# Enterprise Engineering Green - Myth or Fact.



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

This comes from my whole confusion about the idea that the engineering strongback was painted in greens for the TMP Enterprise, then in blue/grays for the Ent 'A'.

In the 'green' camp, we have Paul Olson himself saying that the strongback was painted in 'sage greens'. 

But this seems to be the only 'proof' of that color scheme. Except for a painting of the TMP 'mirrored' against the TOS E, in a celestial lake.

I have done a pretty extensive search for photos of a 'green' strongback and have come up pretty dry.
The only green that I have ever seen is the thin band of it around the dish intersecting the mustard RCS.

However there seems to be plenty of 'proof' of the blue/gray scheme on the TMP E.
Unfortunatly, the best photos of the TMP E are the B/W ones taken by ?Phil Broad? After that, its to the magazines and the DVD's which all seem to support the blue/green scheme.

One of the final straws for me was looking at the Aztec Dummy masking instructions and they say something to the effect of 'don't you dare put any green in there'.

So whats the deal, Green, myth or fact? If you have any proof, I'm all eyes.


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

Good luck. The only "proof" on the issue I've ever heard of one way or the other is some images someone provided to Thomas Sasser, but he said he needed to get the OK from that person before posting them. Apparently that never happened, since those images still aren't out there.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Seein' as Paul Olsen is the guy who painted the TMP Enterprise, I'd say his would be a pretty definitive answer on the subject. You've got to remember that lighting for movies are of different colors and there are oft-times different colored lenses used in the filiming, too. Those lights and lenses have a strong effect on how something appears on film and can often make the subject appear in completely different colors from the eye would see looking directly at said subject. A great example of this is the Romulan Warbird from TNG. It was painted in grays, yet appears to be green when seen on-screen. There are similar examples throughout Star Trek, as well. 

So, why are you making Mr. Olsen out to be a liar?


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Hmm...It thought that the Motion Picture Refit was thought of as fact as having the different shades of green, where it was in question if the refit was ever repainted? Or am I just confusing matters?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

Courtesy of Garbaron...

http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-960


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

This subject of how green the green was or if it had a bluish cast in some shots has been discussed here several times, but whether it was green has never been in question. I believe more then one person who saw the original TMP model has confirmed beyond a doubt that the strongback color was green.

I believe that Phil Broad saw it on more then one occassion and has confirmed the different color changes, to name one.

I don't believe there has ever been a dispute about the green color, so there has unlikely never been a need to count the number of sources or question the validity of the color changes.

I get the impression you don't like the green color.
If that is the case, I wholeheartily agree.

Green seems like a dumb color. Blue makes way more sense as a complimentary color.

But I'm not going to pretend the green never happened just because I think it was a dumb color to use. But that's just me.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Krako said:


> Courtesy of Garbaron...
> 
> http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-960


 
Now that looks quite definitive and I think solves the question. Thanks for the link, Krako.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Could you elaborate, please, for those who can't access Garbaron's website...?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

They are very clear shots of the Refit and 1701-A strongbacks.
They both seem to have been taken with a conventional camera and flash.
The first is clearly green. The second clearly blue.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Okee doke. Thanks, Chuck. Appreciate it.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

The refit shot may have been cut from an old Starlog shot of Andrew Probert in front of the miniature. That one seems to have been lit by studio lights, though supplemental lighting may have been brought in by Starlog. The scanned shot (sans Andrew) is in my gallery if you want to check.

Nevertheless, the "mirrored" painting was done by Andrew Probert, so its colours may be taken as representative of the miniature, as he wrote in a Starship Modeler post a while back.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Thanks for all the quick replies.

True, I don't care for the color green as it pertains to starships.

Working in movie lighting, I do encounter color shifts caused by lighting and film and or white balance issues. So I try to keep that in mind. So when looking at photos between the green and the blue, one also has to look at the whites to see how they are affected. That can give evidence that a photo has been color shifted at all to cause the difference in effect.

