At 'Em Arizona Fans!

[alx]

Back to the good old blue vs. grey debate, what are some verdicts on this 1956 photo of the wreck? http://images.google.com/hosted/life/1e ... 7dcb9.html

Clearly, there's a blue cast to everything, so that needs to be fixed. I'm not a professional photo fixer-upper, so take the attached result with a grain of salt - I only played with the Levels sliders:

There may be a blue cast to everything but note the flag and the sailors; pure white! May have just been doctored back then though. No clue really. For 15 years later the paint seems to be in awfully good condition (color wise) for all that she went through......... Makes me think some "re-painting" was done in the interim possibly. Something's a miss with that scene.

Allow me to correct a popular misconception in the interpretation of color photography.

WHITE is a very bad reference point in determining color fidelity. The "blue shift" that comes with time is caused by the uncontrollable and inevitable fading of the original YELLOW dyes in the transparency or print. If you hold a slide up to the light, you will see that WHITE isn't actually white at all in the sense of white paint; it has no color or substance - it is clear (transparent). Since the WHITE is clear, it has no dyes present and therefore the YELLOW dye cannot fade.

With very little to no dye (CYAN, MAGENTA, or YELLOW), the white areas will remain fairly constant over time since there is little to nothing that can fade. Again, the "blue shift" is caused by the fading of the YELLOW dye, not a "blue cast" coming over the film with age.

There is a similar LIFE Magazine photo that was referenced here back in NOV 2010, taken at the same time from the same location, but with a different camera that exhibits very similar color and charateristics. At the time I had played with a "restoration" to try and bring out the shadow and rust detail just to see what would happen. That picture was based on a download that is too big to upload here, so if I can set up a cross reference, I will post that shortly. I would rather not sacrifice the details in the photo by shrinking it.

[alx]

In continuation of my previous post, please see the adjusted photo set to a width of 1200 pixels to appear here.
The slightly fuller photo can be seen by following the link below the picture.



http://www.alx.com/punchbowl/BB39_rust.jpg

Please note that I am making NO claim as to the accuracy of any of the colors in this picture!

I would expect the photographer's intent was to capture the idea of the Flag rising above the wreck of the ashes of the Arizona, and thus the exposure was set to feature the flag which was in broad daylight and the sailors dressed in white, not the ship. He was a magazine photographer hoping to tell and sell a story, not a modeller focused on the details of the ship!

My goal in the adjustments was to bring out the details in the shadows and tweak the color to compensate for the fading of the yellow dye, basing my efforts on a very subjective interpretation of the color of the rust. In that, I feel I was successful as streaking in the rust snapped into focus while I was working, revealing patterns that looked right hidden behind the blue cast. You will also notice that areas in deeper shadow are more blue than areas not in shadow. That helped me to judge how much was enough and not too much since that is how film responds, especially films of that era. Shadow areas would appear bluer.

But the problem with this kind of "correction" is that it is broad, altering the entire picture.

While my efforts may be "spot on" for certain areas of certain objects, they also may have introduced yellow into elements in the film that never had any yellow dye to begin with and hence nothing to fade. In essence, you correct one error to introduce another, and on and on.

In reality, there can be no 100% correction.

The color shift with age is a known scientific fact. Yellow dye fades.

The dye has an advantage over the would be restorer - for any given molecule, it knows it is a yellow dye and will fade with precision. The restorer (at least at any conventional level of equipment) has no way of knowing which molecules were yellow. All he can do is make broad adjustments.

In THEORY, a really good photoshop person could isolate and adjust area by area and get closer to the truth. The problem is that to achieve accuracy, they would have to know precisely what the original color was in the first place, otherwise you are still left with an interpretation, not fact. To this day we still have arguments over what that original colors were, so no reference samples for the restoration.

To add further complexity in this case you have the combined effects of fading in a tropical sun, rain, wind, salt and rust streaks where the color changes by the milimeter. You don't know what reference to adjust to.

Perhaps, one day, someone will perfect a way of marrying an electron microscope to a computer to isolate the molecules one by one in the dye layers of film to tell what the original color OF THE FILM was and create a restoration based on that. But that would still only restore THE FILM as processed.

Then we will still face the myriad problems that, with all the variations in film, storage, processing, lighting, exposure, filtration, etc., we will never know if the film was telling us the truth.

A good color monitor these days is able to resolve over some 16 million colors. Reality is infinite.

The errors in film are so slight and subtle that they can change a "perfect neutral gray" to a blue, yellow, green, majenta, whatever color you can imagine, based on something as small as whether a cloud was passing overhead, how thick it was, or a 1 degree error in the temperature of one of the many chemical baths the film was processed in.

Like the many incredible models on this site, photo analysis and restoration is still, in the end, only an interpretation and open to artistic license.

Just don't ever think you can be certain about a color based on a photo. You may be right, you may be wrong. In the end it will still only be an educated guess.

[dsk]

Even if we could prove that we're looking at 5S in that photo it still doesn't answer the question of whether or not the ship had been completely repainted in that scheme at the time of the attack. Remember that we currently have at least three, possibly four possible color schemes to contend with. All 5D, all 5S, partial repaint in 5S, and even one with 5O mixed in somewhere.

