Best way to do large number of brand comparisons/review?

[SamCapote]

I'm getting a bunch of new inks, and while some/many of them have been individually reviewed by others, I was trying to think of the most useful way to display for example, all of the J. Herbin inks together. They could be grouped according to shades of various colors, q-tip and/or glass dip pen strokes, various papers used, scan/photographed. What would you guys suggest as the most useful methods/things to display?

[GreenVelvet]

Wow, that's so personal - you're likely to get a whole passel of different preferences. I say, do 'em how you want 'em. At least you'll be making one person happy that way.

 

Me, I'm happy to see any ink comparisons, however they come!

[Sandy1]

Hi,

 

Good luck on such an ambitious project!!

 

Ah, "... the most useful methods/things to display..."

 

Not to be flippant, but people want to know how it will look from their pen on their paper. Now, we know that is highly impractical. So what is? If it is for your use alone, then each time you ink-up with a certain ink, write a preset sentence on a sheet of paper for that ink. Over time, you will come to know how that ink will look from your other pens and on other papers.

 

But for other people, I think we need to come to the lowest (practical) common denominator. I chose the Lamy Safari <M> as my pen & nib of choice: many people have them whether they'll admit to it or not; and a pretty good utility paper. I thought of using a Pelikan <M> and the Clairefontaine 'Triumph', but some folks may not use those.

 

So we have some tools for the lowest common denominator. So what about the highest prime? This is totally subjective, but one might use the cost/ml including shipping to get a rule of thumb. There is a reality check built-in : would I use this ink through a Safari on a utility paper when writing personal letters to good friends? If 'no', then what pen+paper combo would be a high prime but still sufficiently common that others could relate to? For me it would be a Duofold with any of various nibs and/or the MB149 <B>.

 

An ubiquitous queue-tip swab? Sure why not. Glass & dip pens are 1/2 way, but far too deceptive. We know the swab isn't how it'll look from a pen, so that makes it useful for comparison : it is consistently inaccurate. And is fast & cheap to produce.

 

Three different nib sizes would be nice: <F>, <M>, <B> & maybe say a 0.7mm Stub.

 

Also inclusion of the lowest common denominator ink : inexpensive, readily available just about anywhere, worth its salt as being a 'real' ink. Youbetcha - Waterman 'Florida Blue', (WFB).

 

So when I wanted to show what one of my mixes might well look like, I did swabs and 3 written samples from different nib widths and compared it to WFB. Fast & easy? Not at all. ... Worth it? To me, Yes of course. To others, who knows, no one's bothered to Post or PM comments.

 

Arranging the whole thing : I file the sample sheets by brand & name. Each ink is given a meaningless sequential Serial No. My index to each ink is a colour wheel - I position each ink SN on the colour wheel, so when it comes time to look for a certain 'teal', I look at 'teal' on the colour wheel to determine which inks I should consider. Easy-peasey Lemon-squeezie.

 

Best Regards

Badly Bruised S1

 

EDIT : 1) Expletives deleted/replaced; 2) Acronym 'WFB' expanded/unpacked.

 

Here's my sample sheet for 'Cool Fusion':

http://i783.photobucket.com/albums/yy116/Sandy1-1/InkyThoughts2010/img004-1.jpg

Edited March 6, 2010 by Sandy1

[SamCapote]

Hi,

 

Good luck on such an ambitious project!!

 

Ah, "... the most useful methods/things to display..."

 

Not to be flippant, but people want to know how it will look from their pen on their paper. Now, we know that is highly impractical. So what is? If it is for your use alone, then each time you ink-up with a certain ink, write a preset sentence on a sheet of paper for that ink. Over time, you will come to know how that ink will look from your other pens and on other papers.

 

Sandy you have gone out of your way a number of times to be extraordinarily helpful, and I REALLY appreciate it. Love that sample you posted above. Your post gave me tons of great ideas. I can see I was thinking of the quick, down & dirty Q-tip, but like you said, it doesn't really give people a good idea as in pens. Anything good should take a while, right? I think I have around 250 inks.

 

I'm thinking of a box with cards (half a letter size ?) type system, so I could have one card for every ink, and they could be organized by colors, manufacturer, added to, rearranged, water dip one side, etc. I could use HP Premium Laserjet 24# paper, cut a letter size in half, or some other common paper. Or just print out the public, posted full page ink review PDF template with a full size sheet for each ink in a 3 ring binder. Trying to think of a way to display several close colors together too. Maybe overlap the sheets of paper, showing top couple of lines before scanning, or photos.

