Dr PR

Looks good! I like the way you made the "thimble" loop.

It is interesting that the binnacle was tied down with turnbuckles. This is a carryover from sailing ship days when the compass/binnacle was "portable" and normally tied down to eye bolts in the deck with lanyards.

After they fire the missiles the rear end of that thing is going to need a new paint job!

And there is the problem that the measuring devices used to design the vessels probably weren't exactly the same as the tools used to build them. Look at the yard sticks and measuring tapes used in modern construction and you can see significant differences in length. If you have ever taken measurements in modern house construction you know that actual construction is far from precise! I have five "accurate" rulers sold for drafting and engineering measurements from reputable companies like K&E, Staedtler-Mars, etc., and when I carefully line them up I can see as much as +/- 0.002 inch difference over a length of 12 inches. I'm willing to bet the rulers used in different shipyards a few centuries ago were not calibrated to very exacting standards! Plus, often there were no real plans. It was all in the head of the ship builder and whatever came out of the ways is what you got. No two ships of the same type would be the same dimensions. So don't sweat the small stuff. Good enough is good enough!

I am a lot like Roger. The guns we had in the Navy were 3", 5", 6" 8", etc. When I hear "155 mm" I instinctively have no idea how big that is. I have to stop and divide by 25 (25.4) or 150/25 = 6 to figure that it is a 6" gun. However, even though I am 76 and grew up in the US I really am not sure how many ounces there are in a pound or gallon! I guess I must have gotten some bad scores on tests in grade school. I think the people who came up with noggins, inches, furlongs, ounces (and Troy ounces),fathoms, pottles, bushels, firkens, kinderkins, pints, gallons, yards, chains, pecks, miles (and nautical miles) ... and all the other ridiculous Imperial measurements were a few cans short of a six pack! None of it makes any sense. No one in his right mind would come up with such a mess, and were are all stuck with it! All of the scientific work I have done was in metric, and that makes perfect sense to me! But it was in electronics design that some sense was worked into the Imperial system. We did everything in decimal fractions of an inch. Not true metric, but much better. To this day I think in 0.25", 0.125", 0.0625", and such units instead of 1/4, 1/8 or 1/16 inch. But even there some weirdness crept in. Transistors and integrated circuits originated in the US along with their packaging. Everything in decimal Imperial units. But when we started using parts from Japan and Europe I really had to scratch my head The units were metric, but the values made no sense. Why would anyone design a new part with a dimension of 1.27 mm? Or 5.08 mm?? Or 1.5875 mm?? Then I realized that the parts were being produced overseas in Imperial units (1.27 mm = 0.05" or 50 thousandths, 5.08 mm = 0.2 inch, 1.5875 mm = 0.0625 inch or 1/16 inch) but the data sheets used metric dimensions. That was really strange! But I got used to it and found it was easy to make part of a design in Imperial units and another part in metric. Whatever. I could have used cubits if necessary. The actual units just don't matter. Things are as big as they are no matter what units you choose to measure in. **** But in ship modelling I have a word of advice. Use the measurement system the original ship was designed in. This will avoid a lot of measurement conversions, and that invites errors. Also, sometimes the actual dimensions of a part are unknown, but you can make a close guess. It is far more probable that an old English or American shipwright worked in common fractions of the Imperial inch than in millimeters! Likewise, you wouldn't expect a French or Dutch shipbuilder to use Imperial units. To carry this idea a step further, I do all my design work in CAD. Over a period of 14 years I created a very detailed CAD model of the exterior of a 610 foot guided missile cruiser, including every part 3/32" (0.09375 inch or 2.38 mm) or larger. Approximately 1/3 of the approximately 1 million parts are rivets, screws, bolts, nuts and washers. Almost everything was based on the original builder's blueprints and drawings in technical manuals. I designed the model 1:1 scale - no problem in a computer where the virtual universe is practically infinite in size. This allowed me to proceed without wasting time converting measurements to a smaller scale. That reduced the chance for error. Of course, not all dimensions were in the paperwork, and I was only able to get a few critical dimensions by visiting the last remaining ship in a museum. But when I had to make "guesstimations" from photographs and sketches, I was confident that the mid 20th century US designers did everything in fractions of an inch or foot - 1/16, 1/8/,1/4 and 1/2. Every dimension in the blueprints and manuals used these measurements. In most cases guesses based upon the closest fraction fit seamlessly into the known dimensions. When I get around to finishing the 1:96 scale model I will just change the scale of the entire drawing to 1:96 and take my model measurements directly from the scaled CAD model. No time wasted with unit conversions and scale calculations.

DesignCAD 3D MAX can easily generate unlimited cross sections of a hull in the X, Y or Z planes (section lines, water lines and butt lines). The "Contour Line" function (Draw/Lines/Contour Line) will generate cross sections lines in any plane at any position. You set a point on the plane and tell the Contour Line function to generate an intersection line with the hull and an imaginary plane that passes through the point in the X, Y or Z plane. The transverse contour line through a hull is the shape of the frame. Basically it is the same thing as drawing a plane that intersects the hull and using the "Draw/Lines/Surface Intersection" tool, but without having to create the intersecting plane. I just create a series of points at the desired spacing along the length of the hull, create a contour line at one of them, then move the cursor to the next point and use the "F3" "Repeat" function key to repeat the Contour Line function, and so on down the line of points. But if it is something you do often you can write a BasicCAD macro program to determine the length of the hull, divide this into some number of equal spaces, and generate the contour lines for each section automatically. Contour lines are also extremely useful for fairing the curves of a hull. I create waterlines (horizontal plane intersections) at various elevations and then look at them length wise. If there is any slight kink in what should be a smooth hull surface it is readily evident, and easy to locate the point on the hull that needs fixing. For modern hulls where you have a Table of Offsets it is fairly easy to generate a CSV (comma separated variable) text file from the offset data and feed it into the program to automatically generate all of the curves. However, the engineers or draftsmen often made "typos" when they were entering thousands of numbers from calculations into the tables. These are usually single unit errors (1/8ths, inch or foot) that cause very noticeable bumps and dips in contour line waterlines generated on the hulls, and then corrections are easy. Here is an example of water lines and butt lines generated with the DesignCAD Contour Lines function for a Cleveland class cruiser hull:

