"Ståle Sannerud" wrote

For instance, preussian blue was 45 times more expensive than plain
old yellow ochre - they'd use the one for the French royal coat of
arms on the stern, the other for the ship's sides So while I
would not doubt that even something as large as a figurehead could
be very brilliantly painted indeed I'd tend to take exception to
brilliant colours being used on the hull itself to any degree!

Clearly. These figures go a long way towards explaining why the black and
yellow stripe scheme of Nelson's day was so commonplace: it was cheap, as
were the alternatives of red and black or red all over.

In one of the O'Brian's there is a description of the frigate Java as
sporting an extravagant colour scheme of a blue stripe along the hull
between black stripes edged with white. It does indeed sound pricey, and at
40 times the price of yellow one can see why the wealthy captains of pretty
warships were so loth to practice the messy business of gunnery.

I'd expect painting of ships to be a more or less continuous process (then
as now, I guess...), given the quality of paints available at the time.
Even
the Atlantic liners, in the early 1900s, sometimes arrived in port after
the
Atlantic crossing sans large areas of paint at the bows, it having been
stripped right off the hull during a single trip.

I believe this is also the reason why oil tankers are painted red...hides
the rust. I've also heard the other favoured scheme of black hull / white
superstructure is designed to defeat photogrpahy - if you can read the
ship's name the photo is too over- or under-exposed to publish. I think it's
an urban myth though.