[Sandy1]

...

I think I have around 250 inks.

 

I'm thinking of a box with cards (half a letter size ?) type system, so I could have one card for every ink, and they could be organized by colors, manufacturer, added to, rearranged, water dip one side, etc. I could use HP Premium Laserjet 24# paper, cut a letter size in half, or some other common paper. Or just print out the public, posted full page ink review PDF template with a full size sheet for each ink in a 3 ring binder. Trying to think of a way to display several close colors together too. Maybe overlap the sheets of paper, showing top couple of lines before scanning, or photos.

Hi,

 

Consider : What do you want out of it?

The format, etc. doesn't matter. Put in what you want to get out. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

For so many inks, I reckon a simple .xls or similar table may be a useful tool for organizing/searching.

 

In the oil patch we use a map + depth to locate & specify what we're doing or want to do or was done, etc. This Lat+Long & this far down. But for aviators, 'this far down', isn't all that useful, so 'this far up' may need to be added. :-)

 

Let me get back to you, likely by PM.

 

Badly Bruised S1

[tanesiir]

I'm getting a bunch of new inks, and while some/many of them have been individually reviewed by others, I was trying to think of the most useful way to display for example, all of the J. Herbin inks together. They could be grouped according to shades of various colors, q-tip and/or glass dip pen strokes, various papers used, scan/photographed. What would you guys suggest as the most useful methods/things to display?

 

I have been thinking the same problem, not that my ink collection is as vast as yours. I am considering of getting Pelikan M215 nibs in different sizes (maybe all of them as they don't really cost that much and I already have half of them on my pens) and just using them as dip nibs. Maybe even crafting some sort of simple handle out of plastic pipe or whatever so they could all be on use at the same time. Cleaning the "pens" between inks would be quick. But then again, a long hand written review with a piece of plastic pipe would probably be ergonomically miserable.

 

Worrying about different kinds of paper is clearly out of my league so no ideas there.

 

Presentation. It would be cool to have a web page where one can choose inks freely and they would then be shown side by side for comparison. Everything would of course be done very Hi-Fi (color corretion wise etc.).

 

I guess it can be read between the lines that I am only really interested in the color of the inks. Not that much of any other properties. But that's sorta the impression I got from your post too?

[GouletPens]

I'm a big advocate of the importance of the paper used to get proper ink performance (I'm a Clairefontaine/Rhodia/Quo Vadis/Exacompta/J. Herbin retailer). The paper you use is as critical, if not more critical than the type of nib you use in your pen. A fine nib-whatever pen will draw a very thick line in a lesser-performing paper like Moleskine ruled notebooks because the ink will soak into the paper. The paper draws in the ink rather than leaving it on the surface, so it appears more 'diluted', changing all of the important characteristics that you would be reviewing of the ink such as color, dry time, line width, feathering, bleedthrough, see-though (aka ghosting or echoing), shading, flow, skipping, and spreading. All of these things will be changed entirely if you change your paper. This is something that I don't think most people take into account when doing ink reviews. Maybe I'm a little sensitive to the paper because I deal SO much with paper on a daily basis, but I personally feel that the paper you write on (for fountain pens, not necessarily any other types of pens) is as important a variable if not more so than the nib or pen used.

 

I sell the full line of J. Herbin inks and plan to do reviews of all 30 (plus scented) since I have such an intimate knowledge of them and easy access. I have already 'written' the reviews, but since videos are my thing (on Ink Nouveau), I am only waiting to record them before I publish them. I've already completed about 10 different inks, but a newborn is making it difficult to find quiet time around the house to record!! Anyway, enough of the self-promotion, here's my input. I chose two different types of paper, Clairefontaine Triomphe and G. Lalo Vergé de France in ivory. They are both extremely high-performing and optimally consistent papers that will give the most accurate depiction of ink performance. The white and ivory show the different looks ink can have. Triomphe is smooth, and Vergé is textured, another variable. I include in my review the use of a Pelikan Script 1.5mm calligraphy pen, which showcases the shading and 'wet' writing characteristics, a fine nib Lamy Vista, one of the staple starter pens, a J. Herbin glass-dip pen, cuz they're cool, and a q-tip swab. I can tell you by doing the 10 I have so far, that with entirely consistent paper (eliminating that as a variable), every single ink looks an entirely different color with each of the 3 pens used. However, since most people are at least somewhat familiar with how their pen-of-choice performs compared to one of these 3.

