AMMO Booklet on correct painting of early War RAF has incorrect colour !

[Steben]

58 minutes ago, Scimitar F1 said:

I have to say I am in the if it looks right camp on this. I think Tamiya XF-81 is a good dark green and use Gunze lacquer for Dark Earth.

 

When I was at Bovington on a course in the glorious summer of 1992 I built a white metal Cromwell tank and painted it with some ‘borrowed’ NATO IRR Green from the tank park. It looked awful - far too bright - and nothing like the full size Chieftains and Challengers that we were being trained on. 

 

When were you in the army?

[Whitewolf]

14 hours ago, alt-92 said:

Hardcover
from $635.98 

 

Not asking for much, are you

 

Anyways: AMMO's books and such are meant to sell AMMO products, not to be the be-all and end-all of accuracy. 

 

Those who are interested in getting as good as a result possible matching colours will spend effort in doing so. 
Others are more casual about it. Not the end of the world, really. 

Looking at some of the pics from the book here, clearly some have been taken in a much brighter light than others, and shading plays a big part in the appearance of the colours......I have one of their books on painting a late war German vehicles which centers on a King Tiger in ambush camo which at first glance seems a bit on the light side, but then I discovered there were at least 3 versions of that camo around in 1944, with differing shades and applications........

[Steben]

12 minutes ago, Whitewolf said:

Looking at some of the pics from the book here, clearly some have been taken in a much brighter light than others, and shading plays a big part in the appearance of the colours......I have one of their books on painting a late war German vehicles which centers on a King Tiger in ambush camo which at first glance seems a bit on the light side, but then I discovered there were at least 3 versions of that camo around in 1944, with differing shades and applications........

Normally all (small) paint chips should look dark on white paper.
Just as some "correct" colours are usually lightened by modellers (I think of Dunkel Grau fe) not because they look wrong, but because they seem too dark to bring out details...
Personally I always liked preshade on light primer with thin coats of the real deal on top. This gives balance between darkness , highlights and respect towards the correct colour.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Steben

[mick b]

6 hours ago, Steben said:

I love mixing colours! I just haven't got that book yet. I finally got the Chory book for wehrmacht colours. This resulted in quite some insight. Don't have the fortune around though to buy all chip sources at once.
Is there a diffeence between the colour cover and the green with B/W picture? (or is it hardcover vs paperback etc?)
 

 

T

 

 

 

To save save others buying it:

 

https://www.seawings.co.uk/images/colour charts/British Aviation Colours of WWII.pdf

 

I appreciate the colour chart may not be totally as per the book due to limitations of the pdf.

 

I assume the colour chart is the same as that found in Harleyfords Camouflage and Markings 1907- 1954 book of which I have my Dad’s 1961 edition.

 

Mike

 

 

[JackG]

There is a 'modern' source for RAF painted chips as produced by Iliad Design from Ottawa, Canada.  Bought mine a while ago, close to 25  maybe?  Thing is I rarely see them discussed, and then usually  just a question about how accurate they are.  

 

They offer something for all the major WW2 powers, except Italy.  For the British they have four individual sets:

Day Fighters
Tropical/Desert

Photo Recon

Fleet Air Arm

http://www.iliad-design.com/charts.html

 

 

regards,

Jack

Edited May 29, 2021 by JackG

[Rolls-Royce]

I'm in the camp of @alt-92, wanting the paints I use to be as accurate as possible, and making my own decisions about lightening or darkening them. The past couple of decades, I've been using a Pactra product named "Weathering", first in enamel and now in acrylic. It's a very thin light gray with a hint of tan, and essentially replicates the effect of a light coat of dust. After the final coat of clear dries, I spray a uniform dusting coat of "Weathering" over the entire model. This slightly tones down the colors and markings as well, tying them together much as a wash does. 

