Inky Terminology

[LizEF]

And here's another question...  Can I take a color from the right-middle of the "chroma" scale (or the "intensity" scale) in below image, and use it as the starting point (left-most color) of the "saturation" scale?  Essentially, it's my starting point, and then by adding white, I desaturate?  And if so, how does "saturation" have any meaning?  And if not, would we not need some chart that says "here are all the 'fully saturated' colors" - if your ink matches one, it's saturated, otherwise you'll need to look for it on one of the below scales to see where it falls...?

In case you haven't guessed, I'm trying to figure out how, as an ink reviewer, I would look at an ink (or my swatch thereof, or my writing sample) and say "this has high (or medium, or low) saturation" - especially when the color is low chroma, or low intensity (per above scales).

 

Wheee!  (Anyone else have a headache?)

[knarflj]

Liz, I'm going to start by trying to define "saturation" as I usually tend to think of it regarding ink, hoping this will help clarify my answers.  "Think" is probably a very generous way to describe the very vague motions of my mind in this direction, btw.

 

I think of high saturation as indicating an ink that will leave a richer, darker, stronger, or more solid line on the paper than one that has little saturation.  I think I have assumed that this high saturation is achieved by having a higher proportion of coloring agent to water--which I guess is what you're meaning by dye load?  (Sorry, no time to carefully review the foregoing discussion on this thread, and both chemistry and color theory are opaque to me. 😉)

 

I have also over the years acquired an association (rightly or wrongly) of "highly saturated inks" with "those inks that can eat sacs and damage fancy filling systems".

 

So...

3 hours ago, LizEF said:

1) What do you do with the information?  (If all you do is say, "Huh, that's interesting.", please say so - I'm not trying to judge the consumer, I'm trying to understand the term and how people use it.)

 

2) If all you knew about an ink was its color saturation, or its dye load, would you be able to make a decision (even if not a final decision) based on that knowledge?  E.g. would you be able to say, "I won't be interested in this ink, no sense learning more."  or "This ink may be just what I'm looking for, let's continue."?  I'm trying to figure out if this attribute simply satisfies curiosity, or if someone out there has a functional use for it.

 

My answers to the first two questions are going to depend a little on why a particular ink interests me.  If I'm looking for an ink to go into an expensive piston filler, then the words "highly saturated" may send me looking elsewhere immediately.  Since I generally use any ink in various pens, that's not going to happen often, though. More likely is just that I'll either say "Huh, that's interesting", or possibly make a mental note that I may not want to use this particular ink in my only Pelikan.

 

3 hours ago, LizEF said:

3) If your answer to #2 is that you have a functional use for the information, is an evaluation of saturation by the reviewer necessary for you to accomplish your ends, or can you accomplish the same ends by considering other attributes of the ink (e.g. pictures of the ink - alone and in comparison with other inks, demonstration of shading, etc.)?

 

Convenient, yes.  Necessary, no.

 

Thanks for your work on this!

 

[LizEF]

30 minutes ago, knarflj said:

Thanks for your work on this!

Gladly!  Thanks for your feedback.

 

30 minutes ago, knarflj said:

I think of high saturation as indicating an ink that will leave a richer, darker, stronger, or more solid line on the paper than one that has little saturation.  I think I have assumed that this high saturation is achieved by having a higher proportion of coloring agent to water--which I guess is what you're meaning by dye load?

Yes, you interpreted "dye load" correctly.

 

Your interpretation of saturation sounds a lot like opacity and non-shading.  And your adjectives are, for me, difficult (some more, some less) to solidify into instructions: "richer, darker, stronger, or more solid".  How do I instruct someone on what "richer" or "stronger" is?  Lots of people may think they know, but can they explain it to others?  Do they agree?  I personally am not so sure I know.  "Darker" - OK, that one's pretty easy - low on the "intensity" scale posted earlier.  "more solid" - is this "solid" as in "non-shading" or "solid" as in a boulder - that is, is it a figurative description of the ink, or a literal description of its appearance on the page (a solid color, not a graduated, splotchy, swirly, etc. color)?  (I'm going to assume it's not "my ink has frozen".)

 

One of the review forms I reviewed earlier today left out "saturation" and some other terms, but added the term "depth" with 1 being "low" and 5 being "high".  Again, I have no idea what the maker of the form intended.  One person (can't remember if it was here or reddit) explained to me what they mean by depth, but I'm not sure any 12 people would agree with each other on whether any given ink has "depth" (unless, of course, we were talking about how much of it is left in the bottle...).

