At 'Em Arizona Fans!

[BFR4570]

I agree dsk. But the government was all about saving money then, and didn't give a rat's patootie about museums and future generations. I mean, if they couldn't even save the Enterprise, the most decorated ship in the Navy (and people did try!), what chance did any other pre-war ship have? Especially ones dating back to The Great War.

[alx]

But one poster commented that a picture he saw had Marines boarding a transport ship, and they were wearing blue uniforms.

That was me, actually. Maybe Arizona was OD green?

I can still remember published pictures of a P-51 sporting BLUE camouflage in the 70's. I don't think the USAAF actually painted them blue.

Having spent many years as a color photographer/processor/printer, I am always taken back by people making color claims based on photographic "evidence". It's not that the photos lie; they just don't tell the truth.

Each medium, color and black and white, has its own set of foibles that render color interpretation a guess at best.

You have to think of color photography differently from the paint you are used to. While you are accustomed to think of mixing colors as solid pigments and primary colors, color photography uses just 3 dyes to derive all colors: cyan, magenta and yellow. When you look at a color photograph, there is actually no "BLUE" in it. Your mind and eye are mixing the cyan and magenta and the absence of yellow.

The biggest obstacle to accurately interpreting color from a color photograph of the WWII time frame is the fact that the yellow dyes used faded far more rapidly than the cyan and magenta, creating the blue shift. (The same problem existed well into the 60's and early 70's.) If you've ever found an old magazine in the attic or basement, you've probably seen what I'm talking about.

While one can use photoshop, etc. in an attempt to color correct a picture, you have to realize that correcting one color by adding back the missing yellow will shift the colors that didn't contain yellow out of balance.

There are ways to achieve a close approximation of the original colors IF one knows the exact color in the first place and balances for that. The problem is that it is the original color that is in question. Without a known constant, you will always tend to adjust in whatever preconceived direction you have.

Color is incredibly subtle and shifts in so many ways.

One can say that concrete is a constant in the world around us. Every where you go, things are built using concrete. Yet if you look, you will see that in terms of color, concrete (which one usually thinks of as gray) is far from constant. Even concrete roadways can differ noticeably as you go from town to town and state to state. If I were to adjust a print based on the assumption that concrete is gray, the flesh tones could get quite strange at times!

I can go on and on (I haven't even touched on lighting or black and white), and if there is interest I gladly will, but hopefull you get the point that you can't know a color from a photograph.

[Tracy White]

Metamerism.
Purkinje effect.

Our perception of color is relative... and how many of you know for a fact you're not color blind?

[BFR4570]

I wasn't color-blind when I was younger. I was tested and had no color blindness that they could detect, but that was 30 years ago. Now, being diabetic, with the start of cataracts, who knows! I can still detect shades of color too subtle for anyone else in my family to see when they are side by side. But I can't say for sure that I am still the way I was. Too much water has flowed under the bridge, and caused too much erosion in unexpected places! So I will patiently wait for more color pictures to be released, and if they look good, then they look good. They may still be wrong, but then, they might not be!

alx pointed out that the yellow dye usually fades out faster than the cyan or magenta. By the way, isn't cyan a bright blue (it's what the blue tank on an inkjet printer is called, but maybe it means something else in photography)? Anyway, so the picture of the Marines boarding the transport in blue uniforms would tend to support this, since their green uniforms were a mix of the cyan and yellow. The yellow fades and we are left with blue uniforms. However, if something originally is blue, it shouldn't necessarily change much, because it is already blue to begin with, right? With little, or no yellow in that section of picture, it shouldn't change when the yellow fades. It may fade itself but that should just be to a lighter shade of blue, unless the magenta lasts the longest of the original dyes in which case I would expect the shift to be more toward purple (and all the comments about blue-shifted photos says otherwise).

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/30e89697241e6a0b_large

In looking at the picture of the Flag Raising over the wreck, it all looks very natural. It doesn't appear to have any yellow fading, or any other fading not caused by years in the sun. The trees on shore are very green, not shading to blue. The shore looks like dirt. The flag is clearly red, white and blue. The rust looks like orange rust. The scale looks like scale. The water is blue with a hint of green (just like it looked when I was there in July 2008). The only question seems to be about the ship itself. To me it looks sun-faded. And it looks like the blue may be fading faster than black, which could make it look darker than it was originally. It still doesn't answer the question as to what it was actually painted because two of the three formulas that were used had blue in them, apparently. But, to me, this picture looks very natural. If anything, it may be a smidge too yellow, or overexposed, but that might be my monitor also. The rest of you have to make up your own minds. Do NOT go by what I think. What I think, and a dollar, will get you a cup of coffee at MickeyDee's.