[alx]

That also does not address the point Tracy brought up regarding the possibility these areas may have been painted for a "preservative coating" following the attack and prior to a decision on salvage.

If that did, in fact, occur, there is no way of knowing what paints would have been used, including the choice of colors never intended for fleet use. With a "there's a war on" mentality, and knowing any paint would only be temporary if the Arizona was salvaged, any surplus paint becomes an option and possibly a preferential choice over colors in demand for readying the fleet for what was now a definite war.

Tracy, I am curious if there is anything specific leading you to believe the wreckage was painted?

[dsk]

This might be a stupid question, but just how do you paint a twisted, burned-out wreck that's partially sunk?

[Tracy White]

Tracy, I am curious if there is anything specific leading you to believe the wreckage was painted?

No hard data, and I'm less sure after seeing your "corrected" copy. As you said, the rust certainly popped out a lot more!

There are photos of the ships that WERE salvaged showing fresh paint above the "waterline" as they were being reflated into drydock, so it was natural to assume that they might have done the same with Arizona. That said, I've gone through some of the salvage paperwork in the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard files and it's pretty clear that Arizona was to be a later salvage if at all (March 1942 letter from the Commandant stating the magnitude was so great "as to warrant delay on the work until after the war"). None of the paperwork I read through mentioned repainting of the ship, but I also did not exhaustively go through those records and it's likely I skipped over it if it was there. There was this bit about the catapult *after* it had been removed from the ship and stored on Waipio peninsula , but once again, this is not on the ship:

From the "summary of work completed by Pearl Harbor Repair and Salvage Unit" dated May 22, 1942:

Waipio Point:
Preservation of the deck catapult from the US.S. ARIZONA was completed. Continued chipping and placing in a state of preservation the turret catapult from the U.S.S. ARIZONA and the deck catapult from the U.S.S. CALIFORNIA.

[Tracy White]

This might be a stupid question, but just how do you paint a twisted, burned-out wreck that's partially sunk?

If it was done, probably with dinghies and other boats. There was quite a lot of structure built around her during salvage as well.

[BFR4570]

This might be a stupid question, but just how do you paint a twisted, burned-out wreck that's partially sunk?

Why, carefully, of course! :O Seriously though, the real question would be, "Why bother?" Even if the Arizona had been raised, I don't believe it would have accumulated enough rust in the 2 or 3 years it would have taken to matter much. They would have sandblasted it all anyway before repainting. Wouldn't they Tracy? All the surfaces under water would have been in the worst condition, and they couldn't have been painted anyway. Weren't they starting to cut off all the metal above water within a few months? Navsource has it as February 1942 when they started removing stuff. Plus I would question how safe it could be to try to paint such a twisted wreck. But I acknowledge that the Navy might have had a reason for doing so. After all, there is the "Right way", the "Wrong way", and the "Navy Way"! At least according to my Dad there was.... (I would use more Smilies, but they don't work for me if I click them... )

[Tracy White]

She may have been a twisted wreck, but salvage crew were still walking on her warped decks.

A lot depends on what the Navy's procedures and desires were. I lived on Maui for a time, working on helicopters, and one time when stripping paint off of a steel cross-beam during inspection and overhaul I was literally able to watch rust form in front of my eyes after the paint came off. Rust forms fast there due to the heat and salt water, and it can eat away at structures they might have wanted to re-use.

The original documents that discussed salvage of Arizona claimed she was largely intact from frame 70 aft, so that might have been where they would look at preservation. The Navy wouldn't necessarily say "we think this will be cut away later, don't bother, more likely they'd say "we're not sure, just preserve what you can.

That said, after seeing the photo above I'm less inclined to believe they re-painted those structures. It's just going to be one of those mysteries unless someone wants to park themselves at NARA San Bruno for a month or three.

[alx]

With the tremendous success the Navy had in recovering the damaged and sunken ships at Pearl Harbor, "salvage" after the attack tends to create a notion of idealistic totality.

One should remember when talking about "salvage operations" that the term does not normally imply recovering the ship.

Had the Nevada been sunk blocking the channel, her "salvage operations" would likely have consisted of demolition and dismemberment to remove a hazard to navigation instead of refloating and modernization.

While some early thought had been given to refloating the Arizona, those ideas were decided not feasible - and yet "salvage operations" were begun by early 1942 to recover her guns, shells, and other valuable equipment that could still be used. Considering the other pressing demands on materiel and personnel in recovering the rest of the fleet, this should be seen as an expeditious effort to salvage useable items before corrosion rendered them worthless.

Had her berth at Ford Island been considered of sufficient importance to the war effort to justify the cost, Arizona would likely have been salvaged to the point of removal. Her full bunkers complicated that notion, adding an element of unpredictability and expense that exists to this day. [Note that if environmental concerns force action to be taken now or in the future, even if couched in politically correct "remedial" or "environmental" terms, the efforts will still be classified as a "salvage operation".]

