Spitfire Mk IX camouflage - Dark Slate Grey and PRU Blue?

[Terry McGrady]

.cant wait for the final proof claimed by mr lucas. one or another of the parties will have some crow to swallow.

Me neither though I think we'll all be a long time dead by the time he does .

I found the Chris Thomas article on the Typhoon much more interesting No pseudo- analysis in that article

[Dave Fleming]

i thought it was a good read in fact all the articles are ok from a modeling point of view. cant wait for the final proof claimed by mr lucas. one or another of the parties will have some crow to swallow.

regards

greycap

If he has proof, then why not refer to it in the original article?

Interestingly, people who you refer to are ones who i know have a keen interest in colours and markings, and are quite happy to accept new evidence of different colours. The vast majority of the MAM Airfiles articles have been excellent.

Edited August 30, 2009 by Dave Fleming

[TheModeller]

icant wait for the final proof claimed by mr lucas. one or another of the parties will have some crow to swallow.

Oh I can, it might have been nice if Mr Lucas' claimed 'proof' had been included in the original article because at the moment its all just smoke and mirrors.

But hey, no matter, don't let a little thing like facts (or a lack of them) get in the way of your man-crush!

[greycap]

If he has proof, then why not refer to it in the original article?

i wondered that too.but hey ,he might have a whole article about it for next months mag, then we can have a whole new thread about it.i'm hoping mr lucas has solid evidence. not to prove people wrong just to have different schemes for the new spitfire from airfix when we get it next year.

regards.

greycap.

[greycap]

Oh I can, it might have been nice if Mr Lucas' claimed 'proof' had been included in the original article because at the moment its all just smoke and mirrors.

But hey, no matter, don't let a little thing like facts (or a lack of them) get in the way of your man-crush!

ah .personal attacks,just where the weak minded and thin skinned have to go.

greycap

[TheModeller]

ah .personal attacks,just where the weak minded and thin skinned have to go.

greycap

Oh it wasn't an attack... Though I suppose some sensitive souls might see it that way... Just an 'observation'.

[Dave Fleming]

[TheModeller]

Awww, can't a guy have a laugh now and then... This thread has been so up and down... For so long!

[Edgar]

I've tried to stay out of this, because, as usual, it gets more, and more, fraught, with trenches being dug, and all hell about to be loosed. If you think that it's possible to discern colours from b/w photography, perhaps the above might make you stop and think. Taken from the same negative/slide (I don't know which,) the bottom photo comes from the cover of "Fighting Colours," and the upper from a 1970s book, written by Bader (and who, in the 1970s, was going to question his writings?) Mess around with the printing process, and all sorts of results can be achieved. The same (only worse) can apply to b/w prints, and will probably be known only to those who've done their own processing. In wedding, and portrait, photography, it was common practice to over-expose the film, then under-develop it. This has the effect of cutting the contrast, so that it was possible to see texture in the bride's white dress, and the groom's black suit (same applied to a white girl with raven-black hair.) By the same token, increasing the development time (easily done if a stop bath wasn't used, or had become tired,) contrast would be increased. Then we come to the paper; for publishing purposes, glossy paper was preferred, and every film manufacturer also produced their own paper. I used Ilford, others might go for Agfa, or others. Each had their own, slightly different, characteristics, and then there were (usually at least 5) the different grades within that range of papers. 1 was usually the "softest," with the hardness increasing with each number, and, along with the increase, so the contrast, in the print, would also increase. So, as well as talking about cameras, camera equipment, and their use, you can add the processing to the mix. Even with colour, if you can't get to see the original (the photo of FZ-D is readily available at Hendon, and Mr. Headroom has nailed it, in his thread,) then it's extremely dangerous to try interpretation. Even in MAM, the two photos of FZ-D are sufficiently dissimilar to cause questions to be asked about the processing, but no-one ever does.

Edgar

Edited August 31, 2009 by Edgar

[Super Aereo]

Totally agree with Edgar's line of reasoning, even if I'd point out that the upper photo is possibly a colourised example from a b/w copy (they used aniline dyes in the old days for that).

I have the outmost respect for Mr. Lucas's research, which has convincingly challenged old tenets in the past, all I can say about his recent articles in MAM is that they are certainly thought-provoking hypotheses, even if the body of evidence behind them is - this time around - still a little flimsy to my taste. Said that, he did present his ideas as working hypotheses and not as absolute truths, and surely there are several slightly odd images of what should be - in theory - normal Day Fighter Scheme camouflaged Spitfires.

He does probably overuse the expression "it is thought", when using "it is possible" or "I think" might be more appropriate to the context and contents of the articles, but that is after all just a rethorical quirk...

[Edgar]

The thing that turns me away from a dyed b&w print is the background. The aircraft are returning from a sortie over Rome, and I don't think there's any blue land in Italy.

This is the famous photo of ZD-F, as it appears in "Camera Above The Clouds, Volume 3," and is pretty much as it appears in the RAF Museum's library, and in the latest copy of MAM.

And this is how it appears on the cover of "Spitfire Special." Note the almost orange l/e stripe (in fact my scanner has done its utmost to lighten both pictures; the originals are slightly darker.)

Remember that the photo was taken in May, when crops would have been planted, but not much would be showing, apart from ploughed fields. Also, Charles Brown was a master at framing his subjects, and, in the first picture, the Spitfire is virtually surrounded by light brown, ensuring that it stands out.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Edgar

[Super Aereo]

I should know about not there being any blue land in Italy since I was born and bred there...

What I meant is that - possibly - the first image has been colorised from a b/w version of the second one for printing purposes (DG/DE being more "representative" for a general idea of a Spitfire perhaps?), which would also account for the change in colour of the Squadron codes.