[alx]

By the way, isn't cyan a bright blue (it's what the blue tank on an inkjet printer is called, but maybe it means something else in photography)?

In terms of photographic dyes, cyan is not a bright blue; blue is the result of mixing cyan and magenta. Many people see the cyan ink in their printer in terms of a "bright blue" because they have learned about color in terms of red, blue and yellow pigments in paint, but in terms of light and photography, cyan is definitely not blue. (And I realize that tends to be counterintuitive unless one has worked with it.) At least when I was growing up, cyan wasn't even mentioned as a color.

However, if something originally is blue, it shouldn't necessarily change much, because it is already blue to begin with, right?

BFR4570 is right in so far as blue shouldn't change much as the yellow fades, since there is no yellow to fade in a pure blue.

The problem is when one trys to determine if the color is BLUE or GRAY or, in this case, the SHADE of gray, blue/gray.

A "true" or "neutral" gray is an equal balance of the cyan, magenta and yellow dyes. Since BLUE has no yellow, it will still appear to be blue as the yellow dye fades. At the same time, a GRAY will turn increasingly blue with the yellow fade, even more so if there was any blue in the original pigment. The problem is still one of determining what the original color was in the first place, and photographic "evidence" doesn't help. It may even tend to confuse the picture.

In looking at the picture of the Flag Raising over the wreck, it all looks very natural.

One's mind tends to adjust color to match a known constant. We all know the stripes in the flag are RED. The flag in the picture is "a red" and we accept it as correct, especially when we are looking at the photo on its own.

But if you can frame the picture on your monitor so that you can maneuver the flag close to BFR4750's own avatar which uses a pure red, you can see that the red stripes have a distinct blue cast.

Similarly, the green trees are "green", but I can tell you from experience that there is a strong blue cast to them that is far different from the tropical green of the trees on Ford island. (And almost all color photographs that show trees at a distance will shift them towards the blue due to atmospheric interference. [Sounds almost like a scene from TORA! TORA! TORA! ])

BFR4570, PLEASE don't take any of this as personal. I just feel very strongly about the whole subject of using ancient (or even recent) photographs as evidence about color knowing what I do about film, color and light. Even as we move into the digital age where bits won't fade like the dyes of yore, there still will be questions as to the spectral sensitivity of the sensor vs. the color temperature of the light and ambient reflections.

And that doesn't even touch on the falacy of determining color based of a B&W photograph. Tracy White was correct in his mentioning of orthochromatic and panchromatic films earlier in this thread, but that only scratches the surface. The fact is that you can have two photographers standing side by side at the same time with identical cameras using the same batch of film and still get very different results.

Photography can tell you that the ship was there, but it surely can't tell you the color.

[dsk]

As promised, here is a scan of the PE Upgrade Set. Given how one of their customers had to do this for them I'd say they owe me a paycheck.

[dsk]

I will agree that judging color based on B&W pictures borders on idiocy. Regarding the color picture in question, all I can say is we've heard all sides, now folks must make up their own minds. At least, until the day somebody opens up an old dust-covered box and finds that long-awaited "smoking gun" inside.

[Tracy White]

And that is why I keep hitting the archives up looking for documentation..... it might not be there, but I believe it to be our best hope.

[BFR4570]

In terms of photographic dyes, cyan is not a bright blue; blue is the result of mixing cyan and magenta. Many people see the cyan ink in their printer in terms of a "bright blue" because they have learned about color in terms of red, blue and yellow pigments in paint, but in terms of light and photography, cyan is definitely not blue. (And I realize that tends to be counterintuitive unless one has worked with it.) At least when I was growing up, cyan wasn't even mentioned as a color.

Cool information! I never knew that! So what is the chemical used to make cyan for photography?

A "true" or "neutral" gray is an equal balance of the cyan, magenta and yellow dyes. Since BLUE has no yellow, it will still appear to be blue as the yellow dye fades. At the same time, a GRAY will turn increasingly blue with the yellow fade, even more so if there was any blue in the original pigment. The problem is still one of determining what the original color was in the first place, and photographic "evidence" doesn't help. It may even tend to confuse the picture.
One's mind tends to adjust color to match a known constant. We all know the stripes in the flag are RED. The flag in the picture is "a red" and we accept it as correct, especially when we are looking at the photo on its own.

Ok, I can see where you are coming from. Does the magenta fade faster than the blue? If it does also, then that could help explain why the blue parts of the wreck do not look a little purple, and why the flag is slightly bluish. But then the monitor may be helping it. Or other factors, too. Right?