 

Bottom line is that I feel that when doing an ink review, the most important variable is the paper, then the ink, then the pen. This may differ from others' views slightly, but I think if you try the same pen and ink on several of the most popular papers (staples bagasse, hp 32lb, black n red, crown mill, apica, moleskine, clairefontaine, rhodia, g.lalo) you'll find that your ink will have vastly different performance characteristics, more so than just using a different sized nib.

 

There, consider my two cents deposited

[dizzypen]

I like the dip pen and swabs method for color comparisons. It's easier to scan/photograph pages with similar colors (oranges on one page, blues on another, so on) and get some what accurate results. This also provides a measure of consistency since you are doing the same things for the same inks.

 

You are really just trying to convey the general color of the inks. Most colors change drastically from pen to pen and according to the paper.

 

Also, if you are going to take photos, natural light is your friend. You get much more accurate pictures that way.

 

Here is an example of a couple I've done:

 

In natural light:

 

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4398620942_b4f60c701a.jpg

 

On a cloudy day (filtered natural light):

 

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4351990176_623d3a8402.jpg

 

For reviews I like the notecard method. I do the same thing with every ink, and use whatever pen I've decided to put it in. Again, this gives folks a general idea of the ink. Things change radically from pen to pen, etc.

 

Here is an example:

 

In natural light

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2704/4397854429_8f9c725cc2.jpg

 

On a cloudy day (filtered natural light)

 

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4008/4364921775_d2dff18f24.jpg

 

HTH

[GreenVelvet]

Also inclusion of the lowest common denominator ink : inexpensive, readily available just about anywhere, worth its salt as being a 'real' ink. Youbetcha - WFB.

 

WFB - unpack that acronym for us ignorant folk?

[GreenVelvet]

I'm a big advocate of the importance of the paper used to get proper ink performance (I'm a Clairefontaine/Rhodia/Quo Vadis/Exacompta/J. Herbin retailer). The paper you use is as critical, if not more critical than the type of nib you use in your pen. A fine nib-whatever pen will draw a very thick line in a lesser-performing paper like Moleskine ruled notebooks because the ink will soak into the paper. The paper draws in the ink rather than leaving it on the surface, so it appears more 'diluted', changing all of the important characteristics that you would be reviewing of the ink such as color, dry time, line width, feathering, bleedthrough, see-though (aka ghosting or echoing), shading, flow, skipping, and spreading. All of these things will be changed entirely if you change your paper. This is something that I don't think most people take into account when doing ink reviews. Maybe I'm a little sensitive to the paper because I deal SO much with paper on a daily basis, but I personally feel that the paper you write on (for fountain pens, not necessarily any other types of pens) is as important a variable if not more so than the nib or pen used.

 

Brian, I'm with you 100%.

 

I keep an ink journal to record my own pen and ink combinations, and I'm into the third volume now. I worry about limiting myself, but I think I may have become snobbish enough to degree that all future ink journals must be Clairefontaine paper. It helps to have a consistent paper to handle my ink tests, and if I must choose one paper, that would definitely be Clairefontaine. It shows the best behavior of any ink I've used. My "next-in-line" journal for when my current ink journal is completed is another Clairefontaine, and while I'm enjoying writing in my new Rhodia Webnotebooks as a writing journal, I think for now the ink journals stay CF.

 

You hit the nail on the head, for me, with your description of how some inks soak into the paper rather than stay on the surface.

[SamCapote]

I'm a big advocate of the importance of the paper used to get proper ink performance (I'm a Clairefontaine/Rhodia/Quo Vadis/Exacompta/J. Herbin retailer). The paper you use is as critical, if not more critical than the type of nib you use in your pen. A fine nib-whatever pen will draw a very thick line in a lesser-performing paper like Moleskine ruled notebooks because the ink will soak into the paper. The paper draws in the ink rather than leaving it on the surface, so it appears more 'diluted', changing all of the important characteristics that you would be reviewing of the ink such as color, dry time, line width, feathering, bleedthrough, see-though (aka ghosting or echoing), shading, flow, skipping, and spreading. All of these things will be changed entirely if you change your paper. This is something that I don't think most people take into account when doing ink reviews. Maybe I'm a little sensitive to the paper because I deal SO much with paper on a daily basis, but I personally feel that the paper you write on (for fountain pens, not necessarily any other types of pens) is as important a variable if not more so than the nib or pen used.