Tommy, Good question. First, although there was a general "right way" to build masts that was passed down from generation to generation of ship builders over the centuries (word of mouth - no Internet), ship builders were also artisans who took pride in their work. And whoever commissioned/purchased the ship (merchant or Navy) set limits to the cost (time and materials). Consequently there were a lot of variations on the basic "right way." One of the problems with wooden masts is that trees could not be found that were tall and straight enough for really tall masts. So they were created in two or three parts, with each part "stepped" as in the Petersson illustration Barkeater posted above. This area where the two masts ran parallel was called the "doubling." They also needed platforms for sailors to stand on while working aloft. So the "top" was created where two masts were joined and the associated rigging attached. Just below the "top" the mast was round typically, although this is a very oversimplified statement! But at the top some structure was necessary to support the lower part of the upper mast and fasten it in place. The point where the mast changes from round to square is called the "hounds." Please do not ask anyone to explain why! But at the hounds several pieces of timber were attached to create the foundation for the top. Two fore-and-aft wooden boards (rectangular cross section) or "trestletrees" were attached on either side of the lower mast. Note: In the Petersson illustration forward is to the left for most, but not all, ships. To make the trestletrees fit tightly the mast was carved square. These two trestletrees formed the sides of a pocket the upper mast fit into. You can see these in Petersson's illustration. The square mast section prevented the trestletrees from trying to rotate around the mast. Two or more "crosstrees" (also rectangular cross section) were attached behind the lower mast top and forward of the upper mast bottom or "foot." You can see these in Petersson's illustration. Again, having these parts of the masts carved square made the cross trees fit tightly. On the higher masts the cross trees were all that were provided. But on lower mast tops of larger ships a platform was sometimes built on top of the crosstrees. OK, we have described the lower part of the doubling where the two masts ran parallel. The top of the doubling was the "cap". This is the rectangular wooden piece at the top of the lower mast in Petersson's illustration. The hole for the lower mast was square. This was to ensure that the top couldn't rotate around the mast. So, with the lower part of the lower mast doubling square to accommodate the trestletrees and crosstrees and the upper part square to fit the cap, it was easiest to just make the entire part of the lower mast doubling square. Of course, it really isn't that simple. The hole in the cap where the upper mast fit was round and the upper mast tapered above the cap. Below the cap it was typically cylindrical, or maybe octagonal, but slightly smaller diameter than the hole in the cap. The bottom or "foot" of the mast was square and sized to fit into the pocket formed by the trestletrees and crosstrees. This was so the upper mast could be lowered and raised through the hole in the cap and the pocket between the trestletrees and crosstrees. The whole thing was designed to be taken apart and rebuilt at sea! And that is a long story! Then you must add to this the variations in design that resulted from cost conscious jobs and the very elaborate variations where elegance was more important than cost. In other words, on fancy ships the upper part of the lower mast and lower part of the upper mast were often carved octagonal, or square with octagonal sections, etc. "Tricked out" in modern terminology. If you really want to know how masts were assembled and repaired get one or both of these two references. They explain how ships were built and operated in the age of sail - from the horses mouth!: "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" by Darcy Lever (1808) and updated for the US Navy by George Blunt in 1858. Everything you ever wanted to know and a lot more! "The Art of Rigging" by George Biddlecombe (1925), a republication of David Steele's "The elements and Practice of Rigging and Seamanship" (1794). You can also find Steele's original work on line in PDF form. For mast plans and a LOT more look at James Lees' "The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War 1625-1860", Naval Institute Press, 1984. But it is specific for British ships (a strong influence on American practice), and says little about smaller rigs, especially fore and aft rigs of schooners, cutters and such. A very good general reference (get this if you don't get anything else) is Wolfram zu Mondfeldt's "Historic Ship Models", Sterling Publishing Co., New York, 1989. Again, everything you wanted to know and a lot more. He explains the historical development of a lot of the parts of sailing ships. Harold Underhill's "Masting and Rigging of the Clipper Ship & Ocean Carrier", Brown, Son and Ferguson, Ltd., Glasgow, 1972 (mentioned above) is the best written and most useful reference I have sound for sailing ships, especially for understanding the arcane terminology. However, he describes ships of the late 1800s and early 1900s, so it is of less usefulness for earlier ships. If this isn't enough just ask and we can supply references to a dozen or more other useful books!

Jaager, CAD programs have many different ways to draw arcs and circles. All have the ability to set a center point, another point on the radius, and then set the length of the arc with a third point. You can set the center and radius points and define the angle. Other arc functions allow setting three points and generating the common arc or circle, set two points on the arc and a third for the radius, draw an arc tangent to a line, etc. Spline curves are universal, but it can be difficult to create a specific "French curve" or similar variable radius arc. But if you know the geometric definition of the particular curve you can generate a sequence of points and connect them with a curve. I use a program called DesignCAD 3D MAX that sells for about US$95 (there is a 2D version for about US$65). It has an excellent user forum (probably the most important thing for starting a new program) that is free, and the program does not have recurring subscription costs. It has the best user interface I have seen in any program. BUT - it is a CAD program, and all CAD programs have a pretty steep learning curve.

The US Navy changed to "Ocean Gray" in the late 1940s. We were still using it during the Vietnam War. I have also heard this called "Haze Gray" so maybe the Navy changed the name again. But it definitely was not the Haze Gray of WWII - the WWII color was far bluer than the Ocean Gray/Haze Gray we used in the '60s and '70s. I went to a local Sherwin Williams paint store and they had a catalog of official US Navy colors. They found the correct mix for "26270 Haze Gray:" BAC COLORANT OZ 32 64 128 Y3 - Deep Gold - 8 1 - R2 - Maroon - 14 1 - L1 - Blue - 32 - 1 Quart EXTRA WHITE I'm not sure what this means in terms of mixing model colors, but I am guessing these proportions of yellow, red and blue shades were mixed into white paint to get the Haze Gray color. You might ask for a translation at a paint store.

Tim, A source for precut tiny sections of small diameter metal tubes for thimbles and such is the jewelry section at Michael's or some other craft store. They have a selection of wires and small fiddly bits for home jewelry making. This includes some fine threads that look like wire cables, and a selection of small chains.

According to Howard Chapelle there was no established naval color rules in 1815 for the U.S. Navy. But many ship builders, owners and Captains followed the colors used in the Royal Navy. In the early 1800s this was black hulls above the water line with yellow bands along the gun ports. But some American ships started sporting white bands along the gun ports about 1810-1820. A very strong influence was the availability and cost of various paints. Commercial vessels were usually painted with inexpensive paints. Bright colors generally cost more than black and white. And the white used on hulls below the water line wasn't actually a "paint." It was a mixture of tallow, white lead and who knows what else. In "The Baltimore Clipper" (Edward W. Sweetman Company, New York, 1968, page 170) Chapelle says: "The painting of the hulls seems to have varied widely as yellow, black, green and blue were used, with white or black bands. On privateers, the inside of the bulwarks were often painted red or brown, but the decks were usually bright [unpainted]. Yellow and black were popular colors, however, for pilot boats in 1812-1814. They had yellow sides with black moldings, wales or trim. Very few were painted white, as it made them too prominent at a distance, which was considered naturally, a handicap during the war." Reading other sources it appears that deck fittings were often the same color as the bulwarks, or unpainted. White deck furniture didn't appear in the US Navy until after about 1835, about the time standardized color schemes were adopted.

Bob, I agree that pine tar is pine tar, although there might be slight differences between species. It isn't hard to make - I made some myself when I was in high school. What am curious about is how it was diluted, and with what, and what consistency it had when brushed onto the ropes. There is a wide range of possibilities, as discussed earlier in this thread. And this means the actual end results could have varied significantly over time and geography. And I certainly agree that examining a small number of artifacts doesn't tell us how all ships were built. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the (relatively) long chain hydrocarbons in turpentine and tar have antibiotic effects. I'm not sure what the specific mode of action is (it has been a very long time since I studied this), but possibly it interferes with cell membrane integrity. This is something sailors of old wouldn't have had a clue about, but tarring the natural fiber rigging would protect it from microbial degradation.