Also in this day and age of photoshop, its going to get harder and harder to find a photo that hasn't been touched for some reason.

The biggest 'proof' for me that the ship was at least repainted was in the comparison photo link which clearly shows a different pattern between the refit and the 'A'. However if you look at the P.W. Hull color, there is definatly a color shift there. Though I'm not arguing against the green in that photo.

As for calling Mr. Olson a liar, I'm certainly not doing that, but, the 70's were the 70's.

****Griff, when did you go to Iraq?****


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> As for calling Mr. Olson a liar, I'm certainly not doing that, but, the 70's were the 70's.


Hmm ... you're still challenging his credibility, as shown by the "but". Yes?


----------



## kylwell (Mar 13, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> They are very clear shots of the Refit and 1701-A strongbacks.
> They both seem to have been taken with a conventional camera and flash.
> The first is clearly green. The second clearly blue.


Except you'll notice that the white point on both pictures is different meaning you have a difference in light source color spectrum, squewing the color results of both.

BUT... I'm in the green on one, blue on the other camp also.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

ClubTepes said:


> *>SNIPPERINO!<*
> As for calling Mr. Olson a liar, I'm certainly not doing that, but, the 70's were the 70's.


 You're challenging Mr. Olsens integrity and credibility. That's the same thing as calling him a liar to me. 


> ****Griff, when did you go to Iraq?****


Which time...?  

Seriously, tho, I was in Baghdad earlier this year (Jan to May) and arrived at this location the middle of last month.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Geez, guys, there's a big difference between what ClubTepes is doing and "calling someone a liar" or "challenging their integrity and credibility."

I think he's just pointing out that it is possible for the most upstanding and credible person to be mistaken in his memory about a small detail after 30 years or so. Let's keep a sense of perspective...

And for what it's worth, as someone who has dealt with the accurate reproduction of color images for decades, I don't find the image comparison conclusive. The lighting in both images is too different. The one is a flash photo taken under incandescent lighting and the other seems to be some kind of studio shot with a reddish fill light coming in from one side. One is a digital image; the other a film image, probably from a negative, which was printed to paper. It could easily be the same color of pale blue in both instances.

All this leaves aside the possibility that someone at the studio might have had the color changed after the model was delivered, but before filming. Stranger things have happened. Let's keep an open mind.

M.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

MGagen said:


> Geez, guys, there's a big difference between what ClubTepes is doing and "calling someone a liar" or "challenging their integrity and credibility."
> 
> I think he's just pointing out that it is possible for the most upstanding and credible person to be mistaken in his memory about a small detail after 30 years or so. Let's keep a sense of perspective...


What was originally said was: 


> This comes from my whole confusion about the idea that the engineering strongback was painted in greens for the TMP Enterprise, then in blue/grays for the Ent 'A'.
> 
> In the 'green' camp, we have Paul Olson himself saying that the strongback was painted in 'sage greens'.
> 
> But this seems to be the only 'proof' of that color scheme. Except for a painting of the TMP 'mirrored' against the TOS E, in a celestial lake.


He puts the word proof in quotes, which tells me he's questioning the word of Paul Olsen - thus his credibility and integrity. I'm all for the possibility of Mr. Olsen conceivably being wrong, but from what I recall of the article on his site, wasn't he pretty specific on colors? I've not been to his site in some months and don't have the link here, but seem to recall that being the case. 
I'll admit that perhaps using the phrase "calling Paul Olsen a liar" is a bit on the Non-PC side, but then again he's questioning what the guy said, thus calling Mr. Olsen's credibility in to question. That would be the same as me questioning your measurements that you posted during the debates that you've had w/Capt. Robert April over at TrekBBS.com just because my research didn't agree with what you were saying. 


> All this leaves aside the possibility that someone at the studio might have had the color changed after the model was delivered, but before filming.


I don't understand what the point is here, Mark. If it was green before arriving at the studio - per what's been said - and pics from the filming of TMP seem to back up the green color, doesn't that mean that the TMP paintjob was green all along...?  


