«

Gene Palmiter wrote:

> The White House is stone...but not marble to my memory. Its a sort of
> sandstone I think. What I do know is that it was burned during the
> war of 1812 and to cover the smoke damage it was painted white and so
> got its nick name. Since its not the stone you are seeing but the
> paint the sort of stone doesn't matter all that much.

Wikipedia claims the smoke damage theory is an urban legend (apparently,
the building was already painted white before it burned.) See

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_house>

--
znark

> Sorry excuse the bad attempt at humour, but assuming the White House is
> indeed White, then 255,255,255

There is at least tens of whites if not hundreds. Check any paint specifier


> Couldn't resist ;o)

Me too

Regards,

K.Polak

Well....how do we know that the urban legend legend is not just an urban
legend? Wikipeadia is interesting...but hardly authoritative.

More authoritative is http://www.whitehousehistory.org/02/subs/02_b.html by
the White House Historical Association...or at least that seems to be their
claim. These people don't make any absolute claims but they do lend some
support to the idea that the building was called the White House...or maybe
just the white house...as far back as 1798.

I have never toured the White House. There was an episode of The West Wing
where the burning of the house is mentioned along with a mention that signs
of the damage still exists. Can anyone verify this? Something they have seen
themselves?

So...some questions. Was the building ever actually painted Grey? Could the
name go all the way back to the masons whitewashing the stone to protect it?
Could a thin wash actually protect the stone? Do we know of this being done
anywhere else? If the white wash was to be painted over in grey would people
call it by a color that was so temporary? Hence the question of whether it
was ever grey. What does any of this have to do with the color balance of a
shot of the White House?



--
Thanks,
Gene Palmiter
(visit my photo gallery at http://palmiter.dotphoto.com)
freebridge design group
www.route611.com & Route 611 Magazine
"Jukka Aho" <> wrote in message
news:Kt4_e.29412$. ..
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>
>> The White House is stone...but not marble to my memory. Its a sort of
>> sandstone I think. What I do know is that it was burned during the
>> war of 1812 and to cover the smoke damage it was painted white and so
>> got its nick name. Since its not the stone you are seeing but the
>> paint the sort of stone doesn't matter all that much.
>
> Wikipedia claims the smoke damage theory is an urban legend (apparently,
> the building was already painted white before it burned.) See
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_house>
>
> --
> znark
>

In article <q99_e.13154$y64.5369@trnddc06>,
Gene Palmiter <> wrote:
>Well....how do we know that the urban legend legend is not just an urban
>legend? Wikipeadia is interesting...but hardly authoritative.
>
>More authoritative is http://www.whitehousehistory.org/02/subs/02_b.html by
>the White House Historical Association...or at least that seems to be their
>claim. These people don't make any absolute claims but they do lend some
>support to the idea that the building was called the White House...or maybe
>just the white house...as far back as 1798.
>
>I have never toured the White House. There was an episode of The West Wing
>where the burning of the house is mentioned along with a mention that signs
>of the damage still exists. Can anyone verify this? Something they have seen
>themselves?
>
>So...some questions. Was the building ever actually painted Grey? Could the
>name go all the way back to the masons whitewashing the stone to protect it?
>Could a thin wash actually protect the stone? Do we know of this being done
>anywhere else? If the white wash was to be painted over in grey would people
>call it by a color that was so temporary? Hence the question of whether it
>was ever grey. What does any of this have to do with the color balance of a
>shot of the White House?
>
>
>


Back to my OP;

I asked if someone had the calibrated RGB values for a famous
landmark, the WH or the Capital dome. I guess I also need
the reflectivity value.

I have a bunch of pics from the march and I want to try to improve the
color correction by using the shots with these landmarks as "grey
cards".

Is this completely off-base? I'm new to photoshop and attempts at
decent photography.


http://www.6gen.com/photography/WDC/index.html




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

On Tue, 27 Sep 2005 03:04:44 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<> wrote:

>The White House is stone...but not marble to my memory. Its a sort of
>sandstone I think. What I do know is that it was burned during the war of
>1812 and to cover the smoke damage it was painted white and so got its nick
>name. Since its not the stone you are seeing but the paint the sort of stone
>doesn't matter all that much.


* The White House is 168 feet (51.2 meters) long

* The White House is 85 feet 6 inches (26.1 meters) wide without
porticoes; 152 feet wide with porticoes.

* The overall height of the White House (to the top of the roof)
is 70 feet on the south and 60 feet 4 inches on the north; the façade
(grade of lawn to parapet) is 60 feet on the south (lawn at 54 feet
above sea level) and 50 feet 4 inches on the north.
* It takes 300 gallons of white paint to cover the exterior of
just the residence portion of the White House (center), excluding the
West and East Wings.

--------------

It looks like the White House is painted White....

--

Scott in Florida

In article <q99_e.13154$y64.5369@trnddc06>,
Gene Palmiter <> wrote:
>Well....how do we know that the urban legend legend is not just an urban
>legend? Wikipeadia is interesting...but hardly authoritative.
>
>More authoritative is http://www.whitehousehistory.org/02/subs/02_b.html by
>the White House Historical Association...or at least that seems to be their
>claim. These people don't make any absolute claims but they do lend some
>support to the idea that the building was called the White House...or maybe
>just the white house...as far back as 1798.
>

As someone who repsects academic credentials relevant to any
discussion I've recently become a fan of Wikipedia as long as it's
read critically.

It can respond much more quickly to current events than anything but
the newspapers. This can help damp down the rumor and conspiracy
factory that is the Internet.

At it's best it openly acknowlegdes shortcommings and in the
discussions tab allows controversy. This is new and important. The
standard media has nothing like this. I can look up something
happening in the world that I'm unfamiliar with and get the basics and
then see if there are two, or more, sides to the story.

It's a great place to look for links to possibly more authorative
sources.




--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

> At it's best it openly acknowlegdes shortcommings and in the
> discussions tab allows controversy. This is new and important. The
> standard media has nothing like this. I can look up something
> happening in the world that I'm unfamiliar with and get the basics and
> then see if there are two, or more, sides to the story.
>
> It's a great place to look for links to possibly more authorative
> sources.

I like it too...and I contribute to the process. But, as there are few
subjects where the absolute truth can be known should we trust any source
for anything? As regards the OP so the building is white....what shade of
white? Actually it doesn't matter. What you want is not accuracy, but a
perception of accuracy. You want it to appear in the photo as it appeared to
you when you shot it. You cannot have that. The dynamic range of the real
world is larger than we can capture. So the best you can do is capture the
feeling that you had when there and that is subjective. Pick a neutral point
and see if it works. If it looks the way you want and nothing else is too
far off then what more can you expect.

> It looks like the White House is painted White....

But which one: Off white, Dutch white, Zinc white, Milk white, Buttery
white, Paris white, House white, Arctic white.........Cloud white, Antique
white?

Regards,

K.Polak

Krystian Polak wrote:

>> It looks like the White House is painted White....

> But which one: Off white, Dutch white, Zinc white, Milk white,
> Buttery white, Paris white, House white, Arctic white.........
> Cloud white, Antique white?

The White House white, of course.

--
znark

> The White House white, of course.

Or President white

Regards,

K.Polak