Wow, by this two pictures, looks like the insignia on the main strut should be there, like it is on the 3d model posted by Oleg.
All this pictures are very confusing.

I'm sure if one of you native speakers would write the Tower Bridge historians a kind mail asking about the colour, condition and coats they would be happy to help out.

I don't know a date for this, but clothing looks later than the war. 50's or '60s.
Colours may be hand tinted too.

http://www.oldukphotos.com/graphics/...r%20Bridge.jpg

One for fun :-)

Date 1892:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...works_1892.jpg

Look at the links I provided regarding the restoration.

Paint analysis bridge

http://www.thetowerbridge.info/wp-co...f-the-helm.jpg

Paint analysis lights

http://www.thetowerbridge.info/wp-co...lamp-stand.jpg

As already mentioned the bridge was reddish brown and the lights geen

I see nothing wrong with the 1c teams modelling of the bridge for the time span its intended

I'm starting to feel all this bridge detail hunt a little exaggerated. What's next, a request for progressive weathering of the bridge paint ? Priorities ...

:grin:
No no... the colour of the pilot socks will be the next discussion :rolleyes:... nothing new on this forum about discussions

The bridge was painted 'Thames Blue' during the war so that it could not be spotted from above by enemy aircraft, but it was later changed back after far too many civilian vehicles drove straight into the river.

Don't be daft, they didn't wear socks.

Woman's underwear perhaps, but socks absolutely not.

:grin:
I doubt if the Thames has been blue since the Romans arrived. A muddy brown with the occasional dead dog would be closer...:-P

Now we are back to the whole detail thing again......

Me too

But as a Londoner I saw some details posted here that were incorrect and it was difficult not to correct especially as were were invited to "comment" by Oleg on the posted updates.

Im not a chart monkey but the links I had provided hadn't been viewed and I simply put a visual aid to help.

LoL..OK then: it was painted a muddy brown, but they changed it after too many dogs ran straight into the river :-).

The model looks fine to me, by the way. I think there is absolutely no need to alter it.

Wadda ya mean, Romans? That mud is good natural mud, not pollution (mostly, even now), and it's been like that since long before the Romans.

Hi Oleg,

Here in Marseille, we also had a bridge destroyed by the Germans in 1944.

Maybe you could use the attached pictures for creating a mission over Marseille ... who knows:)

If thats true , thats well funny......"isnit" ,"standed":mrgreen:

Evil dzermanz http://foorum.mexxoft.com/images/smilies/fffuuu.png

Water is naturally clear, and the perception of colour is dependant on particles suspended in it and light reflected from it. Therefore it's also dependant on time of day, nature of weather, and state of tide. (The Thames is tidal all the way up to Teddington lock) Thus the river looks browner as the tide goes out and the mudbanks are exposed - with the other extreme being altogether dependant on sunlight, cloud cover, blueness of sky and so on.

I wouldn't want to rely on hand-coloured photos or some of the cine-film which seems to have more garish hues than reality. Suffice to say that at full tide on a sunny day it looks at its best, but it never obtains the Mediterannean blue that the tourist photos suggest.

As far as the models are concerned, they look great! My request is to reproduce the drab result of over fifty years of unremitting coal smoke which polluted all of the buildings in London. Tower Bridge as modelled looks entirely convincing, just too clean and bright.

B

I've taken hundreds of pics from on the River Thames

And be sure its mostly brown sandy mud silty colour.

Although I've seen it quite blue greeny looking in places also.

Here's some pics from my own collection showing how brown the water usually is, also overcast days makes it look murky too as the light cant hit the water to well..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...CN1371copy.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...CN1430copy.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...1/DSCF1474.jpg

Further to how murky rivers in the UK can be, this satellite photo was from the time of the snow a couple of weeks ago, you can't see the Thames for cloud unfortunately, but look how far the brown extends out to sea from the river in the south west. If the mud from the Thames extends a third as far, then you'll never see blue water in London.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/g...7.1150.1km.jpg

Hehe!

If I'm not mistaken, the colour of water is affected by the position of the sun in relation to the camera - if one is taking the pic facing the sun, the water will appear brown - if the sun is behind you, it will appear blue. That's "more brown" and "more blue"!!
I'm nowhere near water now to test this out (it's also nightime here in South Africa at the moment).
Anyone else hear that explanation? - I recall my father (a keen photographer in his day) telling me this.

This is irrelevant to the opacity of the water, as in KG26_Alpha's photo by the steps, you will see nothing down through it. The sea at Dover would probably be a very different matter, but the Thames in London will be opaque.

Pictures of the same beach at Brighton (South coast of England).
Taken with sun behind and in front of the camera, same result as far as I can see :).

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...1/DSCF1060.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...1/DSCF1026.jpg

I very much disagree and think its unrealistic without your arms and hands in the way... with 6dof there's no reason you shouldn't be able to see instruments.. Ghost pilots are a big gap for me!

the colors depending of camera matrix (film) and physics of light rays going in and out of water.
Color in reality and fixed by camera are always different. No one photo without corrections with speciall rules show real colors when you make a picture of water on a big space.

1927 colour film of London showing Tower Bridge:

http://www.flixxy.com/london-1927-historical-film.htm

RedToo.

OK people ... leave Oleg alone ... scheesshh ..... nufs enough.

OK, so according to an official source from Tower Bridge itself ...

"As far as we know, records indicate that the Bridge was painted a bright chocolate colour in the 1940s, which is the same colour you can still see inside the Bridge."

Hope this helps

PPanPan

...

These aerial pictures were taken in August 1931 from the Graf Zeppelin during a trip to England .



Brighton, the seaside resort on the English Channel.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Bright.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Brighton.jpg



The Thames bend with the London Charing cross railway station and the Savoy hotel.
On the left side, a part of the Trafalgar Square with the Nelson's Column and the Admiralty Arch with the Mall leading to the Buckingham palace.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/CharingC.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/NelsonSäule.jpg







Westminster Bridge crossing The Thames with the Parliament building on the bank.
On the foreground, the Gothic Westminster Cathedral with its twin towers.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Parliam.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/Westminster.jpg






London City :
From the front right, Fleet Street, the newsagent's centre, leads to Saint Pauls Cathedral.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/StPauls.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39...Kathedrale.jpg



The aerial photo shows the Towerof London, the ancient city stronghold with the Tower Bridge behind.
On the left, a part of the Saint Catherine docks.

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/TBridge.jpg


http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39...werBridge1.jpg




...

Great old pics
 

some great old pics there!

Regards

Stiboo