The Ship Model Forum

Should have said page 13 to here in the post above.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

I spoke to a guy who is more of an expert in film photography than I (the developing process).

And, he said that what I might have thought was a "re-touch" of the hull of the USS Juneau in the photo with theHornet(???) MIGHT be due to the developer trying to keep the Juneau from appearing too washed out.

I had not considered this, but prior to digital developing (which is where my expertise lies), film often had to be developed in stages from the same negative, where the foreground or background could wind up vastly over-developed.

To do this, they made "cut-outs" of the areas they wished to block off (It has been two decades since I did this, so I had forgotten about it - now, you just create a selection-set, and make a stencil out of it in whichever photo-editing software you are using, to adjust the values of that section - or freeze those values).

So, he said that what I am thinking was "color-re-touching" (or, shade re-touching, in a B/W film), might simply be the developer using a cutout to keep the hull of the ship from being so blown-out, since it would be a large area that reflected a lot of light, and thus capable of more quickly exposing film than areas with more diffusion or scattering.

So... I think what we are seeing is a case of the same thing happening with the Laffey. I think that is the same color/camo scheme, but simply that the overdevelopment of the film caused it to be washed out.

If I had the original negative, I could probably recover a camo pattern from the hull (seeing as it is probably a 60mm to 320mm negative... The Konica and Fairchild-Zeiss Cameras used by the US Military - USAAF, and USN/USMC - tended to have very large, very high-grain film that could capture a lot of data. The equivalent in digital terms would be a pixel resolution of between 200 and 500 pixels per inch - minimum) using a combination of Mathematica and Photoshop. But I doubt that the ship would have been repainted at Espiritu Santo, or Noumea during this time frame, as neither area had been built-up significantly. The ship would have had to travel to New Zealand, Pearl, or San Deigo/San Francisco in order to be re-painted (at least the hull - the crew could re-paint the superstructure, I imagine).

Since I have solved the transportation problem, as soon as I get my arm/shoulder dealt with (so that i can drive long distances), I will be taking my negative scanner to go to NARA to get a copy of this negative (among others), to see what can be recovered from it. I might not even need to do any special coding, and the photo-recovery tools from Smith Micro might be sufficient to recover the images sufficiently).

Also, one other thing that might help.

One of the tools that is available is a colorization tool, which take a pixel-matching algorithm to apply a color-hue.

For instance, if we know that a ship was wearing a Ms. 11 (5-S) paint scheme, and we can get a decent image of the ship, then we can apply the pixel values from the B/W image to other value-corrected images (so that the contrast/brightness/intensity is relatively similar), we can get a differentiation from another ship that was wearing Ms. 21 (5-N).

At least ideally... I do not know how well this would work on WWII Negatives from multiple cameras, but in the film industry, it is a technique used to find similar colors in the same reel of film (or similar values, and then using film archeology/history methods - learning who the prop and set buyers and builders were, and what materials they used, as well as what the studio inventories were - to find the most likely color for an object in a scene).

So, given that we have a clue as to what colors the ships were wearing, we should be able to get some sort of an idea of actual color values. Or at the very least, as close as possible.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Matthew

Many thanks for your good work.

For those of us trying to build a model of the ship, please keep in mind our main item of need is the port side from the aft stack forward. If by some miracle you can extract the superstructure pattern from the Laffey photos it would be great. Starboard side photos in NYC should suffice for the model.

We look forward to whatever mystery you can solve on the CV 8 TF photo.

Good luck.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

A couple of features to consider:
A) By Oct 1942 San Juan and San Diego had a bridge the was wrapped with wind baffles.
These show up in almost any light.
"Photo": it looks like the forward shield above the pilot house is smooth as Atlanta and Juneau


B) San Juan seems to have carried a life raft stowed against mount 3
"Photo": mount 3 does not have a life raft stowed against it.




James

I have three 1/700 Atlanta-class ships (Skywave USS Atlanta, and a Dragon USS Juneau & USS San Deigo). And I think that I will need two more, for the USS San Juan and USS Oakland (Not sure if I will eventually need the USS Reno or USS Flint, as I doubt that I will ever get to that period of WWII with my current progress).

So... I am just as interested as everyone else in how these ships looked, as these are next after my USN DDs on the blocks (will be built in tandem with IJN Takao-class CAs).