 

Along this same line of thinking, I see a lot of people saying they want a recommendation for a "dark blue" and getting answers like "Baystate Blue" - in my world, Baystate Blue is a middle blue, not light, not dark.  Waterman Inspired Blue is a light blue.  Herbin Bleu des Profondeurs is a dark blue.  So even "darker" may be so widely interpreted as to be useless.

 

Obviously, whatever we come up with is going to have to include advice to the reviewer to qualify / explain their use of terminology to increase the chance that the consumer will understand what the reviewer intended to communicate.

[knarflj]

43 minutes ago, LizEF said:

Your interpretation of saturation sounds a lot like opacity and non-shading.  And your adjectives are, for me, difficult (some more, some less) to solidify into instructions: "richer, darker, stronger, or more solid".  How do I instruct someone on what "richer" or "stronger" is? 

 

Yes, I'm sorry about the difficulty.  I'm afraid that because I couldn't come up with one adjective to say exactly what I meant, I piled up a whole bunch of maybe-not-too-far-off-the-mark adjectives, hoping that together they'd give the general idea!  "Opaque" is a much clearer word (in this context, at least) than any of mine.  

 

Before this thread, it had never occurred to me that opacity and shading were related, but it makes sense that they would be.

[knarflj]

2 hours ago, LizEF said:

Wheee!  (Anyone else have a headache?)

 

Getting there. 😄

 

2 hours ago, LizEF said:

In case you haven't guessed, I'm trying to figure out how, as an ink reviewer, I would look at an ink (or my swatch thereof, or my writing sample) and say "this has high (or medium, or low) saturation" - especially when the color is low chroma, or low intensity (per above scales).

 

I have no idea.  But I just hit the search engine to try to understand a little better the difference between "chroma" and "intensity": I can see in the scales you posted that there is some difference, but I couldn't articulate what it was.  Trouble is, hardly any two websites I found on a quick search defined any of those three terms in quite the same way.  So I think if we use any of them, it's going to help if the user clearly defines them for the reader.

 

Here are a few examples of what I ran into:
 

Color consists of three main integral parts:

hue

value

saturation (also called “chroma”)

http://learn.leighcotnoir.com/artspeak/elements-color/hue-value-saturation/

Colors have several properties to explore: hue, value, intensity, and temperature.

Intensity (also referred to as saturation or chroma) refers to the degree of purity of a color.

https://charlenecollinsfreeman.com/blog-montauk/2018/12/12/understanding-color-intensity

 

To understand color, an artist must also need to understand its three attributes:
1. Hue
2. Value
3. Chroma
In non-art terms, these three attributes are known as:
1. Color
2. Darkness/lightness
3. Intensity or saturation

https://noapsblog.com/2015/03/15/hue-values-and-chroma-in-art-terms/

 

Those were from sites I thought I could understand--or might have been able to understand if they hadn't seemed to contradict each other. 

[A Smug Dill]

3 hours ago, LizEF said:

I judge opaqueness literally - blocking light.  If a fountain pen ink blocked light, then you could write with it on a black piece of paper, and you would see the ink, not the paper - light would reflect off the ink, not go through to the paper.

 

I'm completely with you on the meaning of opacity, when it comes to applying ink or any other liquid substance on paper (or some other surface, irrespective of whether the substrate is absorbent/porous). Opacity is a physical quality that is not about the difference in colour (intensity) between ink marks and the page area around them; matt white paint on white paper can be entirely opaque without standing out visually. I'd think that an opaque ink would generally be bad news for feeds and ink windows; and clinging to and building up on the reservoir's walls and/or around the rim of the plug would most likely stop the filling mechanism in piston-filled and vacuum-filled pens as well as converters with (rotary-driven or push-pull) pistons.

 

9 minutes ago, knarflj said:

“To understand color, an artist must…”

 

Therein lies part of the issue with users who primarily write (as opposed to paint) with fountain pens and inks. Is grey a colour? Is blue-black a colour? How does one say, in terms of the hue, value, chroma, intensity, temperature, etc., that he/she is after a grey ink that stands out starkly against the surface of off-white paper?

[LizEF]

42 minutes ago, knarflj said:

Yes, I'm sorry about the difficulty.

No need to be sorry.   I think this demonstrates the very subjective nature of ink reviews.  Whether we can help increase / improve against that, who knows.  But it's interesting exploring the question.

 

25 minutes ago, knarflj said:

I just hit the search engine to try to understand a little better the difference between "chroma" and "intensity":....  Trouble is, hardly any two websites I found on a quick search defined any of those three terms in quite the same way.

