Nick Millman Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 ^^ Then why do the so called experts have to bring up such ridiculous examples like Nick's where he claimed that the panel in front of the windshield is darker too on his warbird comparable to the example I brought up? No wonder I get the impression of passive aggressive undertones cause experts (which I actually highly respect in case they don't see it) feel challenged or whatever it is. I just don't expect to be treated like an idiot and always get jumped upon and patronized only cause I have a different opinion. Also even with the bad reprint of the above photo I would never have painted a model withe colors you mentioned. Actually I have the better version as I own the book, and I would have painted it LE LG as the colors again appear too light there to be DG(De earth for my taste. And I never asked to rewrite history, I just have the impossible expectation that things are discussed in an open way.without twist, spin and manipulative exaggeration and without trying to talk me into 'move on there's nothing extra-ordinary to see' on the photos that I bring up. Get me? That's quite a diatribe. I posted that image in good faith with no intention to twist, spin, manipulate or exaggerate. I've deleted the comments I made in this thread and sincerely wish that I'd never made them. They were never intended to make anyone angry. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Crusty one Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Paint, the modeler's way of taking a perfectly good kit and mucking it up. I have been thinking (always a dangerous proposition!) about paint and airbrushing in general. If you look at the many and various posts on this thread, there a quite a lot of them devoted to problems with paint application and how to fix it. Now these problems vary from bad paint, too much thinner, too little thinner, too much humidity, equipment malfunctions, chemical reactions . . . So here is what I am pondering given the above. You are in a war time situation; your paint crews have been recruited from people with little or no knowledge of painting. Why is it never considered that a particular aircraft, that has a very odd paint job, that is a bit non-standard, isn't just the work of bad airbrushing by the paint crew? If we do it on our little models of aircraft, why is it such a stretch to think paint jobs didn't get messed up at either the factory, maintenance or aerodrome locations? I know it happens occasionally with automobiles as I have seen cars less than a year old with bad factory paint jobs that are splotchy, unevenly faded and/or peeling. (And, with very unhappy owners who are requesting I sue the dealer and manufacturer that sold them their lemon!!) So, if GM, Honda, Toyota, Chevrolet, etc. with trained, professional painting crews, can mess up on a paint job, why is it beyond consideration, untrained or semi-trained war time labor would never mess up? I really dont think this conversation took place: Now I know it was Reginalds first day on the paint line, and I know the boys need this Spitfire as we are in the middle of the Battle of Britain, but this just wont do as the shades are just wrong. So lets take this perfectly air worthy aircraft with a slightly off paint job and run it back through the line and get it right!! Did war time paint suppliers create an idiot proof system of spray painting paint? If so, could they miniaturize it so I can be done with my airbrush woes? Please. George have to agree on the paint situation,airbrushing(for me)is a nightmare,i have got the interior sorted the drybrushing,the dirtying up, even the small amounts of p.e and resin i have used so far seem to me to produce sartisfing results stich the rest up filler where appropriate time for paint.....Good grief its all gone wrong again runs,hairs overspray underspray ,totally and utterly dread it but i really want to master it so i persevere and practice read how people do it on here and keep trying...never mind my shelves are filling up with kits that look like my 2year old has painted with her poster paints..:-D as to arguements about who is right or wrong...people argue, its life for good or bad the thing i have learnd is not to take it personally if someone disagrees or puts forward his own view thats what a forum is...unfortunatly it is a very poor way of comunicating intent,humour,tongue in cheek etc the same post can be read in different ways by different people but as has been said how u use any information offerred is up to you dont take offence because none was probably intended:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Rogers Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Ah, a good old bad tempered thread on what colours do you see in this very old picture. Never fails to boil the blood does it! Personally I'd want to consider why on earth would they want to paint a couple of Hurricanes in much lighter colours than specified? Just wouldn't make sense. My personal opinion is that they are two shiny brand new Hurricanes, probably just been delivered which is possibly why someone is taking a picture of them, and they are gleaming in the sunlight of what is obviously a nice sunny day. If I paint my Airfix Hurricane in Humbrol 29 and 163, and I sat it out on a table in the sunlight, this is what it would look like. If I weathered it with pastels and washes and airbrushed exhaust smoke down the fuselage and chipped the leading edges a bit, it wouldn't look anything like the photo. Move on, enjoy making your Hurricane. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 “Now I know it was Reginald’s first day on the paint line, and I know the boys need this Spitfire as we are in the middle of the Battle of Britain, but this just won’t do as the shades are just wrong. So let’s take this perfectly air worthy aircraft with a slightly off paint job and run it back through the line and get it right!!”Nice joke, George, but that isn't what we're being expected to accept and endorse. The idea is that Hawker's buyer, even though he would have known that biplane production was due to end, still ordered far too much paint of the wrong type; in my stock control days, had I done that, I would have been sacked on the spot. We also have to consider that aircraft were not sent into the paint shop fully assembled, but usually had parts made in various shops (even separate factories,) then assembled, so we are expected to believe that various inspectors, and foremen (who would come equipped with shade cards) missed (or ignored) a succession of wrongly-painted components, plus (presumably sanctioned by management, thereby risking prosecution) several sprayers, confronted with factory drawings, on which the vocabulary numbers of the paint were annotated, totally ignored them and withdrew the wrong paint from the stores. Did war time paint suppliers create an idiot proof system of spray painting paint?As with all spraying, it depends on the surroundings; several Air Ministry inspections commented on the unsuitability of the buildings, and paint-to-thinners ratios always depend on the ambient temperature. When I was taught how to use an industrial spraygun, the sprayer took less than half a day to pass on his expertise. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 And it escapes me why some modellers get so bad-tempered, when researchers wish to disagree with their point of view, after all how you/they paint models is entirely up to you/them, and nobody in this thread is dictating terms, but simply differing in their views. Today, a friend sent an illustration of a Spitfire, that he'd done, in all-over Sea Grey Medium and Dark Green; when I protested, he said that he'd done it from a colour photo that a very respected Polish author had sent. As luck would have it, I found the identical photo, in one of the books of Charles Brown's photos, in which the aircraft is clearly in Day Fighter Scheme of Ocean Grey/Green/MSG. When he sent a copy of his, it became clear that it was a poor reprint. Look at the two photos below, obviously from the same slide or negative, but each taken from a different book:- In the same way that you ask for the freedom to do your models as you see fit, please have the courtesy not to ask researchers to rewrite history unless, and until, they/we/I find reputable evidence that it really happened. Edgar "Ocean grey" Edgar? I'd have said that THAT was Dark Earth - in both photo's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) Then why do the so called experts have to bring up such ridiculous examples Because they, too, are entitled to an opinion, and should be allowed to express that opinion. As for "so-called experts," given the responses we've had from Nick, over many months, I feel that he's earned the title "expert." Thankfully, I have no pretensions in that regard. Also even with the bad reprint of the above photo I would never have painted a model withe colors you mentioned. Actually I have the better version as I own the book, and I would have painted it LE LG as the colors again appear too light there to be DG(De earth for my taste. There was not the slightest intention, on my part, of inferring how you would/should paint your model, since it's none of my business, and it's deeply unfortunate that you wish to see it that way. The idea was to illustrate (to others) the inherent danger of relying 100% on a photo, even one in colour. And I never asked to rewrite history,But, in fact, you are, since you want us to endorse the idea that an aircraft manufacturer would have ignored orders from a government-run Ministry, and (in a time of war) done exactly as they pleased. I just have the impossible expectation that things are discussed in an open way.without twist, spin and manipulative exaggeration and without trying to talk me into 'move on there's nothing extra-ordinary to see' on the photos that I bring up.As an experiment, take a series of photos of a brick wall (ideal because it has a matt surface) in varying lighting conditions, and especially in direct sunlight, with the light being reflected straight back into the lens, then at 45 degrees towards the lens, and 45 degrees away from the lens. Then check the colours of the images; it would be best if done with rollfilm (like 70 years ago,) but that's rather unlikely these days. If you find this patronising, then I give up. Edited July 21, 2014 by Edgar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 "Ocean grey" Edgar? I'd have said that THAT was Dark Earth - in both photo's.I didn't actually say that the example was the same as the one my friend used (which it wasn't.) As far as I'm aware, the photo of the Spitfire II was not taken by Charles Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidrian Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I do rather struggle with the idea that painters never mucked up, or that orders were and occasionally misinterpreted. However I think if you are looking to make a reasonably "accurate" model, you should usually start with the normal and then vary from that only if