Bob makes some very good points, but I have to disagree with him on one score - and agree with a point wefalck made. Bob describes his experiences as a youth and later in life working on a real vessel with deadeyes and such. He describes the materials he used and provides photos of some of them. I do not question any of this - he is the best authority on his own experiences, and I accept what he has said as fact. However, given the limits on human age I think it is a fact that Bob's experiences were in the last half of the 20th Century and the early part of the 21st. He does not have first hand experience of the 17th, 18th and 19th century (none of the rest of us have either). So even though his arguments are very convincing, they are not facts, but only opinions of what might have been done centuries ago. Well formed and substantiated opinions, I might add. Furthermore, it has been my experience that no two ships were alike, and no two crews alike. Even when there are "standards" within an organization, there are often exceptions made on some vessels, sometimes unauthorized. And there are many variations between nations. So I am highly skeptical that there was just one way to rig deadeyes, in every nation, and throughout all time. Of course, some variations have been discovered from artifacts and old writings. Bob makes a very good point that we cannot depend upon modern practices and materials in modern vessels be authentic to historical methods, especially when new synthetic materials are used for rigging. That could explain why modern vessels have different colored lanyards. In fact, I have noticed that three modern French schooners, including two sister ships used for training in the French Navy, have light colored lanyards. Yet American built schooners appear to have black lanyards. So these colors may just be "fashion." And I hope never to see a ship rigged with purple synthetic lanyards! But if fashion plays a part in the appearance of ships today, it may well have done the same in times past. **** What I have been looking for is a authoritative description that was written centuries ago (from the horse's mouth) telling how to perform all of the steps leading up to rigging and using deadeyes, and how to prepare all of the materials. I have yet to find such a work, and even if I do it will still be just one man's opinion of how things should be done. But it would at least be a reliable source of a way things were done and the materials that were used for that period. Darcy Lever's "The Young Sea Officer's Sheet Anchor" (1808) tells how to rig a ship, and describes different rope lays and such. But the only thing I have found about making ropes and lanyards is a description of naval and commercial methods for making spun yarn (section 2). There he mentions "tar" (but doesn't say what that is) and says "upon every three or four fakes Tar is rubbed on with a Brush." That leaves a LOT to the imagination! Falconer's "Universal Dictionary of the Marine" (1769) says the rope yarn (Rogues -yarn) that was "placed in the middle of every strand, in all cables and cordage in the king's service ... differs from all the rest, as being untarred ..." Falconer does say "tar" was used to preserve the hull and rigging from the effects of weather, and says "tar" was a blackish liquid gum distilled from pine or fir trees. So tar was used to preserve rigging in the 1700s, but we already knew that. I can't find anything in David Steel's "The Art of Rigging" (1796) or George Biddlecombe's 1848 revision for the US. Navy about tarring rigging. Likewise half a dozen other books that describe how to make masts and spars say nothing about the rigging other than giving formulae or tables of dimensions for the ropes. I think wefalck described the process for making Stockholm Tar in some thread on the Forum. But we can be certain that not every ship had access to the real stuff from Stockholm. (Think of the early American Navy during the wars with England when American ports were blockaded) So some type of "tar" was probably concocted locally rather than using a commercial product being sold world wide. And that means local materials were used, and that means variations. Chapman's "Architectura Navalis Mercatoria" (1820) mentions "coarse" and "Clean" Finland tar but says nothing about what it was or how it was made. And that is all I have found describing period practices. There isn't much "fact" to go on. But I may well have missed something in the books I cited, and there most likely are other period works that I am unaware of. I will appreciate it if someone can provide other evidence to guide this discussion. **** So with nothing else to guide me I intend to follow Bob's advice and use dark lanyards on my deadeyes. It is as good a choice as any!

I second what Roger said about going to an eye doctor. I had extraordinary eyesight as a kid, and when I went into the Navy at 23 they tried to get me to be a pilot because of my eyesight. When I got to 40 my eyesight started downhill, but was still 20:15. Over the years I used a series of ever increasing magnification cheap store-bought eyeglasses to correct the changes, but eventually went to an ophthalmologist when I was in my 60s and my vision was 20:45. She prescribed progressive lenses that corrected back to about 20:15! It was an amazing improvement. But that was 12 years ago, and things have continued to go downhill. Now even with new glasses that correct my right eye to 20:20 I have trouble reading small print and text on the computer screen with my left eye, and it can't be corrected with glasses. This really interferes with modeling - both CAD and physical! A visit with a cornea specialist revealed serious distortion of the cornea due to a growth that was induced by UV light (I have always hiked a lot). So corrective surgery is coming up early next year. Then I probably will have new lens implants. We don't know just how much improvement all this will make, but it is pretty much guaranteed to eliminate the distortion. I was reluctant to go to the eye doctor. But it has paid off. Every time they have improved my vision. And that is priceless! My mother had similar problems, and when she was in her 80s she had some type of eye surgery. I called her afterward to see how she was doing and I could tell something was not right from the tone of her voice. "I didn't realize I had so many wrinkles" she said!

I have several cheap headband magnifiers that I picked up over the years as my eyesight went downhill. They are very useful. Some have a flip-up lens that doubles the magnification, and this is very useful. One has an extra circular lens that can be swung into position in front of the main lens on the right, and it is useless. The simple screw mounting will not stay tight and this lens just flops around and is an annoyance. These all have plastic lenses and slip-adjustable head bands. The plastic lenses have scratched a bit over time. Recently I bought another OptiVISOR "head-wearing magnifier" that has four switchable glass lenses. It isn't as convenient as the flip-up dual lens reg described above, but the lenses are much better. You have to snap out the lens and snap the next lens in, but this doesn't take much time. How long the plastic snap parts will last is to be determined. It has a knob-adjustable head band that didn't work - it was jammed - when I got it but I fixed it in short time. It also has knobs to tighten the position of the lens on the head band, but these don't work very well and I occasionally have to tighten them again to keep the hood from dropping onto my nose. But this really isn't much of a problem. The four interchangeable lenses are 1.5X, 2X, 2.5X and 3.5X magnification, with focus distances from 20 inches to 4 inches. I have been using the 3.5X lens.