I'd like to give Jamie some of my money, but sadly, his enamels are scarce on the West side of the Pond, with only one stocking vendor that I'm aware of (who is usually "out of stock" on the most-used colors). 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Rolls-Royce

[Steben]

17 minutes ago, Rolls-Royce said:

I'm in the camp of @alt-92, wanting the paints I use to be as accurate as possible, and making my own decisions about lightening or darkening them. The past couple of decades, I've been using a Pactra product named "Weathering", first in enamel and now in acrylic. It's a very thin light gray with a hint of tan, and essentially replicates the effect of a light coat of dust. After the final coat of clear dries, I spray a uniform dusting coat of "Weathering" over the entire model. This slightly tones down the colors and markings as well, tying them together much as a wash does. 

I'd like to give Jamie some of my money, but sadly, his enamels are scarce on the West side of the Pond, with only one stocking vendor that I'm aware of (who is usually "out of stock" on the most-used colors). 

I'm in that camp too

[Steben]

32 minutes ago, JackG said:

There is a 'modern' source for RAF painted chips as produced by Iliad Design from Ottawa, Canada.  Bought mine a while ago, close to 25  maybe?  Thing is I rarely see them discussed, and then usually  just a question about how accurate they are.  

 

They offer something for all the major WW2 powers, except Italy.  For the British they have four individual sets:

Day Fighters
Tropical/Desert

Photo Recon

Fleet Air Arm

http://www.iliad-design.com/charts.html

 

 

regards,

Jack

 Mail sent!

[Graham Boak]

I'd be pleased to see comment on the Iliad sheets, but the only ones I don't have good references for already (better than the Colourcoats website anyway) are the Polish (out of stock!) French and Japanese.  Obviously there must be some residual suspicion about the last, in view of much misrepresentation in the past.  Interesting that the Soviets are not considered a major WW2 power...  oops.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Graham Boak
Correction from Nobby below. Thanks.

[alt-92]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

Interesting that the Soviets are not considered a major WW2 power...  oops.

Maybe just avoiding that  fest?

[Nobby Clarke]

2 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I'd be pleased to see comment on the Iliad sheets, but the only ones I don't have good references for already (better than the Colourcharts website anyway) are the Polish (out of stock!) French and Japanese.  Obviously there must be some residual suspicion about the last, in view of much misrepresentation in the past.  Interesting that the Soviets are not considered a major WW2 power...  oops.

Graham, I’m not sure I understand your comment about the Colourcharts website. Are you referring to Jamie’s Colourcoats site or some other site?

[Steben]

4 minutes ago, alt-92 said:

Maybe just avoiding that  fest?

NO colour ever hasn't been such a fest

[JackG]

Opps is right, I missed that about Iliad and the lack of Soviet representation.

 

I did notice some screen shots from elsewhere, Iliad's Luftwaffe desert sheet has three Italian colours listed.  As I understand, this notion of Luftwaffe using Italian paints was debunked in the recent past.  Should this introduce some skepticism for the rest of their products, I don't know...

 

regards,

Jack

[Graham Boak]

51 minutes ago, Nobby Clarke said:

Graham, I’m not sure I understand your comment about the Colourcharts website. Are you referring to Jamie’s Colourcoats site or some other site?

Yes.  Sorry about that, I'll change the original text to avoid further confusion.  Jamie's presentation of all his paints is a great guide: allowing for the problems in equating emitted colours to reflected ones.

 

Evidence was found that the Luftwaffe were repainting their aircraft in Germany, with paints in tropical colours that differed from the later 78/79.   As to including Italian colours, there were four different yellows used on Italian aircaft of the period: quite which one(?) was supposed to have been used by the Luftwaffe has never been touched on.  Somehow I am not surprised by this.  The original idea was a suggestion by Ken Merrick that he thought might explain matters - it was then seized upon and reported as gospel.  A very sensible suggestion for the time, I feel, but overtaken by knowledge.  The true situation was described in Merrick's work for Classic, which is (I think) getting on for nearly 20 years old now?  It really is time that references stopped relying on old hypotheses that have been shown to be in error - but there are multiple examples.  And not, pace the above, just the Soviet colours.

 

But yes, we do need a good set of colour charts based on current knowledge for the Soviets.  And the Japanese.  And, to be honest, the French.  We really shouldn't have to rely on arguing the toss between different paint manufacturers' different ideas, or increasingly aged basic references, however good they are for the few possessing them.  Yes, I'm think of Italy here.