BFR4570, PLEASE don't take any of this as personal.

Oh, believe me, I am not taking it personal. I know I dont know much about photography. I leave all that to my Brother-in-law. LOL I do enjoy learning new things, and this stuff is cool!

And that doesn't even touch on the falacy of determining color based of a B&W photograph. Tracy White was correct in his mentioning of orthochromatic and panchromatic films earlier in this thread, but that only scratches the surface. The fact is that you can have two photographers standing side by side at the same time with identical cameras using the same batch of film and still get very different results.

Photography can tell you that the ship was there, but it surely can't tell you the color.

I agree, it can't tell you the color, but it can tell you whether something is a lighter shade of whatever color it is. Right? So, scenario, a B&W photo is found (with a date between October and December 7, 1941) showing the Arizona next to the Oklahoma (or other BB) so that you are looking at both ships from the same view point with the sun hitting both ships from the same angle, and the other ship looks very dark from the waterline to the level of the top of the funnel, and the Arizona is noticably lighter in color for the same area, then it should be reasonable to presume that the Arizona is actually painted a lighter shade of color. Is this correct? This is NOT stating what that color is, just that it is a lighter color. Since there is a very short list of possible colors to choose from, it would really narrow down the choices. So we just need to wait for someone to find this picture, or a color version!

Tracy? I wish you, and Steve Wiper, and everyone else who is searching the archives, the best of luck in your search! I do not envy your search. But I will sure envy your success should you find the pictures, or the documentations. No, that's wrong. I WILL envy your search because I would love to immerse myself in an archive and browse... and browse... and browse... Good Luck!

[BFR4570]

I am thinking I am unimpressed with their inclined ladders... no flip-out steps?

I looked through a magnifying glass at these, and they are bendable. Each step is held in place by a tiny connector on each side at the bottom, allowing the careful application of force by a very thin, pointed object, such as a #11 blade. Don't forget the magnifier while you are doing it! I got a headache just looking at them. Need a better magnifier...

[dsk]

They will flip out. Some simply have wider footsteps than others. You'd definitely need to do it at this scale. I didn't do it with my 1/350 Missouri (did I mention I'm a newbie?), but unless you're looking at it with a big magnifier you'd probably never notice. With these 1/200 ladders they'll definitely look odd if the steps aren't flipped out.

Probably the biggest drawback is that there's no spares if you screw one up.

[Tracy White]

I WILL envy your search because I would love to immerse myself in an archive and browse... and browse... and browse... Good Luck!

Another quote from Barbara Tuchman: "Research is endlessly seductive...writing is hard work."

[alx]

"So what is the chemical used to make cyan for photography?"

Hmmmmm... I can't say that I know the chemical compositions of the dyes when I was doing my processing let alone in the 50's.

As for the magenta fading faster than the blue, there is no blue. Blue is a combination of magenta and cyan. While there is some fading of all of the dyes over time depending on age, environmental conditions and exposure to light, it is the fading of the yellow that is disproportionate resulting in a total loss of color fidelity. If all dyes faded equally, or even close to equally, we might be able to trust what we see.

The flag is slightly bluish because there is no RED in color photography. The color red is a combination of magenta and yellow - as the yellow fades, the reds will shift towards the blue.

As for the greens in the background, the following photo, http://www.nps.gov/archive/usar/photos2/PC-44734.jpg shows the same area of Ford Island in more contemporary times and is closer to the actual colors. You can also see another of the factors involved if you look at the shadow areas of the memorial which have a distincly blue cast as compared to the directly illuminated parts of the interior. Areas in shadow will not photograph the same as those in direct light.

BFR4570, I have a color corrected version of the LIFE photo that I approximated last night playing around that I'd be happy to email you if you like. (Anyone else can feel free to request.) I would be interested in your reaction.

I won't pretend that it is color accurate, but it illustrates many of the points we are discussing and I am confident in my own mind that it is "closer" to the scene at the time the photo was shot. But that is in MY mind... your mindage may vary.

It is interesting how much more prominent the rust becomes with the reintroduction of the lost yellow.

Therein lies the next little "gotcha". The rust and its staining plus the smoke and its staining combine for an effect on the colors that wasn't present on December 6.

What a difference a day and ten years can make.