> Stranger things have happened. Let's keep an open mind.


Yes, let's.


----------



## omnimodel (Oct 9, 2004)

Another factor to keep in mind when painting the Enterprise (or any sci fi ship) is the process used for making mattes and special effects shots prior to CGI.
First, an object was shot against a blue screen.
Next, all of the blue was chemically removed from the film stock, leaving the object behind on a clear piece of film. (This is why glossy ships were a no-no; they would pick up blue reflections and then holes would appear in the ship)
These processes were repeated for every element of the final SPFX shot.
Finally, all of these elements were projected together onto the final piece of film, which then became the negative.

ILM studio models were often painted in shades of blue-gray in anticipation of this process because they knew the final result would be ships tha appeared gray on screen. The Reliant and Enterprise D are perfect examples of this technique. This is probably also why the strongback appears gray in the STIII spacedock scene.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html

By the way, the original refit strongback paint scheme is gone. Covered up. Unless one of those Sistine Chapel restorers takes a whack at it, it's gone forever. All that's left is a handful of photos taken under varying light conditions, the word of a few witnesses and a painting by one of the ship's designers. Unless somebody comes forth with colour-balanced, non-UV-reflected shots with a gray card in the scene, that's all we will ever have to go on. So we may never know how the strongback might have looked "in person", or which paints were used in its construction. So yes, let's keep an open mind. 

Me, I'm trying to match the look of the refit from the TMP DVD as played on my specific TV. Whether the miniature would have looked like that "in person" is irrelevant to me -- I'm building the character, not the actor. To each his own.

I think the uncertainty of the refit's paint scheme bugs a lot of people who are used to using FS colours.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

SteveR said:


> The refit shot may have been cut from an old Starlog shot of Andrew Probert in front of the miniature. That one seems to have been lit by studio lights, though supplemental lighting may have been brought in by Starlog. The scanned shot (sans Andrew) is in my gallery if you want to check.
> 
> Nevertheless, the "mirrored" painting was done by Andrew Probert, so its colours may be taken as representative of the miniature, as he wrote in a Starship Modeler post a while back.


So basically you're saying...?

Perhaps the first shot was lit by studio lights, it does look a little grainy.
But they still both seem to be taken by conventional cameras and lighting, i.e. they are not clips from the movie.

Both shots are representative of the miniature, so I don't quite see what you are trying to get at.

The first is obviously green, as the man who spent literally months apon months painting the Refit has already stated.

I mean, the guy(Olsen) gave a detailed account of not only all his months of work on the miniature, but how a modeler could go about replicating the much much more complicated multicolored pearlescent sheen of the finish.

So the guy suddenly doesn't know the difference between the color green and blue all of a sudden? 

I'm not laying this confusion on your doorstep, SteveR, I'm just making a general statement that it's weird we can even find this much to say about the situation.

The Refit strongback was a non-sensical shade of green, but it was green. The 1701-A was blue.

What's all the talk about?


----------



## pcumby (Jan 24, 2004)

Why doesn't anyone like green on a starship? The original TOS "E" had lots of green tinting, especially on the top of the saucer.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

SteveR said:


> *>SNIPPAGE!<*
> 
> Me, I'm trying to match the look of the refit from the TMP DVD as played on my specific TV. Whether the miniature would have looked like that "in person" is irrelevant to me -- I'm building the character, not the actor. To each his own.


That's my thinking, as well. I go for the on-screen look so that I have a representation of the "real" thing, not the look of the studio model. Especially in light of how the look changes between the physical model and the on-screen version of the ship/vehicle.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Geez, guys, there's a big difference between what ClubTepes is doing and "calling someone a liar" or "challenging their integrity and credibility."M.


I think he said "making" him to be a liar.
A variation of the term "don't make me a liar" or "don't make him out to be a liar." 

A term used less and less in these hyper-sensitive times we live in.

What I got out of the statement was that he was pointing out his theory would have to make Olsen so utterly and completely wrong as to make him a liar.