Giving further thought to the possibility of painting the wreckage, while one can never rule out the extreme application of "THE NAVY WAY" by an overzealous officer, the across the board wartime demands would, at least in my mind, tend to rule against this. There was more than sufficient real work vs. busy work that would yield a higher return on the effort. Additionally, as time wore on, the light superstructure elements would have suffered corrosion both inside and out rendering the recovery value worthless. Again, that still cannot rule out application of "THE NAVY WAY".

[Tracy White]

Appears part of your post duplicated ALX....

I forgot to add a portion last night; when I mentioned that she was declared largely intact from Frame 70 aft, that was part of a discussion they had about only re-floating the aft portion of the ship. Presumably they would have left what was left to foul that berth, or scrapped it and raised it as wreckage to clear it. You are correct; all of the ships in the harbor were salvaged to one degree or another.

[alx]

Thanks for the heads up on the duplication, Tracy... Hopefully all is corrected now.

Funny that with all my efforts to preview to make sure I retain some notion of coherency, I managed to overlook the obvious.

[alx]

Looking at photos of the actual salvage operation, this one stood out for me:
http://www.scottfreundracing.com/images ... lvage6.jpg

Showing turrets #3 and #4 on 25 FEB 42, a lot of work had been done in less than 3 months.

Both turrets have been swiveled starboard to facilitate dismantling and gun removal.

Turret #3 has the top and faceplate removed along with all three guns.

Turret #4 has the top removed and only one barrel left. The guns appear to still be in place awaiting removal of the last barrel and faceplate so that they can be salvaged.

The photo is well exposed showing excellent detail in B&W, both exterior and internal. I am sure a few people will be making color statements - I will refrain at this point other than to say that it wasn't a light color.

Searching for photos of the Arizona salvage operations yields a number of pictures revealing a lot of activity in recovering what was possible. The level of activity, along with the grease and grime of the work (which is very evident in the photos), would tend to rule out painting.

[NigelR32]

Hey everyone, I'm looking for some more information...

I have the Profile Morskie plans and the Stillwell book, but am trying to convince myself whether Arizona had eyebrows on her hull portholes or not? i would also like to know what diameter the portholes would have been? 12", 16"? I think Trumpeter have them too small?

At least I have worked out that the lower row of portholes at the stern was removed sometime pre Dec 1941.

As some of you will be aware, I am seriously rebuilding a Trumpeter 1/200 kit, and have ordered Toms portholes to finish off the hull as I need to sand all the detail off. Tom's set has eyebrows.....

Thanks in anticipation of any info recieved.

[Timmy C]

Here's a good one of Pennsylvania - no eyebrows, just the edges are raised: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0138007.jpg

[Channell]

Cut off the eyebrows but don't forget to keep 'em... you can use them on the Bismarck.

Well Nigel, you helped convince me to attempt another Arizona (or maybe a Pennsylvania; I'm still pondering a mod) ... Just ordered one and another KA set. My wife is gonna kill me.

[Channell]

Please don't hit me for asking this but which "off the shelf" grey is the best for a 30's era Arizona/Pennsylvania?

[NigelR32]

Here's a good one of Pennsylvania - no eyebrows, just the edges are raised: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0138007.jpg

Thanks Timmy, that picture shows exactly what I have found, but the plans I have, dated 1941 show eyebrows? I was wondering if they were added at her latest refit, like when the lower stern portholes were blanked out?

Thanks for the tip Jason, I really look forward to removing over 200 eyebrows!! I have the Ka set for Bismarck, doesn't that include ALL the eyebrows I'll need?
Are you going to copy my hull cut and shut job?

[Channell]

Here's a good one of Pennsylvania - no eyebrows, just the edges are raised: http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/0138007.jpg

Thanks Timmy, that picture shows exactly what I have found, but the plans I have, dated 1941 show eyebrows? I was wondering if they were added at her latest refit, like when the lower stern portholes were blanked out?

Thanks for the tip Jason, I really look forward to removing over 200 eyebrows!! I have the Ka set for Bismarck, doesn't that include ALL the eyebrows I'll need?
Are you going to copy my hull cut and shut job?

I'm brilliant I know. On my Bismarck I ended up doing my hull and some superstructure porthole eyebrows twice because I wasn't happy with the first results; I made the hull eyebrows myself and it was a bit of pain. You never know, in other words.

As for cutting the hull to shreds and totally redoing it... no way in hell! I'm frustated with my Bismarck at the moment and am not in the mood for yet another huge modification project. My skills just aren't where I want them to be yet.

Maybe you could recommend some less ambitious mods that would get me closer to the real shape without creating "model stress"?

[NigelR32]

Maybe you could recommend some less ambitious mods that would get me closer to the real shape without creating "model stress"?

Throw the kit in the bin and build a 1/144 revell Boeing 747, it bears a closer resemblance to Arizona than that kit does!!

Seriously, I think if you slim down the torpedo belt at the Bow and fatten it out at the stern you'll be half way there. If you feel up to it, I'd try and squeeze in the Bow also. Trumpeter have moulded the area around the Anchor hawse near vertical, when it should be nearer to 45�. On that note, you also need to turn the hawse holes over to closer represent the actual hull.

All in all not too much really...