Confused and Bemused by "Azure blue" - can anyone help please

[stevehnz]

On 9/9/2024 at 10:02 AM, PatG said:

Does anyone still have the old 'AeroMaster Warbird Colors' rendition of Azure Blue I wonder?

Yes, I have, I was quite enthusiastic about it to begin with but once we got into "the thread" realised how wrong it was. A bit too dark & grey & quite lacking the violet tinge. Think in terms of a very faded PRU blue sort of colour.

Steve.

[5huggy]

On 07/09/2024 at 00:02, Troy Smith said:

I can't spot a WIP for this,  but a couple of points on the Spitfire, 

OK I have to admit that there isn't a WIP - as a "newbie" to the Forum, there's so much going on that I forgot to set one off - however !

I am more than willing to listen and learn - as such I have taken note of comment by @Troy Smith regarding the "ailerons" and adjusted with some care the attitude of them 

This has also been my first attempt at a "PROPER" go at oil paint weathering - and so for it's not looking to bad as far as I am concerned

 

 

 

 

SO FROM THIS  - TO THIS! -  - - - >>>

 

 

 

BUT! back to topic - -  the "Azure" appears ok ! as far as I'm concerned - - so again ceers @FatFlyHalf

[stevehnz]

That is a pretty good looking Azure Blue you've got there. Is that the same as you showed a bit earlier in which case, it is amazing what lighting can do? IMHO, the earlier one was too dark, but this one looks the goods.

The rest of the beast looks pretty good too.  

Steve.

[5huggy]

8 hours ago, stevehnz said:

That is a pretty good looking Azure Blue you've got there. Is that the same as you showed a bit earlier in which case, it is amazing what lighting can do? IMHO, the earlier one was too dark, but this one looks the goods.

The rest of the beast looks pretty good too.  

Steve.

The blue looks a little too dark as a gloss, but the minute the matt coat was applied it looks "cool"

[PhantomBigStu]

@Troy Smith, thought  you’d like to know that excellent hurricane pic you like to post to show azure blue is actually a colorised photo, found the original BW one after it was pointed out for me, did try and find some genuine originals but none of them show a clear view of the blue

[Work In Progress]

23 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:

@Troy Smith, thought  you’d like to know that excellent hurricane pic you like to post to show azure blue is actually a colorised photo, found the original BW one after it was pointed out for me, did try and find some genuine originals but none of them show a clear view of the blue

 

How do you know which was the original? Quite a bit of colour photography in WW2 was colour transparencies, which for press & PR purposes were transposed into black and white and distributed as b/w prints for the predominantly b/w media of the day

[PhantomBigStu]

23 minutes ago, Work In Progress said:

 

How do you know which was the original? Quite a bit of colour photography in WW2 was colour transparencies, which for press & PR purposes were transposed into black and white and distributed as b/w prints for the predominantly b/w media of the day

That's an excellent point and a good question, heres the BW version

rsion

[Troy Smith]

17 minutes ago, PhantomBigStu said:

That's an excellent point and a good question,

The provenance of the colour was discussed here in depth at some point.   

@Etiennedup  says it's original colour. 

 Its too precise to have been colourised, specifically note on the rear directly up from the roundel, a blurred sign in red, and the unpainted fin fillet, as well as various engine fittings in varying metal colours, and the wing parts at the back of the fuel tank, and the red  tube on the UC leg, presumably a stop to be removed but prevent accidental retraction, and the Azure Blue overspray on the tyres.  

 

HTH

[Phoenix44]

12 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

The provenance of the colour was discussed here in depth at some point.   

@Etiennedup  says it's original colour. 

 Its too precise to have been colourised, specifically note on the rear directly up from the roundel, a blurred sign in red, and the unpainted fin fillet, as well as various engine fittings in varying metal colours, and the wing parts at the back of the fuel tank, and the red  tube on the UC leg, presumably a stop to be removed but prevent accidental retraction, and the Azure Blue overspray on the tyres.  