[John Thompson]

3 hours ago, Graham Boak said:

I'd be pleased to see comment on the Iliad sheets, but the only ones I don't have good references for already (better than the Colourcharts website anyway) are the Polish (out of stock!) French and Japanese.  Obviously there must be some residual suspicion about the last, in view of much misrepresentation in the past.  Interesting that the Soviets are not considered a major WW2 power...  oops.

 

Maybe Iliad chose not to include the VVS simply because they had already published Colours of the Falcons by Jiri Hornat and Bob Migliardi (Mr Iliad himself), based on Vakhlamov and Orlov's work as presented in MHobby magazine:

https://www.scalemates.com/books/colors-falcons-jiri-hornat-bob-migliardi--105302

 

John

 

[Graham Boak]

I have the work, but don't recall a set of colour chips.  I've just been looking for it but it has clearly been misfiled.  I certainly don't know of a good representation of the light brown -"milky coffee" - seen in the later war pattterns, and judging by the various representations of it, neither have others.  That's to name but the most obvious (to me) example.   I agree that the Iliad book it is a fine source for the patterns and the required reading on the subject.

 

However, having read Jamie's account on the research that went into his rework of the RN colours, I do have some qualms about the basic reference for some of the latest Russian work.  Ageing pigments on ageing paper... outside my field of knowledge.

[Graham Boak]

4 hours ago, mick b said:

I assume the colour chart is the same as that found in Harleyfords Camouflage and Markings 1907- 1954 book of which I have my Dad’s 1961 edition.

 

Based on the same source but the Harleyford is printed and so less valuable, even without allowing for age.

[Merlin]

17 hours ago, Nobby Clarke said:

Merlin, I'm curious to know how you determined the sRGB values indicated in the colour photo of the RAF Museum colour chart at the very beginning of this post: Dark Earth 109 89 70 and Dark Green 72 74 65. Did you use a spectrophotometer or similar instrument to make these measurements?

Cheers, Nobby

Hi,

Nobby,

 

chance for an explanation of method and correct technique for colour matching and comparison, as without which any chart or photo is not much use.

The RGB value at top of the text for Dk Green and also Dk Earth was from what I recall, for the value established with the indicated sampling size for the pipette when that RGB image I had taken was open in photoshop and the kodak card having been used to get the photo matching the actual kodak card, and thus the RAF chart matching as well. Double checked with card and chart in hand in daylight near monitor, though one can never match a non backlit to a backlit colour, the kodaks matched flicking eye to and from screen to them as did the chart. Happy with the result, and I had taken quite a few with different angles, and finding out that laid on a table was NOT the way to do it, as it went lighter from reflectance , and a fine blue day in shade sees the blue sky make things go bluer !  Correct method is with 10/10 cloud midday, chart held upright with something dull many yards beyond it to minimise reflectance of light and colour. Establish correct exposure with a kodak grey card same orientation as subject, use the shutter/aperture/iso shown as required in the actual shot before the light changes. Camera EOS DSLR (lens protection filter neutral colour cast) set to Adobe RGB1998 as is colour calibrated monitor (Eizo with auto calibration pop up arm for a room with lights out).

 

Any colour being sampled, new method now, to average out the pixels rather than set sampler to 11x11 or 30x30 etc, is to copy paste the colour from a 'crawling ants' box to a new file, then go filter>blur>blur average, a pure uniform non varying RGB colour results that is as it says an average of all the individual pixel values seen., without it pulling in the white beyond the colour square,  I remove any dust spots sampling right next to them before running this new method.

 

I see the pdf of the book ( and many thanks for that) sees the green a tad more yellowy and certainly the brown goes more yellowy. even so a nice capture, compare it to my garden shot.

I opened the pdf page 61 into photoshop to compare to a copy paste of the chart I posted here, though perhaps in doing so the chart becomes sRGB, the RGB values had changed a few digits.