[BFR4570]

Thank you alx! Yes, I would like that picture. I sent you a PM. I wonder what, if any, smoke effects might be remaining on the pieces above water level, after 10 years of weathering and sun? This particular area did not get any fire, but it may have had some smoke, depending on which way the breeze was blowing.
So, what I am understanding of what you are saying about how the colors on the pictures are blended is that, even though the names yellow, magenta, and cyan, are used, they were not actual colors. But just chemicals that will combine in certain ratios to give certain colors on the film. Is this about right? Because I do know if you mix actual yellow color with actual magenta color, you get more or less orange color depending on the mixing ratio, but not red.

[Tracy White]

There was fire in this area; there are reports of crew from Turret #3 evacuating via the hatch in the rear of the turret on to the deck and being burned by fires there. Obviously, not as much fire as areas forward, but probably enough for a little bit of sooting action, depending on wind. Additionally, once she had sunk enough, this area would have had oily water that might have been on fire swirling around.

[alx]

And that doesn't even touch on the falacy of determining color based of a B&W photograph. Tracy White was correct in his mentioning of orthochromatic and panchromatic films earlier in this thread, but that only scratches the surface. The fact is that you can have two photographers standing side by side at the same time with identical cameras using the same batch of film and still get very different results.

Photography can tell you that the ship was there, but it surely can't tell you the color.

I agree, it can't tell you the color, but it can tell you whether something is a lighter shade of whatever color it is. Right? So, scenario, a B&W photo is found (with a date between October and December 7, 1941) showing the Arizona next to the Oklahoma (or other BB) so that you are looking at both ships from the same view point with the sun hitting both ships from the same angle, and the other ship looks very dark from the waterline to the level of the top of the funnel, and the Arizona is noticably lighter in color for the same area, then it should be reasonable to presume that the Arizona is actually painted a lighter shade of color. Is this correct? This is NOT stating what that color is, just that it is a lighter color. Since there is a very short list of possible colors to choose from, it would really narrow down the choices. So we just need to wait for someone to find this picture, or a color version!

In theory... maybe.

There are a whole host of variables that will have to all line up first.

Both ships would have to be positioned and angled identically to the sun at the same distance from the camera, since distance adds atmoshperic haze into the equation. Because we are talking ships, we are talking water and water vapor (humidity) so the atmospherics can be a huge factor. The more distant ship will always appear lighter. If you have ever looked across the street on a hot, humid day and seen the haze between you and your neighbor's door you can see that it doesn't take a huge distance to make a significant difference.

With the camera abeam, the two ships would have to be pretty much stem to stern to meet the above conditions. We are talking battleships, and they are large. To get both ships into the frame the camera would have to be a considerable distance away, magnifying the haze effects.

With both ships painted in the same paint, they should exhibit similar tonality. Case closed.

EXCEPT...

If they are a different color (or even shade), how does the film react to the different pigments? When Tracy mentioned orthochromatic and panchromatic films earlier he hit on a significant issue. Orthochromatic film is sensative only to blue and green light, while panchromatic is more in tune with the whole visible spectrum. They react differently to the same subject in the same light. What wavelengths are reflected by the different pigments and how does the film react?

But we don't even have to go there to find problems in B&W.

Contrast, the differentation between light and dark, will shift depending on a host of factors. What brand of film? What emulsion type? Was the film over exposed, under exposed, or perfectly exposed? How was it developed? Time in the tank will shift contrast. Temperature will have its effect. What developer was used? (Unlike color film which is pretty rigid in terms of the developer, B&W had myriad developers and variations in concentration and formulation, frequently chosen for the purpose of manipulating the contrast.)

Were color filters used over the lens? Photographers in the days of B&W frequently used color filters to achieve different effects. Yellows and reds to darken the sky and bring out the clouds is a very common example. These will alter the contrast.

B&W was also a very forgiving medium. Errors in exposure could be, and were, fixed in the darkroom. When you look at a B&W photo you are not looking at the original, which was a negative, but at the result of someone in the darkroom manipulating the scene to fit their interpretation. Everything that was said about film and contrast applies equally to photographic paper. You now have taken all of your variables to the nth degree.

How can this best be illustrated?

If you have a documentary on WWII warplanes, drag it out. Darken the room, make some popcorn and settle in for the lesson.

British aircraft are the best. Those blue and red roundels are perfect to illustrate the point.

You will see examples of the red ranging anywhere from VERY light in relationship to the blue to cases where it appears darker.

Scenes where an aircraft taxis in front of the camera and the photographer pans to follow it are great for this. WATCH as the lighting and angles change and study the effect on the markings and camouflage. Remember, this is the same subject, the same camera, and the same film yet each position and angle creates its own illusions.

Watch as the contrast changes on the film. Sometimes you see the difference between two colors - sometimes you don't.