I am not looking forward to cutting the stencils for the Juneau, ATM, and it looks like the Atlanta also had a similar upper came pattern (Don't know about the San Juan and San Deigo - I hope they are in plain Ms. 11 or Ms. 21 - I just today bought a paint bottles to mix my Navy Blue and Deck Blue for my airbrush). I think if I am going to be making a stencil pattern, I might make it printable, so that I can sell them on eBay, or something. That seems like something other people might want.

But for the time being, I'd like to be able to get a scan of the negatives of these photos to work from, as I discovered the negatives are quite large (compared to today's film), and quite high-grain (at least for the time - making recovery of a camp pattern from the superstructure more likely than from an online scan of the photo).

I am also going to do another pass of the hull on the photo with the Laffey with a scripted dodge tool (one that checks not just for pixel darkness, but for the relative difference in shade relative to its neighbors).

This will help to pull the camp pattern out of the forward hull, and maybe out of some of the shadows on the superstructure (where there will be a better photographic exposure, and thus more pixel data). The forward hull seems to have less detail in it than does the stern, which I think is due to the problems which were stated regarding the Ms. 12Mod., where the "Blotches" were said to blend together at a distance. This is exactly what is happening in this photo, where the "eye" of the camera is blending together the different shades of paint due to a combination of having been overexposed, the weather being slightly overcast (creating a diffuse layer in the atmosphere), and the distance obscuring smaller details.

Some details are likely to be forever lost. But due to having the image with the Quincy showing the same side (port), if I can show that certain areas of both hull and superstructure were/are wearing the same paint scheme, I think we can then infer that she is still wearing the same paint scheme as in the Quincy Photo.

We know from the Laffey Photo that she is still wearing the same hull paint came scheme. Now it is just a trick of getting enough detail extracted from the Laffey photo.

One thing else that I thought of.

Has anyone checked if any other ships in the Solomons' Area were re-painted at either Espiritu Santo or Noumea in the period of August/September of 1942 through November of 1942?

Or even if these areas had the ability to re-paint the hulls? Or even stocked the paints needed (I imagine they would have just for touch-ups, as leaving bare metal exposed to the ocean is a bad idea) - or which paints they did stock?

The only time that the ship could have been painted, from the looks of it, was prior to arriving in the Solomons, and it looks like it never stopped on the West Coast long enough to do this (but then.... I don't know how long it took to paint a hull, or even if you had to pull the ship all the way out of the water to do so).

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Matthew,

Yes, several destroyers were repainted during this period; at least FLETCHER, NICHOLAS, O'BANNON (documented as doing so in early November), and probably some of the BENSON-GLEAVES units. There was a specific directive from the Pacific Fleet CO for all non-Ms 21 painted ships to repaint as "operations tempo allowed" into Ms 21.

The crews were tasked with painting their own ships by and large. Specific dates of WHEN they were repainted was seldom documented in War Diaries or Deck Logs. JUNEAU was at Noumea for down time between 27 September through 1 October1942. Whether she was repainted during that period is not known with certainty. But, this was the longest period of "down time" she had between USS WASP's loss and USS HORNET's loss and 80-G-304513 seems to point to her being repainted prior to HORNET's loss.

WAR DIARY

Saturday, September 26 - Proceeding to Noumea with TF17. Went into channel formation 1 at sunrise after HORNET launched planes. Passed through barrier reef via Bulari Passage at 1030 and proceeded to anchorage #43 in Dumbea Bay, anchoring therein at 1230. Vice Admiral GHORMLEY, Commander South Pacific, S.O.P.A., in ARGONNE.
The following combattant vessels present: HORNET(CV), NORTHHAMPTON(CA), PENSACOLA(CA), CHESTER(CA), SAN DIEGO(CLAA), LAFFEY(459), HULL(350), LAND(399), LARDNER(487), CUNNINGHAM(371), O'BRIEN(415), HOPKINS(M93), HOVEY(M91), HUGHES(410), MUSTIN(413), RUSSELL(414), MORRIS(417), MEADE(602), BARTON(599), and various auxillary vessels.

Sunday, September 27 - At anchor in berth #43, Dumbea Bay. Task Force 17 placed on 48 hours sailing notice. Received 166,140 gallons of fuel oil from tanker H.M.STOREY.

Monday, September 28 - At anchor Dumbea Bay. Received on board various supplies and provisions.