 

I have also captured Merrick/Kiroff charts attached to shed door, opposite and 8ft away is a tall hedge. Light sources should always be 45deg to the surface of anything being copied, trying out perp and oblique shots sideways at them to see if any differences occurred. 

 

The figures then below refer to indicated locations and perhaps are for the wartime spitfire, and the white dots. I need to find the psd file of that image of the chart., eluding me at the moment.

 

Colour matching should be done in a north light (room facing north), natural light, midday ish, neutral grey card (Canford cover paper do one) with at least 1inch windows in card, 5mm or sp apart if poss, and colours being analysed also 1inch or more in size if poss. It can also be interesting to see how colours behave when in direct sun, as the contrasts and colours can change, rlm70/71 for example look very similar (and quite a few modellers decide the Luftwaffe got it wrong and do their models with what they think should be used), but get the genuine 70/71 in sunlight and BINGO ...the contrast happens, the Luft knew what they were doing !

 

Merlin

Edited May 29, 2021 by Merlin

[Seahawk]

20 hours ago, Whitewolf said:

I have one of their books on painting a late war German vehicles which centers on a King Tiger in ambush camo which at first glance seems a bit on the light side, but then I discovered there were at least 3 versions of that camo around in 1944, with differing shades and applications........

But is there reputable research that such variations in colour were officially promulgated or even existed?  I draw a distinction between that and a paint manufacturer trying to sell me 3 different shades of what was officially the same paint.   And, once we depart from accurate matches of historically attested shades, we quickly start down the slippery slope towards “I’m offering you a range of shades and you can pick whichever you think looks nicest.”

[Steben]

25 minutes ago, Seahawk said:

But is there reputable research that such variations in colour were officially promulgated or even existed?  I draw a distinction between that and a paint manufacturer trying to sell me 3 different shades of what was officially the same paint.   And, once we depart from accurate matches of historically attested shades, we quickly start down the slippery slope towards “I’m offering you a range of shades and you can pick whichever you think looks nicest.”

That slippery slope is much appreciated by paint sellers ...

But we do know there were different (official) changes in dunkelgelb for example.
Olive and brown did have several variations because the "one colour" got mixed with water, gasoline, .... and applied with brush, airbrush, .... thin, thick, .... but the standard was the same.
Reminds me of "Reseda Grün" hype. How many modellers actually sprayed in scale 1:1 Reseda Grün 6011 in thin coats on dunkelgelb? Or olive 6003?
I work for a steel construction producer and contractor. We design, produce and build buildings. One of the standard items are Reseda Green RAL6011 painted beams. It is a primer colour choosen by a client marking beams to be painted with a fire protective coat on site. We never had a demand to finish coat beams in that colour, it is a temporary one. Daily I watch the colour pass by, which is exactly the colour in the swatches. I have NEVER seen tanks with that colour and it even is full coat, not thinly applied. I did see stuff close to (buntfarben) RAL6007 used on post-1938 stuff as mentioned by Chory. It is full chroma dark colour, unlike the greyish flimsy 6011.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Steben

[JackG]

There is an easier way to sample digital colours that are presented as a pixelated swatch.  Some photo software products have the option to adjust the size of the colour picker tool.  It reads all the different pixels within it and then calculates the average, producing a solid colour sample.  The one depicted here is a free download:

https://www.gimp.org/downloads/

 

 

 

So is it being stated that the blur method is more accurate?

 

 

regards,

Jack

[Rolls-Royce]

20 hours ago, Merlin said:

Hi,

Nobby,

 

chance for an explanation of method and correct technique for colour matching and comparison, as without which any chart or photo is not much use.