The reason being that it would seem impossible(at least to me) that a guy who spent that much time earning his living finishing miniatures for major motion pictures could mistake the color green for the color blue.

I'm willing to bet that most studios shy away from hiring color-blind airbrush artists.

I know this is not your theory being proposed, MGagen, so no offense*(really not even any intended towards the proposer - I honestly don't think he thought it through very well before proposing Olsen might have been mistaken about whether green or blue was used)* intended, but think of how ridiculous the idea is!

Consider the long, detailed explanation and recounting of how the finish on the Refit was done(he even recounts the PSI pressure he used in his airbrush), his account and detailed discription of how the pearlescent multicolored sheen was done in particular...

Yet someone who gives that much detail recounting how all that was accomplished *doesn't know the difference between green and blue*?

Really?

Does anyone believe that for a half-second?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The green tinting of the TOS 1701 model, as it is at the Smithsonian, is not the original color. On the series, it could look blue, green,or other colors.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

pcumby said:


> Why doesn't anyone like green on a starship? The original TOS "E" had lots of green tinting, especially on the top of the saucer.


In some shots you are completely right, but we all knew that all the variations we saw were due to various filming processes. Especially since starfleet was presented as a Naval service we pretty much unterstood her to be gray, with the exception of the various penants, etc.

My personal aversion to green is that it just doesn't look like a natural color to paint a Naval vessel, even though there are green seas. Green looks natural to me on a tank, just not a Naval vessel.

Those are my own personal earth-bound prejudices, I'll acknowledge that. But I'd be willing to bet they are behind most people's dislike(of those who do dislike it) of the green on the Refit.

Weirdly enough I don't object to the color on alien Trek ships. Probably because in my mind they're alien and I expect them to be weird. Go figure.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> Thanks for all the quick replies.
> 
> True, I don't care for the color green as it pertains to starships.
> 
> ...


 
True that was a long time ago.

But if you read his very detailed explanation(maybe you have not seen the full version) of his involvement with the painting I think you'll probably agree that considering the amount of detailed info he recalls there is little chance that he is mistaken about whether or not the strongback was green or blue.

Check out his ridiculously detailed account here:

http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html


I totally agree with your disdain for the color.

I plan on building my Refit strictly with the blue color yet I have no intention of making her an "-A."

Sacriledge of sacriledge, I don't even care for the idea of the multi-colored "sheen."

Before someone jumps on me and says it, I'll say it myself: I don't think for a second I have the skills necessary to duplicate the "sheen" anyway.

But even if I did, it just never made sense to me that the ship would reflect that way.

I understand the sense of scale it added in order to allow the model to appear larger, but other then for that artificial purpose I never liked the multi-colored sheen idea any more then the green color. It just looks and sounds dumb to me.

Bye for now. :thumbsup:
[ducks and covers and runs from the room as pro-"sheen" beer bottles fly through the air]


----------



## mechinyun (Feb 23, 2004)

Why all the hatin' on green?


----------



## Krako (Jun 6, 2003)

It's not easy being green...


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Purple is superior! Green must die!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Purple is superior! Green must die!


Purple is not a color.

You mean violet.

(Sorry, had a nun-wacks-my-fingers-for-using-art-slang-term-for-a-color flashback.  )


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Sorry, I was out this evening and came late to the party ...



Chuck_P.R. said:


> So basically you're saying...?


Sorry, I was just answering an earlier post which stated that flash was used on the shots. Regarding the painting, I was attempting to bolster the credibility of the Probert painting, since an earlier post did not seem to recognize the painting's worth as a colour source. 

My post has less and less meaning as the thread progresses.  I actually agree with you on all points, I just miscommunicated my own. My bad. 

I trust Mr. Olsen and Mr. Probert, and believe that the refit strongback was greenish, and the "A" strongback is bluish, with other trim bits being various shades of teal and grayish-bluish something.

Actually, the thread is losing meaning as it goes along. A bit of a tempest in a teapot, wot? Maybe it's time to talk about spelling and grammar.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Ahhhhhh, If only we held our leaders to such scrunity.

