Well, yes. What’s your point? The makeup obviously looks fake in color photos. But that’s presumably because it was done in a way that would look good in B&W, not color. Lots of color photos from the sets of B&W movies look all weird.
Hang on, are we arguing here, or are we just saying the same thing? Now I’m not even completely sure.
nm
This is what the main set of The Addams Family looked like in color and in B&W (it was filmed in the latter):
Back in the days when most TV sets were B&W, art directors used a special glass to see what sets would look like when they were viewed that way, even if (like Star Trek) they were filmed in color.
Again, what looks natural when filmed in B&W does not necessarily look good in color. The hideous makeup on Daphne and Josephine was the only kind that looked natural when photographed in B&W.
Put another way, if ***Hot ***had been filmed in color, there was no way Curtis and Lemmon could be made up to look convincingly like women. They looked more or less natural only when they had on the hideous makeup and were filmed in B&W.
Really? Well, if that’s the case, I’ll consider myself corrected. That doesn’t sound right, though. For one thing, I would like to give makeup artists more credit than that. For another thing, frankly, Curtis & Lemmon don’t look exactly convincing as it is.
I think you’re talking about a contrast viewing filter, used to judge the contrast of the scene.
Here’s a capture from Netflix showing the casual wraparound and the pullover tunic side by side.
The costume worn by George Reeves in the first couple of seasons of The Adventures of Superman was gray and brown, because blue and red didn’t show enough contrast on black and white film. Later seasons were shot in color. Go to this page and scroll down to the last photograph.
Yes, but they’re all ripped.
Gatopescado beat you to that joke. 
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19552955&postcount=12
I hope this doesn’t sound obnoxious, but I’m kind of amazed this is a topic of discussion at all.
With all due respect to the OP, everybody I know (who cares about ST, anyway) has known about the green velour thing for decades.
And, as the OP said a bit later, the guy who designed and built the costumes says they were green. Why is anyone doubting that? What possible reason would he have for making the story up?
The standard tunic, the wraparound fatigue, and the dress tunic were all roughly the same color. But one was made of velour, and it photographed more gold than the others.
It only makes sense that publicity photos were altered so that the color matched what everyone was seeing on their screens. Ditto comic book art, toys, etc. — they were made to match the gold that everyone saw on their screens.
Well, I’m sorry for failing to sufficiently care about Star Trek. But I just found out, so I’m amazed now instead of decades ago. Go figure.
I just found out, but 1) I didn’t have a color TV until 1988 or so, so there are still some episodes I haven’t seen in color yet and 2) I’m colorblind, with some greens appearing yellow* so… yeah, guess I didn’t know.
Um … yeah. Remember when I said I hope I didn’t sound obnoxious? Clearly, I failed. I apologize.
To paraphrase Richard Pryor in a similar context, “I didn’t say I was gonna make you hot, I said I was gonna get you on the train!”
Does your current TV have a color setting? Put it at 0. On most sets that should do the trick.
Check Memory Alpha for references–
General Colors
Captain’s Option.
So, that.
Well, all that stuff was already in the the thread, but okay.
It didn’t help that the “green” uniforms were closer to chartreuse.
So far at least three descriptions have been applied—lime green, avocado, chartreuse—did I miss any? Is this proof that color perception and classification is highly subjective?