Tuesday, September 29 - At anchor Dumbea Bay. Task Force 17, less MEADE, placed on 24 hours sailing notice.

Wednesday, September 30 - At anchor Dumbea Bay. Task Force 17, less MEADE, placed on 12 hours sailing notice.

==============================
s/L.K.SWENSON

WAR DIARY

FROM: OCTOBER 1, 1942 TO: October 31, 1942. Operating under Commander Task Force 17.

Thursday, October 1 - At anchor Dumbea Bay, Noumea, New Caledonia. In company Task Force 17. Rear Admiral MURRAY in HORNET, Commander Task Force 17.

Friday, October 2 - Underway at 1145 from Dumbea Bay for sea as directed by Commander Task Force 17 Sorti Plan (despatch 301321 of September 1942). Passed through Point "A" at 1210 on schedule. HORNET received planes in vicinity Pt "O" (10 miles, 230 degrees from Amadee Light) during afternoon. 1610 formed cruising disposition 1, axis 090 degrees, JUNEAU station 2.0-225 degrees, HORNET guide, speed 15 knots, zigzagging on base course 270 degrees, ships present of T.F. 17: HORNET 9CTF170, NORTHHAMPTON, Rear Admiral SCOTT 9CTG 17.2), PENSACOLA, SAN DIEGO, JUNEAU, MORRIS, Captain HOOVER (CTG17.4), HUGHES, RUSSELL, MUSTIN and BARTON. Received a visual despatch that this task force was to raid enemy vessels in the Buin-Faisi (Solomons) area at daylight October 5th. Shaped northwesterly courses during the night to pass to the westward of New Caledonia. 2000 position in Lat. 22-22 S., Long. 165-24 E.

Matthew

Great to see another post, not yours, that ignores the fact I quoted a crew member of Juneau as saying the ship was not re painted.

Meanwhile this sub site of MW has the details on how to make masks. You can see the model on my site that Gabriel refers to. They worked like a charm. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=160032

Not sure if you are planning on doing your ships in their 42 appearance. If yes there is a very good photo of San Diego on page 14 most of the way down. I have several more here if you need them just email me or put something here.

I used to have a bunch of San Juan mostly mast and rigging photos. Do you want to see them if I still have them? Navsource has several good photos of her including an aerial that shows the details of anti skid mats that I used for my San Diego model.

Both of these ships came out of Fore River with schemes relatively easy to duplicate even in 1/700.
As for the superstructures on Atlanta and Juneau in 1/700, good luck my friend. If you choose to believe the crewman who was there and what I have put on this site then both will have very complex camo for late 42 up until when both were sunk. I have very little on Atlanta but my prior offer for all of the 19 LCM photos I have for Juneau remains open, if you want them let me know.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

First line above should read not re painted after Argentia.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

I remembered that the Flushdecker Destroyer in the color photos (80-GK-526 and 80-GK-559) taken at Nukualofa Harbor, Tongatabu, with the USS KANAWHA (AO-1) was discussed sometime ago and that the identity of the destroyer was determined. It took me awhile to find, but I remembered that the destroyer was one of the Asiatic Fleet survivors on her way back stateside ... USS BARKER (DD-213), . The photos in question were taken from USS WASP (CV-7). Paul Rebold and Bob Wiener did some digging in Deck Logs and found that the posted date on these two photos of 4 August 1942 were in error. Since BARKER was only there on 21 July 1942 and USS PRESIDENT JACKSON also in the photo departed before 4 August, that the actual date of the date has to be 21 July 1942 and was taken between 0806 and 1124 that day.

... http://www.NavSource.org/archives/05/0521308.jpg ... 80-GK-559

... http://www.NavSource.org/archives/05/pix2/0521324.jpg ... 80-GK-526

The caption for these two photos on Navsource reads;

USS Barker DD-213 on July 21, 1942 in Nukualofa Harbor, Tongatabu by a photographer onboard the USS Wasp CV-7. According to the USS Barker's deck log she arrived in Nukualofa Harbor at 0806 hrs, July 21st and moored alongside the USS Kanawha to refuel. At 1124 hrs she got underway and left the harbor, on her way to Pearl Harbor. The date, August 4, 1942, is on the other photos in the series also and is obviously wrong as the USS President Jackson was well on her way toward Guadalcanal with TF-62 on that date.

