The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:18 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 483 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 25  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Model Builders

Attached below is photo 138 from the same collection that appears in the post of 5/22/16 1437. It is as large as I could get it on this computer and still get it on to this site. Both Rick Davis and Martin Quinn also have the collection and perhaps one of them can get a larger version on to the site. This photo was taken during the first attack. You will note the hull on CV 8 is very dark with no camo pattern visible for reasons known only to the camera, the film, the smoke, or some other issue probably not discoverable at this point in time. Whether the color on the CLAA is also darker than normal is probably also not something that can be determined at this time.

I added a circle with Paint to the photo. Inside the circle you will see the outline of a CLAA that appears to be similar in color to the one at http://www.cl54.com/album/details.php?i ... 4d5db6f1aa. Also appears to be lighter than 80 G 304512. Photo taken from Northampton. Her position and the CLAA match the formation diagram in Lundstrom's Guadalcanal book for Northampton and Juneau. For what little it is worth the ship inside the circle does not appear to match the darker pattern on San Diego.

Photo posted for your review and consideration. You decide if it is worthwhile evidence.

If you want me to send this photo to you just rattle my cage.


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

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Model Builders

Apologies the photo above when downloaded on my computer does not show the CLAA it blurs out. I tried emailing the photo to myself and that does not do much better. Sending a screen print of the photo enlarged with only the CLAA in it does show the limited detail of the CLAA. If you have the same issue with the photo above let me know I can email you both the photo if you want to try to adjust it on your computer or I can send you a screen print of only the CLAA or both. Your choice.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
The subject image enlarged and posted again.

Full Frame to give perspective.

Image


Enlarged view of USS HORNET and subject cruiser.

Image


Enlarged view of the cruiser as best I can get, which isn't much given a 218x125 pixel size image (the full size image has 5768x4614 pixels, which gives you an idea of just how small this image is). Not much can be made out given smoke and distance. The ATLANTA class cruiser is in a turn kicking up quite a bit of wake. It appears this photo was taken as HORNET was fatally struck and coming to a stop. She appears to have been turning just prior to this photo. Note the wake behind HORNET, it looks like she was executing an "S-turn". If the Task Force ships were able to maintain their positions during the attack and maneuvers by HORNET attempting to avoid attack, then given the orientation of NORTHAMPTON to JUNEAU in relation to HORNET according to the Task Force formation, this could be JUNEAU. But not much can be made out from this 1/4-inch size image in an 8x10 print. You can decide.

Image


This cruiser is in the same relative position in the Task Force and was taken prior to the Japanese attack on HORNET as she was launching and retrieving aircraft and is most likely USS JUNEAU.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
Sorry to dig up an old (and apparently very passionate) thread. I've been trying to create the most accurate Shipbucket drawing of CL-52 as possible during the Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands (and incidentally also as the ship would have appeared as lost at the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal).

So from reading this thread it appears to me that the elaborate and strange modified Measure 12 camouflage most prevalent in photos and model kits seems to have been replaced by the time TF17 was engaged at Santa Cruz - most likely with Measure 21 (all over 5-N). Is this correct?

Here's the drawing as I currently have it:

Image

And for good measure, here's my version of CL-51 as lost:

Image

Any comments are welcomed!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 4:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
Colosseum wrote:
So from reading this thread it appears to me that the elaborate and strange modified Measure 12 camouflage most prevalent in photos and model kits seems to have been replaced by the time TF17 was engaged at Santa Cruz - most likely with Measure 21 (all over 5-N). Is this correct?


There is no consensus on this at this time. I believe she looks to be too light to be in 5-N based on the photos Rick's found and posted. Navsource now has larger copies of photos on their CL-52 page and the hull on this photo looks much more like Haze or Ocean gray than Navy Blue.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 04, 2017 6:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Another possibility is that Capt. Swenson had his ship painted in Mountbatten Pink (which is a medium gray with Red pigment added instead of a Blue pigment). Capt. Swenson was actively involved in the USN Camo experiments in mid-1941 and knew the USN Camo Experts. The unusual Camo scheme that USS JUNEAU was painted in at NYNY in May 1942 was likely designed or influenced by him, since he had it altered two weeks later. In surviving correspondence Capt. Swenson expressed the view that Mountbatten Pink was the best option for use on USN ships in the South Pacific and had the formula for making the paint. Mountbatten Pink was being used on some USN ships operating in the South Atlantic starting sometime in mid-1942, based on RN experience with the color.