Several years ago there was an excellent and extensive discussion - expressing many opinions - about the "proper" color of the dead eyes and lanyards used to set the shrouds. The suggestion was made that someone create a separate topic for this information, but as far as I can tell that didn't happen. I have been researching this topic recently and decided a separate topic was needed to make it easier to find. CAUTION: This is a very debatable topic. In other words, different people have different opinions, and some are very forceful in defending their opinions! The best discussion I have found was in EdT's Young America thread. I edited out some non-relevant discussion, but I tried to include everyone's opinions: It all started with Dowmer, October 9 2018 (post 3133 in this thread): For the deadeye lanyard rigging you have in the channels, is that rigging supposed to be tarred as well like the shrouds? I thought I read that somewhere, that working ships tarred them. That would make the lanyards dark brown or black instead of light natural. Of course this could be a preference too I suppose. I see a lot of ship models like this. EdT, 9 October 2018: Dowmer, I personally do not believe that lanyards were tarred because this would make them very hard to adjust to tension the shrouds and backstays. I rather suspect that they were greased, which would also give them a dark color. I intended mine to be a darker walnut and I may treat them further, but I have been reserving black for tarred lines. Bob Cleek, 9 October 2018: As for the color of deadeye lanyards, it is indeed black, or dark brown, tending to black as additional pine tar is added as a matter of routine maintenance. All deadeye lanyards and other similar lashings were of tarred hemp (and still are, if you can find it!) There is rarely, if ever, any need to "adjust the tension" of standing rigging in ships such as this one and deadeye lanyards rarely, if ever, are "adjusted." The lanyards should be pre-stretched when new and, thus, should not stretch appreciably in use. Even if they did stretch when new, they'd only need to be taken up once and the problem would be solved for all time. The sort of rigging we are talking about here was designed to "give" so that the strain on the spars and hull would be minimized. (We're not talking about a "high strung" modern jib-headed Marconi racing rig here.) In fact, the friction generated by the lanyards against the deadeye holes makes them quite difficult to set up, let alone "adjust." The deadeye holes are greased before the tarred hemp lanyard is tightened, but even so, the tightening requires that a purchase clapped onto the shroud be taken to the end of the lanyard in order to get sufficient tension on it. (I've actually had to attach a second purchase on the length of lanyard running from deadeye hole to hole in order to "sweat" the lanyard through all five of the running eyes so that each segment was uniformly tight.) The deadeyes do spread the line stresses in much the same manner as a block purchase, but the lanyards do not run freely as they do in a sheaved block... not by a long shot! When a whole gang of deadeyes and lanyards are made up and fastened with the sheer pole and lashings, all tarred and, modernly, often painted, they are essentially a permanent thing not meant to be untied to be adjusted regularly. rwiederrich, 10 October 2018: Renowned Marine expert Hervey Garrett Smith in his Book, *The Arts of the Sailor...Knotting, Splicing and Ropework*. Mimics your sentiment concerning shroud lanyards. wefalck,10 October 2018: The story about taking the slack out of shrouds probably comes from the pre-wire rope days, when ships on long equatorial passages stayed for weeks on the same tack. This may have stretched the windward shrouds and slack had to be taken out of the leeward ones because, if a sudden change of tack for whatever reason would be needed, the mast would come over like a whip, risking to snap it. With wire rope this is not an issue. sailor1234567890, 10 October 2018: Any mate worth his salt wouldn't bother adjusting the lanyards anyway, that would put the deadeyes out of line. Yes, he can fine tune the rig that way but normally, if any slack developed, the lashing holding the shroud to the upper deadeye was re-made so the deadeyes were always at the same level. It would of course require setting up the lanyards again but the point was to have the deadeyes all level so fine tuning using the lanyards wasn't really done. As Mr. Cleek said above, they were normally not very slack. It was a periodic maintenance thing to adjust them, not a piece of running rigging that was adjusted with any frequency. stm, 11 October 2018 One general thought about rigging that came to mind when reading the previous is how the extreme weather conditions played a roll in maintaining the rigging during extended voyages. Ropes must have been exposed to extreme changes in temperatures, winds, rain, and sea spray that must have played havoc with the lines. Have not read to much about this unless it was as a result of a severe storm. Possibly our sailing forefathers had it under control through experience on how to meet this challenge without having to much of an impact on a ships progress. Rigging suffered as much as the hull and fixtures of any Sea going, deep water carrier. Hemp rope became stronger and less flexible with introduction to salt water. This is why it is reasonable to assume the lanyards, once set, were weather proofed(By tarring). Once the hemp line absorbed moisture...it was nearly impossible to adjust it through the wooden holes of the Deadeyes. Lanyards are part of the standing rigging...rigging that generally is not intended to be regularly adjusted...hence the term *standing* or fixed. In later models cable and turnbuckles replaced hemp...holding fast the masts in their stepped attitude....resistant of any bi-lateral movement. Stays are used in similar fasion...to prevent for and aft movement. Like a bunch of guy wires holding erect the towering masts. rwiederrich, 11 October 2018: If one is diligent and observant, early photographic and even paintings will give evidence of blackened lanyards...which are and have always been part of the *Standing* rigging...and that rigging was always preserved with leather and a varying viscus concoction, known as tar...not like the black sticky, gooey stuff we heat up and put on roofs/roads....but a material more like thick oil. EdT, 11 October 2018: Color of lanyards is a subject that I hesitate to engage in because it is one of those hot buttons that invite many strongly held opinions. I would suggest that someone – not me – create a topic on this subject. I will gladly participate there with my admittedly limited knowledge. I will, however, at the risk of inviting more comments on this build log, contribute here what I believe are some facts: 1. Deadeyes and lanyards were used not only on shrouds but also on backstays. 2. On a 3-4 month voyage around Cape Horn, upper masts would be struck down, probably more than once, requiring re-rigging of their stays and shrouds at sea. 3. Climate variations between say a New York summer at the start of a voyage, equatorial conditions a month later, and semi-arctic conditions at the Cape a month after that, followed by a repeat of those variations up the Pacific, as well as the case described by wefalck, would certainly alter the tension in the standing rigging essential to the support of masts. 4. All hemp strands were tarred as part of the rope-making process – hence the straw-color (see Luce, Seamanship 1868). No doubt the effects of sun, salt and weather would lighten this over time. 5. The treatment applied to standing rigging discussed in earlier posts, according to primary documentation widely used at the time (again Luce, 1868), can only be described as thick, black, tarry paint. – black due to the carbon black content, thick due to the addition of letharge (lead oxide), tarry due to the pine tar. 6. The relatively complex lanyard/deadeye apparatus is obviously designed to add mechanical advantage (6 to 1) to force applied to the lanyard. It was clearly intended for applying tension as the following well known diagram shows. 7. Methods and practices have evolved over time. Even early 20th century practices were different than those of the 1860's - and wire was different from hemp. So, if I accept the above as facts, I ask the following questions: 1. Why install a large number of contraptions like deadeye/lanyards if they would rarely if ever be used? Why not just seize shrouds/backstays to chains after initial tightening? 2. If these were needed to re-tension or re-rig backstays or even shrouds, why would one clog up this friction-prone device with a thick, tarry paint? 3. If greasing rigging with galley slush or other lubricant was common at the time, why would this not be used on deadeye lanyards, at least when needed? 4. What does all this mean to the color of model lanyards? I am sure others will approach this issue differently, but this has been my rationale and my reasons for dark, but not black, lanyards. wefalck, 11 October 2018: Just a couple of additions to Ed's well-reasoned response: - here and on other fora there has been a repeated discussion of what actually 'tar' is. To summarise: in the pre-industrial ages this was a destillation product from resinous tree-bark, namely that of pine-trees; the Eastern Baltic area was a major source, due to the prevalence of such trees there and considerable amounts where shipped through Stockholm, hence the stuff became know as Stockholm Tar; this tar varies in colour, but is essentially dark brown. The two main byproducts from coal destillation to obtain town-gas were coke and various tars; these are chemically different from the wood-tar and essentially black or very dark brown in colour; their smell is also different; due to the large quantities of town-gas produced from the 1840s on, also large quantities of tar became available and began to replace Stockholm Tar, being a lot cheaper. Both products have different properties and, hence, different applications. Stockholm Tar stays sticky, unless whethered at sea, while some of the coal-tar solidify and become quite dry, one volatiles have gassed off. - hemp is a natural fibre and changes its property with humidity content mainly, even if the strands of the rope had been tarred originally; so adjusting the rigging is mostly likely a need over a period of months or years; covering the lanyards in thick Stockholm Tar would make this more difficult, covering in thick coal-tar almost impossible. - the sailing properties of ship depend on many factors, including the trim, the draught, and the rake of the masts; it is known that masters optimised the rigging for given conditions in order to improve the sailing performance; so lanyards stuck in the dead-eyes would not help. - we should not be mislead by the appearance of static museum ships; there compromises have to made for the lack of the continuous and intensive maintenance a working vessel would see; so on such ships you are likely to see a lot of paint and tar slapped onto parts that are prone to deterioration. - also on modern ships rigged with steel wire supporting steel masts you are likely to see many more parts being virtually immobilised with thick coats of paint or tar, because there is no need for adjustment. druxey, 11 October 2018: This is an interesting side discussion. Some years ago I had a protracted discussion with a knowledgeable person over shroud laniards. I had built a model that he otherwise found impeccable, but he took me to task over my light colored shroud laniards. I countered that these were running lines, hence not 'standing' color. He insisted that the laniards were dark. I have since been converted to brown line for these lines! rwiederrich, 11 October 2018 It is unarguable that lanyards are for tightening the shrouds/back stays. Their appropriate tension is the goal to maintain erect, stable masts....and to counter the actions brought upon these members. One can say they are part of an immovable (set) system....others say they are available for adjustment due to warpage and or stretchage. I believe both notions are true. I also believe they had to be preserved in some fasion....to what extent can only been known by time travelers. Personally...I choose dark/black lanyards....for my esthetic eye as well as what I derive from thousands of images and paintings of the subject. Best part of all is that it is a subjective topic as is most of the finer details of these magnificent vessels. I stand behind Ed's conclusion for Ed and it works out wonderfully in the end. Dowmer, 11 October 2018: Oh my goodness Ed, look what I started 😁 I must admit, its facinating stuff and the input from everyone is excellent at the risk of straying from Ed's masterful build. By the way, for what its worth...less than .02 pence if that...........I'd go for the dark brown color for all the reasons stated, but I think Ed was edging that direction anyway. EdT, 11 October 2018: Did you start this, Dowmer? Oh, my. I'm glad to see we are on the same page with dark brown, Druxey - maybe or maybe not exactly the same shade, but......not black. rwiederrich, 11 October 2018 That's what makes it all so magical. One persons brown is another persons black. So who is more accurate....I wonder? Bob Cleek, 11 October 2018: Rope shrouds would stretch to some extent when new, but this was no surprise to them. As you may know, they used "shroud-laid" cordage for standing rigging before metal cable came into use. (And metal cable stretches, too.) Shroud-laid cordage is laid up with four strands around a heart, or central, strand. Shroud-laid rope doesn't have the tensile strength of three-strand hawser-laid cordage, but it is designed to be much less liable to stretch, hence its use as standing rigging. When a gang of rigging was made up, the shroud-laid cordage was often wet down and "pre-stretched" beforehand. By the time shroud-laid rope is properly wormed, parceled, and tightly served, and all of that impregnated with white lead paste and pine tar, it's a heck of a lot closer to an iron bar than a rubber band! I can't imagine a "sudden change of tack" causing a mast to "come over like a whip" in a vessel of the size of Great Republic. Coming about in any square-rigger, and especially a larger one, is a slow, gradual, and rather complex evolution. There's nothing "sudden" about it. Their masts don't "whip." Lee shrouds and stays will always be slack when the vessel is under sail. That is meant to be. Taking up the slack in lee shrouds while under sail results in seriously over-tensioned shrouds when those lee shrouds become windward shrouds on the opposite tack. A lower mast section might survive such abuse, but such tightening of a smaller upper mast section could even snap it on the opposite tack. I've never heard of a sailing ship heaving to in mid-ocean to take up slack in its standing rigging. The purpose of the standing rigging isn't simply to "keep the masts from falling down." It's more important function is to distribute the energy loads evenly throughout the vessel's structure. Every part of a vessel moves to a certain extent, and particularly wooden vessels. They are engineered to move so as to minimize shock-loading. Shroud tension is widely misunderstood modernly. We see many modern Marconi (jib-headed) rigged sailboats exhibiting structural damage from shrouds and stays being cranked down with turnbuckles until they sing like violin strings. The mechanics are the same as those of a bow and arrow. Tight shrouds push the heel of the mast downwards like the pointed end of an arrow while pulling up on the chainplates and we frequently see cracked frames and opened garboard seams in wooden boats and even catastrophic chainplate failures and hull fractures in fiberglass boats as a consequence. Shrouds and stays really only