 

Brian, I'm with you 100%.

 

I keep an ink journal to record my own pen and ink combinations, and I'm into the third volume now. I worry about limiting myself, but I think I may have become snobbish enough to degree that all future ink journals must be Clairefontaine paper. It helps to have a consistent paper to handle my ink tests, and if I must choose one paper, that would definitely be Clairefontaine. It shows the best behavior of any ink I've used. My "next-in-line" journal for when my current ink journal is completed is another Clairefontaine, and while I'm enjoying writing in my new Rhodia Webnotebooks as a writing journal, I think for now the ink journals stay CF.

 

You hit the nail on the head, for me, with your description of how some inks soak into the paper rather than stay on the surface.

 

I can see how valuable it was to ask for advice from everyone before starting. I did not realize it was that important to use the highest quality papers, but after this post, I will make a point to intentionally check the same pen on 5-6 different papers. I do have a (roughly) 6x8" Clairefontaine Triomphe tablet, a ream of the HP laserjet 32# (which I was calling 24# - stupid me), Hammermil Copy Plus paper, Ampad "Gold Fiber" tablets, etc.

 

Then there is that whole issue of photographing vs. scanning. Photographing then gets into all the variables of ISO, f-Stop, white balance, lighting/flash, etc. I have seen many ink photographs that don't show on the computer screen anything like it does in person.

 

The good news is I am already having fun just thinking about the best way to do the project, rather than jumping into it mindlessly. There's so many distinctions that we all care about, and yet for many, are not fully appreciated.

[Sandy1]

...

I am considering of getting Pelikan M215 nibs in different sizes (maybe all of them as they don't really cost that much and I already have half of them on my pens) and just using them as dip nibs. ...

 

Hi,

I do like the idea of using Binder Pelikan nibs, simply because I feel that if asked, they would provide a 'suite' of nibs that have the same wetness and are otherwise consistent in every way but dimension: <XF> to <B> & 0.7 Stub/cursive Italic. Certainly not inexpensive - all-in, that's a tidy bit of cash. But it's about the same a a nice dinner out for four. (?)

 

Procedurally, one would just run through the various nib widths by changing the nibs - no need to wash the tank until done. But even if one did that with the Safari, the consistency of wetness would be present with the Pelikans, but absent with the Safari nibs.

 

BUT, are Pelikans really that common to serve as a 'lowest common denominator'?

(I would like to think so. Maybe take a poll: Who has a Pelikan? Who has a Safari? Who has both Safari and Pelikan?)

 

Best Regards,

Badly Bruised S1

[Sandy1]

... I'm a big advocate of the importance of the paper used to get proper ink performance (I'm a Clairefontaine/Rhodia/Quo Vadis/Exacompta/J. Herbin retailer). The paper you use is as critical, if not more critical than the type of nib you use

...

here's my input. I chose two different types of paper, Clairefontaine Triomphe and G. Lalo Vergé de France in ivory. They are both extremely high-performing and optimally consistent papers that will give the most accurate depiction of ink performance. The white and ivory show the different looks ink can have. Triomphe is smooth, and Vergé is textured, another variable. I include in my review the use of a Pelikan Script 1.5mm calligraphy pen, which showcases the shading and 'wet' writing characteristics, a fine nib Lamy Vista, one of the staple starter pens, a J. Herbin glass-dip pen, cuz they're cool, and a q-tip swab. I can tell you by doing the 10 I have so far, that with entirely consistent paper (eliminating that as a variable), every single ink looks an entirely different color with each of the 3 pens used. However, since most people are at least somewhat familiar with how their pen-of-choice performs compared to one of these 3.

 

Bottom line is that I feel that when doing an ink review, the most important variable is the paper, then the ink, then the pen. This may differ from others' views slightly, but I think if you try the same pen and ink on several of the most popular papers (staples bagasse, hp 32lb, black n red, crown mill, apica, moleskine, clairefontaine, rhodia, g.lalo) you'll find that your ink will have vastly different performance characteristics, more so than just using a different sized nib.

 

There, consider my two cents deposited

Hello Brian,

Without a doubt, paper is critical. And yes, it would be a fine idea to do all samples (I wont call it 'testing') on several papers. I have suggested a 2-tier method: 'lowest common denominator' and 'highest prime' as a means of determining when to go to optimum paper/s.

I think this is also where some head-scratching & pondering needs to be done. Who is it for? i.e. Who is the audience/consumer? For what purpose is this work being done? Learn about ink? Show other people how ink might look from their pen/s? etc. ...

