Light Earth / Light Green versus DE /DG

[MIkeMaben]

Different coloured paints can chalk at different rates and the surface will not show a consistent appearance.

Nick

Is this process affected/accelerated by heat or direct sunlight ?

[noelh]

Is this process affected/accelerated by heat or direct sunlight ?

On older cars you can often see chalking particularly on the bonnet with the hot engine underneath. Time to get out the T cut!

Edited August 10, 2015 by noelh

[Giorgio N]

Another photo with extraordinary light looking top colours:

Notice how the trees on the ground have a darker natural green, and the colours on the AC look halfway fresh and NOT much faded

I took the photo from Etienne's Photo Stream:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/sets/72157605269786717

Really I can't see anything in that picture that may point to the use of light green and/or light earth. The sun is reflecting over the surfaces and this affects the colours in the picture, just look at the front turret MG barrels, I'm pretty sure that WW2 Vickers .303s did not come with chromed or polished stainless steel barrels...

[Nick Millman]

Is this process affected/accelerated by heat or direct sunlight ?

Mainly UV exposure but I have seen references to high temperature and humidity accelerating the process. Areas of exposed paint not in direct sunlight can still be found to chalk but the more extreme effects are usually on those surfaces directly and constantly exposed for example the fuselage spine and tops of wings and tailplanes. This can be seen in some colour photographs. The well know Life colour photographs of SBDs clearly show the patchwork effects of chalking. Once familiar with the process it can be recognised fairly easily but it has undoubtedly caused a lot of head scratching over the apparent colours shown.

The use of fillers or extenders reducing pigment strength and the consequent colour loss was an issue criticised by the RAAF in respect of RAF aircraft. One formula for Dark Earth included proportions of China clay in each of the dark brown, white and yellow pigments incorporated in the paint.

On the subject of colour loss or colour change the following observation regarding paints might be of interest. It shows why paint colour cannot always be taken at face value:-

"For the coatings formulator, another issue is the 'tint strength' of a pigment, or how much pigment is required to reach a certain color intensity. Coatings with higher pigment concentrations can be more fade resistant than coatings with lower concentrations of pigments and similar inherent lightfastness simply because they contain more pigment.

Fade, or lightening/loss of color with exposure, however, is only one aspect of color change. There are thousands of colors available, but a limited number of pigment chemistries. Most colors are made from a mix of different pigments. For example, there is no cedar-tan colored pigment, but coatings can typically be formulated from five to seven pigments to achieve the cedar color. Usually coating manufacturers will offer several possible formulations of different pigments to achieve the same final color. If one or more pigments fade at different rates, the result can be an actual hue, or color, shift. In one striking example, a stable “salsa red” colored coating was reformulated with new, environmentally friendly pigments—inorganic carbon black and titanium dioxide— to provide a lightness level, and a mix of organic red, blue, and yellow pigments to provide the burgundy tint. On sunlight exposure, the red pigment quickly faded, resulting in a color shift from red through bronze to green as the red disappeared. The new formulation met the stringent initial color match spec, but was not adequately tested for environmental durability of color retention."

(From 'Solving Color Measurement' by Allen Zeilnik, Journal of Architectural Coatings, February-March 2006)

During the war it is apparent that end users and even technicians were not aware of the difference between chromium oxide (green) and chrome green (a mixture of chrome yellow and prussian blue). The terms are used interchangeably and green camouflage paints using both pigments were manufactured in all the belligerent countries. There was a worldwide shortage of chromium oxide, a stable green pigment that degrades towards a pure green, which might have encouraged the use of chrome green as an alternative, knowingly or unknowingly. The green paints could start out practically identical but with chrome green the yellow pigment gradually decomposes the blue and will shift a green hue towards a more olive or eventually brown appearance. Preserved paint samples with yellowing or browning binders will further exaggerate the shift. The 'brown' paint found on BoB 109 artifacts a few years back was possibly degraded green paint.

Nick

[noelh]

Something caught my eye in the Halifax photo. The white overalls of the crew. Civilians! Checking Brienne's caption and yes it was retained by Handley Page. So we have a relatively clean factory used aircraft, highly unlikely to be painted in non standard colours. But the clincher was when I googled it and this turned up: The original uncropped photo in the IWM archive. In fact two versions the darker of which definitely points to DG/DE.

I can't put up the photo for some reason but here's the link.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205018252

[occa]

Something caught my eye in the Halifax photo. The white overalls of the crew. Civilians! Checking Brienne's caption and yes it was retained by Handley Page. So we have a relatively clean factory used aircraft, highly unlikely to be painted in non standard colours. But the clincher was when I googled it and this turned up: The original uncropped photo in the IWM archive. In fact two versions the darker of which definitely points to DG/DE.