need to be tight enough to not be slack when the vessel is at rest. When it is under sail, the windward shrouds and stays tighten up and lee shrouds go slack. Their masts may bend a bit to leeward on each tack until the windward shrouds take up, but that is as it's intended to be. The "long equatorial passages" by square-rigged sailing ships were almost exclusively made in the Trade Winds because that put the wind at their sterns. The sailing was all reaching and they would do as much as possible to avoid windward work which was certainly not a square-rigger's best point of sail. Reaching put most of the stress on the backstays which in many instances designed as running rigging, particularly those run to the lighter masts aloft. That arrangement accommodated stretch to the extent necessary. Reaching doesn't put a lot of stress on the shrouds, relatively speaking. Bob Cleek, 11 October 2018: Hereafter, in the interests of saving bandwidth, I'll put EdT's comments in bold italics and intersperse my comments in the regular font. (I changed to just italics - Dr Pr) Color of lanyards is a subject that I hesitate to engage in because it is one of those hot buttons that invite many strongly held opinions. I would suggest that someone – not me – create a topic on this subject. I will gladly participate there with my admittedly limited knowledge. I will, however, at the risk of inviting more comments on this build log, contribute here what I believe are some facts: The color of deadeye lanyards shouldn't be a hot button topic at all. It's really just a matter of historical fact. Some of the modern confusion probably results from 1) a lack of experience and 2) the fact that the color changes over time in use. Also, in small craft, where deadeyes were employed, they may have been designed to be frequently reeved and unreeved, such as the case with a ship's longboats. In that case, line that was not as heavily tarred would have been used. Tarred hemp (not to be confused with "manila" or sisal cordage) is naturally light brown, the darkness of the brown being dependent upon how heavily it is tarred. The more tar, which would be thicker and darker, is applied, and that tar picks up dirt, they quickly darken, eventually to black, or darn close to it, the dirt and tar builds up. The yarns are soaked in thinned tar when the rope is made and that doesn't impart a lot of color, but when tar, and then, often, black paint are applied, the lanyard becomes black. As mentioned in another post in this thread, the tar we are talking about is pine tar or "Stockholm tar," not roofing tar. Additionally, tarred line attracts dirt like a magnet, or so it seems. Much of its darkening is attributable to dirt. The tar will wear, or perhaps more accurately, break down from UV exposure and must be reapplied regularly. However "tan" a tarred lanyard might be, it will be very dark brown, if not black, in a very short while in use. 1. Deadeyes and lanyards were used not only on shrouds but also on backstays. Yes, that is true in some cases. In others, the backstays were rigged to be tightened with tackles and called "running backstays." These were generally lighter than the "standing backstays" which weren't designed to be tightened, or cast off on the leeward side. 2. On a 3-4 month voyage around Cape Horn, upper masts would be struck down, probably more than once, requiring re-rigging of their stays and shrouds at sea. Yes, something of a routine task. Their rigging was designed to accomplish this as easily as possible. A good crew could accomplish it easily. A crack naval crew could accomplish it with amazing speed and efficiency, or so it is written. Their deadeyes and lanyards were lighter than the lower deadeyes and lanyards and easier to handle. They needed only to be set up tightly enough not to hang slack when no load was applied to them. 3. Climate variations between say a New York summer at the start of a voyage, equatorial conditions a month later, and semi-arctic conditions at the Cape a month after that, followed by a repeat of those variations up the Pacific, as well as the case described by wefalck, would certainly alter the tension in the standing rigging essential to the support of masts. The variable factor is not so much temperature, which did have some affect the consistency of the tar to some extent, but rather moisture. This is why standing rigging was wormed, slurried in white lead paste, parceled in tarred canvas, and tightly served with tarred serving line, tarred again, and regularly slurried after being set up using what amounted to black paint in order to keep it dry under all weather conditions. This minimized changes in the properties of the cordage and prevented decay (rot) of the material in the elements. 4. All hemp strands were tarred as part of the rope-making process – hence the straw-color (see Luce, Seamanship 1868). No doubt the effects of sun, salt and weather would lighten this over time. That's true. New cordage is "straw color," because the strands are soaked in thinned or "diluted" tar, which soaks into the strands easily. That "tar" would be the consistency of water. Un-thinned pine tar is the consistency of motor oil, or even a bit thicker. Weathering does "bleach" tarred line, but it actually tends to turn it grey more than anything else, which is as much dirt as anything. To counteract weathering, tar would be reapplied to lanyards as part of routine maintenance (and often painted black as well.) That and the collection of dirt stuck to the tarred surface, turned them progressively darker and ultimately black or very near so. There is a difference between applying thinned tar to the strands when making up rope and "tarring" lanyards with thicker tar or "slurrying" them with paint to protect them from the elements. 5. The treatment applied to standing rigging discussed in earlier posts, according to primary documentation widely used at the time (again Luce, 1868), can only be described as thick, black, tarry paint. – black due to the carbon black content, thick due to the addition of letharge (lead oxide), tarry due to the pine tar. Yes, but the "tarry" or "slurry," used on standing rigging is something different from the pine tar used to condition "tarred" cordage. It is indeed "black paint," although I don't believe they added any driers to it, so it remained somewhat flexible and didn't chip and flake much. As with all oil-based paint of the time, its primary ingredient was pine tar, thinned "to taste" with turpentine, litharge, which is another name for lead oxide, red or white, but usually white, which was the primary solid in all paints of the time (later replaced with zinc oxide or "whiting" which was simply talcum or chalk powder,) and "lamp black," (carbon) for color. This paint was cheap and effective. It was applied to the standing rigging to protect it from the elements. (It was also used on ironwork to inhibit rusting. Most all of the iron fittings would have been wrought iron and so already rather resistant to rusting compared to modern steel.) 6. The relatively complex lanyard/deadeye apparatus is obviously designed to add mechanical advantage (6 to 1) to force applied to the lanyard. It was clearly intended for applying tension as the following well known diagram shows. Yes and no. Lanyards are not "running rigging" per se and while there is a "mechanical advantage" present in the physics of it, it certainly wasn't to provide ease in setting them up! (They look like a block and tackle, but they don't work that way when setting them up because the friction quickly overcomes any mechanical advantage that theoretically existed.) The real purpose of deadeyes is to make it possible to attach a shroud or stay to a fixed point when it couldn't be tied in a knot. There really isn't any other way to set up a thick and somewhat rigid length of standing rigging, except to turn it round the deadeye and secure it with lashings, applying the tension "a bit at a time," distributed through the several turns of the lanyard. The evolution of this piece of rigging is interesting. Originally, a simple lashing served the purpose, but that arrangement created friction which made it more difficult to tighten and chaffed the line as the shrouds alternately went slack or tightened up depending upon whether they were on the windward or leeward side. A "bigger hole" was tried, with large bullseyes, and later with heart-shaped bullseyes with three indentations in the bottom inside of the hole, and, ultimately, the deadeye, which was originally heart- or lozenge-shaped to accommodate more flexible standing rigging, ultimately evolved into the round deadeye which more easily accommodated the thicker and stiffer wormed, parceled, and served shroud-laid standing rigging. The deadeyes and lanyard are essentially an tensionable coupling mechanism that permits the attachment of the standing rigging. 7. Methods and practices have evolved over time. Even early 20th century practices were different than those of the 1860's - and wire was different from hemp. Of course, but as long as deadeyes were used, they were "mature technology" that wasn't improved upon until the advent of wire cable and turnbuckles. Deadeyes always had tarred hemp lanyards, at least until the advent of synthetic line, which those who used it on yachts often painted black to retain the traditional appearance. Curiously enough, in recent years far stronger synthetic line with negligble stretch has become available and is replacing metal cable standing rigging and turnbuckles, as well as other heavier fittings (e.g. metal sail luff piston hanks) on state-of-the-art racing sailboats. (Dyeema is one well-known brand.) This new line is used with modern "deadeyes" and bullseyes because it is much lighter than the older metal rigging and so increases performance. So, if I accept the above as facts, I ask the following questions: 1. Why install a large number of contraptions like deadeye/lanyards if they would rarely if ever be used? Why not just seize shrouds/backstays to chains after initial tightening? As mentioned above, the primary purpose of the deadeyes and lanyards was to provide a way to connect thick and stiff shrouds and stays which could not be tied in a knot to a fixed point while maintaining the tensile strength of the shroud or stay. Three turns of thin line equals one thick one. Secondarily, the arrangement was easily set up and, if necessary, adjusted, and had a certain shock-absorbing ability in distributing the load. 2. If these were needed to re-tension or re-rig backstays or even shrouds, why would one clog up this friction-prone device with a thick, tarry paint? The tar and/or paint served the purpose of protecting the exposed lanyards from the elements. If re-rigging or re-tensioning were necessary, the cheap tarred hemp lanyards are simply cut away and the deadeye holes cleaned out and greased and new greased tarred hemp lanyards are rove through the deadeyes anew. 3. If greasing rigging with galley slush or other lubricant was common at the time, why would this not be used on deadeye lanyards, at least when needed? The lanyards and deadeye holes are indeed greased, traditionally with tallow, the all-purpose marine lubricant of the time. (And still damn good today, if you can find it. This is not "galley slush," but a refined animal fat lubricant.) It does not, however, have the weathering abilities of pine tar and remains greasy until it weathers away in the elements. It makes things slippery, but it doesn't last as long as tar or paint and protect things from weathering. Pine tar forms a flexible coating, somewhat akin to varnish. Adding solids (white lead, or chalk) to create a paint keeps the tar where you put it, rather than having it get sticky and thin in hot weather. Dripping tar turned the decks of sailing ships black in short order and, of course, was tracked all over everything and everyone. Naval vessels which, in most navies of the time were kept "Bristol fashion," "holy stoned" their decks regularly. This was essentially sanding the deck back to bare wood with abrasive stone blocks to clean the tar off of them. Painting the standing rigging instead of just adding more raw tar lessened the need to "stone" the decks. 4. What does all this mean to the color of model lanyards? Well, considering the "scale viewing distance" of a model, and the assumed desire to depict the model as realistically as possible, it means black lanyards. If one were to be building a masted longboat with deadeyes and lanyards which were rove and un-rove each use, it means light brown lanyards, if one is so inclined. "Straw-colorerd" would be too light unless one wanted to show a pristine brand new longboat. Moreover, as a matter of opinion and not historical fact, the contrast of light colored lanyards on a larger vessel have the effect of drawing the viewer's eye to them in a way that distracts from the overall impression of the model. Consider what a real full sized version of the model would look like if you looked at it at full-scale distance and saw "straw colored" lanyards. I am sure others will approach this issue differently, but this has been my rationale and my reasons for dark, but not black, lanyards. Of course they will and if they enjoy doing so, that's what it's all about, isn't it? So long as everybody's having a good time. However, if one wants to run with the big dogs, they'd better be black. Rob, I believe Hervey Garret Smith's comments on deadeyes apply to 20th century yachts, and his description of tar is different than the tar coating described in Luce for application to the "standing" parts of standing rigging. What he describes as a "thin liquid pine oil" would not be black. Oh, absolutely Hervey Garret Smith was writing for a yachting audience, but he was speaking from his own working experience with deep-water square sail. That said, there were, and still are, some rather large traditional yachts rigged with deadeyes and lanyards and a deadeye and lanyard is a dead eye and lanyard. There's no difference between a yacht and a sailing ship in the way they work or are set up and maintained.. As I explained above, Luce's "slurry" paint is a different coating than pure pine tar. Pine tar thinned with turpentine to a "thin liquid" would not be black, but leave a lanyard made of yarn soaked in "thin liquid pine tar" out in the elements, coat it regularly with thick pine tar "out of the can" the consistency of motor oil and let it get good and dirty, and then "slurry" it with black paint, and those lanyards will be black in no time. It's sort of like if one were building a diorama of an old fashioned gas station on a model train layout: What color is the motor oil that has leaked on the ground? It was "straw colored" when it came out of the can, but it's black when it drips out of the engine. EdT, 12 October 2018: Well, my instincts about raising this opinion-charged topic appear to have been correct, so if there is still energy to debate this, please someone start a new topic. I suggest we move on. **** Dr Pr 23 November 2021 (this thread): I have been wondering about dark vs light lanyards for shrouds, stays and other standing rigging in schooners (my current build). Photos of modern schooners show about equal numbers of ships with light and dark shroud lanyards. These are working ships, and not museum ships or models, so there is no single "correct" way. My personal opinion is that the lanyards were lightly tarred and light colored when the shrouds were initially set up. They were greased (with tallow originally), as were the dead eye holes, to facilitate pulling the line through and tightening it, as shown in the drawing above. Then regular maintenance would require occasional coats of tar and/or the slurry described above, and as this built up the lines would darken. Oxidation of the oils and dirt accumulation would darken it more and bleaching by sunlight would add some gray.

