Curious Shading

[Bo Bo Olson]

I don't care for vivid boring monotone ink....ever since I discovered some inks shade on good to better paper about 13 years ago.

 

Two toned shading is 'normal' for me...and I've chased shading inks. I even had a couple threads on that a decade or so ago.........so long ago, I have forgotten many of the great shading inks folks liked and added to the list.

 

That chrosomething, two color ink is new to me. (that the OP considered extreme) ...will be getting some.....and I'm having ill luck with shimmer inks. Many of my inks are old, made pre-shimmer.

 

I've no problem with glitter other than I seldom use the 5 bottles I have....but I can say that about most of my @ 100 inks.

 

I just did a five violet ink run.....something I'd not done in ages. 4001 Violet shades some, as do the DA and Lamy. Edelstein shads a bit different than the 4001, the tones are different.

Not extreme, just some.

click picture for larger view. Click a few times and it gets big enough to see the shading well.

[Bo Bo Olson]

Here are some links to middle ages posts about shading  threads.

 

(gee got to re-read them again my self.)

 

A List Of Fpn's Member's Shading Inks

Which Are The Best Shading De Atramentis Inks ?

Some DA inks shade, some are supersaturated so don't.

 

My Next 50 Shading Inks

[Bo Bo Olson]

I never did get around to ordering any.... L' Artisan Pastelliein inks, and there is a good Polish ink that came in in the last 5 years that I didn't get.

 

I keep buying fine pens in the auction houses, so lack money....and keep telling my self, one should really empty some of them 100 inks I have.  I've heard of sillier things.

 

 

[A Smug Dill]

9 hours ago, JulieParadise said:

China Blue and shading ... like here?

 

Thank you. I think you've clearly demonstrated that you can get both the (over-?)dramatic contrast along a pen stroke in the minuscules of the word “Music” in the top-left panel of that image, and also that the shading from that ink in handwriting is not invariably, not constrained (despite the user's wishes otherwise) to be that exaggerated, with the same hand in the bottom-left panel, or a different style of handwriting in the top-right panel, all produced by the same person.

 

That establishes it is the ink user (with her repertoire of handwriting techniques, and how she chooses to apply those techniques) dominates as the deciding factor in what sort of shading will appear, not the ink maker and its deliberate formulation of the ink in question.

 

Now, if we could just find you a suitable “historical” or vintage ink, of the category that the O.P. had in mind, to test, then we can prove it is not the ink maker or making practices that somehow prevented the subjectively disagreeable “curious shading” from being seen by him in “historical” artefacts showing handwriting. It could be the paper used back then, it could be the handwriting techniques of the day (and how your techniques may not even be available to writers back then), it could be just the writers' personal preferences and what they chose not to do, it could be simply the O.P.'s “failure” to find “historical” artefacts that prove contrary to or otherwise undermine his narrative, it could be climate change… anything other than, “historical inks would not and cannot shade like that, ink makers of the day did not make them that way, ergo this form of exaggerated shading did not exist historically, so I blame it on ink makers today for this ‘fake’ gimmick,” instead of some modern users (who we shall not name or pinpoint as individuals) preferring to make their handwriting render that way and present such artefacts in social media to ‘share’ as content publishers.

[txomsy]

I had written this yesterday but for some reason didn't go through.

 

Two things

 

First, we cannot (nor do I think we should) modify posts older than 24h.

 

Second, regarding shading, as I said, the original pictures reminded me of writing on glossy/glassy/nonabsorbent surfaces. The pictures look like someone writing on a surface where low-ink parts get less ink (typical when it is repelled by the surface) and high-ink parts get more (when the repelled ink pools at specific points).

 

As I mentioned originally that most likely is due to a combination of pen, ink, paper, ductus (the order in which strokes are used to build letters), writing style (vigorous, relaxed, nervous...), slant of the surface and speed of writing. This is specific to each person and specific sample conditions.

 

Which can only be referred to by indicating that the original author of the pictured samples may have influenced the aspect just by doing whatever the original author normally does unconsciously (which is no criticism at all, just pointing out the obvious, that we are all individuals).

 

The pattern itself (ink not accumulating at lower points) may be explained by writing on a flat surface with a specific 'ductus'. The intensity may be explained by the surface/ink/pen/speed combination.

 

And I'm not considering post processing of the picture which I prefer to ignore.

 

We all understand that one needs not be conversant (and cannot) on everything, but the only way to point it out is to explain it and indicate what the likely sources are (the original author), giving additional examples.

 

I already indicated that the pattern can be seen in traditional writing, and others have pointed the likely source is the author of the samples way of creating them (pen, ink, paper, penmanship, speed, slant, etc...). I see no problem with that or with referring to the original author one way or another.

 

And I do instead see a useful illustration of an aspect that we often ignore: when we see ink reviews we tend to think they are what they are, but they aren't. Which is why so many people feels deceived: the pictures in a review may depend (as it is possible in this case) not just on the ink, but also on paper, pen, angle pen-paper interaction, slant of the writing surface and in some cases strongly on ductus, speed and rhythm.

 

This is confusing for newbies but often taken for granted by more experienced users, and I think this discussion is a good example of how idiosyncratic aspects inherent to each and every review may mislead the interpretation of the images and behavior of the reviewed item (for this applies to ink, paper, pens alike).

 

 

Added: I do have some old inks, and old paper. But as already indicated, this would not be representative. First and foremost because old paper was rarely glossy, so more absorbent (yet not prone to ink spreading). One would need to find some old glossy paper which was so unpleasant due to long drying times that one would rarely keep it for writing. I think I had some that I had kept for kid crafts in school, but I also think I got rid of it once they went to the University. Maybe someone will or I may be lucky to find some old magazine or comic or something.

 

The inks I keep are Quink black, Sheaffer red and green, and a trio of darkish black, red and blue. But last time I used the green ink, it looked darker than usual, so they may be oxidizing or aging finally (after 30+ years) once I have started to use them more.

 

That is why the best I can offer are my reminiscences. I'd try to but I'm undergoing minor surgery this afternoon and I doubt I'll be able in a few days.

[Bo Bo Olson]

3 hours ago, txomsy said:

The pattern itself (ink not accumulating at lower points) may be explained by writing on a flat surface with a specific 'ductus'. The intensity may be explained by the surface/ink/pen/speed combination.

 

Just a tid bit, side step.

They use to use writing lopes quite often back in the day, so low points would be different than today or a flat desk low point.

[dftr]

If this drivesmore traffic to mountain of ink, its usually good for the site. 
 

that being said, I liked the samples of jrr tolkien and madarasz correspondences