I post a longer reply to Griffs technicalities tommorrow. Its late, I'm going to bed.

BTW: What color do you get when you add yellow to blue?

Green.

In the comparison shot, look at how yellow the Pear White is compared to the other shot. Ok now I'm really going to bed.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> Ahhhhhh, If only we held our leaders to such scrunity.


Heh ... don't get me started.  



ClubTepes said:


> In the comparison shot, look at how yellow the Pear White is compared to the other shot.


Now don't get JohnP started.  

As I wrote before, we'll may never know what colour the bloody thing appeared to the naked eye. Those of us who have never been in the room with the pre-Khan refit miniature can choose to trust witnesses, photographs, telecined film footage, or none of those. It really doesn't matter. 

This is the sort of argument that makes our wives roll their eyes at us. Well, mine, anyway. :wave:


----------



## ArthurPendragon (Jan 4, 2004)

Here you´ll find a set of decals made from Mattew Fletcher and myself, in which we treyed to approach the ST-TMP engennering gree as best we could.

Also, we checked and rechecked the detail, and it´s similar to the A, but slightly different in some areas.

You can download it for free.

http://www.starshipmodeler.com/tech/cz_mask.htm


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Have I added my note of confusion to the mix?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/145935353/in/set-72057594134113076/

When I looked at it in 2001 it certainly looked green...


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

jbond said:


> Have I added my note of confusion to the mix?
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/145935353/in/set-72057594134113076/
> 
> When I looked at it in 2001 it certainly looked green...



Was there a definitive answer as to what ship that is on the flickr site?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

It looks like the "A" because of the revised strongback layout. 
http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-960

And then there's that "A" on the primary hull, if you go into the gallery ...


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Griffworks said:


> What was originally said was:
> 
> He puts the word proof in quotes, which tells me he's questioning the word of Paul Olsen - thus his credibility and integrity.


 I believe you're reading too much into that. He put "proof" in quotes because if Mr. Olsen is mistaken, it isn't really proof. In that case it would be evidence, yes; but not proof. I do not believe he was being insulting; only curious.



> I don't understand what the point is here, Mark. If it was green before arriving at the studio - per what's been said - and pics from the filming of TMP seem to back up the green color, doesn't that mean that the TMP paintjob was green all along...?


 Whether it is actually green (or blue, for that matter) in any of the photos is still open to question. I was merely pointing out that there is a further possiblity other than Mr. Olsen mis-remembering: It might well be that he _did_ paint it green, but that after it was out of his hands (but before it was filmed) someone else could have repainted that detail.

I have no stake in it either way. I'll make my own mind up someday before I finally get around to building my PL Refit. I'm only interested in seeing it discussed. Jumping on someone who is merely trying to weigh conflicting evidence by characterizing him as some kind of character assassin only serves to squelch the debate. And I wasn't singling just you out, Griff. Others were starting to pile on.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Purple is not a color.
> 
> You mean violet.
> 
> (Sorry, had a nun-wacks-my-fingers-for-using-art-slang-term-for-a-color flashback.  )


 Sister should have consulted a Pantone swatch book and she might have spared your fingers. Pantone Purple falls right between Pantone 252 and 253; it's quite distinct from Pantone Violet...

M.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

SteveR said:


> It looks like the "A" because of the revised strongback layout.
> http://www.fourmadmen.com/gallery/displayimage.php?pos=-960
> 
> And then there's that "A" on the primary hull, if you go into the gallery ...



Thanks Steve. I knew it was the E-A, I was asking what model this was used for as the A is supposed to have blue colors and not green.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Purple is not a color.
> 
> You mean violet.
> 
> (Sorry, had a nun-wacks-my-fingers-for-using-art-slang-term-for-a-color flashback.  )


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


If only the pantone swatch set that MGagen spoke of had been around then...

but even had the wikipedia been around I doubt I would have quoted anything with the word "wiki" in it to her. :lol:


Although part of that encyclopedia does explain (partially) an aversion to using the term as there is no one color that is purple. It doesn't even appear on Newton's color wheel as it is a combination of red and blue and thereby an "extra-spectral" or "non-spectral" color.