Very nice build! I have been deliberating the black vs natural color for the shroud lanyards. After reading through every book I have, modern and contemporary, I have found no statements about how these lanyards, and the lanyards on stays and other lines that occasionally need adjusting, are prepared. However, a couple of books say the lanyards were well greased before threading through the deadeyes, and they needed to be flexible in order to take a tight strain on the shrouds. This seems to argue against heavily tarred lines that are not especially flexible. Photos of modern schooners seem to show that untarred or natural hemp lanyards are more common.

Since this is a discussion of white balance, I thought I would post some examples. I recently bought a cheap LED ring light. It does produce "white" light, plus all sorts of silly color effects for kids taking selfies. I just wanted to see how it would do. The camera (Nikon D5200) has several white balance settings for incandescent, fluorescent, direct sunlight, flash, cloudy, shade, auto and preset manual. I turned the ring light on and positioned a white card in front of it. I selected the Preset Manual option and set the white balance. The lens was a Nikon AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED macro lens (unfortunately it isn't a "Turbo" lens). It is an excellent macro lens! Actually, maybe a bit too good. Every time I look at model photos made with it I see a lot of imperfections in my work! The photo on the left was shot with the "AUTO" white balance setting. The camera had to guess the colors and there were no white objects in the photo. The colors are awful! The shot on the right was with the preset white balance, and these colors are very close to the light brown bulwark interiors, black cap rail and wood tones of the deck - about what I see (with both eyes open) in diffused sunlight. Here are two more photos shot the same way. The AUTO white balance setting seems to have excess magenta, possibly because the cheap LED light really doesn't produce a true white light. Again, the shot on the right with the Preset white balance adjusted to the LED light produces pretty accurate colors. I did no editing on all but the last photo except cropping to the same view area. The one above right is a photo stacked image of six shots to get a good depth of field. But I did nothing to change the colors from what the camera captured. I hope this shows that you should use a custom white balance for any "non-standard" light source (and cheap LEDs are not a "standard") if you want to get good color rendition.