According to USS WASP (CV-7) DANFS entry lines up pretty well with this date too;

To prepare to strengthen the American Navy in the Pacific, Wasp was hurried back to the United States for alterations and repairs at the Norfolk Navy Yard. During the carrier's stay in the Tidewater region, Capt. Reeves-who had been promoted to flag rank-was relieved by Capt. Forrest P. Sherman on 31 May. Departing Norfolk on 6 June, the last day of the critical Battle of Midway, Wasp sailed with TF 37 which was built around the carrier and the new battleship North Carolina (BB-55) and escorted by Quincy (CA-39) and San Juan (CL-54) and a half-dozen destroyers. The group transited the Panama Canal on 10 June, at which time Wasp and her consorts became TF 18, the carrier flying the two-starred flag of Rear Admiral Leigh Noyes.

Arriving at San Diego on 19 June, Wasp embarked the remainder of her complement of aircraft, Grumman TBF-l's and Douglas SBD-3's-10 of the former and 12 of the latter conducting their carrier qualification on 22 and 23 June, respectively-the latter replacing the old Vindicators. On 1 July, she sailed for the Tonga Islands as part of the convoy for the five transports that had embarked the 2d Marine Regiment.

While TF 18 and the transports were en route to Tongatabu, Wasp received another congratulatory message-this time from Admiral Noyes, embarked in the ship. "During the two weeks my flag has been in Wasp I have been very favorably impressed by the fine spirit of her ship's company and the way that all hands have handled their many problems. Since we have been at sea, every day has shown marked improvement in operations. I am sure that when our opportunity comes to strike the enemy in this ocean, Wasp and her squadrons will add more glory to the name she bears." Noyes' hopes were to be realized, but for all too brief a time.

Four days out of Nukualofa harbor, Wasp developed serious engine trouble. The ship's "black gang," however, worked diligently to do the preliminary work in lifting, repairing, and replacing the ship's starboard high-pressure turbine. The work done en route substantially helped enough to allow speedy completion of the repairs after the ship dropped her hook at Tonga-tabu on 18 July.

Meanwhile of the locations of the remaining ATLANTA class cruisers on 21 July 1942;

USS ATLANTA (CL-51) was at on her way to Tongatabu with TF-16 and arrived on 24 July 1942 ... three days after this photo was taken.

USS JUNEAU (CL-52) was still in the Atlantic

USS SAN DIEGO (CL-53) was escorting USS HORNET with TF-17 and was at Pearl Harbor until 17 August 1942.

So the ONLY possible cruiser in the background is USS SAN JUAN and this photo was also likely taken on that date or very close to it from USS WASP;

... http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/054/0405405.jpg ... 80-GK-555

In 80-GK-526 and 80-GK-559 the photos were taken in the morning with a low sun angle, likely behind the photographer, the resulting high sun reflectance seen on all the ships produced the lighter appearance to their paint schemes. 80-GK-555 was taken much closer and was darker in appearance.

All three photos are available at NARA II in the 80-GK (color) image collection.

The San Juan looks to be wearing a Ms. 12Mod. I am not yet very conversant with the different camouflage measures, though.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

MODEL BUILDERS

Using an enlarged crop of one of the 5/29/42 Quincy photos and checking all Omaha class ships on navsource I think I have an ID on the CL beside her to port on the other side of the dock--Cincinatti CL6. Navsource has her in dry dock at NY on 7/4/42. The Quincy photo involved shows work being done on whatever CL it is and it also appears to show painting in progess on the hull although I am not positive on that. The dry dock photo appears to show brand new MS 12 mod paint on her. So it looks like at some point she moved from the dock to the dry dock assuming it is the same ship. If we have anyone interested I have the docks located where Quincy and Juneau were tied up based on adjacent structures from the aerial photo on 14.

Any of you going to NARA any time soon? If yes a quick check of her 19 LCM and 80 G photos to see if the missing part of Juneau shows up might be a worthwhile search. If not I have a friend not involved with this topic who lives fairly close who may be able to go. All else fails I will make another trip after the new year.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

The OMAHA class cruiser could be USS CINCINNATI, but USS MARBLEHEAD was also at New York Navy Yard from 5 May 1942 into at least October 1942 repairing the damage from her escape from the Asiatic Fleet disaster, according to Weekly Overhaul records. She would have required drydocking as well given her damage. I was only tracking destroyer comes and goings and didn't copy every page of the reports to see when CINCINNATI was there.