The RGB value at top of the text for Dk Green and also Dk Earth was from what I recall, for the value established with the indicated sampling size for the pipette when that RGB image I had taken was open in photoshop and the kodak card having been used to get the photo matching the actual kodak card, and thus the RAF chart matching as well. Double checked with card and chart in hand in daylight near monitor, though one can never match a non backlit to a backlit colour, the kodaks matched flicking eye to and from screen to them as did the chart. Happy with the result, and I had taken quite a few with different angles, and finding out that laid on a table was NOT the way to do it, as it went lighter from reflectance , and a fine blue day in shade sees the blue sky make things go bluer !  Correct method is with 10/10 cloud midday, chart held upright with something dull many yards beyond it to minimise reflectance of light and colour. Establish correct exposure with a kodak grey card same orientation as subject, use the shutter/aperture/iso shown as required in the actual shot before the light changes. Camera EOS DSLR (lens protection filter neutral colour cast) set to Adobe RGB1998 as is colour calibrated monitor (Eizo with auto calibration pop up arm for a room with lights out).

 

Any colour being sampled, new method now, to average out the pixels rather than set sampler to 11x11 or 30x30 etc, is to copy paste the colour from a 'crawling ants' box to a new file, then go filter>blur>blur average, a pure uniform non varying RGB colour results that is as it says an average of all the individual pixel values seen., without it pulling in the white beyond the colour square,  I remove any dust spots sampling right next to them before running this new method.

 

I see the pdf of the book ( and many thanks for that) sees the green a tad more yellowy and certainly the brown goes more yellowy. even so a nice capture, compare it to my garden shot.

I opened the pdf page 61 into photoshop to compare to a copy paste of the chart I posted here, though perhaps in doing so the chart becomes sRGB, the RGB values had changed a few digits.

 

I have also captured Merrick/Kiroff charts attached to shed door, opposite and 8ft away is a tall hedge. Light sources should always be 45deg to the surface of anything being copied, trying out perp and oblique shots sideways at them to see if any differences occurred. 

 

The figures then below refer to indicated locations and perhaps are for the wartime spitfire, and the white dots. I need to find the psd file of that image of the chart., eluding me at the moment.

 

Colour matching should be done in a north light (room facing north), natural light, midday ish, neutral grey card (Canford cover paper do one) with at least 1inch windows in card, 5mm or sp apart if poss, and colours being analysed also 1inch or more in size if poss. It can also be interesting to see how colours behave when in direct sun, as the contrasts and colours can change, rlm70/71 for example look very similar (and quite a few modellers decide the Luftwaffe got it wrong and do their models with what they think should be used), but get the genuine 70/71 in sunlight and BINGO ...the contrast happens, the Luft knew what they were doing !

 

Merlin

So to summarize, they were done with an eyedropper color sampling program from digital images of the RAFM color charts that you captured, not from direct readings of the swatches with a spectrophotometer or other color sampling device? Nobby and I are doing direct readings from the swatches, which helps explain some of the differences between your numbers and ours. He and I have one or two digit differences between our numbers, but the differences with yours are greater. For instance, you show Dark Earth at 109 89 70 while my reading for the same color was 117 95 70. There are differences in how these were arrived at as well as possible minor differences between the swatches each of us is using. Mine is calculated by third-party measurement software from the raw numbers reported by my spectrophotometer, and factors in the corrections made by my computer's .icc monitor calibration file to produce the closest approximation to the actual swatch on my monitor. 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Rolls-Royce

[Space Ranger]

On 5/29/2021 at 7:43 AM, Rolls-Royce said:

 The past couple of decades, I've been using a Pactra product named "Weathering", first in enamel and now in acrylic. It's a very thin light gray with a hint of tan, and essentially replicates the effect of a light coat of dust. After the final coat of clear dries, I spray a uniform dusting coat of "Weathering" over the entire model. This slightly tones down the colors and markings as well, tying them together much as a wash does. 

 

Where did you find Pactra “Weathering”? That’s been discontinued for years.

[Steben]

https://www.e-paint.co.uk/colour-alternatives.asp?cRange=BS Other&cRef=BS 450&metallic2=False&cDescription=Dark earth

 

Guys at e-paint did scans AFAIK, if you click on the swatches you can read Lab and RGB etc
350 Dark earth is more chroma than 450 Dark Earth for example.

Edited May 30, 2021 by Steben

[dragonlanceHR]

23 hours ago, alt-92 said:

Maybe just avoiding that  fest?

Which is funny because VVS colors are simpler than others.