Whether Capt. Swenson could find the needed ingredients to have this paint made at Noumea in late September 1942 is a big question mark. He could have just decided to have a "lighter version" of the directed Pacific Fleet Command use of 5-N Navy Blue made up or used 5-O Ocean Gray. 5-H, 5-O, and 5-N all used the same basic components mixed together in different ratios to get the desired color. The two basic components (White paint plus Blue-Grey Tint paste) would be in ready supply at Noumea. It is just possible that USS JUNEAU was painted with 5-N over her previous light color and the final color is lighter than normal 5-N. What film type that the Avenger photographer was using is unknown and that will affect what shade the image looks like.

The color chip of Mountbatten Pink (Dark) attached looks darker "scanned" than it does on the Snyder & Short Color Chips charts. If Capt. Swenson was able to have this paint mixed in Noumea, there is no guarantee that it would look the same as this sample. The S&S RN color sets have additional shades of Mountbatten Pink, lighter than this "Dark" version.

Attachment:
MountbattenPink.jpg


Here is a scan of the 5-O Ocean Gray.

Attachment:
OceanGray.jpg


A photo of a USN destroyer known to be painted in Mountbatten Pink is attached.

Image


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 9:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:59 pm
Posts: 302
Location: Austin
Super interesting stuff. I had no idea Mountbatten Pink was considered for CL-52!

I'm in agreement with Tracy White, the photo evidence doesn't seem to suggest the dark 5-N overall. I may update my drawing to 5-O Ocean Gray - perhaps the best compromise?

I have a feeling we will never know for sure what color Juneau was repainted in at Tongatubu, sadly!

edit:

Two new versions, one with 5-H overall and one with 5-O overall. I really like the way the 5-H looks and I think it matches the photos most closely.

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2017 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
Personally I lean to a shade closer to 5-O than 5-H. In most B&W photography of the time, the shade seen in the photo is lighter than the "actual" paint for a variety of reasons. Photographers are going to set the camera settings and use filters to highlight the subject. Plus the bright sun seen in the South Pacific would naturally make colors look lighter and with age fade the original color. This is apparent in many photos where the same ship is seen in bright sun and then in cloudy/overcast weather and the ship appears darker.

Something to do is look at the ships in the background of the overall photo 80-G-304513 ... http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/052/0405228.jpg ... USS NORTHAMPTON is painted in Ms 21 and USS HORNET and the destroyer alongside of her are painted in Ms 12R(mod). The contrast between what USS JUNEAU looks like here in full noontime sun and what the other ships looks like seems to me is closer to 5-O. But, to be honest I have a hard time translating "colors" from B&W photos particularly when there is no evidence provided as to which type of film and filters were used on the camera.

PS; USS JUNEAU was likely repainted at Dumbea Bay, Noumea, New Caledonia, not Tongatabu during the TF 17 layover there 26 September to 2 October 1942.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
MartinJQuinn wrote:
First hand accounts of those who were there are invaluable to flesh out and add substance to the photos and documents. However, the human mind is not infallible. It is scientifically proven time and again that memories can be - and are - faulty. While memories are the most compelling and interesting part of the research, they are the least reliable. Again, that is fact. That is why Tracy brought up the Don Stratton memory of Arizona being torpedoed. Don is certain he saw that. Yet, the Navy's own reports (I believe Tracy linked to them on 12/7) say that they (the Navy) found NO evidence that Arizona was torpedoed.


While I have the deepest respect for vets both past (some of whom I have met personally) and present (a few I have met / know personally), and support the 'troops' - but not the Governments that put them in harms way today, I would like to 2nd Martins above comment. And you know, I may have posted this little anecdote before, but................................

While out in the Java Sea aboard HMS Kent in 2008 for the memorial service over the (now gone) wreck of HMS Exeter, one of the four Exeter crew survivors along for the service swore he saw the top of the rear 8" turret blow completely off from a direct hit not long before he abandoned ship. Now call me chicken and colour me yellow, but I didn't have the heart to argue with him that that rear turret is (that is was, now) completely intact, roof and all including the tub for the proposed 25mm gun.

Do I think he was lying? OF COURSE NOT!!!! He whole-heartedly believed he saw that happen, but.......................he believed wrong is all, and as far as I am concerned he and other vets can / should be 'forgiven' so to speak for that (although no forgiveness needed if you ask me!), given what was going on around them. But it just shows that vets memories are not infallible as much as we would like / wish them to be. AGAIN, with ALL due respect!