I have a set of MARBLEHEAD photos dating from "likely" June 1942 as her repairs were underway given the dates that the other ships in view were there. QUINCY is in the background as well as a couple of the GLEAVES class destroyers destined to soon be in the South Pacific, but no ATLANTA class cruisers are visible by the time these photos were taken. The same QUINCY 29 May 1942 photos on Navsource ID the cruiser as MARBLEHEAD.

MODEL BUILDERS

I now have the phone number for Maurice Beckner the crewman on Juneau in touch with the guy who did the War Diary.

I do not know if he is still alive. Per a site I found him on he would be 98.

If I connect with him and he has email I am going to get the CV8 aerial with CLAAs/Noumea/Juneau sites/photos to him and ask the following questions;

1 Since he already told the site contact it was not painted after Argentia, was the original above main deck pattern retained for the superstructure and mounts? Assuming yes, which original color got the "off white"?
2 Is the San Juan whitish photo accurate and if yes why is there also a dark one (i am guessing the dark one was taken while under a cloud)?
3 Does he have any idea how the ship on the photo Martin posted became a solid dark color assuming it is Juneau which appears to be a logical conclusion? Can he confirm Juneau had floater nets?
4 Is the Noumea photo another example per our experts of incorrect date/location/ID taking place on a photo and if yes is the CLAA really Juneau?

If he does not have email I will try snail mail.

If I connect with him I will prepare a document with a summary of what he tells me. Since I flat refuse to risk having one of our resident "experts" post something to the effect he does not know what he is talking about, the obvious possibility since what I quoted him as saying was ignored, whatever he says will not appear here. Not one word of it. I will also send the document to Martin Quinn in case I am KIA in a terror attack one of these days with a request that it go only to someone building a model of the ship. This obviously assumes he is still alive and able to talk. If any model builder wants the summary email me and you shall have it. Matthew, for now it appears you would be the only one who gets the document.

I expect to call him within NLT 3 days. Stand by for further into.

_________________
FRED BRANYAN

I have a question relating to the images of the Wasp photos, which is supposed to be the USS San Juan, no?

How did they clean salt off the sides of ships?

DID they clean Salt off the sides of ships (while at sea)?

The answers to these questions may affect my thinking, but the ship in the photos with the Wasp is probably wearing a single-color paint-job (with slightly darker decks). There are a few things that lead me to believe it could have some other colors on it, but I want to rule out salt.

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Matthew,

Think about it. Ships travel in salt water. They get salt residue on the hulls and at times on the superstructure, all the time. While at sea the crews, particularly during wartime, don't attempt to remove the salt. It would be a losing battle.

I don't think during the war that they would take the time to clean off the salt residue even while in port, unless they were going to touch-up and/or paint the hull. The hulls got a lot of beating by the ocean and touching up was going on all the time. You can look at photos of ships in Ms 21 ... all 5N on vertical surfaces ... and see patches of different shades from really faded to fresh dark with light areas where only primer was applied.

Fred,

I didn't mention the crewman's account because without the context of what he was asked and what he said, it isn't solid evidence. Was he stationed in the boiler room, was he a radar operator, a gunner on a 20-mm gun, was he a deckhand, etc?? I didn't talk to him and apparently you didn't either. I can't evaluate third-hand info, only documents and photos right in front of me? It had no weight in my evaluation ... 80-G-304513 spoke very loud. Saying that the ship wasn't repainted after Argentia, fly's in the face that every ship touched up their paint during the war. They may not have changed the camo, but they at least touched it up. I respect his service and that he has reached an advanced age, many don't, but I can't use his hearsay as sound evidence without back-up.