I can't put up the photo for some reason but here's the link.

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205018252

Still too light IMO even in the darker version where the sky appears too dark which tells me it's depicted like it was underexposed and therfore not natural.

A give away would be B/W photos that have a high contrast between the green and the earth colour as like Nick pointed out earlier in this thread LG/LE has a higher contrst than DG/DE.

Also if you read the thread you'll stumble on the enigma of where did the whole production of LG/LE go to ?

Edit: The following claim is not true obviously and I retract it herewith:

They were (now NOT) about equal to the wartime DG/DE production #s.

[occa]

Really I can't see anything in that picture that may point to the use of light green and/or light earth. The sun is reflecting over the surfaces and this affects the colours in the picture, just look at the front turret MG barrels, I'm pretty sure that WW2 Vickers .303s did not come with chromed or polished stainless steel barrels...

If you check the darker version of the photo noelh posted the guns are still in shining silver even in the darker version, you'll see if you enlarge it.

Most likely cause they were never used to fire a shot.

[Giorgio N]

Still too light IMO even in the darker version where the sky appears too dark which tells me it's depicted like it was underexposed and therfore not natural.

A give away would be B/W photos that have a high contrast between the green and the earth colour as like Nick pointed out earlier in this thread LG/LE has a higher contrst than DG/DE.

Also if you read the thread you'll stumble on the enigma of where did the whole production of LG/LE go to ?

They were about equal to the wartime DG/DE production #s.

The only indication of production I've found in this thread is the Air HQ India order quoted by Nick, that does not mention any total production but only what that command requested at a certain time. And even here the quantities for Dark Earth are way larger than the quantities for Light Earth (with LE ordered in quantities 5 times lower). This does not show that LE was as widespread as DE, quite the contrary.

If you check the darker version of the photo noelh posted the guns are still in shining silver even in the darker version, you'll see if you enlarge it.

Most likely cause they were never used to fire a shot.

Not sure I understand... gun barrels don't become more or less shiny because of the shots fired. Barrels (and generally most parts of any gun) are subject to chemical treatments that make the metal darker and less reflective. This is not only for camouflage purpose but also (actually mainly) to protect the metal from the environment and the chemicals resulting from firing.

If the barrels look shining silver is only because they are reflecting the sun, not because they are clean or dirty. This is consistent with what already said about the previous picture.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Giorgio N

[occa]

^^

Maybe the guns were not bronzed or may they were polished for this AC ?

Anyways we would need to know the whole production numbers for the UK to draw a clonclusion, you have brought up a point ...

One fact tho is that many B/W bomber pictures show a relative high contrast that can not always be attributed to lighting conditions.

LE/LG would be the logical explanation for many of those pictures.

[Mr T]

I think trying to deduce whether the colour on the Halifax is LE/LG or DG/DE from a photo reproduced on the internet with absolutely no information on film, exposure etc. seems to be a path that has been followed several times on this site. The only thing I would say with certainty about the photo is that it was taken sometime in the middle of the year (Trees in leaf and crops not yet harvested). The photo looks to be taken near the middle of the day from the shortness of the shadows on the ground and the aircraft. that may make the colours appear brighter, particularly as the background is further away and so would not appear as bright. Just my thoughts, I claim no expert status.

[noelh]

I still can't see it as anything other than DG/DE on a clean unweathered aircraft on a bright sunny day. Remember too at altitude the intensity of the light increases particularly on sunny days. For comparison I had a look at some John Dibbs photos recently published in a collection of air to air shots. Two shots in particular stood out. The BBMF and Canadian Lancs in formation on a day comparable to the Halifax shot. They too seem suspiciously light or they would be if we didn't know they are in the correct colours. Similarly in another shot of the two recently restored Spitfire 1s. The lightness of the colours stand out. Again on the cover of Pilot magazine for May we see a very light coloured shot of the restored Blenheim. But the best comparison in on page 28 of that publication. Two photos, different times same aircraft. One clearly DG/DE the other taken on a sunny morning showing a lighter tone.

We know all of the aircraft mentioned are definitely not painted LG/LE yet viewed in isolation photos exist implying a lighter shade.

Does it prove that the Halifax in the picture was DG/DE? No but you can't extrapolate from a single photo that it wasn't.

[Edgar]

One fact tho is that many B/W bomber pictures show a relative high contrast that can not always be attributed to lighting conditions. LE/LG would be the logical explanation for many of those pictures.

