inkflash - Robert Oster Red Orange

[namrehsnoom]

InkFlash - Robert Oster Red Orange

 

I've got so many ink bottles and samples in my stash, that it's totally unrealistic to give all of them the attention of a full review. Up to this point, all these inky treasures were pining away in the dark recesses of my ink cabinet. So I decided to come up with a new format to present these inks. Introducing... the "Ink Flash" - short and quick presentations of inks, that take up very little time, and that show just enough detail to get a feel for them.

 

Rhodia DotPad No 16

 

 

A look at the chromatography

 

Related inks

 

 

And finally a quick doodle

 

[yazeh]

Love this simplified review. Great job.  

Is the paper Rhodia? 

One thing that can help is adding copy paper behavior, such as bleed-through or ghosting, as it seems to matter to some users. 

The drawing is striking. It reminds me of the wildfire, engulfing the world. 

 

I'm looking forward to more ink flashes.

 

 

 

[LizEF]

1 hour ago, namrehsnoom said:

the "Ink Flash" - short and quick presentations of inks, that take up very little time, and that show just enough detail to get a feel for them.

Love it! This means we get to see more from you, I hope!  And that can only be a good thing.  Just the facts, let us discover multiple papers on our own, if so inclined, but we get a doodle!   I was surprised and most pleased that you included that! @yazeh has wildfires on the brain.  I'm going with the glow of an orange sunset.

 

54 minutes ago, yazeh said:

Is the paper Rhodia? 

Good point - it will help if folks know what paper(s) they're seeing.  (The image doesn't look like Rhodia to me - seems more textured and less blue, but that could be the image.)

 

55 minutes ago, yazeh said:

One thing that can help is adding copy paper behavior, such as bleed-through or ghosting, as it seems to matter to some users. 

It does seem to matter a lot for some folks.  Anecdotal evidence: someone on another platform once ranted at me via DM for not doing extensive writing and commenting about performance on copy paper - claiming it was what the vast majority of people use almost exclusively and that Rhodia is far, far from common and my reviews were therefore all but useless, blah blah blah...   I told them thanks anyway, but I wasn't changing my format. (They went on at length, as if aggressive argument were going to somehow convince me to change my reviews - I was like, "you know no one's paying me to do this, right?" )

 

(As we're a small community and said someone may recognize this story: Whoever you are, I bear you no ill will and mean no harm by this story - clearly you're emphatic about copy paper, but I'm still not changing my review format, cuz no one's paying me and we're long past the point where consistency is far more important than another data point.)

 

Anywho, I'm agreeing with @yazeh's observation, demonstrating the, let's call it passion some people feel in this regard, and at the same time pointing out that I couldn't care less about copy paper...

 

Thanks, @namrehsnoom! This is will be a great addition to the inky archives here.

[namrehsnoom]

50 minutes ago, LizEF said:

This means we get to see more from you, I hope!

Yup… I love the full review format, taking my time to get to know the ink, not only at the start of the party when all looks new and shiny and exciting, but also the next morning with baggy eyes and a headache. But that takes a fair amount of time, and can’t be hurried.

With this new format, you just get a speed date. Just enough info to decide for yourself if the ink is worthy of further attention.

 

2 hours ago, yazeh said:

Is the paper Rhodia? 

Yes. Rhodia DotPad Nr 16. I have added that info to the title. 
 

1 hour ago, LizEF said:

2 hours ago, yazeh said:

One thing that can help is adding copy paper behavior, such as bleed-through or ghosting, as it seems to matter to some users. 

It does seem to matter a lot for some folks.

Hmm.. Have to think about that. I need to come up with a way to do that quickly, that’s the point of this format. Need to sleep on that. I have some ideas…

What I will add is a drying times estimate. I will blatantly copy @LizEF’s technique from the EFNIR videos. That takes no time at all, and I can easily add it to the bottom of the page.

[LizEF]

3 minutes ago, namrehsnoom said:

Yup…

 

2 minutes ago, namrehsnoom said:

I will blatantly copy @LizEF’s technique from the EFNIR videos.

  Quick and easy was my entire reason for adopting it.  I hate doing dry-time testing - seriously hate it.  I consider it utterly irrelevant and meaningless, but everyone else seems to care, so I caved to peer pressure...

[yazeh]

@namrehsnoom I know what you mean by getting a headache. That's why I tried my best to streamline my reviewing system.

As for the copy paper, You can "shamelessly" copy @LizEF system: very economic. Alternatively, you can write a line with a M nib on copy paper. And scan or photograph front and back.

 

When I finally decided on my systemic review, I used to stop the moment the ink bled through on the copy paper. But now I do the whole thing, though frankly writing with a flex nib on copy paper, is really pushing it.

Important is you enjoy it. The moment it becomes a chore, it's not fun any more.

 

 

 

[Mechanical]

I like this ink much more than I would have thought. 

 

I love your long reviews, but this "Ink Flash" was very useful.  Thanks!

[jchch1950]

For me, the colour is perfect for underlining and notes in the margin.