Yes!  I'm running into the same trouble.  And that trouble convinces me that FP-users and potential ink reviewers will most likely have the same trouble.

 

27 minutes ago, knarflj said:

Those were from sites I thought I could understand--or might have been able to understand if they hadn't seemed to contradict each other. 

Exactly!

[I-am-not-really-here]

3 hours ago, LizEF said:

Forgot to comment on this.  Yes, I think this may well be the case for some.  And I've had (or tried to have) some discussions on opaqueness in FP-inks.  In my experience thus far, none are opaque, though De Atramentis Document White comes close.  I judge opaqueness literally - blocking light.  If a fountain pen ink blocked light, then you could write with it on a black piece of paper, and you would see the ink, not the paper - light would reflect off the ink, not go through to the paper.  But with above exception (and to a lesser degree, DAD Yellow), all FP ink disappears on black paper, meaning it's transparent.

 

But some have used this term to mean "non-shading" - an ink which yields a solid-single-color line.  (See previous comments about how I used to interpret this as "fully saturated" but am no longer confident in that interpretation.)

 

Others have argued that a dark ink that you can't see white paper through is "opaque".  Perhaps it is, to a large degree.  Haven't given it enough thought.  But it's worth remembering that there may be some who interpret "saturated" as either "non-shading" or as "opaque".

DeA Document White is a highly opaque pigment-based ink.  And so it works on dark paper. For that matter, high concentration shimmer inks can work too, if you are willing to accept seeing only the shimmer-y bits once the ink has dried.
 

 

[LizEF]

28 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

I'm completely with you on the meaning of opacity, when it comes to applying ink or any other liquid substance on paper (or some other surface, irrespective of whether the substrate is absorbent/porous). Opacity is a physical quality that is not about the difference in colour (intensity) between ink marks and the page area around them; matt white paint on white paper can be entirely opaque without standing out visually. I'd think that an opaque ink would generally be bad news for feeds and ink windows; and clinging to and building up on the reservoir's walls and/or around the rim of the plug would most likely stop the filling mechanism in piston-filled and vacuum-filled pens as well as converters with (rotary-driven or push-pull) pistons.

  When I see the Kala Nostalgia Neon inks (e.g. see bottles here at Shigure Inks), they look like chalk to me - ridiculously opaque in the bottle and in pictures I've see of them in demonstrator pens.  I kinda cringe at the thought of sticking one in my Eco, for example.  The swatches, however, look less opaque, and not quite so worrisome - and suggest that however opaque an ink may seem en masse (as it were), once you apply it to the page, it's not - and as you say (or imply), there's a really good reason for that, namely, the functioning of the pen.

 

33 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

Therein lies part of the issue with users who primarily write (as opposed to paint) with fountain pens and inks. Is grey a colour? Is blue-black a colour? How does one say, in terms of the hue, value, chroma, intensity, temperature, etc., that he/she is after a grey ink that stands out starkly against the surface of off-white paper?

And asking ink reviewers to become color experts before doing a review is just as absurd as expecting consistent application of undefined terms like "saturation", "depth", "wetness", and "lubrication".

 

As for the grey, I expect most folks would say they're looking for a medium grey, dark enough to be easily read, that stands out against the page without seeming to be black.    And no one would bother mentioning all those "artsy-fartsy" terms.

[LizEF]

3 minutes ago, I-am-not-really-here said:

DeA Document White is a highly opaque pigment-based ink.  And so it works on dark paper. For that matter, high concentration shimmer inks can work too, if you are willing to accept seeing only the shimmer-y bits once the ink has dried.

IMO, "opaque" is an on-off thing - either something is opaque or it's not (the dictionary may disagree with me; I haven't gone to look yet), so I would say that DAD White is "nearly opaque".  And the glitter particles themselves are, I'm pretty sure, opaque.

 

Translucence and transparency can, I think, come in degrees, however.  I think I'll go visit Mr. Dictionary now and see whether he agrees with me...

[LizEF]

1 minute ago, LizEF said:

I think I'll go visit Mr. Dictionary now and see whether he agrees with me...

My reading of the dictionary is that "opaque" is an on/off or yes/no thing, but nothing in the definitions prevents describing translucence or transparency in degrees.  Thus, something could go from opaque, through varying degrees of translucence into varying degrees of transparency until said thing is entirely transparent (aka "clear").

[I-am-not-really-here]

6 minutes ago, LizEF said:

My reading of the dictionary is that "opaque" is an on/off or yes/no thing, but nothing in the definitions prevents describing translucence or transparency in degrees.  Thus, something could go from opaque, through varying degrees of translucence into varying degrees of transparency until said thing is entirely transparent (aka "clear").

