Curious Shading

[inkstainedruth]

1 hour ago, Karmachanic said:

Y'ever notice that 2023 cars don't look like 1958 cars?   Must be fake  🤪

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[Bo Bo Olson]

Low saturation is common for two-tone shading inks**.....saturated inks seldom shade or shade much...which is why I seldom buy any boring monotone ink.

 

Printing does increase shading, be that 'fake' or not.

 

**Also called wishy-washy or pastel by saturated ink lovers.

[USG]

7 minutes ago, inkstainedruth said:

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

hahaha, "Garden Party"  Ricky Nelson

[inkstainedruth]

1 hour ago, mhwombat said:

They're fake horses! 🐎

Of course they are -- the description of how strong the engine is?  It's called horsepower!

Oh, and add me to the group who thinks that calling this "fake shading" is a bad description as well.  I'd personally either go with ASD's description of "exaggerated shading" or maybe call it "extreme shading", and I don't much like how it looks on the page.  But I wouldn't call it "fake shading" -- that suggests that it's got as much shading as the font I'm typing with (aka, NONE).

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

[USG]

3 hours ago, inkstainedruth said:

Of course they are -- the description of how strong the engine is?  It's called horsepower!

Oh, and add me to the group who thinks that calling this "fake shading" is a bad description as well.  I'd personally either go with ASD's description of "exaggerated shading" or maybe call it "extreme shading", and I don't much like how it looks on the page.  But I wouldn't call it "fake shading" -- that suggests that it's got as much shading as the font I'm typing with (aka, NONE).

Ruth Morrisson aka inkstainedruth

 

LOL, "as much shading as the font I'm typing with"....

 

OK, that does it!  I'm done with Fake Shading.

 

ITS' OVER!  IT'S DONE !  IT'S FINISHED !  KAPUT ! 

 

ELVIS HAS LEFT THE BUILDING !

 

I'm officially retracting the word FAKE from Fake Shading! 

 

It will NO LONGER be called Fake Shading.

 

From now on there's no such thing as  Fake Shading.   😁    

 

The new name is Curious Shading.

 

 

[Bo Bo Olson]

Still no cursive example using OP's pens and papers???? (sorry couldn't find a  beating a dead horse smillie)

 

Helps to read...the OP picked the examples off the net. not off his/her desk.

[JulieParadise]

15 hours ago, USG said:

From now on there's no such thing as  Fake Shading.   😁    

 

The new name is Curious Shading.

 

Thank you. 

[Bo Bo Olson]

Over shading???.....Max Shading?

[mhguda]

I for one like the new name.

And since I'm nothing if not curious, I went in to check - and to my surprise found the posts on "Fake shading" where I'd stopped reading   (because it got too strongly emotional for me). So, thank you for the name change, and especially getting it into the thread name as well.

I'm actually back to - sort of - enjoying the discussion. I have no opinion on shading of inks: sometimes mine do, sometimes they don't, and when they do and the ink gets darker, I do like to see that... but not so much that I'm seeking it out. But I do like to learn new things, so I will sometimes dive in. Thanks FPN!

[ajoe]

17 hours ago, USG said:

From now on there's no such thing as  Fake Shading.   😁    

 

The new name is Curious Shading.

 

👍

[Sailor Kenshin]

On 2/10/2023 at 3:11 PM, Horseflesh said:

I'm now worried that I like the wrong things.

Wrong?  Naaaahhhh.  I like shading.  Thee end!

[Penguincollector]

Nothing wrong with liking shading, it’s very pretty. I just find ithis curious shading hard to read. I love it in art- plus it probably does look different and may not be so difficult to read in a different hand, or with a different pen. 

[txomsy]

4 hours ago, Bo Bo Olson said:

Over shading???.....Max Shading?

Übershading

 

Well, when it is not so dramatic, as in the first picture, it may have a point. The second is simply too light to read in the light sides and too dark in the darker ones, making it difficult to follow (for me at least), but I would bet that on a finer nib it might actually look rather curious.

[Horseflesh]

2 hours ago, Sailor Kenshin said:

Wrong?  Naaaahhhh.  I like shading.  Thee end!

 

Should I listen to you though? Word on the street is you like fake pens. 

[Horseflesh]

On 2/12/2023 at 3:18 PM, A Smug Dill said:

But we are talking about (each particular) ink and its characteristics, not scrutiny of a particular mark or stroke made with it, aren't we?

 

An ink such as Pilot Iroshizuku Yu-yake is capable of producing a wide range of shades:

 

Of course, but we have to generalize at some level. If I read a review of an ink and the reviewer cites fake strong shading I know that this is one possibility for the ink, not a guarantee for all situations. 

 

If you qualify everything by every possible nib, paper, technique, and ink interaction you could barely list the color of an ink. 

[A Smug Dill]

2 hours ago, Horseflesh said:

If you qualify everything by every possible nib, paper, technique, and ink interaction you could barely list the color of an ink. 

 

I mostly only presented expressly ‘lazy’ ink reviews in the past two years. They demonstrate what happened with one type of paper, one pen/nib, and usually a range of techniques at my disposal. If somebody likes what they see, and would like to reproduce it for themselves, they know that it is humanly possible to achieve, and (for most readers) the various components — ink, paper, pen, and yes, technique — that I used can be acquired; and of course there is strong potential and/or high probability that very similar outcomes could be achieved differently (in an unexplored or unspecified manner). My review adds another data point (or several) to what is possible, although not necessarily what is inevitable, with the use of the particular ink, but it is not there to nearly completely describe an ink so that a reader could know in advance exactly what they're getting, in all the aspects that interest or concern them personally.

[Horseflesh]

I'm not complaining about the availability of detailed reviews, I think they are great. But you seem to be saying that it's pointless to refer to a general property of an ink like "has strong shading" and that is what I disagree with. I think a description like that is fine so long as the reader understands the caveats. 

 

 

[A Smug Dill]

38 minutes ago, Horseflesh said:

But you seem to be saying that it's pointless to refer to a general property of an ink like "has strong shading" and that is what I disagree with. I think a description like that is fine so long as the reader understands the caveats.

 

No, I'm saying forget about (working towards) agreeing on a set of descriptive terms, but just show or demonstrate what can be produced, and let the reader decide whether it is something they want (or want to avoid), upon seeing the images presented. (Yes, I understand there are caveats about accuracy of image capture and reproduction, too.)

 

Most folks on FPN who have come across some of my ten thousand posts by now probably already know I don't really care for collaboration or consensus, or tailoring information presentation to fit someone else's values and priorities, unless I'm being paid/commissioned to do so as work. For voluntarily contributions (of information, materials, “PIFs”, even charity of any sort), I think everybody should do it “their way”, and leave it to the takers to make sense of what's on the table and work with what was offered (in the past tense, in the sense that the giving part is already done and dusted).

[AceNinja]

On 2/14/2023 at 6:08 AM, USG said:

From now on there's no such thing as  Fake Shading.   😁    

 

The new name is Curious Shading.

 

 

wait, I just sat down with a bag of fresh popcorns.  Its over??

[ajoe]

3 minutes ago, AceNinja said:

wait, I just sat down with a bag of fresh popcorns.  Its over??

Ojh no! The conversation is just about to shift to curious colors.