No, it wouldn't; I am continually being told that I'm obsessed with the "holy writ" of Air Ministry orders, but nobody ever explains why these aircraft were (allegedly) painted in the wrong colours.

Dark Green and Dark Earth were chosen because they gave the best camouflage when parked in the open, on an airfield in daylight, and the orders quoted those two colours, and made no mention of the Light variations, but we are expected to believe they were painted in colours which would make them stick out like sore thumbs. Dark Green was also found to be the ideal colour to break up the surface of an aircraft at night, instead of black.

We are expected to believe (in a time of war) that a factory, having received those orders, complete with the colours marked on the relevant Air Diagram, put up two fingers to the Air Ministry, the Ministry-appointed Resident Technical Officer, the Local Technical Committee, and the Factory Overseer (usually of Wing Commander rank,) and proceeded to paint their aircraft (all, not just singly) with paints they were unlikely to have in stock in their stores (unless they were also building biplanes - unlikely in the case of Handley-Page,) just because a photograph, which could be printed in any of a dozen ways, just happens to look wrong 70 years later.

We've already had the daft theory (comprehensively torn apart by Wojtech Matusiak) that Spitfires were painted in four different colours, and this is no different.

[Troy Smith]

Really I can't see anything in that picture that may point to the use of light green and/or light earth. The sun is reflecting over the surfaces and this affects the colours in the picture, just look at the front turret MG barrels, I'm pretty sure that WW2 Vickers .303s did not come with chromed or polished stainless steel barrels...

the gun barrels are wrapped in white cloth, as it a test flight.

EDIT

Lancaster showing same wrapping, on a test flight.

Note unpainted or perhaps taped fuselage joints, right now I can't recall the details of this.

[Nick Millman]

the gun barrels are wrapped in white cloth, as it a test flight.

EDIT

Lancaster showing same wrapping, on a test flight.

Note unpainted or perhaps taped fuselage joints, right now I can't recall the details of this.

Hmm, a Lancaster in Gulf War Desert Pink and Dark Green - interesting. . .

Nick

[woody37]

the gun barrels are wrapped in white cloth, as it a test flight.

EDIT

Lancaster showing same wrapping, on a test flight.

Note unpainted or perhaps taped fuselage joints, right now I can't recall the details of this.

This is tape I believe that was applied over the main assembly joins. The DE also looks light on this, however, in my opinion, it is exactly that, DE, not LE

[MIkeMaben]

Mainly UV exposure but I have seen references to high temperature and humidity accelerating the process. Areas of exposed paint not in direct sunlight can still be found to chalk but the more extreme effects are usually on those surfaces directly and constantly exposed for example the fuselage spine and tops of wings and tailplanes.

Thanks Nick.

[Mike Starmer]

No-one appears to have noticed that the light source is not directly above but off to the left of the picture. Look at the shadow of the chap in forground. Thus the starboard wing is more fully lit because of dihedral than the port wing which at a significantly different angle to the light. Nick made this clear in his comment. I am very aware of this aspect when making up my paint mixes. I always view from 90 degrees to the test piece and standard together. Even the slightest tilt can have significant changes.

[Giorgio N]

the gun barrels are wrapped in white cloth, as it a test flight.

EDIT

Lancaster showing same wrapping, on a test flight.

Note unpainted or perhaps taped fuselage joints, right now I can't recall the details of this.

Thanks for pointing this to me Troy, looks like I made a very stupid error in checking the picture. I shall now cover my head in ashes and look for a suitable Light Earth in the nearest hobby shop and use this to paint a model..

Not a model of a Halifax though, as while I sure made a big mistake with the gun barrels I still stand by my view that the first picture shows an aircraft with strong glare effects (as seen on other parts of the airframe).

To me Edgar's post sums it up perfectly: there were regulations, there were paints produced in large quantities to these regulations and there was a system in place to verify that regulations were observed. Now I understand perfectly that we modellers tend to favour the unusual over the bog standard but sometimes I believe we get a bit too carried away..

Now back to that tin of Ligth Earth... thinking about it I have a Gladiator in the stash, THAT is something I could use the LE on !

Edited August 11, 2015 by Giorgio N

[occa]

No-one appears to have noticed that the light source is not directly above but off to the left of the picture. Look at the shadow of the chap in forground. Thus the starboard wing is more fully lit because of dihedral than the port wing which at a significantly different angle to the light. Nick made this clear in his comment. I am very aware of this aspect when making up my paint mixes. I always view from 90 degrees to the test piece and standard together. Even the slightest tilt can have significant changes.