Want to take it to the extreme? You will see shots where the underside appears black as in night camouflage, only to have the pilot flick his wing and reveal the sky undersides. All part of the illusion of contrast.

Watch as a Navy plane hits the deck and catches the wire on landing... Is it solid blue? Is it three tone camo? SURPRISE! you will see it appear in 1, 2 and 3 color finish as the lighting and angle changes. Any one frame can be taken and posted online (or in a book) to stake a claim. It's like the court case where you have 3 witnesses with 3 different versions... only this is "photograpic evidence".

Enjoy the popcorn?

[alx]

Thank you alx! Yes, I would like that picture. I sent you a PM. I wonder what, if any, smoke effects might be remaining on the pieces above water level, after 10 years of weathering and sun? This particular area did not get any fire, but it may have had some smoke, depending on which way the breeze was blowing.
So, what I am understanding of what you are saying about how the colors on the pictures are blended is that, even though the names yellow, magenta, and cyan, are used, they were not actual colors. But just chemicals that will combine in certain ratios to give certain colors on the film. Is this about right? Because I do know if you mix actual yellow color with actual magenta color, you get more or less orange color depending on the mixing ratio, but not red.

BFR4570, Picture was sent, let me know if it doesn't get through since this is not my usual machine for emailing.

With color in photography you have to think in a whole different way, different light so to speak.

With paint, you are working with pigments that REFLECT the light back at you, In terms of film, the dyes are altering the light that is transmitted through the film. The original would have been a transparency or slide, and you would have viewed the light transmitted THROUGH the slide, not reflected.

The chemicals that make up the dyes don't "combine" to make a color the way they would in paint. They are in 3 different and seperate layers on the film and each layer has its effect on the light as it passes through. (If you have ever toyed with Photoshop or other image manipulation program, this is where the term "layering" comes from.)

Even in a photo print, the theory is different from that of a painting, although you can hold both in your hand.

With a painting the light is reflected off of the pigments of the paint directly back at you. The light never reaches the canvas. A BLUE pigment will only reflect BLUE light and you see BLUE.

In the photograph, the light is reflected off of the white substrate or backing underneath the dye layers. The dyes absorb the light that is their opposite so that you don't see it. The YELLOW dye will absorb the BLUE light so that you see YELLOW. As the yellow dye fades, more and more blue light gets reflected back at you, shifting the color to the blue.

In a photo print, a pure BLUE area will have NO YELLOW dye, only magenta and cyan. Those two dyes allow the blue light to reach the reflective layer and bounce back at you so that you see BLUE. Thus MAGENTA + CYAN = BLUE. The opposites of magenta and cyan are GREEN and RED repectfully. Hence there is no RED dye in a photograph. The absence of CYAN dye allows RED LIGHT to be transmitted and thus you see RED.

Because we all start out with a basic level of "art" in school that deals with color in term of crayons and paints (solids with pigments), it tends to make thinking in photographic terms where light is transmitted through the subject totally counterintuitive.

[dsk]

Thanks for the image. I can see a lot of yellow in it, however. But you did prove that the color will change depending on how you adjust the balance. You made it look grey. The original picture is a brilliant blue. When I adjusted it to the best of *my* eyesight and monitor (using both the red flag stripes and tree as a control) it ended up a greyish blue (or bluish grey depending on one's personal bias). There were BTW a couple more pictures of the same scene in the Life gallery taken from the same strip of film, and I adjusted those with the same results. Once again, just enough to cause more controversy, not quell it. All it proved is that these old color films are completely unreliable, which of course is what was said at the very beginning.

The problem with me is that I'm absolutely hopeless when it comes to tinting paint, so I'm trying to find something straight from the bottle that comes close enough to do the job on my Arizona. The blue/grey controversy isn't helping any, but I understand that we're all in the same, ahem..... boat.

[alx]

In the end we have to remember to have fun and enjoy this.

Color questions will never be settled with a photograph, especially one taken so long after the day in question.

Photographs can help with a lot of the equipment "details" that can be muddied with time and memories, but not color. Then again, even that depends on the date being correct and it being the right ship. Let's not foget that even with a visible hull number, captions have been wrong!

If there are discoveries to be made, it's most likely someone like Tracy White, digging in the archives, who will find them.

"Confirmation... I want CONFIRMATION."

[Tracy White]

So, anyone want to help fund my next trip to the Archives?

I'm going to disagree somewhat though, there are others out there who know my quest and who are keeping their eyes open as they research. I'm thankfully not the only one..... just the most willing to open my mouth and draw attention and flaming.