you have a really good reason to do so. A wartime colour photo reproduced in a magazine or on a webpage is not usually an entirely reliable source of colour information except in a fairly general way - there are too many variables between what the photographer saw and the final image as seen on the printed page or monitor as we have already seen. What we come up against is the inescapable fact that a painting or photo has the light built in to the image and what you see is a simply a representation of that colour under those lighting conditions. In contrast, a scale model must live in whatever light in which it is displayed, whether that be highly corrected daylight bubs or cool white fluorescents or LEDS. Not only is the spectrum likely to be quite different but the way then light falls on the different surfaces doesn't scale down. We simply have to compromise in the way that works best for us. In my case it means that my dark earth is much lighter than that sued on full size machines, but in my modelling room full strength dark earth and dark green just seems to suck the light (and life) out of the model Taking Edgar's example a little further trying photographing the brick wall at dawn on a grey rainy day, them midday on an day with a high overcast, again at 3pm on sunny day and lastly at sunset in high summer. None of these colours will be the same - the brick may show anything from greyish brown through bright orange to almost purple. Where I feel we need to be careful is that there sometimes seems to be a small subset of folks who pop up now and again who appear to be looking for justifications for theoretical/improbable schemes, and who take umbrage when their current favourite scheme of say Extra Dark Sewage Green and Light Methylated Purple over PRU Mauve is not given serious consideration by those who have spent a lot of time looking into these things. No-one says it didn't happen *ever*, just that there's a usually simpler explanation for the way something looks than a strange colour scheme. Occam's razor is a very useful thing to have in your modelling toolkit, and it gets sharper every time you use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 ...when their current favourite scheme of say Extra Dark Sewage Green and Light Methylated Purple over PRU Mauve is not given serious consideration... Ah, but that was a real suggestion, the thinking being that the Germans wouldn't want to go anywhere near the aircraft... Good point about models and lighting- there was a thread somewhere (Hyperscale?) a while back about the effects of different light, and it was rather startling! I guess we need to bring our own "English summer daylight spectrum" display lamp so we can be sure the colors are seen properly. Which reminds me, I was driving home a day or two ago and shut one eye, then the other, and I noticed that the "picture" had a little color shift from one to the other! It seemed less obvious after I'd done it a few times, so I don't know if it was a temporary effect, or if perhaps my brain began to adjust the feedback accordingly. But the yellow stripe down the center of the road was decidedly richer with my left eye, and I had the impression of a general "yellow" leaning, whereas my right eye seemed to favor blue (maybe there's a more developed cataract in the right eye, or...) Not that the difference was as strong as Edgar's two prints of the same image or anything. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I have very slightly different colour perception in each eye as well. Always have, as long as I can remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) That's quite a diatribe. I posted that image in good faith with no intention to twist, spin, manipulate or exaggerate. I've deleted the comments I made in this thread and sincerely wish that I'd never made them. They were never intended to make anyone angry. Nick My apology for getting upset about this, I have deleted the bad parts of my comments either. Let me just rephrase my take on the subject: The different angles on these photos can only partly explain the great difference of the colors between the transports and the Hurricanes. There must be more behind this. I know the RAAF was at least considering seasonal camoflage as the dry season required lighter colors than the wet one. http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/78227-light-earthdark-green-in-raf/ Could it not be the RAF had similar concerns? Edited July 21, 2014 by occa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I guess we need to bring our own "English summer daylight spectrum" display lamp so we can be sure the colors are seen properly.Plus (scale) umbrella. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Millman Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Ah, but that was a real suggestion, the thinking being that the Germans wouldn't want to go anywhere near the aircraft... Good point about models and lighting- there was a thread somewhere (Hyperscale?) a while back about the effects of different light, and it was rather startling! I guess we need to bring our own "English summer daylight spectrum" display lamp so we can be sure the colors are seen properly. Which reminds me, I was driving home a day or two ago and shut one eye, then the other, and I noticed that the "picture" had a little color shift from one to the other! It seemed less obvious after I'd done it a few times, so I don't know if it was a temporary effect, or if perhaps my brain began to adjust the feedback accordingly. But the yellow stripe