I have never used RAW. I know it is supposed to be great, and apparently the original photoelement RGB values are always underlying the edited images so we can step back through editing stages to rework the picture - like "undoing" edits in Photoshop. But I do not use RAW. I take hundreds of 24 megapixel shots every time I go out. Many are the same picture with different focus points and fstop/depths of field. The camera has a 32 gigabyte high speed (30 MBytes/sec.) flash card, and I carry an extra one in my camera bag (64 Gbytes total). I have a separate 3 terabyte drive in my computer just for the JPEGs and Photoshop files, and a 14 terabyte external drive to hold everything and make backups. 1. A typical 6000x4000 pixel RAW image is about 27 Mbytes and the lowest compression 6000x4000 JPEGS are about 9 Mbytes. RAW files are about 3x the JPEG file size. The 32 Gbyte memory card will hold about 1200 RAW images, 3600 JPEGS, or a little less that 900 RAW+JPEG shots. I can easily shoot more than that in a day, and on long trips I fill both cards with JPEGs plus storing more photos on my laptop. With my "shoot from the hip" method only about 1 in 10 shots is a keeper. However, only the really blurred shots are deleted. Even though most don't end up edited, they are still a record of what I see on my photo shoots, and the sequence and locations in which the photos were made. So just editing 1 in 10 helps reduce the needed storage space on my computer. But the edited JPEG Photoshop PSD files are anywhere from 30-100 Mbytes each! So figure 350 shots per week at 8 Mbytes each, plus 35 good ones at 65 Mbytes each plus a 1 Mbyte JPEG thumbnail = 5110 Mbytes. Add another 350 RAW images at 27 Mbytes each (9540 Mbytes) and I will need 14.6 Gigabytes of storage per week, or about 760 Gigabytes per year. Without the RAW images that is just 260 Gigabytes per year. And even after I have gone back to thin out the unnecessary pictures I am still pushing 3 Terrabytes to store the photos plus equal size backup drives. With the RAW images added that would be over 7 Terrabytes internal and more than 7 Terrabytes external storage. Shooting with RAW images will more than double the memory requirements on my computer. 2. I found that shooting the RAW/JPEG combination cannot be sustained very long at high speed continuous shooting. When I started shooting RAW I lost a lot of action shots because only 3-5 1/3000 second frames could be written to memory before things slowed down. With just JPEG I can shoot for many seconds before things bog down, and rarely do birds/animals/grandkids hang around for longer sequences. 3. I NEVER change the original photo, so I can always go back to the start and re-edit it. Edited photos are saved under a different name. The original files are saved on multiple external drives and DVDs. Really important files are saved in JPEG and/or PNG, PSD and TIFF formats. 4. I have been taking pictures for over 60 years, and I get acceptable photos without using RAW. For me it would add additional unnecessary steps to achieve my goals. 5. Not all photoediting and photo display programs will open RAW files. Everything works with JPEGs. So I don't use RAW.

I agree with everyone's comments. And we are mainly talking about photographing ship models. I do a lot of outdoor photography while hiking - no army of helpers with reflectors and diffusers, and very little time to set up photos. I have to accept the lighting conditions at the time and make the best of it. This brings up two comments. 1. Photoshop's "Shadows and Highlights" can do amazing things. I accidentally rotated the knob on my camera from M (manual) to A (aperture priority) and the aperture (f/16) was too small for the lighting in shadows (1/200 second exposure). It was set for taking photos in much brighter light. I took what I thought would be good photos, and they were actually very dark (left, unedited). But "Shadows and Highlights" pulled a usable picture out of the murk (right). This is Tolmeia menziesii, piggy-back plant or youth-on-age. It is interesting because it has flowers and reproduces sexually to make seeds. But it also grows tiny new plants from the lower leaves, and these asexual clones drop off and take root. What I find amazing is the diaphragm was closed down to f/16 and the background is still nicely blurred! That was sheer luck! Steve will appreciate this. I discovered "Shadows and Highlights" years ago while looking at photos I took of some friends' wedding outdoors in bright sunlight. The bride was an absolutely gorgeous redhead, and wore a scarlet dress. The groom wore a white shirt with narrow stripes. The bright reflected sunlight from her dress was red. She had her back to the sun, so her face and front were dark. His shirt was totally washed out and her red dress reflected off it making it pink. The background was in shade and almost black. It was a horrible picture! But using many of the tools in Photoshop I managed to tone down his washed out shirt so you can see the stripes and killing the red reflections, while lightening the shadows on her, and pulling out some detail in the green foliage background. It came out a good photo. 2. Most people apparently do not realize that "bright sunlight" is accompanied by ambient blue skylight. The sky is a huge blue omnidirectional light, and it influences the colors in photos. I have known this since I was a kid when I was trying to paint sailboats. The canvas didn't look right until I realized that the shaded side wasn't gray but was actually sky blue. So if you want you photos to look like outdoor shots you need blue light in the shadows. On the other hand, that blue light can really mess up the colors in outdoor shots. And bright sunlight is just too bright to get subtle details in things like egrets or flowers unless you want unnaturally dark backgrounds. Here is an example: This is Douglas' catchfly Silene douglasii. I have dozens of photos, all taken outdoors, but in almost all cases the subtle details at the center of the flower are too dark and the petals too bright. Even Photoshop can't produce a really good photo. The parts of the white petals in shadow are sky blue, and that is wrong. And the washed out brightness of the petals eliminates the distinction between the petals and the auricles (the finger-like things projecting from the base of the petals). But this photo was taken on a cloudy bright day - all diffuse light from the white clouds. No blue shadows. The low contrast allowed me to capture all of the morphological details of the flower, and that is what I was trying to accomplish. It was ideal lighting! So the moral of this story is that there is no one "perfect" lighting setup. And you should consider yourself very lucky if you can actually control the light to your satisfaction!