PS. Rick Davis, may I ask how / what you do to post images so they are not downloadable? Now while I personally dont 'care' about the historical images I post on forums being downloaded by any and all (but each to their own of course), sometimes, and only sometimes, when I post my own copyrighted u/w photos I would like to stop them being downloaded.

Care to share the 'trick' with me, by PM should you rather that way?

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
I did not ask several vets questions about weapon strikes, colors of IJN planes, or other sudden events.

I asked them what color a ship was. I also asked them if it had camoflage as they understood it to mean, namely a pattern, not how USN regs that they were clueless on defined it.

Rich Nowatzki, a CV 8 crewman who I have been in touch with for over 20 years, and a published author, was a gunner beside my father who saw the Juneau for the entire time it was with Hornet. As you can see in the email I copied into a 12/15/15 1849 post, he described the ship color as whitish. If I was a detective I would rate his credibility and memory worth taking to court. I so stated previously.

Maurice Beckner, on Juneau from Jan. 42 until it sailed for its last mission, told me the info summarized in the post of 11/20/15 1357--the ship was not repainted as best he can remember and was still in the scheme shown in the 6/1/42 NYC photos while at Santa Cruz.

Ed Lavin, a San Diego crewman, also told me his memory of the Juneau camo was as shown in the 6/1/42 photos. I recall putting on a post with that info but cannot locate it. Perhaps it is still on the Atlanta thread.

So it was not a single vet involved on a single traumatic incident. It was 3 on a topic that 2 of them had view of the Juneau from 9/26/42 according to the Juneau War Diary at least thru 10/26/42 if not longer. The 3rd was on the ship for something close to 11 months. Why the info they relayed to me, especially concerning Rich and Maurice, on a topic they clearly remembered, is so often previously blown off in favor of assorted theories and refusal to admit a photo of a CLAA clearly has a camo pattern on it---completely different from the one on San Diego and as stated by Maurice--is something I refuse to consider acceptable. Their evidence has been treated as either nonexistant or totally irrelevant for close to a year. If you disagree with that statement just read this entire site since last November. Faulty memories on combat action such as torpedoes bombs etc I can accept. I have a clear memory of what color the USN ships were in the Phila. Navy Yard 60+ years ago. Why the memories of vets that go back only another 15 years on a topic they had weeks or months exposure to is blown off is something I have yet to figure out to be acceptable on a military related site. Especially when at least one photo of a CLAA with CV 6 is whitish exactly as described by Rich.

Above is the opinon of a history student and a vet. It is strictly my opinion which I felt compelled to place here out of my respect for the vets I spoke to on this topic.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Fred,

I think / agree your circumstance fits into a different 'category' than the example I gave above.

My comment was not directed at you, nor even re camo; I don't have a dog in that camo fight whatsoever - well, save a pic or three maybe. ;-)

But I do believe more what I see than what I am told. But thats just me / my experience.

So if my post was taken as supporting one side or another in this camo 'debate' - for want of a more accurate word (ha, ha) - then no, it is NOT.

That being said, I stand by what I said.

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 4:22 pm
Posts: 289
Location: NAZARETH PA
Kevin

Most definitely not aimed at you. Your sample and the torpedo sample I have no argument with.

I do take issue with ignoring an email I copied onto this site from a vet who was there which clearly states the ship was "whitish" and that only patterns were referred to by USN WWII sailors as camo, along with a vet on the ship itself having his commentary ignored/blown off/disregarded, by people not even alive at the time who maintain they know better than a person I have been in touch with for over 20 years and who was there and who is credible. He told me several things about Santa Cruz that were confirmed by other vets in the Mustin-Hornet Association that did not even know him.

Said blowing off vets in favor of one's own alleged superior knowledge goes along with denying the pattern exists on the hull of a CLAA with a crossbar in front of it or that if the pattern is there it is the result of wave action---take a look at all of the CLAA ship underway photos on this site and show me one with wave/wake action that high up and in that pattern on the hull-, refusing to acknowledge the pattern on that ship is way different from the one on San Diego, blowing off the whitish CLAA photo taken by The CV 6 TF as crap even after I disclosed it was published by Morrison in his Guadalcanal book calling the ship San Juan by the way, refusing to concede the above photo with the pattern plus the whitish photo do not jive with the multiply posted 80 G 304513, and finally considering the facts in this paragraph the issue deserves the attention of a professional forensic photographer to resolve. Since 80 G 304513 is a member of a multi TBF photo series showing all sorts of shades of grey/black/almost white I question whether any of them are trustworthy for this issue due to possible camera/photographer/development issues unknown to any now alive human. But as in the post yesterday that is all just my opinion for what very little it will be worth.