down the center of the road was decidedly richer with my left eye, and I had the impression of a general "yellow" leaning, whereas my right eye seemed to favor blue (maybe there's a more developed cataract in the right eye, or...) Not that the difference was as strong as Edgar's two prints of the same image or anything. bob The proportion of long-wavelength-sensitive cones to medium-wavelength-sensitive cones in the retina, the profile of light sensitivity in each type of cone, and the amount of yellowing in the lens and macular pigment of the eye differs from one person to the next and can differ in each eye of the same person. This alters the relative importance of different wavelengths in a spectral power distribution to each observer's colour perception. As a result, two spectrally dissimilar surfaces may produce a colour match for one observer but fail to match when viewed by a second observer. In hobby terms the most prevalent demonstration of this is probably the subjective matching of paint colours. With humble apologies... Nick 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousAA72 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I didn't actually say that the example was the same as the one my friend used (which it wasn't.) As far as I'm aware, the photo of the Spitfire II was not taken by Charles Brown. My mistake, I misread the original post.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 If the Hurricanes are substantially different colours from the Ensign (and I'm still of the opinion that lighting is a satisfactory explanation for the apparent difference) it still doesn't follow that the Hurricanes are Light Green and Light Earth. In fact if the colours are genuinely different it is explainable in far more likely ways. First is wear and tear and exposure to high altutude UV. The Ensign being an unpressurised airliner with no passenegr oxygen systems would not normally have been flown over 12,000 feet, even pre-war. Second is the question of the Ensign colour scheme. Sure it is supposed to be DE/DG, But we know that the Hurricanes were factory-painted in camouflage. We also know that the Ensign in the pic is not in factory paint, but has been camouflaged somewhere else, having been impressed from Imperial Airways service into operation for National Air Communications. Under those circumstances, though I consider it most likely that the Ensign was on the balance of probabilities painted with officially compliant DE/DG paint stock, it is the Ensign rather than the Hurricanes that is more likely to have been painted with whatever could be found in a hurry. We can also say with certainty that the Ensign was painted by different people at a different time using different equipment from those involved in painting the Hurricanes, and we all know from personal experience that differences in painting technique and environmental conditions when paint is being applied can lead to very different impressions, especially where surface texture affects perception of colour. Third,I would not put it past the Ensign operation to have polished the aeroplane, especially if its ground crew came with it from Imperial Airways.That would darken it significantly. I am not making specific claims or probability factors for 2 and 3, just pointing out there are many possible reasons why you may see a difference, of which the Hurris being in Light Green and Light Earth is one of the more remote possibilities. My apology for getting upset about this, I have deleted the bad parts of my comments either. Let me just rephrase my take on the subject: The different angles on these photos can only partly explain the great difference of the colors between the transports and the Hurricanes. There must be more behind this. See the bold parts of WIP post quoted above. In short, Hurricanes in known factory finish. The Ensign, who knows? Possible factors outlined above. WW2 era colours photos are fascinating and helpful, but in the above case, however much they appear matches for Light Green/Light Earth, they are not. I have very slightly different colour perception in each eye as well. Always have, as long as I can remember. Me too. Slight shift to red in one, green in the other. How do you score on the X-rite test? http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge For anyone reading this, Nick Millman originally posted up the link. I can score zero on a decent monitor when not tired, which is the best. It's a hard test BTW, but I recommend to anyone who is interested in colour. HTH T 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) I've read these points, thanks for repeating them. Edited July 21, 2014 by occa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck1945 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 We are in the process of having a new house built. The inerior painting was completed about a month ago. The master bedroom has three walls painted one color with the fourth in an accent color that is a blue-green. However under daylight lighting (haven't been there in the dark) a corner where similar colors meet give the impression that the walls are totally different colors.The corner is not in direct sunlight so the apparent difference is not shade v. direct light but rather just different perceived colors based on viewing angles and ambient light. When my wife and I were choosing colors, I cut a sheet of 1/4" plywood into 12"x12" squares and painted out samples of all the colors we were were considering. If I place the appropriate color board next to each of the