And what about the starboard engine nacelle ?

There are portions there that have the same angle relative to the sun ...

[expositor]

Hello All,

Occa, I'm with you...(hope that's not your forum 'kiss of death') but since this thread has already died down, my butting in shouldn't disaffect the discussion much further.....

I saw the same with the nacelle being the 'same' colors as the opposite wing/nacelle, but we're the ones with the poor color perception. Obviously, one starts with the service color standards, and since we know Bomber Command had a LE/LG standard, though it's assumed to have been limited to the Grand Slam attack Lancasters, in that photo we have a definite anomaly that doesn't fit that established paradigm. So, we obviously ignore what's before our eyes? Remember the arguments that your photo of a Grumman hanger caused? We were obviously wrong to even assume that Grumman might have used the USN blue-gray on the FAA Martlets in lieu of a possible shortage of the new sea gray. You will recall the many shouts of "Grumman only used..." you name the paints, when we know they didn't even when allegedly bound by contract. (Gloss Willow Green was not a camouflage color!)

Sorry, pet peeve digression....

It seems if some want to see DE/DG when it's clearly not, or so you and I believe, well, I guess we all see what we want; so back to square one...?

Maybe I should have just continued lurking on this one....

Cheerio!

[Edgar]

It seems you are absolutely determined to ignore what you're told, so this is aimed at those with a genuine interest in listening to those of us old enough to remember how things were done years ago:-

In the 1940s-1960s, printing direct from a transparency was not possible, so a copy negative had to be made, and its quality was entirely dependent on the skill of the laboratory technician.

The negative had to be exposed through a series of coloured filters, and the timing of each exposure was dependent on the skill of the person operating the analyser and enlarger.

Below are two prints of the same negative; one appeared on the cover of a book by one of the foremost researchers of this era, and the other appeared inside a book by Douglas Bader.

Likewise the following pair of photos appeared in Japanese and Polish publications:-

And that's why we don't necessarily accept even a colour photo as the Holy Grail.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Edgar

[occa]

^^ The photos you posted are extremes of course, for example one version of P7895 has such an unnatural dark violet sea at the upper right corner that no one sane would use that to dertemine colors.

The first photo in this thread is a by far better example which certainly gives clues if one is not out to solely repress the discussion.

Im not willing to hold it back anymore so here's some real color truth for you:

All you do is sticking to your die hard 'only your own general assessment must fit all' dogma and pushing your rigid patronizing stance down our throats all the time.

Unless you decide to be a bit more open and try to differentiate / distinguish I don't want you to post on my threads about colours anymore.

I've had enough of your standard replies and I am certainly not the only one even if most probably don't dare to speak out.

Go and kill a discussion elsewhere ...

[Edgar]

My "dogma" comes from reading, and research, which I recommend that you try, instead of bleating about others' responses; there are 150-200 files, in the National Archives, on the subject of wartime paint and camouflage, and you really should try reading them. I have read them (several more than once,) and have never found any evidence to back up your theories (because that's all they are.)

Perhaps I should also remind you that these threads are Britmodellers', not yours, and, as such, are supposed to be open to all members to respond as they wish; if you think that I will be subject to your attempt at censorship, you have a lot to learn.

Your remark about "no one sane" shows that you really have no idea on how research must be carried out; you cannot pick what suits your agenda, and reject the rest, just because you don't like it, yet that is precisely what you want to do.

Edited August 16, 2015 by Edgar

[Mike]

Gentlemen. Can we calm this down and step away from the keyboard please? Neither party is guiltless here, and both have been behaving somewhat childishly. I did consider the idea of suspending you both for this incident, and if I have to separate you (or anyone else for that matter) again, that will be the outcome.

Agree to disagree and move on.

[expositor]

Hello All,

I wasn't going to post again, but....Edgar, you miss the point of Occa's original query...well, maybe I do too....There's no real dispute with your post with the Spit photos, we all see those differences. But that is not what's in question here. That Wellington photo has different tones in the same photo, and that's the difference; with the DG/DE on the starboard wing's nacelle matching the colors of the surface and nacelle of the port wing. The color contrast of the starboard nacelle and the green and tan/brown of the wing is too great to ignore as, again, it's in the same pic.

We can still agree to disagree, but in this case I'm with those who see LG/LE and would like to know if other Bomber Command a/c other than Lanc's were so painted. I believe it's obvious at least one wing on one Wellington was, and if there's one, there are likely more...but hey, what do I know?

Cheerio!

Edited August 16, 2015 by expositor