Kevin I was trying to make it clear above I could not agree with you more. You were not involved in this site 11 months ago.

Memories of events while under stress and getting shot at are sure to be less than reliable. Memories of a ship in possibly a one of a kind for its time camo sheme--anyone else know of a WWII USN sailor describing any USN ship in 1942 especially a CL/CA/CLAA anywhere on this planet as "whitish"--who had at least a full month to study it, only one day of it being shot at, coming from someone who is a published author and a speaker on the current Hornet at commemeration events, is to me very strong evidence it was in fact "whitish". Of course the crewman who was on it for about 11 months was equally unreliable. Who cares what he said.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:02 pm
Posts: 3825
We have been over this many times. I can't convince you that there are facts pointing to another conclusion than the one you reached, but for others I will review again.

I laid out the time-line of USS JUNEAU movements and operations with USS HORNET in this link and won't repeat it in total here...

... viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=360#p708695 ...

USS JUNEAU was in operational formation with USS HORNET TF 17 from 17 September 1942 until USS HORNET's loss on 26 October 1942. Almost six weeks in total. In that time frame TF 17 laid over in Dumbea Bay at Noumea, New Caledonia, from 26 September to 2 October 1942. More than enough time to have repainted the ship. It is silly to assume that USS JUNEAU NEVER was paint again since her repainting at Argentia on 15-16 June 1942. The specific War Diary entry ...

Monday, June 15 - At Base Roger (Argentia). During forenoon commenced painting a new camouflage on superstructure consisting of alternating irregular patterns of haze grey and off white. Exercised during afternoon at general quarters, abandon ship, boarding and salvage party drills.

Tuesday, June 16 - At Base Roger. Continued camouflage painting in forenoon. Exercised at general quarters, battery drill and fire drill in afternoon.


EVERY USN ship did painting duties whenever there was a down time. Capt Swenson was involved in camo experiments starting in the Summer of 1941. He knew the key individuals in the Camouflage hierarchy of the USN. He selected the scheme above "Haze Grey and Off White" to support the "expected" operations in the North Atlantic while his ship was at Argentia. We really have NO idea of what this new superstructure pattern looked like. The 16 September 1942 photos at Espiritu Santos don't clearly show the pattern applied. His correspondence in the BuShip Files at NARA shows that he was impressed with the USN "Mountbatten Pink" painted ships he operated with when on the USS JUNEAU convoy escort mission to Brazil and believed it would be well suited for the South Pacific operations. His correspondence indicted that he either "wanted to" or "planned" to paint his ship in that scheme in late September 1942. The 16 September 1942 (the date of his Mountbatten Pink memo) was the day JUNEAU was at Espiritu Santos dropping off USS WASP survivors. The photo, also dated 16 September 1942, of USS JUNEAU in the far background of USS LAFFEY clearly shows a ship with well worn paint and some touch-ups already. The USS JUNEAU couldn't have touched up her camo scheme with onboard paint supplies, because she was ordered to remove "excess" paint at Balboa when she dry-docked for an overnight repair of a leaking fuel tank and needed local base supplies. The formula for Mountbatten Pink he stated in the correspondence was a Blue-Gray mix with Red added. Working out the ratios of Blue and Red added to the White Base Paint, the "Shade" would be lighter than the current 5-N and darker than 5-O. What Capt Swenson chose to repaint his ship to may never be known. But the three photos of USS JUNEAU taken on 26-27 October 1942 clearly show that she was painted in a solid scheme.

As for your "USS JUNEAU" photo (first image below) you say was taken from CV-6 that is one or TWO images (the other image is the second image posted) that only have been posted as thumbnails on the USS SAN JUAN website, I found one of these images (third images) in 80-G credited as being USS JUNEAU and taken by USS SOUTH DAKOTA. (I suspect that these images are frame grabs from a movie made from USS SOUTH DAKOTA? But have no proof of that) I went through the whole timeline (see the link below) to show that the images were both taken by USS SOUTH DAKOTA and are of USS SAN JUAN since JUNEAU didn't reach TF 16 until AFTER the last IJN attack on the Task Force. USS JUNEAU only fired at a couple passing IJN aircraft while in visual sighting of TF 16. In this (first) image the cruiser clearly is under attack, which USS SAN JUAN was earlier in the day, and maybe shows when she was hit. Compare the two images posted on the SAN JUAN website and notice the differences in the background sky and ocean. One image is slightly underexposed and one overexposed. One cruiser image is under a cloud bank and the other broken clouds.

