The Ship Model Forum

There is a thread on the Facebook Warship Camouflage Group discussing this. It has photos of the part of the Enterprise.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1938148 ... 3583031885

EG,
I appreciate your effort to try to trip me up and challenge me. Keep in mind, I am peer reviewing someone else’s published research and questioning the validity of that research. When I have time later I will present more on this. It is up to the initial researchers however to explain the discrepancy in their published research.
Since you are demanding me to answer your questions, I’ll ask you again where did you see the photo of USS Arizona dated Dec. 5, 1941? I would love to see it.

Hi,
I took the second photo from http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=12942&start=2460#p926398:

{removed image link}

and applied autocorrection features and some other little touches in Photoshop. Unfortunately, the photos are in the JPG format which is 8-bit. Although I work in PS with 16, or 32-bit color, the final JPG is degraded to only 8-bit color. The result is sometime quite significant change of the color - I experience it when drawing aircraft profiles. Conversion from RGB (monitor) to CMYK (books) format is another shift of the colors. Plus each of us has monitor with the different setup and properties, eg. each of us see a slightly different picture.
Anyhow, here is a result:
{removed image link}
At least to my eye (and at my monitor) this adjusted picture looks more naturally. What do you think?

I don’t do Facebook. Can you give me the cliff notes on the discussion?

...auto white balance is a process that brings out middle colors but as a result darkens the dark colors and lightens the light colors...

Here are some pics of USS Enterprise's mainmast before and after she was painted into MS-1 camo.

While the ship wore Standard Navy Gray, the mainmast from the funnel cap on up was painted black. The mast traveled down through the funnel cap and then goes through a collar attached to the backside of the funnel. The portion of the mast below the funnel cap at this time I believe was painted Standard Navy Gray to match the color of the funnel.

{removed image link}

After the ship was painted into MS-1 the mainmast above the funnel cap was painted 5-L but the soot from the funnel smoke quickly darkened it to appear black again. The portion of the mast below the funnel cap was painted 5-D to match the color of the funnel.
In this next pic, you can see the top of the mast. 5-L paint can still be seen but the lower half is covered in black soot.
{removed image link}
The collar on the backside of the funnel is tough to see in this shot because the catwalk and loudspeakers are casting a shadow on it. This is however the area that Ron claims the broken piece of the mast came from. Ron says the accompanying drawing that was with the document and the broken piece found at the archives identifies this area as the spot the piece is from.
This next pic of Enterprise during the war gives us a better look at the mast traveling through the collar.
{removed image link}

Ron has stated that Enterprise was painted into MS-1 camouflage during a short yard period in May 1941 and he claims the piece is dated May 24, 1941.

All of this seems pretty logical and plausible until you look at the date of the Document that Ron and Don presented to validate the fractured piece. The date on the document is March 18, 1941 and specifically states that the fractured piece is included as an enclosure. Don stated in his published article that the document and the piece were dated March 18, 1941 and that the piece is painted 5-D.

My questions to both of them were: Is their fractured piece the very piece referenced in the March 18th document? If it is, then how is it possible that it is painted 5-D if the ship was not painted in that camo yet? If it's NOT the sample referenced in the document, then why present the document as evidence to validate the piece and where is the real documentation to validate the piece?

So, either we have an unvalidated 5-D piece that can easily be validated if Ron or Don can show us a document with the correct date or we have a black piece from the ship if the piece is indeed the one mentioned in the March 18, 1941 document.

I initially asked these questions to both Ron and Don about this time last year. Neither have answered them yet.

...
The info about using 5H as a pre-coat barrier in the last screen shot might explain the appearance of San Francisco's paint work on the day of the attack - kudos for Dan Kaplan for noticing that.

Hi Egilman,

Btw., is really known photo of USS Arizona dated Dec. 5, 1941 out there?

It supports Mr. Bruner's testimony about properties of the "lighter, bluish color": "...It took about three coats to cover up the old color; boy, it was awful!..."
Soure: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?/topic/264462-uss-arizona-paint-colors/&tab=comments#comment-2511994

My questions to both of them were: Is their fractured piece the very piece referenced in the March 18th document? If it is, then how is it possible that it is painted 5-D if the ship was not painted in that camo yet?

It would be very interesting but highly unlikely that the Navy would repaint an entire Aircraft Carrier back into Standard Navy Gray just for the filming after she was painted into MS-1 camo.