A little story. I have an uncle who was in the USN late in WWII, he is still alive at nearly 90 and he is still sharp as can be. Twenty years ago as I was building him a model of his ship, a DE, I asked him a couple of questions about the armament and the camo paint of his ship. He had no clue, he was a radar operator and paid no attention. He then pulled out a photo of his ship painted in dazzle that re got at a ship's reunion and said I think that is it. Only think was he was assigned to his ship in mid-1945, his ship was in the Atlantic and when the war ended in the Atlantic many DEs from that theater had extra 40-mm guns added and were painted in either Ms 21 or Ms 22 (1945 pattern) on the east coast and then went to the Pacific. His DE was only in dazzle for a short time, the rest of the time in the Atlantic his ship was in Ms 22 ... I have the photos. After researching for sometime, I found out that his ship was painted in Ms 21. I gave the model to him about 15 years ago and he said yep that looks like it. He was going to take it to his ship's reunion. I have worked in several jobs in my life with several WWII vets and heard a lot of stories, some were mixed facts from obviously different events. The fact is our memories blur with time and we mix things up. Do you remember the color of the building you worked in in 1972? I don't. That is why I try to write down everything I research so I keep it straight or scan the original documents.

The guy who "did" the War Diary, didn't write it. It is official records available at NARA. He transcribed it. You or I can go read that ourselves. You saw the entries for June 1942 and during the last days in September 1942, notice how lean the descriptions got for normal daily events as time went on??

I got sucked into this whole discussion because I was asked what I thought was going on with photo 80-G-304513. By the way, you had better start providing the numbers of photos or post the images you are referencing. Otherwise we can't tell which ones you are talking about. I gave my opinion of that photo 80-G-304513. As for the September 1942 photo, 80-G-13611, it is darn overexposed, but shows some artifacts of her June 1942 camo. How much I can't tell. I can't give an opinion of the two photos that SAN JUAN is credited with taking on 26 October 1942 since all I have are small thumbnail size images. Since both are suppose to be JUNEAU and one is dark and one is light. The simple answer is that one was taken backlighted by the sun and is seen as a silhouette and the other was directly lighted by the sun. Other than that I can't tell what camo is used. Come to think of it since you challenge the dates of the color images ... 80-GK-526/555/559 ... why not challenge the photos from SAN JUAN's website???

The 21 July 1942 NOUMEA photo isn't JUNEAU, it can't be, she was in the Atlantic when it was taken. The true date was off by about two weeks and was solidly dated, not by me, but by people who researched War Diaries of all the surviving Asiatic Flush-Deckers, and the ships visible in this whole series of color photos and knew that the color photo was taken by a photographer on USS WASP and that the destroyer in the photo was only there on that day for just a few hours. Also, the troopship USS PRESIDENT JACKSON was only there for a few days before the whole Task Force left for Guadalcanal. I didn't make up the facts of the timelines for where the four ATLANTA class cruisers were on that date. Anyone who has been going through 80-G collection knows that the dates on many 80-G caption cards are suspect, some are dead on, but many are the dates when the photos were turned in for processing. If it is important to know the date EXACTLY, I go into War Diaries/Deck Logs of the subject and the ship from where the photographer took the photo. Sometimes the date is accurate, and sometimes it is off by a few days. That is why I normally only consider that the photo was taken in a given month rather than firmly go by that day. With 80-G-304315 and 80-GK-555/559 photos we have firm dates ... HORNET sinking in one and because of limiting facts of the ONLY day all those ships being there in that location. It doesn't get much better than that in researching photos.

I REALLY don't care what you paint your ship, I don't care what you think JUNEAU's camo was on 26 October 1942, that is your right to your opinion. I do care that the facts are provided to those who read this forum. Those future modelers who want to know ALL the facts, not just one individual's idea of what he thinks they are. Before I saw 80-G-304315, I had no idea of what JUNEAU's camo was on 26 October 1942 with certainty. But, now I can't deny that she was painted in what looks like Ms 21. If I ever get good copies of the SAN JUAN images, then I can look at the configuration to confirm if it matches JUNEAU and then look for evidence of her camo. I follow the facts and not try to make the facts fit a prior determined conclusion.

That is kind of what I thought, but I wanted to verify it with someone who knew a bit better than just a "poorly informed guess" (which would be all my assumption on the issue was/would be).

So, then, given this, the artifacts I am seeing in the paint are something else, and might indicate something other than a solid paint job.

It could still be simply salt build-up, but the effect looks far too "Structured" to be random salt build-up.

I might have to get the full-sized image to know for certain, given the differences in shade are so minimal. But.... That might be another indicator that this IS a case of the ship having some sort of pattern on it (It looks like some sort of Ms. 12Mod... Or, some sort of Ms. 6/7/8 - where the ship was painted to look like another ship, or the bow/stern were painted a darker color to make the ship look smaller).