Yes, I think it is a sliding scale like the ones you posted of Chroma, etc.  Opaque on the far left, Transparent on the far right.  

 

[LizEF]

I think it may be useful to repeat my point in starting this thread: How do we remove the ambiguity for potential reviewers so that they're not intimidated / discouraged by not knowing how to provide what is asked for on the forms and in the pinned threads. (My own reaction reading those things just now is completely different from what it was long ago when I first considered doing ink reviews - long before ever posting any topics to discuss reviews.  I'm trying to create something that will help those who might react the way my former self reacted.)

 

And here's a summary of my thoughts thus far on the three terms we started with:

 

Flow (wetness): This describes the rate (speed) at which ink flows (from the pen).  It is recommended that the reviewer watch (multiple times, if necessary) and understand the basic concepts behind this video: "How I Test Ink Viscosity" by An Ink Guy on YouTube.  Even if you don't understand the details of the statistics involved, and even if you don't intend to replicate the experiment, understanding the general concepts will help.  (Something I think isn't explained as clearly as it could have been on the video: inks to the left of the curve are wetter than inks to the right of the curve.  The horizontal axis is the speed at which the ink traveled from point A to point B on a slope.  The left is fewer seconds, the right is more seconds.  Thus, left is faster or "wetter", and right is slower or "drier".)

 

Because it would be expensive to replicate these tests, and difficult for most of us to evaluate consistently, even when using the same pen for different inks, it is perfectly valid to consult other reviews, and above YouTube channel, after forming one's own opinion.  (Better to do it after so that you don't precondition yourself to a particular conclusion.)

 

For us mortals, there is no standardized measure for "flow" (you cannot determine that Ink X has a flow rate of r).  Rather, flow is expressed as a comparison to other inks (e.g. "this ink is wetter than that ink", or "this ink is drier than the overall average of all the inks I've tested").

 

Assuming one is not going to perform controlled tests like those from above YouTube channel, there are several things to consider to minimize subjectivity:

• One must be aware of the wetness of one's pen (as one pen may allow any ink to flow more quickly than another pen).
• Paying careful attention to how different inks behave in the same pen (which requires both observation and documentation for later comparison), will increase one's ability to evaluate this attribute.  Using different pens will make it almost impossible, especially before one has lots of experience, to know whether wetness is a function of the pen or the ink, and how the wetness from one pen-ink combo compares to the wetness of another pen-ink combo.
• Observations and conclusions will likely be easier using non-absorbent paper as an absorbent paper may soak the ink in so quickly that it's hard to see how much ink is flowing from the pen, versus being wicked down into the paper.  Non-absorbent paper, on the other hand, will let you watch the line of ink as it flows from the pen and note how much ink is flowing out - is it a thin, flat line, or a 3-dimensional bead, or a wide, quickly-spreading line, or something in between?
• An ink that spreads may be fast-flowing (wetter) even though you don't see a 3-dimensional bead - because the ink spreads out rather than piles up - and even though it may seem to dry quickly.
• Slow dry time is not necessarily an indication that an ink is wet.  An ink can flow quickly from the pen, and also dry quickly.  An ink can flow slowly from the pen, but take a long time to dry.  Knowing the dry time of the ink allows one to "adjust" their impression of the ink flow.
• The ability to keep up with flexing may or may not be an indicator of wetness.  Flexing requires an ink that retains surface tension across the gap in the tines and despite the nib lifting from the feed.  An ink can be wet, but with low surface tension (not dealing well with flexing).  An ink can be dry, but have high surface tension - handles a wide gap, but not quickly.

 

Lubrication: This is an evaluation of how well the ink cushions between nib and paper.  If it cushions well, the experience is smoother.  If it cushions poorly, the experience is rougher.  As with flow, this is a comparative evaluation - an ink lubricates better or worse than other inks (or as compared to all the inks you have records for / experience with).  Also, using a single pen with multiple inks will help you make a more accurate comparison (otherwise, the tuning, size, and wetness of the different nibs will skew your observations).  Further, using the same paper from ink to ink is important as papers differ in smoothness (or tooth) and therefore using different papers would skew your results.  Your grip on the pen (or writing pressure) will also impact the overall feel of the writing, so you should try to be as consistent as possible here.

 

Because this evaluation is entirely subjective and will be based on your personal tactile experience, you should keep detailed notes.  Spending some time up front trying to determine how you will describe the experience will pay benefits later.