The photographs you have just posted of ZD-F are a perfect example of how printing technology can change colours.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Super Aereo

[kitnut617]

The top picture is just how all the fields are which surround my house right now Edgar (which I can see for miles in every direction), it looks like a crop ready for harvest. We have wheat and barley which are the light tan colour, and then there's canola (or rape seed) that would be the greeny colour.

Robert

[Terry McGrady]

He does probably overuse the expression "it is thought", when using "it is possible" or "I think" might be more appropriate to the context and contents of the articles, but that is after all just a rethorical quirk...

Yes,

I've noticed that in other articles as well . " It is thought " implies to me that a " School " of thought holds these opinions , thus adding credence to something which is probably nothing more than a personal opinion.

Still it has certainly provoked discussion and doubtless increased MAMs sales slightly.

Cheers

Terry

[Tsrjoe]

[John]

He does probably overuse the expression "it is thought", when using "it is possible" or "I think" might be more appropriate to the context and contents of the articles, but that is after all just a rethorical quirk...

Yes,

I've noticed that in other articles as well . " It is thought " implies to me that a " School " of thought holds these opinions , thus adding credence to something which is probably nothing more than a personal opinion.

Still it has certainly provoked discussion and doubtless increased MAMs sales slightly.

Cheers

Terry

Surely that's the crux of it - if these theories weren't meant to be disected, chewed up, ruminated and pontificated on, why bother publishing them?

John

[Terry McGrady]

Surely that's the crux of it - if these theories weren't meant to be disected, chewed up, ruminated and pontificated on, why bother publishing them?

John

Exactly . The article did not contain any hard evidence as the author would have us believe. I treat these theories as mere rumination.

I don't believe for one minute that we were supposed to blindly accept them as hard and fast fact as some were inclined to do

I much prefer to do my own research if and when I can whip up enough interest to do so

Cheers

Terry

[Edgar]

In the latest MAM (Vol 8 Iss 11) there's a letter, covering two pages, by Wojtek Matusiak, and it's one heck of a demolition job, almost verbal assassination.

Edgar

[Terry McGrady]

In the latest MAM (Vol 8 Iss 11) there's a letter, covering two pages, by Wojtek Matusiak, and it's one heck of a demolition job, almost verbal assassination.

Edgar

Must go down to Smiths and have a read

[Dave Fleming]

In the latest MAM (Vol 8 Iss 11) there's a letter, covering two pages, by Wojtek Matusiak, and it's one heck of a demolition job, almost verbal assassination.

Edgar

Yep, to my mind Wojtek only misses two points:

(i) the effect filters could have on the shots

(ii) The fact that aircraft on the production line were polished (and I beleive varnished) would have an effect as against patched paint

[Dave Swindell]

Yep, to my mind Wojtek only misses two points:

(i) the effect filters could have on the shots

(ii) The fact that aircraft on the production line were polished (and I beleive varnished) would have an effect as against patched paint

Three - I didn't see any mention of the difference between Pan & Ortho film - this has a major impact on tonal representation of colours

[Edgar]

Not too certain about the availability of filters, to the general public, during the war, and the anomalies of ortho film are well known. A friend recently reminded me (and this is something that Wojtek didn't touch on) that it was common practice for photographers to increase contrast, on the negatives, by increasing the dilution of the developer, and increasing the development time to match. Most of my work was in portraiture, weddings, etc., in which the technique went the other way; over-expose (usually by a stop,) and cut the development time, but with standard-strength developer, and the contrast is softened. Failure to use an acid stop-bath, after developing, could also affect the final product, since the developer could carry on working for a short time, until the fixer arrived.

Dave, post-war, varnish was certainly advocated (I have a drawing/poster giving full details on Seafire finish, from the XV onwards, but I haven't found matching instructions for Spitfire production.) However, it was nowhere near the last operation; after the paint/varnish, under the heading "Last operation, smoothing by abrasive polish, whole aircraft," it says, "The whole assembled aircraft should be lightly dry scuffed with hydro-durexsil paper, grade 320 or 400, to remove dry spray. Not less than 24 hours, but preferably after flight test, the whole camouflaged surface must be smoothed by a polishing operation using a mixed polish made up of 3 parts of I.C.I's No.7 polish and one part of I.C.I's No.28 rubbing compound. The leading edges of mainplanes, tailplanes and fins must have special treatment and hand polishing followed by cleaning with a dry lambswool mop is recommended for these areas. Remember - what you want is smoothness. Don't concentrate on gloss! It is smoothness that makes the aircraft go faster."

This drawing was amended in January, 1949, so I can't say that it applied during the war; however, there is reference to treating bare metal surfaces with deoxidine 202, referring to drawing 30000, and drawings usually commence with three numbers which match the Mark no. - 300 was the Mk.I, so that treatment could have been going on for some time. It does refer to D.T.D.517, which is exactly the same as the spec. for the smooth paints, which Supermarine began to use on Spitfires, from September, 1942.

Edgar

[John]

Very well thought out and presented arguments. Wojtek doesn't mention ortho film specifically but he does refer to "dark" yellows in B&W photos.

John

[Steven Eisenman]

Three - I didn't see any mention of the difference between Pan & Ortho film - this has a major impact on tonal representation of colours

RAF marking clearly shows the effect of using Ortho film. The red is near black and the yellow is a dark grey while the blue is lightened. The fin flash looks reversed because the blue is rendered lighter than it is.

Filters were common, but the biggest problem of attributing issues to filters is that often the filter effect is only partially looked at. Sure a red filter will increase contrast, but it will make a blue sky near black and the red of a roundel near white.