I also think its important to show how even a top-tier ink might look on utility paper.

Personally, I use top-tier paper when writing friends & family, and my top-tier inks (Some Herbins are in there too!) and pens. And for those inks, I do run-up my samples on top-tier papers. [but for Noodler's 'Polar Blue'? or Lamy 'Green'? or Diamine 'Indigo'? Thanks, but No Thanks.]

Personally, I could see dropping a few nib-widths say <F> and <B>. The thing to me about using different nib widths is to show how a page of that ink looks on a full page. And how an ink presents itself: does it need a <B> to be seen well? In an <XF>; is it so dark it might as well be Black?

(True story: I wrote a friend using MB Racing Green, through my new Phileas <F> onto Clairefontaine 'Triomphe'. She emailed back something like 'I thought you didn't use Black.' To which I wrote back in same ink on same paper but from a <BB> nib, 'Green hon. Dark Green.' She emailed back, 'Oh'. So my cheat sheet for MBRG includes the note '<M> Up')

 

Best Regards,

Badly Bruised S1

[SamCapote]

I like the dip pen and swabs method for color comparisons. It's easier to scan/photograph pages with similar colors (oranges on one page, blues on another, so on) and get some what accurate results. This also provides a measure of consistency since you are doing the same things for the same inks.

 

You are really just trying to convey the general color of the inks. Most colors change drastically from pen to pen and according to the paper.

 

Also, if you are going to take photos, natural light is your friend. You get much more accurate pictures that way.

 

Here is an example of a couple I've done:

 

Dizzy, it's interesting when I look at your photos, even going to your flicker and downloading larger image, I can't tell any difference on my monitor between the top 3 orange colors (Fuyu-gaki, Napalm, Coral), nor between the 4th & 5th (Indien & Yu-Yake) unless I look at the Q-tip swabs. It makes me wonder if scans are better, depending on the camera/lighting.

[dizzypen]

I like the dip pen and swabs method for color comparisons. It's easier to scan/photograph pages with similar colors (oranges on one page, blues on another, so on) and get some what accurate results. This also provides a measure of consistency since you are doing the same things for the same inks.

 

You are really just trying to convey the general color of the inks. Most colors change drastically from pen to pen and according to the paper.

 

Also, if you are going to take photos, natural light is your friend. You get much more accurate pictures that way.

 

Here is an example of a couple I've done:

 

Dizzy, it's interesting when I look at your photos, even going to your flicker and downloading larger image, I can't tell any difference on my monitor between the top 3 orange colors (Fuyu-gaki, Napalm, Coral), nor between the 4th & 5th (Indien & Yu-Yake) unless I look at the Q-tip swabs. It makes me wonder if scans are better, depending on the camera/lighting.

 

Monitors make all the difference. The top three orange are very close in hue. As are those two oranges. That was intentional as I was trying to compare similar inks. This is also why I like to do dip pens and swabs as well. With the swabs you can better see the subtle differences of the inks.

 

All of the colors look accurate on my screen. If they don't I don't post the review. I've had others comment that my colors are accurate for them and still others who say they aren't. That's just how it's going to be because everyone's computers/laptops are calibrated differently and positioned at different angles. I suspect this is true whether or not you use a scanner.

 

As to which is better? Well that depends doesn't it? Some of the scanner images are truly horrid. You've got to get a very good scanner and it must be calibrated properly in order to get accurately colored images. The same is true of pictures.

 

I use a camera because I don't have a scanner, and I'm not going to pay a couple hundred for one just so I can scan ink reviews and comparisons.

 

My camera is decent (Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ4). It gets the job done.

[Sandy1]

...

 

Dizzy, it's interesting when I look at your photos, even going to your flicker and downloading larger image, I can't tell any difference on my monitor between the top 3 orange colors (Fuyu-gaki, Napalm, Coral), nor between the 4th & 5th (Indien & Yu-Yake) unless I look at the Q-tip swabs. It makes me wonder if scans are better, depending on the camera/lighting.

 

Hello again,

 

Males have a higher incidence of Red-Green colour blindness. So I suggest that while getting your monitor calibrated, one should also visit your vision-care professional to have your colour vision evaluated.

 

(True story: I knew a fellow who just didn't dress well colour-wise. I suggested the vision evaluation, and it turned-out he was Orange-Blue colour blind! He then went out and bought a large number of various blue shirts, and gray and khaki trousers. Boring? Yes. Improvement? Yes.)