 

Please note that nothing in the above is meant to suggest that you only use one pen in your reviews.  There's no reason not to use multiple pens.  But unless you use at least one pen across all inks, your observations will not be consistent.

 

Saturation: This may describe the concentration of dye in the ink, or the color saturation.  There is no practical, inexpensive way I can determine to measure the concentration of dye in the ink.  Color saturation is a concept which must be studied to be thoroughly understood and consistently applied from review to review.  Rather than trying to replicate the definitions here (which would require me to copy from others), it is recommended the reviewer do an internet search for the phrase "color saturation" and study to the extent they wish.

 

It is my opinion that there is little to no practical use for evaluating an ink's saturation (regardless of how the term is defined).  Any practical needs can be met by one or more other attributes, such as pictures of the ink, comparisons with other inks, and evaluation of shading.

 

If you intend to evaluate saturation in your review(s), please explain (either in the review or in a profile or some other place to which your review can link) your definition of saturation, your method of evaluation, and your rating system.

 

Summary

OK, that's kinda where I'm at now.  I'm sure those can be added to, deleted from, clarified, and have examples provided, but I wanted to get that much down while it was in my head.  The rest can wait.

 

 

[A Smug Dill]

23 minutes ago, LizEF said:

How do we remove the ambiguity for potential reviewers so that they're not intimidated / discouraged by not knowing how to provide what is asked for on the forms and in the pinned threads. (My own reaction reading those things just now is completely different from what it was long ago when I first considered doing ink reviews - long before ever posting any topics to discuss reviews.  I'm trying to create something that will help those who might react the way my former self reacted.)

 

And here's a summary of my thoughts thus far on the three terms we started with:

 ...‹snip›…

I wanted to get that much down while it was in my head.

 

Thank you so very much for the certainly non-trivial endeavour of putting this together! 🙏🏼

[LizEF]

42 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

Thank you so very much for the certainly non-trivial endeavour of putting this together! 🙏🏼

You're welcome!  I'm learning as I go, which I appreciate.  Enjoying seeing other people destroy my previously confident assumptions.   And hoping we can all get to a better place.  If this enables future reviewers, I'll be happy (well, I'll be happy just to have produced something that I feel like is valuable, but even more happy if it helps some potential reviewers become actual reviewers).  After all, we are a bunch of enablers!

[knarflj]

14 hours ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

Thank you so very much for the certainly non-trivial endeavour of putting this together! 🙏🏼

 

Yes, thank you indeed!

[LizEF]

15 minutes ago, knarflj said:

Yes, thank you indeed!

[LizEF]

A question over on Reddit suggests a way to test saturation, though it would (could) be tedious, IMO, and would "consume" the original ink:  Add water and see how much you could add before the color changes.  Of course, this would partly depend on one's ability to detect subtle color changes.  However, once you'd done enough inks, you could have an average to work with...

 

I expect you could attempt to measure in one of two ways: 1) percentage of water you can add before the color changes at all; or 2) the "amount" of color change that happens when diluting by a specified percentage (this would require you to have a way to measure the "value" of the pre- and post-dilution ink color (on paper)).

[A Smug Dill]

37 minutes ago, LizEF said:

A question over on Reddit suggests a way to test saturation, though it would (could) be tedious, IMO, and would "consume" the original ink:  Add water and see how much you could add before the color changes.

 

One way that came to mind (a couple of weeks) earlier is to deposit a strictly controlled volume of ink onto a strip of filter paper, and perform chromatography on it to get a sense of just how much dye there is in the ink — relative again to other inks subjected to the same test/treatment, of course.

 

 

Controlling the volume of ink is what would be difficult, especially when we only want a tiny volume. Touching the nib of a filled pen to the paper until it puts down a 2mm-diameter dot, as I did for the chromatogram shown above, is not a good method because of all the variables around ‘wetness’ i.e. ink flow, etc.

[LizEF]

12 minutes ago, A Smug Dill said:

 

One way that came to mind (a couple of weeks) earlier is to deposit a strictly controlled volume of ink onto a strip of filter paper, and perform chromatography on it to get a sense of just how much dye there is in the ink — relative again to other inks subjected to the same test/treatment, of course.

 

 

Controlling the volume of ink is what would be difficult, especially when we only want a tiny volume. Touching the nib of a filled pen to the paper until it puts down a 2mm-diameter dot, as I did for the chromatogram shown above, is not a good method because of all the variables around ‘wetness’ i.e. ink flow, etc.

Hmm.  But how do you measure the result?