Also, even if the ship is a single color, it turns out to be a quite dark color, and not a lighter color.

The similarity of the color of the hull to the sea is VASTLY closer than is the color of the hull to the wake of the ship (which is nearly white, but not quite white).

The ship is only a few RGB values off from the shade of the sea (Yes, B/W shades/tints still have RGB values), and the Shade value is nearly identical as well. Some spots on the ship are in act darker than the surrounding ocean.

We see them as being lighter for the same reason we see the following A & B squares as being different (with A appearing "darker" than B):



But, in reality, they are the same shade:



So... This ship, IF it is a single color, is in Ms. 11/21.

MB

Edit: The illusion here is a variation of either the "Chubb Effect" or the "Mach effect" (which creates what are called "Mach Bands" next to contrasting colors adjacent to each other.

In these effects, the color of a background, or adjacent contrasting area appears lighter or darker (Usually lighter on the dark shade, and darker on the light shade - but it can also cause a lighter area to appear even lighter, and a darker area to appear even darker, depending upon the arrangement of the shading gradient) at the interface between the two shades.

So, when we see the ship, it appears to be lighter than it really is because of our brain's "desire" to see the sea as a "darker" shade. When in reality, the two are nearly identical, but the lighting (highlights) on the ship cause a Mach effect that outlines the ship to throw it into even higher contrast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chubb_illusion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_bands

These are artifacts of our visual cortex. You can't "Not see them" (well, you can be unaware of seeing them, as most people are. But if you study art, photography, and color theory (or Cognitive Science and/or Neuroscience), then you will get training in how to not just be consciously aware of these effects of our nervous system, but how to exploit them in other people who are unaware of them). So.... These things need to be taken into account when determining whether something is a light or dark shade. Our brain lies to us all the time.

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

Which image are you talking about???

One of the MAJOR findings of this century is that Eye-Witness testimony is among the most unreliable on Earth, unless a person is a trained observer (and even then you have some bizarre phenomenon).

A Trained Observer will tend to make fewer errors. But, ironically, when a Trained Observer does make an error they REALLY make an error. When a typical person recalls a scene, they will tend to miss minor details. a Trained observer tends to notice the minor details, but can miss MAJOR DETAILS (like the fact a building was in the way, or that a bomb went off in the building next door while they were watching for "subject X" at a building a few doors down (something that happened in the Middle East frequently).

This is called Selective Attention or Inattentional Blindness

Follow the instructions in the following video (which are: "Count the number of times the players in white pass the basketball"):

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo[/youtube]

But..... As you were watching for the passes of the Basketball, did you see the gorilla?

How about this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkrrVozZR2c[/youtube]

The Photographic, and Artistic experience I have from when I was younger is why I went back to school to Study Cognitive Science and Cybernetics (to create systems for people to correct our innate processes that create errors (in the most extreme versions of this experiment, people failed to notice a change in sex/gender and skin color/ethnicity about ⅓ of the time - by no means a "majority," but still a high enough percentage to be deeply fearful for an "eyewitness" testimony without confirmatory evidence).

This does not mean that I discount completely the account of the crewman of the Juneau. It gives a starting place from which to begin, and an assumption that must also be taken into account to prevent confirmation bias (so, it works both for and against us).

But.... I will take the evidence I can manage to extract from the images over any account of a crewman, even one who claimed to have painted the hull themselves. If the photographic evidence shows something different, and the photo is reliable, then the photo gets preference over the less reliable, and fallible human memory.



The tag from NARA on the image (sent to me by Roger Torgeson) says:

CV8-73 26 Oct, 1942

Declassified
E.O 12856 - Sec. 3.3
ND(??)750090
RG 80 Series G

It is the photo of the Wasp, Northampton, and what is possibly the San Juan or Juneau.

It is a single color (save for the main mast, which looks to be black above the stack, and what looks to be a lighter stern/bow, as if they are trying to make the ship look shorter - but that could also be salt....).

Edit: Darker areas at the stern/bow. Not "lighter."

MB

_________________
OMG LOOK! A signature

Working on:


1/700 (All Fall 1942):
HIJMS Nagara
HIJMS Aoba & Kinugasa
USS San Francisco
USS Helena
USS St. Louis
USS Laffey & Farenholt
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 4 - 7
HIJMS Sub-Chasers No. 13 - 16

OK ... that is 80-G-304513.