 

HTH

That's not the same photo as the b&w one. Look at the right hand of the lady on the right standing up.

 

I'm not convinced it's too "precise" to be colourised - not sure why that would be difficult? The background is significantly more fuzzy in the colour photo, particularly the port u/c and wheel but also the back of the hangar on the left. So assuming the two photos are the same camera and same film, I'd say the probability is that both were b&w and the fuzziness is a result of the colourisation/reproduction process 

Edited October 4 by Phoenix44

[Dave Swindell]

1 hour ago, Phoenix44 said:

That's not the same photo as the b&w one.

Colour film in the UK was rare and expensive at the time, it was common for professional photographers to use two cameras, one wit colour film to take one or two colour shots of the subject, and another with BW film to take quite a few shots to record the story. If you look at the works of the likes of Charles E Brown you will often find a group of B&W shots with a single colour one of the same scene.

Whilst colourisation isn't new, before the advent of colourising software convincing colourised photos weren't common, it took a lot of time and skill to achieve it, so looking at when a colour photograph was first published as well as it's quality will give a good indication of whether it's genuine or not.

[stevehnz]

2 hours ago, Phoenix44 said:

That's not the same photo as the b&w one. Look at the right hand of the lady on the right standing up.

 

I'm not convinced it's too "precise" to be colourised - not sure why that would be difficult? The background is significantly more fuzzy in the colour photo, particularly the port u/c and wheel but also the back of the hangar on the left. So assuming the two photos are the same camera and same film, I'd say the probability is that both were b&w and the fuzziness is a result of the colourisation/reproduction process 

So, different camera with different film & slightly different exposure/focus. "ladies, just hold your poses for a moment while I swap cameras, click, thanks you ladies, lovely"  Works for me.

Steve.

[MilneBay]

14 hours ago, Troy Smith said:

The provenance of the colour was discussed here in depth at some point.   

@Etiennedup  says it's original colour. 

 Its too precise to have been colourised, specifically note on the rear directly up from the roundel, a blurred sign in red, and the unpainted fin fillet, as well as various engine fittings in varying metal colours, and the wing parts at the back of the fuel tank, and the red  tube on the UC leg, presumably a stop to be removed but prevent accidental retraction, and the Azure Blue overspray on the tyres.  

 

HTH

 Frankly, and I'm probably wrong, the red stop on the u/c leg always looks to me like a conveniently placed red handled screw driver ... 😉

[RAF4EVER]

23 minutes ago, MilneBay said:

 Frankly, and I'm probably wrong, the red stop on the u/c leg always looks to me like a conveniently placed red handled screw driver ... 😉

Looks like a Screwdriver to me

[Paul Thompson]

Re. the screwdriver, was thinking the same but didn't want to be the first to say it. OTOH, did they have coloured handles for such mundane things in the '40s? Bearing in mind they'd almost certainly be made of wood.

 

Paul.

[Phoenix44]

Zooming in may be unfair but I'm unconvinced these eyes are as they should be!

[Graham Boak]

It's not a screwdriver, but the actuator that retracts the undercarriage with a cover preventing it moving.  It would be painted red as a reminder that it had to be removed before flight (or undercarriage trials).

 

Nothing unfair about zooming, but looking elsewhere in the expanded view it appears to have introduced all sorts of odd effects that would not have been present in the original scene.

 

 

[Work In Progress]

3 hours ago, Phoenix44 said:

Zooming in may be unfair but I'm unconvinced these eyes are as they should be!

That effect is not visible in the version that's in the Hulton Archive, it has been mucked about with subsequently.  TBH since Hulton was collecting these photographs when they were newly taken, the existence of it as a colour shot in the Archive, probably the single most significant photographic record of the 20th century, should be enough to put this nonsense to rest. Even though, as so often, the caption is pretty dubious as it has always been obvious that this was a posed press shot rather than actual maintenance work in progress

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/engineers-mending-a-hawker-hurricane-aircraft-news-photo/3310743

Clicking through that and then right-clicking tp "view image" gives the best version we can get without paying.