... viewtopic.php?f=69&t=164112&start=340#p708373 ...

Attachment:
Juneau-lg.jpg


Attachment:
juneau2-lg.flipped.jpg


Image

I will not question the memories of Vets that I have not met nor had a chance to converse with. When I talk to vets, like my uncles, I learned that trivial matters like "what" color of paint the equipment they operated with was painted, they have no idea or "simply" say "Navy Gray" or "Army Drab". I have no idea of what you asked or what they said. I do know that when Rod Dickson was researching the book he wrote on USS JUNEAU in the early 1990's, he consulted with several USS JUNEAU survivors for his book and they CONCURRED with his assessment that USS JUNEAU was repainted to a solid DARKER scheme. (Rod Dickson assumed it was Ms 21 5-N) Those vets were; Mr. Alan Heyn and Mr. Lester Zook. Your vets against those vets and the photographer aboard the TBM.

You and all modelers have to look at more than the memories of WWII vets. Modelers can't paint models from memories, specifically when patterns are involved. Sometimes official records are all we have. They need some aids to guide them. With USS JUNEAU we have three photos taken on 26 October 1942. From those images, USS JUNEAU was painted in a solid camo scheme, but what color is unknown.


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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
We're not going to change each other's minds. Let's just say that we've laid out our positions and let others decide which they believe. Otherwise this is a vicious circle that's just going to get this thread locked. While color may be important in an ACADEMIC discussion, fighting about it does nothing to honor the memory of those who lost their lives in these conflicts.

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Tracy White wrote:
We're not going to change each other's minds. Let's just say that we've laid out our positions and let others decide which they believe. Otherwise this is a vicious circle that's just going to get this thread locked. While color may be important in an ACADEMIC discussion, fighting about it does nothing to honor the memory of those who lost their lives in these conflicts.


Yeah, I think it's a genuine / classic case of "never the twain shall met" here or 'each to their own'.

And Rick, if I may be so rude, care to answer (or not as the case may be) my above question re 'locked' images as it were ?

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Last edited by KevinD on Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:03 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Now re the two different pics posted above by Rick in his last post.

Is this really the same ship? (Image/s ONLY cropped, enlarged, and 'enhanced' using P'shop Levels and / or Curves.)


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

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:02 am
Posts: 10448
Location: EG48
KevinD wrote:
And Rick, if I may be so rude, care to answer (or not as the case may be) my above question re 'locked' images as it were ?


If I may jump in a bit - how are you having this trouble? Rick's sorta locked in to Photobucket for now. I clicked on his DD in mountbatten pink picture as a test and it took me to the photobucket cesspool, but I was able to right click and "save picture as" after closing all of the pop-ups, etc.

What browser/OS, etc.?

_________________
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  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:40 pm
Posts: 8159
Location: New Jersey
Fred sent me some photos, and asked me to post them for discussion. I haven't had a chance to post them yet, I will try and do so tonight.

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:07 pm 
Offline

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

I was at NARA all last week when you posted on 26 October. I saw your question about "blocking downloads" from my Photobucket Account. Well, no one has complained before that they couldn't download images I post. I had to pay the ransom Photobucket wanted so that my images wouldn't be displayed on 3rd party sites like this one. I paid because I literally have posted 1,000's of images and reposting ALL of them via another service will take a LONG time. So far I have not found another service that has been as easy as Photobucket to upload and automatically size the posted images for display on that website. I didn't respond because I simply don't have an answer for your issue.

Anyway, once I signed up for the Photobucket Pro 500 account to get 3rd party hosting "rights", the ads went away and I have no idea if any of the settings I made to block use on my links directly (I had an issue that people primarily in Eastern Europe were using my links directly and using up my "bandwidth") and to try and keep people from seeing all of my images (some are not from NARA). I don't deny access to images I scan at NARA or NHHC, they are Public Domain and are not copyrighted (unlike IWM).