"_Violet_ is a spectral color of a (approximately 420–380nm) shorter wavelength than blue, while purple is a combination of red and blue light and when regarded as _electric purple_ (see below), it is the only color on the color wheel besides magenta and rose that is not a spectral color--_purple_ is an _extraspectral color_, along with _magenta_ and _rose_. In fact, purple was not present on Newton's color wheel (which went directly from violet to red), though it is present on modern ones. There is no such thing as the "wavelength of purple light"; it only exists as a combination. Also, violet light varies solely by wavelength, while purple varies by the proportion of red to blue light."


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

^^^^Just when you thought this discussion couldn't become more abstract. :lol:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Raist3001 said:


> Thanks Steve. I knew it was the E-A, I was asking what model this was used for as the A is supposed to have blue colors and not green.


Sorry!

In my opinion, this (green) is the same model as seen in the Christie's shots (bluish green) and the Cloudster shots (greenish blue). It's the big one. The real thing. 

We shouldn't place too much worth in photography's ability to reproduce colour. Not all the hues may have been recorded on the film (or chip) due to non-continuous-spectrum light (metal-halide, maybe, with a spike in the curve) in the room where it was shot. Or the flash reflected back some UV, skewing the results. Or some colour-correction was applied to neutralize something, sacrificing the subtle hues of the strongback. I don't know. 

Give me a sunny day with a gray card. :thumbsup:


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

SteveR said:


> In my opinion, this (green) is the same model as seen in the Christie's shots


So the model in the flickr site is the same one sold at Christies? One model is blue while the other is green.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

SteveR said:


> Sorry!
> 
> In my opinion, this (green) is the same model as seen in the Christie's shots (bluish green) and the Cloudster shots (greenish blue). It's the big one. The real thing.
> 
> ...


Except more then one person who physically saw the Refit version, most notably Olsen, has said it was green. 

So again, since there is no evidence to the contrary and countless pics to show a greenish tint *combined with statements* by the model's finisher that it was green, to conclude it was always blue is more then a little nonsensical.

Not only that, but the original strongback had countless different shapes then the shapes within the blue version. So even if one believed the color was never changed, one could not deny that the strongbacks were completely different in design.

So not only are people who saw the refit on record as saying it was green, you would have to believe they completely repainted the strongback on the A but the color change never happened.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Sorry -- I hope it was clear: in my last post I was referring to this miniature as the "green" one:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/145935353/in/set-72057594134113076/ It is clearly the "A", though I doubt that it was green in reality in 2001, since other "A" photos show it to be more bluish. I think it's really bluish, and the photos are inaccurate, possibly for reasons I stated.

Personally, I think the refit's strongback was pale sage green with teal accents on the pylons and elsewhere. 

... and I have no wish to beat this poor horse any longer.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

No worries, that photo obviously misrepresents the A - it certainly should have been blues in that photo, and there is a weird cast going on.

Going back to dislike of green on the original MP Refit- yes, I wouldn't particularly like dark green all over the strongback, but it's not, it is extremely subtle pale sage green (agreeing with Steve R on sage). It almost verges on the grey, and in some screen shots can barely be discernible from the white overall colour in the gloom, whereas in ST6 the blues stand out far too much and look too contrasty. So not everyone out here likes the blue version!!! Also, stuff what the miniature looks like sitting under flourescent light in a workshop, I agree with the comments that we should be looking to make models that look like the ship on film....and that is a different animal in the darkness.

Good topic and opinions guys, keep 'em coming...


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

I'm still confused....the Enterprise-A model in this site 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/284975...57594134113076/

is green because of lighting?

And is this the same model sold at Christies?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

MGagen said:


> I believe you're reading too much into that. He put "proof" in quotes because if Mr. Olsen is mistaken, it isn't really proof. In that case it would be evidence, yes; but not proof. I do not believe he was being insulting; only curious.