walls, it is obvious each wall matches the sample, but from a distance, the walls do appear to be different colors. While this does nothing to shed light on what colors the Hurricanes may be painted. it does emphasize even side by side two walls painted the same color, from the same bucket of paint can appear to be different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aidrian Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Ah, but that was a real suggestion, the thinking being that the Germans wouldn't want to go anywhere near the aircraft... And indeed it has been verified by extensive archival research that not one single aircraft that used this scheme was lost to or even damaged by enemy action - 100% effective in all theatres so I really don't see why it wasn't used more widely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 To enemy action, yes, but that overlooks the shockingly high rate of bail-outs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) The brown colour on the Hurricane's wing leading edge (around the white A) is roughly at the same angle as the fuselage of the Ensign in the background and the tone of the brown is more or less the same too! In this cut the comparison is better, both Hurricanes and the tail of the Ensign have similar lighting conditions. The AC on the right even shows both shades of brown in front of the cockpit. In short, Hurricanes in known factory finish. Nope, it isn't as simple as that. Even if the bulk of the Hurris are in factory finish, it appears that something has been "modified" on 'A', at least. The panel over the fuel tank I could accept as "grubby", perhaps, but the green under the cockpit seems to end in a straight(ish) line, which does not look like normal camo pattern to me. I don't think (!) that it's just obscured by exhaust trail below that- it looks to me as if either the upper part (green) has been repainted, or what's below has been. Note also that there appears to be a similar darker brown just visible on the other aircraft's rudder trailing edge- a patch, perhaps? (Or is that the metal trim tab vs. the fabric covered rudder?) The wing darkness I could possibly accept as different light/viewing angle, but the darker brown on the fuel tank cover and rudder can't be explained that way. Just above the wing root there also appears to be a repaint area- the "richer" green under the exhausts comes down and sweeps a bit forward, and below/aft of that the green looks a bit chalkier/more faded. Of course that could be my own imagination or a flaw in the image, but I imagine I can see it in both images... bob Edited July 22, 2014 by gingerbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Eisenman Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Don't know abnout the other stuff, but the green under the cockpit seems fine. The distance makes it look "sharper" and the wing blocks seeing it go down the fuselage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Thanks Steven, That's a very odd feature! In your second photo, note also the tonal difference between the wood part around the hood and the fabric that comes aft of that. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noelh Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) Oddly I thought I posted on this thread but I'll repeat it. Remember that sometimes paint doesn't just fade but may actually darken thanks to a build up of grime among other things. So that could explain the relative darkness of the ensign compared to what appears to be newly painted Hurricanes. Just as sample of the variety of tones you might see. Check out these wartime colour pictures on flickr. I'm sure many of you know of these already but it really shows the variety of tones you see in pictures. http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/sets/72157605269786717/show Incidentally I find I cannot paste a link or even a picture to a post. Anyone any idea what I'm doing wrong. When I try it locks up and gets stuck so that I have get out of the forum altogether. Edited July 22, 2014 by noelh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) Oddly I thought I posted on this thread but I'll repeat it. Remember that sometimes paint doesn't just fade but may actually darken thanks to a build up of grime among other things. So that could explain the relative darkness of the ensign compared to what appears to be newly painted Hurricanes. Just as sample of the variety of tones you might see. Check out these wartime colour pictures on flickr. I'm sure many of you know of these already but it really shows the variety of tones you see in pictures. http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/sets/72157605269786717/show Incidentally I find I cannot paste a link or even a picture to a post. Anyone any idea what I'm doing wrong. When I try it locks up and gets stuck so that I have get out of the forum altogether. 'Share' on the upper right ----> 'Copy to clipboard' Test: Oops doesn't work for me anymore either, it used to before Edit: It works from here tho: https://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/sets/72157605269786717/ Use the downward arrow on the lower right corner and chose 'view all sizes', then right click 'view image' and copy the link Or simply 'Copy Image' Just a random image: Edited July 22, 2014 by occa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
occa Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 While we're just at it here's another example for the darker colors: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts