, are not an overnight event. If things happened quickly as you assume, then the ALL the FLETCHERS would have had the five twin 40-mm gun mounts installed soon after authorized in June 1943 instead of the last units not being updated until February 1945.

May I ask if you ever took color film photos ... not digital ... either as slides and/or prints??? Did you ever notice that the results varied quite a bit depending on the settings you used on the camera, the sun/cloud conditions, type of film and photo paper used, the developer of the color media?? I took many color film 35-mm slides/negatives from the 1970s, until I switched to a digital camera, that I then had processed at various labs. I saw a lot of variation. I use to develop my own B&W negatives and I saw how the settings you used, the lighting conditions, etc and the processing of them made a world of difference in appearance of the photos. Another factor is the preservation and handling of the original transparencies/negatives/prints over the last 75 years. Even with digital cameras, I find that the type of light reflected off the object really affects the "color".

In a previous discussion on this subject in another thread, I posted several images of the SAME color image (80-G-K-555) taken in July 1942 of USS SAN JUAN as reproduced by different sources to show that color photography and reproduction are not constant.

History101 version of the image ... scanned like all of History101 images from 35-mm copy slides which were made from the original 4x5 transparencies at NARA years ago ... image available on their website or can be scanned by anyone at NARA.

Attachment:
555.jpg


NHHC version of the image ... scanned from color print made from the original 4x5 transparency at NHHC before they were transferred to NARA ... image available on the NHHC website.

Attachment:
k00555.jpg


Finally a recently purchased, by me, scan of the same 4x5 original transparency at NARA (researchers are not allowed to scan the original transparencies, but can scan the 35-mm slide copies or pay an approved vendor to scan it for you) ... this is a reduced size version of the image I purchased for posting on-line.

Image

Do they all look the same to you?? Which in your assessment is "accurate"? There is no argument that in 1942 the paints used here were 5N, 5O, and 5H. A very bright sunny day with the sun almost directly overhead. Also in the scene is either white or natural canvas. USS SAN JUAN has already shown that her paint has been faded by the sun and saltwater and beat-up along the hull by water.

Have you yet invested in ordering scans of the original transparencies of your proof images that are available at NARA? It only costs about $22 apiece for 600dpi 8x10 versions of the images. Your assessments may change if you did.

You apparently have a methodology to the way you analyze and determine that certain photos are "good" to use and others are not. Right now without an explanation of your method we have to assume that you are cherry picking images that fit your argument.

PS; Look at these two images used on my book covers. The front cover destroyer was "likely" painted with the original 5N and 5H. The back cover destroyer left the yard in June 1945 and was most "likely" painted in the newer paints. Do these images look accurate to you? Trick question, the printing process of books doesn't generally produce "100%" accurate color translation.

... viewtopic.php?f=2&t=162887#p695762 ...


You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.


Last edited by Rick E Davis on Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 9:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Hi Michael. I'm actually not arguing with you - I am having you reveal your character so that the other readers can make up their own minds who to believe. We already hashed this out and I know your mind is closed. So be it. But I can help others to think critically and evaluate for themselves. I offer source documents, you offer dubious photos and insults. Your choice how much more you reveal.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
Rick, thanks for your post. The purported analysis of USS Missouri in 1944 proves only that RGB monitors synthesize grays by synthesizing red, green, and blue. Just because some photographic prints are ambiguous or erroneous does not substantiate that every photograph is ambiguous.

I already posted here why I accept that USS Missouri in 1944 was already in neutral grays. The photographs at distance show beyond reasonable doubt that her dark gray perfectly matches #17 neutral gray as seen in the Snyder-Short chip, in ColourCoats US31 #17 neutral ocean gray, and in videos and photos of other ships, including USS Flint. Lester Abbey recognized the same and showed that in his Shipcraft book about the Iowa class.

My 1/350 model in progress of a Sumner-class destroyer, converted from the Gearing kit, in measure 32 with neutral grays matches the color photos of USS Missouri in 1944, and of other ships at Iwo Jima in early 1945. I literally see no reason to doubt my own eyes: This match substantiates that USS Missouri in 1944 wore neutral grays. Get the applicable paints and try it yourself.

Tracy, honest feedback is not an insult. Maybe she was a test ship for neutral grays; she also mounted the new hemispherical antenna for her SK radar. If you have not found a text document, your gap has nothing to do with the reliability of the photographs. Anyone is free to doubt his own eyes. I am equally free to conclude that the neutral grays are beyond reasonable doubt.

My simple questions remain open. My current model (a mostly scratch-built 1/350 LCS(L)3 gunboat of 1945) in measure 22 with Colourcoats US32 #27 neutral haze gray looks precisely like the photograph of USS Indiana et al. that my previous posts here link you to. That same photo appears in Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorials USN Battleships in Color and South Dakota Class Battleships. The fact that my model matches the photograph substantiates beyond reasonable doubt that the actual ships wore #27 neutral haze gray. The match substantiates too that the Snyder-Short chip is wrong; it matches postwar haze gray, which does not match the 1945 photograph.

Get the applicable paints and try it yourself.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
When and how did you color calibrate your monitor? How often?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Aug 06, 2016 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:19 pm
Posts: 483
Location: San Diego
The same photos of Missouri are in Steve Wiper's Warship Pictorial USN Battleships in Color, page 53. A consistent photo is on page 54, too. I have passed the USN vision test for aviation. '

My monitors (I have four) display color-flawless photographs that I have taken of actual objects, like people, that I can compare to the object.

I am getting back to modelling. This discussion has no value for me. I simply hope to prevent other modelers from getting deceived like I once was, lest they ruin a good model by invalid expertise.

_________________
If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, [atmospheric] CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.
Dr James Hansen, NASA, 2008.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

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