As for the differences in the first two images above. I don't know how versed you are in film negative photo taking and processing plus print from negative processing, but there are a lot of reasons to explain why one looks like a silhouette and the other looks bright. First off camera settings make a big difference in the contrast of an image, photographers of the day had to focus the image, ENTER the F-Stop and shutter speed manually, plus add or remove a filter over the lens. Unlike today's automatic digital cameras with automatic control of those functions. Second, the relative aspect of the camera and subject to the sun really impacts how the photo will come out. During the Battle of Santa Cruz, the carriers and their escorts were doing violent maneuvers in an attempt to throw off the attacking aircraft. The ships that day would have the sun on one side of the ship in one direction and on the other after a turn. When the sun is fully on the side of the ship, they will appear lighter than when the sun is behind the ship. Plus cloud cover impacts relative contrast. I'm not sure if these two photos were taken with a still camera or a movie camera. Images used in the Battle of Santa Cruz After Action Report taken from aboard USS NORTHAMPTON on that day were mostly stills taken from the movie film. These images likely both taken from the USS SOUTH DAKOTA, may be from still camera(s) or movie camera(s). Finally, how the prints were processed will impact how much contrast is observed.

The first two images are the BIGGEST size of these two that were posted on the USS SAN JUAN reunion website. Where the person that supplied the images to the website got them and who labeled them as "USS JUNEAU" is unknown. As I said I found the same image as the second one in the 80-G collection at NARA (the National Archives) in College Park. The photo in 80-G has the two arrows seen pasted on that print as seen. Hence the same image on the USS SAN JUAN came from a DIFFERENT print copy.

The two small images that are likely at least a couple of generations away from the original print, much less the original film negative, are way too small to do any configuration and camouflage analysis. Many prints available in 80-G or other sources are actually prints made from "Copy Negatives" made so more prints could be made from a photo when they didn't have access to the original negative. Copy negatives just naturally result in a higher contrast print. There simply are not enough pixels left in these very small photos taken about 4,000 yards away from the camera. Even the image I scanned from 80-G can't be used to get much info. I tried with a close crop view, that can be seen in previous post I linked to above. No one can tell much from images taken over a mile away that are about 1/2 inch long OR LESS on an 8x10 print taken at sea, particularly during a battle. Most "action" photos were taken with smaller cameras, 35-mm or 70mm size, or 16-mm movie cameras because of there size and ability to take multiple photos in quick sequence. These photos are not like yard photos taken with 8x10 negative cameras. The best "War Zone" images are taken in close range as ships pass or in an anchorage somewhere. Aerial photos many times are closer to the subject than another ship in formation.

I have scanned OVER 10,000's images at NARA from the prints available there. plus looked at literally 10,000's of more photos that I did NOT scan. Ships painted in 5-N will appear very dark to very light depending on the print. Sometimes I can find photos of the same ship taken at the same time that will appear two different shades depending where the sun is relative to the photographer. When I scan images, I don't adjust the contrast or make any other adjustments with the original scan. It is what it is. The only exception is a REALLY dark image of a ship when other images don't exist for that time frame that has details buried in the image I want to see, So I will adjust the scan settings to try and pull out details. Plus I don't DO post processing on my images prior to posting other than sizing. Plus I provide the number and location of the original photo so that anyone can go look at it for themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:20 am
Posts: 454
Tracy White wrote:
KevinD wrote:
And Rick, if I may be so rude, care to answer (or not as the case may be) my above question re 'locked' images as it were ?


If I may jump in a bit - how are you having this trouble? Rick's sorta locked in to Photobucket for now. I clicked on his DD in mountbatten pink picture as a test and it took me to the photobucket cesspool, but I was able to right click and "save picture as" after closing all of the pop-ups, etc.

What browser/OS, etc.?


Mozilla.

And, argh Tracy, to answer yours and Ricks question I am / was trying to download them direct from this forum, not P'bucket and from here it downloads as 'a file', but then when one (i.e. I) goes to open then says 'this file can't be opened' or some such. And I have everything under the sun, almost, to open images on / with. In future I'll try and do as Rick says and do so from P'bucket.

Thanks, KD

_________________
We are off to look for trouble. I expect we shall find it.” Capt. Tennant, HMS Repulse. 8 December 1941
A review of the situation at about 1100 was not encouraging.” Capt. Gordon, HMS Exeter. 1 March 1942


Last edited by KevinD on Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:11 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 483 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 ... 25  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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