 

Best Regards,

BB'd S1

[GreenVelvet]

Also inclusion of the lowest common denominator ink : inexpensive, readily available just about anywhere, worth its salt as being a 'real' ink. Youbetcha - WFB.

 

WFB - unpack that acronym for us ignorant folk?

 

Ooh, a guess: Waterman Florida Blue?

[Sandy1]

Also inclusion of the lowest common denominator ink : inexpensive, readily available just about anywhere, worth its salt as being a 'real' ink. Youbetcha - WFB.

 

WFB - unpack that acronym for us ignorant folk?

 

Ooh, a guess: Waterman Florida Blue?

Very good, I see you have re-read my Edited Post. :-)

OK, on your buzzers. Ready now. This is another easy one. Often mentioned in Inky Thoughts. For 5 points, what is "PPS"?

;-)

[dizzypen]

Also inclusion of the lowest common denominator ink : inexpensive, readily available just about anywhere, worth its salt as being a 'real' ink. Youbetcha - WFB.

 

WFB - unpack that acronym for us ignorant folk?

 

Ooh, a guess: Waterman Florida Blue?

Very good, I see you have re-read my Edited Post. :-)

OK, on your buzzers. Ready now. This is another easy one. Often mentioned in Inky Thoughts. For 5 points, what is "PPS"?

;-)

 

Parker Penman Sapphire! :bunny01:

[SamCapote]

I like the dip pen and swabs method for color comparisons. It's easier to scan/photograph pages with similar colors (oranges on one page, blues on another, so on) and get some what accurate results. This also provides a measure of consistency since you are doing the same things for the same inks.

 

You are really just trying to convey the general color of the inks. Most colors change drastically from pen to pen and according to the paper.

 

Also, if you are going to take photos, natural light is your friend. You get much more accurate pictures that way.

 

Here is an example of a couple I've done:

 

Dizzy, it's interesting when I look at your photos, even going to your flicker and downloading larger image, I can't tell any difference on my monitor between the top 3 orange colors (Fuyu-gaki, Napalm, Coral), nor between the 4th & 5th (Indien & Yu-Yake) unless I look at the Q-tip swabs. It makes me wonder if scans are better, depending on the camera/lighting.

 

Monitors make all the difference. The top three orange are very close in hue. As are those two oranges. That was intentional as I was trying to compare similar inks. This is also why I like to do dip pens and swabs as well. With the swabs you can better see the subtle differences of the inks.

 

All of the colors look accurate on my screen. If they don't I don't post the review. I've had others comment that my colors are accurate for them and still others who say they aren't. That's just how it's going to be because everyone's computers/laptops are calibrated differently and positioned at different angles. I suspect this is true whether or not you use a scanner.

 

As to which is better? Well that depends doesn't it? Some of the scanner images are truly horrid. You've got to get a very good scanner and it must be calibrated properly in order to get accurately colored images. The same is true of pictures.

 

I use a camera because I don't have a scanner, and I'm not going to pay a couple hundred for one just so I can scan ink reviews and comparisons.

 

My camera is decent (Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ4). It gets the job done.

 

Oh, I'm not saying you should get a scanner, nor unappreciative of your posting them. I'm just investigating ways of displaying results, and was surprised by how little difference I saw. Nothing personal!!! That looks like a great camera. What do you have it set to in terms of mode, ISO, white balance? I wonder how much the item's position relative to direct sunlight, sun's position, cloudiness affects color display. I see a lot of variability with the white paper, independent of the ink colors on your list of photos here. I'm just thinking about how to control for possible variations if photos are used. Please don't take offense for me "thinking out loud."

 

I looked both on my newer Samsung SyncMaster XL2370 LED monitor, and older ViewSonic CRT Graphics Series G70f, both of which are calibrated, and a non-calibrated Lenova ThinkPad. Both my wife and I see the same results on all three sources. But then there are easy differences between the inks I see with these reviews:

• Signum1's review of Fuhu-gaki

• Jmkeuning's review of Napalm

• girlieg33k's review of Coral or BiffyBean's photo that includes Coral here

Sandy, nothing wrong with my color vision perception, thanks for your concern. My Samsung monitor comes with "MagicTune Premium" which I use to calibrate it. There are also websites like this one for testing/calibrating which I have used. Again, I'm just investigating how various displays look.

Edited March 7, 2010 by SamCapote