At this point, I don't see where he's stated that, so don't know that for a fact and would argue that you don't either.  



> Whether it is actually green (or blue, for that matter) in any of the photos is still open to question. I was merely pointing out that there is a further possiblity other than Mr. Olsen mis-remembering: It might well be that he _did_ paint it green, but that after it was out of his hands (but before it was filmed) someone else could have repainted that detail.
> 
> I have no stake in it either way. I'll make my own mind up someday before I finally get around to building my PL Refit. I'm only interested in seeing it discussed. Jumping on someone who is merely trying to weigh conflicting evidence by characterizing him as some kind of character assassin only serves to squelch the debate. And I wasn't singling just you out, Griff. Others were starting to pile on.


Regardless, I wasn't trying to "squelch" anything, but _was_ questioning why Club Tepes would take task with that Mr. Olsen states on his site, which _to my thinking_ is that - while he's not outright using the word - he's still calling making out Mr. Olsen to be a liar. I'm not sure why it is that you feel you have to keep beating this horse, but I'm hoping that it's nearly dead, thus won't require further beating and the debate on the actual color of the miniature as filmed can continue....


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

We know how chameleon like colors are when reproduced, especially something with as low a saturation as grey or grey green. I can't place any trust an a photo-reproduction as an accurate reference as anyone who've attempted to shoot copy photos of artwork can attest, some colors don't reproduce equally well on film and this deviation will vary depending on the quality and character of the paint on the subject, the film stock (or sensor/algorithm of the digital camera), the lighting, and any subsequent reproduction and post processing of the image source. But, for hobby model building, I think most images will get get you in the ball park--anything else may need to be left to taste, that being said, Mr Olsen was an accomplished fine artist and an extremely talented airbrush artist long before he put paint to the Refit. _He knows color._ It's his business and his art to know color, how to apply it, and how to articulate it to the viewer. This part is not interpretive as far as I'm concerned. It's gotta be green.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Ignatz said:


> ... that being said, Mr Olsen was an accomplished fine artist and an extremely talented airbrush artist long before he put paint to the Refit. _He knows color._ It's his business and his art to know color, how to apply it, and how to articulate it to the viewer. This part is not interpretive as far as I'm concerned. It's gotta be green.


That's all I've been trying to get across in the last several posts.

The chances of Olsen being wrong about whether it was green or blue are nil in my mind.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

This issue has been discussed to death several times already. Some say blue, others green. I believe the concensus is... paint it the way YOU feel is correct. Maybe this should be closed and filed with the others for reference.

IMHO.. to quote Scotty... "It's Green!" :wave:


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Heh.... 

And to return to my previous, vague _Babylon5_ post of earlier in this thread: 

*Purple* is superior! Kill green!


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Griffworks said:


> Regardless, I wasn't trying to "squelch" anything, but _was_ questioning why Club Tepes would take task with that Mr. Olsen states on his site, which _to my thinking_ is that - while he's not outright using the word - he's still calling making out Mr. Olsen to be a liar.


 If "your thinking" doesn't enable you to distinguish the difference between saying:

A) someone might be _mistaken_ 

and 

B) someone is _a liar_ 

then there's truly nothing left to say. In any case, I'm through advocating a little civility in this thread.

M.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Oh, for the love of margarine, Mark! Where is _anyone_ not being civil here??? 

What ClubTepes wrote originally can easily come across as not just challenging established facts.


ClubTepes said:


> This comes from my whole confusion about the idea that the engineering strongback was painted in greens for the TMP Enterprise, then in blue/grays for the Ent 'A'.
> 
> In the 'green' camp, we have Paul Olson himself saying that the strongback was painted in 'sage greens'.
> 
> ...


If anyone is lacking in civility here, it's the condescending tone of your post. Just because someone else has a different view of a situation doesn't mean that you're right and they're wrong and I was simply trying - in a civil manner - to relay where my thinking was coming from. That's it.


----------