Looking at the version of the pic on the rafcommands website, it's clearly been through some kind of modern software-based sharpening tool and probably had the colours "enhanced" from the Getty / Hulton shot, so down at the pixel level it can't be relied upon as evidence of very much at all. 

Edited October 4 by Work In Progress

[Phoenix44]

2 hours ago, Dave Swindell said:

Colour film in the UK was rare and expensive at the time, it was common for professional photographers to use two cameras, one wit colour film to take one or two colour shots of the subject, and another with BW film to take quite a few shots to record the story. If you look at the works of the likes of Charles E Brown you will often find a group of B&W shots with a single colour one of the same scene.

Whilst colourisation isn't new, before the advent of colourising software convincing colourised photos weren't common, it took a lot of time and skill to achieve it, so looking at when a colour photograph was first published as well as it's quality will give a good indication of whether it's genuine or not.

Doesn't really work as for a story you have to develop and print both films at the same time. So there's no point in taking say 36 b&w shots and 2 colour shots. That woukd just waste your expensive film.

[Graham Boak]

16 minutes ago, Phoenix44 said:

Doesn't really work as for a story you have to develop and print both films at the same time. So there's no point in taking say 36 b&w shots and 2 colour shots. That woukd just waste your expensive film.

Works as a historical record and for using the b&w and colour photos in different publications.

 

PS  Do you think that when Charles Brown took those airborne colour views, the Air Ministry sanctioned the used of precious petrol and flying hours on often important individual aircraft with the expectation that he might come back with only one or two photos and without any possibility of more?  If only b&w, there were still a number of useful places to have them published.  Particularly in the UK.

[Work In Progress]

1 hour ago, Phoenix44 said:

Doesn't really work as for a story you have to develop and print both films at the same time. So there's no point in taking say 36 b&w shots and 2 colour shots. That woukd just waste your expensive film.

That's not how you work. If you are a pro agency photographer you either shoot a roll or you take the rest of the roll on the next job. We don't know what else he shot that day, or where, but agency snappers are no strangers to long days

[MilneBay]

Apropos the picture in general, I seem to recall seeing another version of the colour image in which the aircraft is depicted in OG/DG/MSG. Now does that open the possibility that there were colourised versions of the B/W image? 

[Pritch]

Those are not versions of the same photo, they're two separate photos. The poses are different. Look at the positions of the hands, particularly the girl on the right.

[MilneBay]

According to this KZ295 went to Russia. So why the desert scheme but no Vokes filter? Diverted?

 

https://www.rafcommands.com/database/hurricanes/details.php?uniq=KZ295

Edited October 5 by MilneBay

[Graham Boak]

Interesting question.   By this time both Spitfire and Mosquito production had been simplified to only two schemes, and for Spitfires all overseas deliveries were in Desert.  It could be that Hurricanes were the same.  Hurricanes in Russia appear to be all in Day Fighter.  As for the Vokes, tropical equipment was not fitted on the production line but in an MU afterwards.  It is a bit surprising to consider the Vokes filter in this respect, but not excessively so.  Are there more photos that do show Hurricanes with filters inside factories (Langley?).

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

 

http://www.airhistory.org.uk/Hurricane/p057.html

 

KZ295 IIc MXX 48MU 22-3-43 82MU 24-3-43 'R.690' (ship code) 2-5-43 Gibraltar (Hapmat) USSR

 

There were shipments to the USSR via the southern route, including where the Hurricanes were off loaded in French North Africa and then flown to Iran.  Whether the factory would have known that or the aircraft allocated to the USSR during production is another matter but there were few Hurricane squadrons in Britain, Fighter Command had around 12 squadrons during 1942, down to around 5 by end 1943.  Britain exported 3,421 Hurricanes in 1942 and 3,576 in 1943,  Production was 3,103+700 in 1942 and 2,766+163 in 1943. Britain+Canada.