Wefalck, I had trouble seeing the "5" in the blue circle at bottom center on my laptop. But on my primary monitor, which is used by some pro photographers, the "5" stands out clearly - with both eyes. Steve, I agree with you that lighting is very important, and in most cases I like diffused light that does not produce harsh shadows. But you can have too much light! If part of your subject is white and part is dark, like sails and hulls, you will have difficulty getting a good exposure for the entire thing. This is especially true for wildflower photography which I do a lot of. Sunny days with clear skies have part of the subject illuminated with harsh white light that washes out any subtle details, and shadows are illuminated by that big blue light called the sky. Colors come out strange. Cloudy bright days illuminate everything with a soft white light, allowing details to come out in the brightest parts without harsh shadows. Often when inside I will shine a light on the white ceiling to reflect back to the ship model. I place the camera on a tripod and use very small apertures (f/22-f/40) to get good depth of field. Then I may have to use a 30 second exposure to take the picture.

I realize his is tangent to the subject of the thread, bit I seem to have aroused interest in some readers about color vision. I have read that a substantial part of the male population has this difference of color vision in the eyes. But I have met very few who have even heard of it, and only one other fellow who has noticed it. I started out in art in Grade School, and had nine years of training outside the school system. For me the color differences were very apparent when trying to decide which paints to use, and being able to view an object with warm and cool colors was very helpful. And I want to emphasize that I have passed all tests for color blindness, and I can see the full spectrum (at least as well as anyone can) with both eyes. There are just slight differences in hues. It is called color vision deficiency. 8% of white males have it, but only 1.4% of African American males and 0.5% of females have it. https://www.aoa.org/healthy-eyes/eye-and-vision-conditions/color-vision-deficiency?sso=y Look at the circular "pseudoisochromatic plates" at the top of the page (attached below). Do you see numbers in each of them? Some have two differently colored numbers. Of course, as mentioned earlier in this thread, whether or not you can see all the numbers may depend upon whether your can see all colors or if your display can reproduce them all! I have four displays on my computers and a cell phone. The laptop display is pretty poor - I can barely make out the number in the blue background circle at bottom center with either eye or both. The cell phone is a bit better (Samsung OLED). The best monitor, that I use for photo editing, gives me good contrast for all the numbers. The other displays are in between, but a cheap one that I have thought had relatively poor colors is still better than the laptop. I also printed the image and my Brother color LED printer produced intermediate results between the laptop and my best display.

Wefalck, You are correct about the brain "fixing" the color differences between the two eyes. I actually see three colors - left eye only (cool or bluish shades), right eye only (warm or reddish shades), and the color blend my brain creates when both eyes are open. The differences are very subtle and I don't normally notice unless I deliberately try. Like looking at outdoor clear sky shaded scenes with my right eye to see what a skylight filter would do on my film cameras. **** I do understand the need for precision or accuracy in some situations. I have done a lot of work with spectroscopy, and there we try to determine the exact wavelengths of absorption or emission spectra. This is critical in chemistry, physics and astronomy, just to name a few fields. And if you want to get into it really deep, just look at color printing or paint mixing! The goal in digital photography would be to relate a given wavelength of light (color) to a specific digital value. Colors are implemented in RGB (red green blue) on displays or CMY (cyan magenta yellow) for printing. The idea is to represent each shade or hue as a different numerical value. In most digital images there are 255 intensities of red, green and blue, each ranging from 0 to 255, expressed as RRR,GGG,BBB. 255x255x255 = 14,630,625 different colors. But this could be any number, such as 1024x1024x1024=1,073,741,824 possible colors. Few, if any, cameras, displays, printers or scanners can come close to actually reproducing this many colors. In the real world there are an infinite number of possible wavelengths, So it is not possible to represent them all with binary numbers (unless you have an infinitely large memory). Therefore absolute color precision is not possible with digital imaging. The next problem is assigning digital values to wavelengths. Exactly what wavelength does 255,0,0 represent? This is arbitrary, as are most things in the real world. But we can define a value, just as we can define the wavelength of the color we perceive as "red." For archival photography the goal is to capture an image that can be related to some standard color scheme, so sometime in the future people can reproduce the colors as accurately as possible. But for most photography none of this matters. We just want pictures that are pleasing or satisfy our needs. But I do agree that if you are not planning to post process the images you should correct for white balance.

CAUTION: I am about to "step on some folks toes" with the following comments. I have been photographing things for more than a half century. Early on I worried a lot about getting the "correct" colors. But eventually I realized that there are no correct colors. Allow me to explain. When I was about 5 years old I discovered that my two eyes do not see the same colors. The right eye sees things a bit redder than the left eye. This was very useful in film days, because I had a built in "skylight filter" (old time film photographers will know what that means). By the time I was 8 years old I understood the basics of optics - our eyes see light reflected from distant objects - and realized that the light reaching both eyes must be composed of the same wavelengths. So one eye had to be "wrong." I soon realized that maybe both eyes were "wrong." I have no way to know if what I see is the same as what anyone else sees! But we all agree to the names we give to colors, whatever we see. By the time I entered middle school I was very skeptical of what everyone else seemed to believe was reality. This skepticism has served me well as a scientist, photographer and artist. I understood that the colors of objects were dependent upon the color of the lighting. So there is no "correct" color for anything. It is totally subjective. When I entered U.S. Naval Officer's Candidate School I was given extensive eye exams, and I am not color blind. I can see all colors with both eyes, but I see two different versions of each. And I had extraordinary eyesight, better that 20:15, so they wanted me to be a pilot. As a scientist I used many types of chromatography and spectral analysis, and I studied the chemistry of color - why and how different chemical bonds absorb and reflect different wavelengths. Absorption and emission is a property of the the excitation states of electrons in atoms and the nature of chemical bonds, but even there the wavelengths are dependent upon environmental conditions. There are no absolute colors! Color is purely a fiction of our minds. When I took up wildflower photography as a hobby at first I worried a lot about getting the "right" color. But I soon realized that there is no right color. Flowers of the same species have a variety of colors depending upon the plant's physiology, soil mineral composition, rainfall, plant age, lighting conditions and who knows what else. So I no longer try to get "perfect" colors. I just try to get pleasing images, and detailed images to illustrate the morphology of plants or the details of my models. Yes, it is possible to try to establish the "right" lighting colors and intensity ("right" being whatever you define it to be), and to try to get reproducible reproduction of the color spectrum in each and every case. If you want to go on "chasing your tails" and seeking perfection, go ahead. But you will never succeed. Whatever type of display you use to display images, or process to create prints, no two will be the exact same, and even the same devices will produce different colors depending upon temperature, humidity, lighting and who knows what other variables. And they will all likely change with time. But in the end the colors that viewers see will be entirely dependent upon their genomes and the viewing conditions.

Leo, Thanks for posting the link. Another useful illustrated book I came across years ago is "The Lore of Ships" by AB Nordbok, Crescent Books, 1975. It is a hodgepodge of information about ships with about 1500 illustrations. Occasionally I find something useful for a project in it.